Important Question as to the Privilege of Parliament.--Liberty of
the Press.--Scandalous Resignation of Privilege by the House
of Commons.--Abandonment of General Warrants.--Debate on the
proceedings against Wilkes.--“The Moderator,” a new scurrilous
paper.--Lord Clive.--Riot on the attempt to burn “The North
Briton.”--Debate on this subject in the House of Lords.--Triumph
of Wilkes in his prosecution against the Under-Secretary of
State.--Dismissals by the Court.--The Chevalier d’Eon.--Attempt
to assassinate Wilkes.--The East India Company and Lord Clive.--
Wilkes and the Parliament.--Outlawry against Wilkes.
On the 23rd of November came on the important question whether the
Privilege of Parliament preserved the members from being taken up for
writing and publishing libels. At first sight, a disinterested person
would perhaps think it strange that it should be a question whether
a seat in the Legislature should not secure the Legislators from the
penalty of breaking the laws, for publishing a libel is undoubtedly
illegal; but to those acquainted with our Constitution, it will perhaps
appear more extraordinary that a House of Commons should suffer such
a question to be proposed to them, and that they should condescend to
agitate it. Will our posterity believe that a House of Commons gave it
up? but it was _that_ House of Commons that had sold itself to approve
the late Peace. Still it is to be admired that this cessation of their
privileges should be wrung from them, after the Court of Common Pleas
had declared that Privilege held against everything but treason,
felony, and breach of the peace. A libel, at most, but _tended_ to a
breach of the peace.
The Legislature consists of the three branches of Kings, Lords, and
Commons. Together they form our invaluable Constitution, and each
is a check on the other two. But it must be remembered, at the same
time, that while any two are checking, the third is naturally aiming
at extending and aggrandizing its power. The House of Commons has not
seldom made this attempt, like the rest. The Lords, as a permanent
and as a proud body, more constantly aim at it: the Crown always. Of
liberty, a chief and material engine is the liberty of the Press: a
privilege for ever sought to be stifled and annihilated by the Crown.
The ministers of the Crown and its lawyers must misrepresent the
liberty of the Press before they can presume to request the suppression
of it. Every grievance set forth in print is misnamed a libel; and
grave laws necessarily disapprove libels. If the Crown can arrive
at precluding Members of Parliament from complaining in print of
grievances, no doubt the Crown could debar all other men, who are of
less importance, and whose persons are guarded by no sacred privilege.
Liberty of speech and liberty of writing are the two instruments by
which Englishmen call on one another to defend their common rights.
Liberty of speech is communicated but a little way; the Press gives
wings to that voice, and all men may read what all cannot hear. Freedom
of speech in Parliament is not so valuable as freedom of writing. A
man may hazard many necessary truths in print, when he may conceal
his name, which he might not venture to utter in open Parliament.
If discovered, his privilege used to be his security. Nor is this
a vindication of libels, properly so called; but a Court will call
a libel the most just censure of tyranny. Yet could it not wrest
from Members of Parliament the safety of their persons without their
own consent--and in what instance did the Court ask this?--in what
instance did the House of Commons yield it? Mr. Wilkes, one of their
own members, had been taken up by a _General Warrant_, in which his
name had not so much as been mentioned. Contrary to all precedent,
he had been committed _close_ prisoner to the Tower--a proceeding
so arbitrary, that a Court of Law had set him free. The House of
Commons sacrificed him and their own privileges, and yet shame--I mean
disgrace, so soon overtook them, that _General Warrants_, such as that
on which Wilkes was arrested, were given up, condemned, exploded--but
half the wound remains, for this scandalous vote was never rescinded!
It is true, that on the debate it did appear that there were many
and many precedents on both sides. Often had privilege protected a
member--often it had not; but how did that happen to be the case? It
happened, because there had been various cases in which the Crown
was not concerned, but where the contest had lain between subject
and subject; and in those instances the House had often determined
different ways. But on the great case of the seven Bishops, in the
reign of James the Second, Privilege of Parliament had been vindicated
and secured. What would have become of those prelates if the Court had
had this precedent of Wilkes to justify its violence? Even allowing
that privilege were not inherent in members, but had been decided
sometimes for, sometimes against them; was this a time--was this an
instance, in which the House should have waived its pretensions? Was
the blow it gave itself likely to be repaired? But let the preceding
and subsequent conduct of this ductile and servile House of Commons
tell its motives!
