Opening of Parliament.--Lord Gower and Lord Temple.--Wilkes’s
“Essay on Woman” laid before the House of Lords.--Hypocrisy of
Lord Sandwich.--Bishop Warburton.--Kidgell.--Persecution of
Wilkes.--He complains in the House of Commons of a breach of
privilege in the seizure of himself and his papers.--Warm Debate
on the question.--Mr. Pitt’s Speech.--Arguments of Lord North
and others.--Wilkes wounded in a duel by Martin.--The King’s
Speech read to the Commons.--Pitt’s obscure Speech.--Speech of
Grenville.--Postponement of the farther hearing on Wilkes.--
Bestowal of the Bishoprick of Osnabrugh.
But in the Parliament of England lay the chief seat of the war; and
with very extraordinary scenes did the campaign open. The Houses
met November 15th, Lord Hilsborough and Lord Suffolk moved the
Address of the Peers. Lord Temple censured the Peace; and the Duke
of Bedford defended it with temper. Lord Gower attacked Lord Temple
for his disrespect to the King. He denied that he had ever shown any
disrespect; and said that he and his family had been attached to _this_
royal family _full as long_ as his lordship’s family had (who were very
recent converts from Jacobitism).
As soon as the Address was voted, Lord Sandwich produced a poem,
called an Essay on Woman, with notes pretended to be written by Bishop
Warburton. It was a performance bawdy and blasphemous to the last
degree, being a parody of _Pope’s Essay on Man_, and of other pieces,
adapted to the grossest ideas, or to the most profane. Wilkes and
Potter,[378] son of the late Archbishop of Canterbury, had formerly
composed this indecent patchwork in some of their bacchanalian hours;
and Wilkes, not content with provoking the vengeance of the King, of
the Princess, of the Favourite, of twenty subaltern ministers, and of
the whole Scottish nation, had, for the amusement of his idle hours,
consigned this _innocent_ rhapsody to his own printing-press--a folly
unparalleled, though he had intended to restrain the edition to twelve
copies. However, as he could not commit a wanton imprudence without
giving birth to some villainy or tyranny in others, this very poem
was now laid before the House of Lords in consequence of a train
of both kinds. One of the copies had been seized among his papers
by Philip Carteret Webbe. Still was even that ministry ashamed to
accuse Wilkes on evidence which had fallen into their hands by such
illegal means--unanswerable proof that they were conscious of their
guilt, and knew they could not justify their proceedings. But the
blood-hounds having thus fallen on the scent, were not to be turned
aside by delicacies. Could they procure another copy the business would
be effected--and effected it was. Carteret Webbe set his tools to
work, for even hangmen have deputies. There was one Kidgell, a dainty
priggish parson, much in vogue among the old ladies for his gossiping
and quaint sermons, and chaplain to the Scotch[379] Earl of March. This
fellow got at a proof-sheet; and by the treachery of one of Wilkes’s
printers, who thought himself ill-used, and by the encouragement of his
patron, who consulted Lord Bute and Lord Sandwich, and was egged on by
them to proceed, Kidgell and Webbe purchased the whole poem: and now
did Sandwich, who had hugged this mischief for months in his breast,
lay open the precious poem before his brother Lords in strains of more
hypocrisy[380] than would have been tolerable even in a professed
Methodist. Parts of it were read, most coarsely and disgustingly
blasphemous. Lord Lyttelton groaned in spirit, and begged they might
hear no more. Bishop Warburton, who had not the luck, like Lord
Lyttelton, to have his conversion believed by any one, foamed with the
violence of a Saint Dominic; vaunted that he had combated infidelity,
and laid it under his feet; and said, the blackest fiends in hell
would not keep company with Wilkes, and then begged Satan’s pardon for
comparing them together.
Lord Temple had got no intelligence of this bomb, and knew little
what to say; but concluding, justly, that the piece had been found
among Wilkes’s papers, condemned the means by which it was obtained.
It was instantly voted blasphemous, and a breach of privilege against
the person of the Bishop of Gloucester. Lord Sandwich then moved that
Wilkes should be voted the author; but even Lord Mansfield condemned so
hasty and arbitrary a course, and said it was previously necessary to
hear the accused person in his own defence: on which the proceeding was
adjourned to the next day but one. I was in a division in the lobby of
the House of Commons, when I heard what was passing in the other House,
and immediately informed Mr. Pitt. He replied with indignation, “Why do
not they search the Bishop of Gloucester’s study for heresy?”
Events now thickened so fast, that to avoid confusion, I will here
say a little more on this head. The plot so hopefully laid to blow up
Wilkes, and ruin him in the estimation of all the decent and grave,
had, at least in the latter respect, scarce any effect at all. The
treachery was so gross and scandalous, so revengeful, and so totally
unconnected with the political conduct of Wilkes, and the instruments
so despicable, odious, or in whom any pretensions to decency,
sanctimony, or faith, were so preposterous, that losing all sight of
the scandal contained in the poem, the whole world almost united in
crying out against the informers. Sandwich, in opening the discovery,
had canted till his own friends could not keep their countenances.
