Marriage of the Princess Augusta with the Hereditary Duke of
Brunswick.--His marked opposition to the wishes of the King.--
Debates on Wilkes’s complaint of Breach of Privilege.--Sir William
Meredith and Sir George Saville.--The “Essay on Woman.”--The
Marriage Bill.--Debate on Breach of Privilege.--Cases of Carteret
Webbe and Wood.
So early as in the late reign there had been thoughts of a double
alliance with the ducal house of Brunswick; but when the jealousy of
the Princess Dowager had prevented the marriage of her son with a
princess of that line, there had remained no great propensity in the
Court of Brunswick to the other match between the hereditary Prince
and Lady Augusta.[413] It had, however, been treated of from time to
time; and in 1762 had been agreed, but was abruptly broken off by the
influence of the King of Prussia. Lady Augusta was lively, and much
inclined to meddle in the private politics of the Court. As none of her
children but the King had, or had reason to have, much affection for
their mother, she justly apprehended Lady Augusta’s instilling their
disgusts into the Queen. She could not forbid her daughter’s frequent
visits at Buckingham House, but to prevent any ill consequence from
them, often accompanied her thither. This, however, was an attendance
and constraint the Princess of Wales could not support. Her exceeding
indolence, her more excessive love of privacy, and the subjection of
being frequently with the Queen, whose higher rank was a never-ceasing
mortification, all concurred to make her resolve at any rate to deliver
herself from her daughter. To attain this end, profusion of favours to
the hated House of Brunswick was not thought too much. The hereditary
Prince was prevailed on to accept Lady Augusta’s hand, with fourscore
thousand pounds, an annuity of 5000_l._ a year on Ireland, and 3000_l._
a year on Hanover. Fourscore thousand pounds were given with the late
Princess Royal[414] to the Prince of Orange, but she was a King’s
daughter. The Princess Mary[415] and Louisa had but forty thousand each.
Lady Augusta was not handsome, but tall enough, and not ill-made; with
the German whiteness of hair and complexion, so remarkable in the Royal
Family, and with their precipitate, yet thick, Westphalian accent. She
had little grace or softness in her manner: yet with more attractions
she might have failed to gain a heart that was not inclined to part
with its liberty, and least of all to one of her family. The Prince
arrived on the 12th of January; and, as if to prejudice him against his
bride, the plan was formed to disgust him as much in order to send him
away as soon as possible. He was lodged at Somerset House: no guards
were stationed there. The Lord Steward chose the company that should
dine with him: and every art was used to prevent his seeing Mr. Pitt,
or the chiefs of the Opposition. At the wedding, which was on the 16th,
the servants of the King and Queen were ordered not to appear in new
clothes. But though these little artifices had the desired effect of
affronting the Prince, they only drew mortifications on the Court. The
people, enchanted with novelty and a hero, were unbounded in their
exultations wherever he appeared; and, as the behaviour of the Court
got wind, took pleasure, when he attended the King to the theatres, to
mark their joy at the presence of the Prince, and to show the coldest
neglect of their Sovereign. Nor was the Prince less assiduous to
intimate his dissatisfaction, even to ill-breeding, turning his back
to the King, as he stood over against him in the box at the Opera;
and even going away during half the representation. To the Duke of
Newcastle, and others in disgrace, he was full of attentions; dined
twice with the Duke of Cumberland, and affectedly lingered there,
though the King and Queen waited for him to a ball: and, as he found
_that_ step would be the most offensive, though indeed due from him
to one so partial to his family, he made a visit to Mr. Pitt, at
Hayes.[416] These little hostilities were carried on with such vigour
on both sides, that, notwithstanding all his curiosity and desires
expressed of a longer stay, the King forced him and his bride to
depart on the 25th--only thirteen days after his arrival. They were
overtaken in a great storm at sea, and in extreme danger of being lost;
but escaped, not only with good fortune to themselves, but to the
Court of England, who would have appeared as guilty to the people in
driving them out at such a season, as if they had raised the tempest by
sorcery.[417]
The Parliament having reassembled on Jan. 16th, the House of Commons
on the 19th proceeded on the affair of Wilkes. He had given out that
he would return from Paris, and make his defence: and to carry on the
delusion, a dinner was bespoken, and company invited to meet him;
but on the day destined for deciding his fate, a letter from him was
delivered to the Speaker, accompanied by a certificate from two French
surgeons, attesting his incapacity of travelling from the ill state
of his wound. The Court party objected even to the reading of the
certificates, but though they could not prevent it, so eager was the
curiosity of the House, they did frustrate a motion for adjournment
by 239 to 102; on which many of the minority finding their weakness
left the House. Others battled for the criminal till near four in the
morning, but their numbers still dwindling away, Wilkes was at last
expelled with scarce a negative, the warmest sticklers for him having
been discountenanced and discouraged by the harsh epithets bestowed on
him by Pitt in one of the former debates.