The debates were not brilliant, but serious and solemn as the occasion
required. Lord North[387] was the chief manager for the Court,
supported by Norton, George Grenville, Morton,[388] and Elliot. Lord
North’s mouthing and boisterous manner, his coarse figure, and rude
untempered style, contributed to make the cause into which he had
unnecessarily thrust himself appear still more odious. Pitt, Beckford,
Legge, Sir George Saville, Sir William Baker, and James Grenville
defended the Constitution. Much was said on the danger to which every
man’s private papers were now exposed, and more on the injustice of
hurrying on this decision, when Wilkes could not for his wound appear
to defend himself, when he was prosecuting both the Secretaries of
State and the messengers, and when he was to be tried himself for
the libel. What court, what judge, what jury, but must be prejudiced
by a decision of the House of Commons against him? This plea was
glaring, was crying. The lawyers themselves many of them allowed it,
and the debate took that turn; the Opposition endeavouring to stave
off the question on Privilege, the courtiers insisting to bring it
on. Charles Yorke begged for delay, but it was a delay of a few days;
Eliab Harvey, though bred a Tory, pleaded for deferring their decision.
Forester, a Scot devoted to the Duke of Bedford,[389] and reckoned no
squeamish lawyer, spoke for procrastination, and voted against the
Court. Wedderburne, another Scot, argued for farther time; and even
old Wilbraham,[390] the Gamaliel of the Jacobites, could not digest
such indecent hurry, for which he was much commended by Pitt; yet by
seven in the evening the Court bore down all obstruction, and carried
their point by 243 to 166; though Sir John Philipps and Benjamin
Bathurst,[391] two high-prerogative men, were in the minority, with
Glover, and four general officers--Conway, Sir John Griffin,[392]
A’Court,[393] and Honeywood.[394] It being, however, too late to
commence the regular debate, it was adjourned till the next day.
The 24th, a letter from Wilkes was presented, protesting against their
proceedings, and promising on his honour to attend in his place as
soon as possible. To this no regard was paid, Grenville moving for
the orders of the day, and Rigby saying that Wilkes could not have
written that letter but on misrepresentation of what had passed the
day before. Hussey, the Queen’s Solicitor, a man of most fair life,
unambitious, uninterested, candid in his conduct, and gracefully
touching in his delivery, a great friend of Pratt, and lover of the
Constitution, made an excellent speech in behalf of privilege and
liberty. Charles Yorke, under the difficulties of disgusting his Whig
friends and of serving a Court with which he was dissatisfied, explored
all the sources of distinction and law subtleties, to defend his
opinion against privilege; and spoke for two hours with great applause,
as excellent in that branch of his profession. Pitt, near as long
on the audaciousness of the Crown’s servants, and their contempt of
Parliament; declaring that this proceeding was making a surrender from
that day of every man’s liberty in the House to the discretion of the
Secretary of State. Pitt was ill, and then went away. Norton indecently
quoted a prosecution for perjury against Sir John Rushout,[395] the
most ancient member of the House, then sitting at the end of the same
bench. The old gentleman was stout and choleric: the prosecution had
been on a case of election, and he had been acquitted. He rose with
warmth, but with much propriety told his story; showed the prosecution
had been instigated by Norton himself, to serve an election purpose;
and, looking defiance at that attorney, said, “It was all owing to that
_honest_ gentleman!--I hope I do not call him out of his name!” The
shout of the House did justice on Norton.
This interlude, however, was decent and calm in comparison of what
followed. Rigby, looking at Lord Temple, who was sitting at the end
of the House, to hear the debate, as he constantly practised, drew
a picture of that incendiary peer, described him in his blue riband
encouraging mobs from windows of coffee-houses; and more particularly
as the instigator of Wilkes. James Grenville rose, in amazing heat,
to defend his brother, and vomited out a torrent of invectives on
Rigby, telling him of his interestedness and ignorance; harangued on
so illiterate a man being a Master of the Rolls;[396] and painted his
flying from Ireland to avoid being hanged by the enraged populace. This
philippic was uttered with every vehemence of language and gesture;
the bitterest terms flowing spontaneously from him, who had ever been
the most obscure and unready speaker: and what added to the outrage of
the diction was, that sitting on the bench immediately above Rigby, and
dashing about his arm in the air, he seemed to aim blows at the latter,
who was forced to crouch lest he should receive them. Grenville had no
sooner finished, than the Speaker interposed--indeed of the latest.
Rigby replied, with ease enough, that in Ireland the Mastership of the
Rolls was a sinecure, and a man as ignorant as he was might execute the
office. The House then insisted on their giving their words that this
altercation should have no consequences. Grenville, sitting obstinate
and mute, Rigby gave his word it should end there; and then Grenville
in like manner.
The candour of Wilbraham and Philipps on the preceding day had
satisfied their consciences, and they both now spoke, and voted with
the majority. The House dividing at one in the morning, 258 voted for
relinquishing their privilege; only 133 for maintaining it. Lord North
then moved to communicate their resolutions to the Lords, which was
agreed to.