Sir Francis Dashwood was not more notorious for singing profane and
lewd catches; and what aggravated the hypocrisy, scarce a fortnight
had passed since this holy Secretary of State himself had been present
with Wilkes at a weekly club to which both belonged, held at the top
of Covent Garden Theatre, and composed of players and the loosest
revellers of the age. Warburton’s part was only ridiculous, and was
heightened by its being known that Potter, his wife’s gallant, had had
the chief hand in the composition of the verses. However, an intimacy
commenced between the Bishop and Sandwich, and some jovial dinners
and libations of champagne cemented their friendship. Kidgell, the
jackall, published so precise, affected, and hypocritic an account of
the transaction, that he, who might have escaped in the gloom of the
treachery, completely blasted his own reputation; and falling into
debt, was, according to the fate of inferior tools, abandoned by his
masters, and forced to fly his country. Though the rank and fortune of
Sandwich saved him from disgrace of that kind, he had little reason
to exult in his machination. He brought a stigma on himself that
counterworked many of his own views and arts; and Churchill the poet
has branded his name on this account with lasting colours. The public
indignation went so far, that the Beggar’s Opera being performed at
Covent Garden Theatre soon after this event, the whole audience, when
Macheath says, “_That Jemmy Twitcher should peach me, I own surprises
me_,” burst out into an applause of application; and the nick-name of
_Jemmy Twitcher_ stuck by the Earl so as almost to occasion the disuse
of his title.
While the destruction of the character and fortune of Wilkes was thus
prosecuted in one chamber of Parliament, a plot against his life was
hatching in the other; his enemies not being satisfied with all the
severities they could wring from the law to oppress him. Nor were
several servants of the Crown sorry to make his outrages a handle for
curtailing liberty itself. The House was no sooner met, than Wilkes
rose to make his complaint of the breach of privilege in the seizure
of himself and his papers. The Speaker interrupted him, and said the
session was not yet open, the silly form of reading a bill not having
been gone through. Grenville, too, urged that there was a message from
the Crown that ought to be received before any other business. Beckford
and Onslow pleaded that privilege ought to take place of every other
consideration. A long and warm debate ensued. Mr. Pitt strenuously
supported the precedence of privilege, though affecting to offer to
take privilege and message together. Elliot moved to have a bill
read. Pitt replied admirably, and said, if they were not yet a House,
no member could have been sworn; nor was it necessary to have some
nonsense read to which nobody would attend. Suppose it should have been
forgotten, and the House had entered on some arduous business, some
fool of form might have started up and told them,--“Lord bless us!
it is all a nullity that we have been doing!” Privilege waived would
really nullify the proceedings. The House would be a company of men put
under force. The man who would waive privilege ought to have a question
moved on him. Lord North, Nugent, and Dyson argued against privilege,
and warm words passed between Pitt on one side, Grenville and Norton
on the other. Yorke said, that if they did not begin regularly with a
bill, Westminster Hall would not know how to date the commencement of
the session, unless the two Houses started together. Pitt replied, that
if the House should sit till three in the morning, it would still be
deemed the 15th of November. The House divided at six in the evening,
and it was carried, by 300 to 111, that a bill should first be read.
Grenville then delivered the message from the Crown, acquainting the
House with the imprisonment that had been made of one of their members;
for which message Lord North moved the thanks of the House; together
with an assurance that they would forthwith go into the consideration
of the offence. Wilkes then made his complaint. Mr. Pitt approved
of Lord North’s motion of thanks, but spoke against precipitation.
Wilkes’s case, he said, was not to be paralleled. He desired to be
tried by his peers,--and if he did not, said Pitt, I would force him.
The North Briton No. 45 was then read; and two printers being examined,
one said he had received it from Wilkes in his own hand-writing; the
other, that Wilkes and Churchill were the authors of that periodic
paper in general. Lord North, who had undertaken the conduct of the
parliamentary prosecution against Wilkes, held forth on the sedition
of those papers, and of No. 45 in particular. Wilkes replied, his
Lordship, however, had not proved that it contained any falsehoods.
Mr. Pitt said it was a scandalous, licentious paper, and false; but
always distinguishing between the criminal and the illegal proceedings
of the Ministers. The House, he said, was not a proper place for trying
a libel; nor did this tend to excite traitorous insurrections. Was
the motion calculated, by inserting the word _traitorous_, to justify
what the Ministers had done? He himself could never learn exactly
what was a libel. Whoever was the patron of these doctrines, fœnum
habet in cornu. Norton said he did think the paper tended to excite
insurrections. Scandalous reflections on private men or magistrates
were a libel. Opposing law was treason. Pitt replied, a libel could not
be treason. It might, said North, tend to excite treason. Pitt moved to
omit the epithet _traitorous_, but the Ministry upholding it, the House
divided at eleven at night, and the ministerial phrase was carried by
273 against 111; Sir Alexander Gilmour and Murray, two Scots, and the
only two of that nation in opposition, voting with the rest of their
countrymen on that occasion. Lord North then moved to have the paper
burned by the hangman, which was ordered. Lord North affirmed next,
that privilege did not extend to libels, nor to stay justice; which
Pitt said was the boldest assertion and attempt ever made without
consulting precedents or appointing a committee. He lamented the King
was so ill served as to run aground on the liberties of Parliament. He
would die, he said, if a day were not appointed for hearing Wilkes.