The next day Sir William Meredith and Sir George Saville moved to
have Wilkes’s complaint of breach of privilege examined. George
Grenville tried to evade it, but was strongly attacked by Charles
Townshend, and reproached with the dismission of General A’Court, and
with the arbitrary influence exerted by the Administration. Sir John
Griffin[418] the day before had mentioned too the case of A’Court, and
said he himself would not be intimidated by the disgrace of ten more
generals. The Court at last yielded the point; and the 26th was fixed
for hearing the complaint.
Sir William Meredith[419] and Sir George Saville were both men of
character, and both singular in different ways. The first was a convert
from Jacobitism; inflexibly serious, and of no clear head: yet
practice formed him to a manner of speaking that had weight, and was
worth attending to by those who had patience for it. He was, I believe,
an honest man, though not without personal views, which a little
sharpened his scorn of those who had unlike views, and were not equally
honest.
Sir George Saville had a head as acutely argumentative as if it had
been made by a German logician for a model. Could ministers have been
found acting by the advice of casuists and confessors, Sir George would
still have started distinctions to hamper their consciences; but though
they walked not in such ruled paths, his want of ambition carried him
so seldom to the House, that they were not often troubled with his
subtleties. He had a large fortune, and a larger mind; and though his
reason was sharp, his soul was candid, having none of the acrimony or
vengeance of party: thence was he of greater credit than service to
that in which he listed.[420]
On the 23rd these two Baronets moved to put off the affair of Wilkes’s
complaint of breach of privilege to the 13th of February, as the
material evidence, Wilkes’s servant, was in France with him. Sir
George particularly attacked Grenville with much spirit. Grenville, as
usual, spoke too long, though not ill, insinuating that this delay was
calculated to keep up the flame. “He had always,” he said, “been averse
to having this matter discussed, which had better never be decided; and
that he had only given way in order to vindicate Lord Halifax and Lord
Egremont.” It was perhaps true, that in some cases it were better that
certain powers should not be defined. It might be of use that traitors
should think Ministers have power of committing by General Warrants
even members of Parliament; and at the same time Ministers ought not
to have that power absolutely bestowed on them. But when once the case
has happened, and that dormant or supposed power has been abused, it
must be inquired into and regulated; or acquiescence constitutes the
second evil hinted at above. But in any case Grenville’s argument was
faulty, for if it was desirable for the public that the case should not
be defined, the private vindication of two men ought not to supersede
that utility. However, though the minority on putting the question
were not loud for it, the ministry gave it up. Sir George Saville took
occasion to make it observed, that so bad was his opinion of Wilkes,
he had taken no part till, the man being expelled, nothing but the
cause of the House in point of privilege seemed to remain. This did
honour to Sir George, but prejudiced Wilkes and the cause of liberty.
The former’s character, as I have said, was very fair: and indeed
most of the Opposition were unexceptionable in that light. Yet Wilkes
had, early in his warfare on the Court, told Rigby that he liked the
ministers better than their opponents (no great compliment to the
first), and desired him to apply to Fox to make him (Wilkes) governor
of Canada--a proposal Fox rejected. It was not to be wondered at that
Wilkes, so libertine and jovial, should not be captivated with the
company of a set of young men who were as free from the spirit and
vivacity as from the vices of their age. The chiefs were of eminent
rank, and besides losing the power they thought affected to their
birth, had been wantonly insulted by the Court. But wanting parts to
preserve their power, they equally wanted them to recover it. Yet was
the Court itself alarmed at a club into which the Opposition formed
themselves, holding their weekly meetings at a tavern erected on the
occasion by one Wildman, in Albemarle Street[421]--a circumstance I
mention rather as an antiquary than historian; several pamphlets being
published at this time addressed to, or written in the name of, that
society.