A conference being accordingly demanded, and held next day, the Lords,
though in a very thin House, and though no important business is
agitated there without summoning the Peers [a respect their Lordships
have often paid even to a turnpike-bill], were precipitately proceeding
to pass the like votes with the Commons; but the Duke of Richmond,
though acting with the Court, was struck with the indecency, and on
stating it, the House did agree to summon the Lords for the 29th.
Decency thus satisfied, their Lordships on the 29th, in happy harmony
with the other House, made a parallel compliment of their privilege
to the Crown. One hundred and fourteen were thus loyal: the Duke
of Cumberland and thirty-four more were the minority. The Duke of
Newcastle defended the warrant of the Secretaries, but voted against
the resolutions. The Chancellor[397] was very warm; said he did not
wish to see the House unanimous; unanimity had cost the nation sixty
millions.[398] Lord Temple disculpated himself from encouraging the
general satire in the North Britons, and said he had always condemned
the attack on the Scotch and on the Tories in that paper. He brought a
protest, drawn, as was supposed, by Lord Chief Justice Pratt, and the
longest on record, and signed it with fifteen other Lords.
At this very period that Court and Parliament were raging so hotly
against libels, a new paper, called the Moderator, appeared. It was
so scurrilous against the Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, that his
Court took up the printer. The man owned directly that it was written
by Carteret Webbe, Solicitor of the Treasury, and by Dr. Shebbeare,
who, having been committed to Newgate by the King’s Bench in the late
reign for abusing King William and the House of Hanover, had been
gratified by a pension of 200_l._ a year by Lord Bute; and was a proper
champion of measures so dissonant from those of King William, and from
those to which the House of Hanover owed the Crown.
Lord Clive had last year been thrown out of his directorship of the
East India Company by the intrigues of Fox; and the new directors had
gone so far as to deprive him of his jaguire, a revenue of 25,000_l._
a year conferred on him by the Nabob. This act had driven Lord Clive,
with five members brought into Parliament by him, into opposition.
Grenville, to gain a man so important, promised that vast revenue
should be restored to him, or an equivalent given; but Walsh, one of
the five, said he could not in conscience vote with such iniquitous
men, and offered to vacate his seat: Lord Clive refusing to accept it,
Walsh abstained from attendance on the House.
The 3rd of December had been appointed for burning the North Briton at
the Royal Exchange; but when the magistrates were assembled for that
purpose, and the executioner began to perform the ceremony, a great
riot ensued, the paper was forced from the hangman, the constables
were pelted and beaten, and Mr. Harley,[399] one of the sheriffs, had
the glass of his coach broken, and himself was wounded in the face by
a billet snatched from the fire that was lighted to burn the paper,
and thrown at him. The cry was “Wilkes and liberty!” A jack-boot and a
petticoat--the mob’s hieroglyphics for Lord Bute and the Princess, were
burned with great triumph and acclamations.
On the 6th the Duke of Bedford, who had moved that the Commons might
be desired to permit Mr. Harley, member for the City, to attend the
House of Lords, called on him, and Blount, the other sheriff, to give
an account of the late riot. They said the mob had been encouraged
by gentlemen from windows and balconies, particularly from the Union
coffee-house. One low man had been taken into custody; another had
been rescued by the rioters. One witness said the mob had united
two respectable names in a cry of approbation, those of the Duke of
Cumberland and Lord Temple, and he had joined in that shout. The Duke
of Grafton shrewdly told the marshal’sman he must have seen many
mobs of party against party; had there appeared two parties on this
occasion? “No,” replied the fellow, “all were of one mind.” The Duke
of Bedford, sputtering with zeal and indiscretion, broke forth against
Bridgen, the Lord Mayor, and the other magistrates, who, though within
hearing, had taken no pains to quell the mob. “Such behaviour,” he
said, “in any smaller town would have forfeited their franchises.
The Common Council had long been setting themselves up against the
Parliament, and last year had taken on them to advise the King to
refuse his assent to a law[400] that had passed through both Houses.
He hoped their Lordships would resent this insult and disrespect to
their orders.” The Chancellor, alarmed at this injudicious attack on
the City, said it would be right to proceed without delay against the
actors and abettors of the riot; but without farther proofs, he would
not believe the magistrates of London guilty. He moved to vote the
rioters perturbators of the peace. This was voted, and thanks to the
sheriffs for their behaviour. The Duke of Richmond seconded the Duke
of Bedford in his violence against the City, and in a proposal of
offering rewards for discovery of the ringleaders, and for committees
of inquiry. Lord Mansfield and Lord Lyttelton interposed to disculpate
the magistrates, and obtained to adjourn; the former saying, that no
doubt the magistrates were actually at that time sifting to the bottom
of the commotion. The Lords then conferred with the House of Commons,
where Rigby tried to propagate his master’s[401] spirit, and to get the
Lord Mayor censured; but, on reflection, the ministers chose to pass
over the insult, rather than quarrel seriously with the City of London.