Norton took this up hotly, and said he was called upon by insult and
abuse. Pitt replied, that he had said the King had been ill served
by lawyers and others; and he proposed to take the case of privilege
into consideration the next day, and on the following day to hear the
complaint of Wilkes; which was agreed to at one in the morning.
The next day when I went down to the House, I found all the members
standing on the floor in great hubbub, questioning, hearing, and
eagerly discussing I knew not what. I soon learned that Wilkes about
two hours before had been dangerously wounded by Martin in a duel. In
the foregoing spring, Wilkes, in one of his North Britons, had pointed
out Martin by name as a low fellow, and dirty tool of power. Martin
had stomached, not digested this; but in the debate on No. 45 the day
before, he had risen and called the author of that paper on himself a
cowardly, scandalous, and malignant scoundrel, and had repeated the
words twice, trembling with rage. Wilkes took no notice; and as he
did not, the House did not interfere, as is usual, when personalities
happen, and seem to threaten a duel. The next morning Wilkes wrote
to Martin, to ask if the words used the day before were meant to be
addressed to him as the supposed author of the paper in which Martin
had been abused. If Martin had thus intended to point the words, Wilkes
owned he had written that paper. Martin replied, he had meant him,
Wilkes; and as the latter had avowed himself the author, he should not
deny, added Martin, what he had said before five hundred people, and
gave him a challenge. About noon they went into Hyde-park; Martin
alone; Wilkes, with Humphrey Cotes[381] in a post-chaise, knowing if he
killed Martin that he should have no chance of pardon. Cotes waited at
a distance. They changed pistols, both fired, and both missed. Martin
fired a second time, and lodged a ball in Wilkes’s side, who was going
to fire, but dropped his pistol. The wound, though not mortal, proved a
bad one.
It was thought an ill symptom of Martin’s heroism, that he had
smothered the affront for so many months, nor had given vent to his
resentment, till the affair with Forbes had left a doubt on Wilkes’s
courage. If Martin got rid of this imputation, it was but at the
expense of a worse charge. It came out, nor could he deny it, that
his neighbours in the country had observed him practising to fire at
a target for the whole summer. I shall not be thought to have used
too hard an expression, when I called this a plot against the life of
Wilkes. Churchill wrote _The Duellist_, one of his finest satires, on
this occasion.
On the 16th, the King’s speech was read to the Commons, when Lord
Caernarvon[382] and Lord Frederick Campbell moved the Address. Pitt
made an obscure speech, parts of which seemed to aim at explaining
his conduct in the late negotiation; but all that could be gathered
from it was, that he had not excommunicated the Peace-makers, nor the
Tories; that he had aimed most at Lord Mansfield, and that he took
up the Whigs, but not as enemies to prerogative.[383] He could not
allow, he said, the words _safe and honourable Peace_ in the Address;
he did not think it was either; it was _durante bene placito_ of France
and Spain: yet as the Address precluded nobody from speaking their
sentiment afterwards, he should let the words pass. For himself, no
minister could know less what to do with the Peace; nor did any man
more bid adieu to the political world than he did. He was against
reviving party-names; but if dissension arose on principles, he must
again become a party-man. Grenville taking hold of Beckford’s objecting
to the proclamation for settling America, made artful advantage of the
opportunity to show the great pains taken by the Ministry to settle
our conquests and colonies, and to regulate the finances at home. In
one article they had struck off 250,000_l._ of the demands made from
Germany. He then expatiated on the profusion of the war, and attacked
Pitt strongly without reserve or fear. The Address was voted without a
negative.
The farther hearing on Wilkes was deferred on account of his
wound.[384] After the debate Pitt had a meeting with the Dukes of
Newcastle, Devonshire, and their friends, and insisted on their
supporting Chief Justice Pratt’s opinion in behalf of privilege against
Mr. Yorke, who had declared that Wilkes’s case was not within the pale
of privilege.
During these transactions, the King, after keeping the bishoprick of
Osnabrugh open near three years, contrary to the custom, which allows
but six months, bestowed it on his son, a new-born child,[385] before
it was christened. The Duke of York[386] had thought it his due, and
not without reason. It could not be conferred on the Prince of Wales;
nor was there much equity in reserving it for a son that might be born.
The interest of the family and of the Protestant cause, too, seemed to
point out the Duke, as an infant liable to so many accidents might,
if born, soon fail, and then the turn would revolve to the Papists;
even a minor in possession was favourable too, to that party, for of
the revenue, which is about 25,000_l._ a year, only 2000_l._ belong to
the Bishop till he is eighteen, and the rest is divided amongst the
Popish chapter. But the Queen, who began to get weight with her husband
in German affairs, prevailed to reserve for, and then to grant this
great provision to, a child of her own; and the Duke of York’s little
reverence for his mother, and antipathy to the Favourite, excluded him
from a grace for which he had so much occasion.