On the 24th, Dowdeswell proposed a Committee of the whole House, to
consider the Cider Bill. Grenville opposed that motion, agreeing only
to have a Committee to examine the grievances occasioned by it, and
to suggest corrections, but not with power to repeal the bill. These
restrictions were carried by 167 to 125.[422]
The same day the House of Lords sat on the _Essay on Woman_. Lord
Sandwich moved to vote Wilkes the author of it, and to order him to
be taken into custody. The Duke of Devonshire, and even the Duke of
Richmond, though a courtier, spoke against this summary proceeding;
and warm words passed between Lord Temple and Lord Marchmont, the
latter of whom said, that though Wilkes was gone, he had left his gang
behind him. At last both questions were formed into this one,--that
it appearing to the House that Wilkes was the author, he should be
taken into custody: but as he had withdrawn himself, a Committee was
appointed to search for precedents how to proceed.
On the 25th, Sir John Glynn in a very thin House moved to re-consider
the Marriage Act; and a Committee was appointed. Sir John Philipps,
too, proposed to re-appoint the Committee of the last year for
inspecting the public accounts, and it was carried by 90 to 30 odd.
Lord Holland and the Duke of Newcastle had concurred to bring that
inquiry to nothing, contriving to have the time wasted on the accounts
of the ordnance.
On the 31st Dowdeswell moved a question against excise, though without
naming it, in the Committee on the Cider Bill, but it was thrown out
by 172 to 152, seven of the minority being shut out when the question
was putting: so near was the Court run by the minority, though without
leaders, and frequently obstructed and distressed by the fluctuation
of the family of Yorke, and the duplicity of Charles Townshend, who
oftener spoke against than for them, and _that_ generally when he had
given the most solemn assurances of his support.
On Feb. 3rd, late in the day, Sir William Meredith moved for the
evidence on which the Secretaries of State had granted the warrant
against Wilkes. The Ministry complained of the lateness of the hour,
and Rigby moved to adjourn. Charles Townshend attacked Grenville on it,
and was even seconded by his brother, the General; but the adjournment
was carried by 73 to 60.
On the 6th there was a good debate[423] on Wilkes’s complaint of breach
of privilege, when Sir W. Meredith and Sir George Saville defended
themselves against the imputation of want of candour, in having made
their motion late in a thin House; the former proving that many violent
questions had been proposed seven hours later than theirs had been. He
moved for the warrant on which Wilkes had been apprehended, and for
the information on which it had been grounded. To avoid the demand,
Sir John Philipps moved the previous question, declaring that he meant
to discharge the complaint. Lord Strange was at first for having the
warrant produced; but soon retracted, and said the complaint ought to
be discharged, as the suit was depending at common law--an argument
that had been pressed on the Ministers when Wilkes’s expulsion was
agitated, and which they then had refused to admit.
I have more than once, in the former part of these Memoirs, touched
on the character of Lord Strange, as a man acting on notions of his
own, unwedded to any faction, and above temptations of money. He had,
however, been gained by Fox to the Court, in the present reign, by the
offer of the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the county
where his estate and interest lay. The large number of places in the
disposal of that officer, could gratify his passion for sway in his own
province; so true was the maxim of Sir Robert Walpole, that _every man
has his price_; and so judiciously was this office held out to Lord
Strange; for though he accepted the post on the views I have mentioned,
he nobly refused to take the annexed salary of 1200_l._ a year. He
seldom afterwards differed with the successive administrations, but
rarely attended Parliament.
Sir William Meredith consented to waive his demand of the information,
though Beckford protested that he himself had never, as a justice of
peace, granted a warrant without information on oath. Norton pleaded,
that to grant it would instruct the accuser, Wilkes, in the defence
of the accused Secretaries and Under-Secretaries of State; but T.
Townshend urged that it had already appeared in the Court of Common
Pleas, and in the ordinary newspapers. George Grenville[424] said
that producing the warrant would engage the House to pronounce on
the legality or illegality of it. Would the House declare that any
papers might be seized? Would it declare that none might? Sir Anthony
Abdy,[425] a lawyer attached to the Duke of Devonshire, said, a sight
of the warrant was demanded as much for the excuse of such members
of the House as had been concerned in it, as for blame; and General
Conway added, that if the information was the defence of Wood and the
others, how would it hurt them? But, said he, this matter is treated
as too high for our inspection. I thought I lived in a free country.