They all, therefore, concurred to excuse the magistracy; and the affair
was dropped in an address to the King to order the offenders to be
brought to justice.[402]
The Common Council, neither intimidated nor imitating the moderation of
Parliament, put a negative on a motion for thanking the sheriffs, and
for prosecuting Franklin, the fellow apprehended in the tumult.
Wilkes, in the meantime, went on triumphantly with his prosecutions;
and on the 6th of December, obtained a verdict of 1000_l._ damages, and
costs of suit, against Mr. Wood, the Under-Secretary of State.[403]
The Court was exerting its authority on the other hand. Lord Shelburne
was dismissed from being aide-de-camp to the King; Colonel Barré from
being Adjutant-general and Governor of Stirling Castle; and Calcraft
lost some little places, which served to provoke more than to hurt him.
The Chevalier d’Eon, the mimic of Wilkes, was less fortunate. Being
recalled by his Court, and refusing to return, he was declared to be
no longer employed here in a public character, and was accordingly
forbidden to appear at St. James’s.[404]
While the world was anxiously expecting the event of Wilkes’s affair,
protracted by his wound, a new alarm was given of an intention to
murder him. Mr. Onslow on the 9th acquainted the House of Commons that
one Alexander Dun, a Scotchman, had on false pretences got into Mr.
Wilkes’s house the night before, intending to assassinate him. A person
who appeared, and made oath that he had heard this Dun declare that he
and twelve more had made a vow to murder Wilkes, had given notice to
the latter of their design, on which he had prepared persons to seize
the assassin, which they had done. A new penknife was found upon him,
and he prevaricated on the time and place of buying it. The House the
next day examined witnesses on this accusation; but it being proved
that Dun had been discharged from a ship as a lunatic, he was dismissed
out of custody. But the multitude were far from not continuing to
believe the plot (nor indeed was a madman an improper subject to be
set on, if there was such a design), and the animosity against the
Scotch was accordingly augmented. About the same time the printers of
the North Briton obtained in the Court of Common Pleas damages to the
amount of four hundred pounds against the messengers of the Secretary’s
office.
The East India Company were untractable, too, and came to an unanimous
resolution of neither restoring his jaguire to Lord Clive, nor of
allowing him three hundred thousand pounds, which the ministry had
engaged to obtain for him in lieu of it. It occasioned much diversion
that his father, an old unfashioned man, who did not understand how
decently corruption was practised, and how ridiculous it is to talk
of what few are ashamed of doing, being asked by the King, in the
drawing-room, where his son Lord Clive was, replied, with all the
honesty of bargain and sale, “He is coming to town, Sir, and then your
Majesty will have another vote.”
The House of Commons having ordered that Wilkes should appear before
them on the 24th, and suspecting that his delays were affected, Lord
North, George Grenville, and Rigby, in a very thin House, proposed that
Dr. Heberden, and Mr. Hawkins the surgeon, should be ordered to attend
him. This was warmly opposed; and Charles Townshend, who knew that
Pitt was provoked at his late silence, and who saw Grenville and North
towering above him, and perhaps offended too that the Court seemed to
despise him, broke out with much vehemence, turned Lord North into
ridicule, and being told by Grenville that it would be wiser to submit
to this motion, replied, he should often differ with that gentleman,
and hoped he should not have more wisdom to encounter than he had met
with that day. The motion was carried by 71 to 30. Wilkes, however,
would not admit the parliamentary physician and surgeon; and, to add
mockery to disobedience, sent for Doctors Duncan and Middleton, two
Scotchmen. He had at first, at Martin’s request, who fled to Calais
till Wilkes was out of danger consulted both Hawkins and Heberden.
Being told that he must see little company for fear of augmenting
his fever, he said, “I will not see so much as my own wife,”--I had
mentioned that they were parted.
It was to the no small satisfaction of the Ministry that on the 26th
they heard that Wilkes was privately gone off to France. It was a sort
of confession of guilt, disburthened them of the odium of punishing him
personally, and left them at liberty to rage against him by outlawry
and forfeitures. With a proper executioner they had just provided
themselves, having raised Norton to be Attorney-General. He was
succeeded as Solicitor by De Grey,[405] a man of a fair character and
moderate principles.