We have already chosen to give up our own privilege, and now are
afraid to inquire on what grounds it is taken from us.[426] Nugent,
Morton, Elliot, Wilbraham, Dr. Hay, Wood himself, Lord Frederick
Campbell, Forester, Oswald,[427] Ellis, Lord North, and Sir John Glynn,
debated the question for the Court, besides those I have mentioned;
on the other side, Hewet,[428] King’s Sergeant, Mawbey, Lord George
Sackville, Dowdeswell, Fitzherbert, Dempster, Charles Townshend, and
Onslow; but the previous question was carried by 217 to 122.
The next day the Cider Bill was compromised, and two shillings imposed
instead of five.
On the 9th, the day appointed for considering the Marriage Bill,
Charles Yorke opposed going into Committee, and said Sir John Glynn
should have stated objections, and proposed amendments; wished to have
a bill brought in for that purpose. He talked of the wisdom and temper
with which it had been carried through before: the truth of which may
be seen in my former account of that bill. Rigby was for going into the
Committee, his patron the Duke of Bedford having been, and continuing
to be, its warm adversary. Lord Strange ridiculed ecclesiastical law,
and frankly spoke of marriage as only legal cohabitation. George
Grenville stayed away, and Lord Holland’s friends were for repealing
the bill. The Opposition, to court the Yorkes, were against altering
it; but it was carried by 157 to 79, for a Committee to re-examine it.
It was then proposed to go into the Committee on that day sevennight:
Charles Yorke and General Townshend for the Monday sevennight after.
Charles Townshend, who had shone so brightly against the original bill,
kept away; but it was carried for the Wednesday, by 70 to 39.
On the 13th, the House of Commons entered seriously on the great
question of breach of privilege on Wilkes’s complaint, and the first
day sat till midnight, four hundred and fifty members being present.
Sir William Meredith opened the debate with calling for the three
messengers who had executed the warrant, and for Matthew Brown,
Wilkes’s servant, who gave an account of what had passed when his
master was seized. I shall not recapitulate these examinations, which
may be found in the journals of the House; nor what was said by other
witnesses. Their depositions lasted till nine at night. Philip Carteret
Webbe then made his defence; and it was so scurvy, that he was reduced
to plead inadvertence, and his being a servant of the Secretary
of State. He even had the front to affirm, that there had been no
intention of making Wilkes _close_ prisoner. He then offered to produce
his evidence, but, it being late, G. Grenville asked if they would
proceed or not? Mr. Pitt said he thought they ought not to stop till
they knew whether they still had a Constitution or not? Lord Frederick
Campbell, supported by Rose Fuller and General Townshend, moved to
adjourn. Thomas Townshend the younger urged that the House had voted
the expulsion of a member at four o’clock in the morning--would not
they proceed to hear his complaint at eleven at night? Mr. Pitt said it
was derogatory from the honour of the House to adjourn. His own first
wish had been to crush foreign enemies; now it was to crush domestic.
When that was done he should die willingly. The question was then
put, but the Ministers not caring to hazard their majority, when the
House seemed inclined to proceed, few of their party went out in the
division; and thence it was carried by 379 to 31, to go on.
The record of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the returns to it, were
then read; but so many of the members had retired after the division,
to eating-houses and coffee-houses to refresh themselves, that the
Ministers objected that evidence was not fairly heard on their side;
and Sir James Lowther moving to adjourn, it was carried without a
division a quarter before twelve.
The next day was spent in hearing precedents of general warrants, in
which there appeared but too much countenance for the practice, yet
founded on no law. The greater part had been issued against Jacobites,
on the accession of the present Royal Family, when their establishment
was new, and precarious. The Lord Viscount Townshend,[429] a zealous,
bold, and authoritative Minister, had made free with the practice. It
had been used even in cases of libels, but always in those of Jacobite
tendency. Many in times of rebellion had been issued by the Duke of
Newcastle, and three by Mr. Pitt himself, but against persons suspected
of treasonable practices. These documents had Carteret Webbe now
collected: he printed them, too, in his justification. But the case
of Wilkes was not only dissimilar, but was important enough to call
for redress of a power so obnoxious and liable to abuse. At one in the
morning Sir William Meredith commenced the debate, and to what I have
said added the history of those warrants. Fifty persons, he owned, had
been taken up on such warrants; and then Wilkes on a like indefinite
warrant. His very pocket-book had been seized to find evidence against
him. The gentlemen who apprehended him were mere ministerial officers.
The first warrant quoted was of 1662, for then was passed the first act
for licensing the press: and as that act was temporary, and has not
been revived, it is a proof that there is no law since to authorize
such restraint. The warrants themselves have been found by the Court
of Common Pleas to be illegal. He then read the two resolutions he
proposed to move; the first, that _a general warrant for seizing
authors and papers is not law_. The second, that _seizing Members of
Parliament by general warrant is contrary to privilege_. Breach of
privilege, he added, might be committed _in the manner_, even where
there is no privilege. These warrants had never been used but in times
of danger, and then were followed by Acts of Indemnity, and thence
never came to be questioned. They were suspended from 1675 to 1690, and
then were resumed to protect the Revolution. Again in 1715 and 1745,
the years of the Scottish rebellions. They were now used for such a
trifle as a libel, that was in every man’s hand. The licentiousness of
the people had been checked: it was time now to quiet their minds by
checking the licentiousness of power.
Lord Frederick Campbell, with much warmth, called on the House to
vindicate Wood and Webbe, their accused members. Wood said he had done
his duty, and hoped to be restored to the precise situation in which
he had stood before the accusation. Sir W. Meredith said, Lord Chief
Justice Keeling being accused, pleaded he had acted by precedent.
The practice was censured before the person, as it is necessary to
ascertain the crime ere the criminal can be condemned. Charles Yorke
said he hoped to hear Keeling’s case read another day; and then moved
to adjourn. Norton said he was willing to have the general case
adjourned, but not the particular one of the accused. The debate took
that turn of postponing the case of the warrants, but the Ministers
insisted on disculpating the accused, Grenville particularly declaring
for discharging the complaint of breach of privilege. Pitt replied,
that if the second question should pass, it would be impossible
entirely to acquit the accused. They could not be acquitted or
condemned till the general question should be affirmed or condemned.
If the warrant should be declared illegal, he would extenuate their
behaviour as having acted by precedent. To this Wood, with much heat
and arrogance replied, that he would not accept of being _excused_.
Wood,[430] originally a travelling tutor and excellent classic scholar,
is well known from those beautiful and simple Essays prefixed to the
editions of the _Ruins of Balbec and Palmyra_;[431] whither he had
travelled with two[432] young gentlemen of fortune and curiosity. His
taste and ingenuity had recommended him to Mr. Pitt for his private
secretary when Minister; but the observance required by Pitt, and the
pride, though dormant, of Wood, had been far from cementing their
connection. Wood had then attached himself to the Duke of Bridgwater,
and through him to the Bedford faction; but remaining in office
when Mr. Pitt quitted, had, with too much readiness, complied with
the orders of his new masters. His general behaviour was decent, as
became his dependent situation; but his nature was hot, and veering to
despotic.
Lord George Sackville told him that intentionally he had done right,
but was not ready to say that he had done legally right. Lord Strange
said he would not consent to postpone the acquittal of the accused.
General Townshend desired to have the debate adjourned to Friday 17th,
being obliged to give attendance on his father, who was dying. His
brother Charles, more decently than the rest, said the questions were
the same, and required the same discussion: he would not consent to
divide them. In truth, there could be no thought of separating them but
in compliment to Wood, for few could have any partiality for Webbe. Sir
William Meredith and Sir George Saville, both candid men, had wished
to avoid naming persons,--a respect detrimental in great national
questions; for not only the multitude will more easily be led by names
than by speculation and theory, but what Ministers will fear to offend,
if censure only touches their practice, not their persons? It is to the
honour of the persons who composed that Opposition that their delicacy
frequently, nay, constantly, hurt their cause. Yet should that delicacy
not be imitated. When the freedom of a nation is at stake, what chance
has liberty, if opponents have scruples for Ministers who have none?
Charles Yorke and Dowdeswell then moved to adjourn till Friday; and
General Conway observed justly, that if the accused were acquitted
first, the general question would not be left entire; for could the
House vote that general warrants were illegal, after it should have
voted that they who executed those warrants were blameless? Yet
Wood continued loudly to demand his justification. Mr. Pitt was for
adjourning the whole debate; and said, if this was not agreed to,
he would debate the whole. Sir George Saville said, Wood was guilty
of impatience, though an honest one; and complained that he and Sir
William Meredith were not suffered to prove their whole charge.
At half an hour after four in the morning the House divided, the
Opposition being for adjourning the whole matter; and to the great
dismay of the courtiers, the Ministerial party were but 207, and the
opponents 197--a triumph in parliamentary cases little preferable to
a defeat; so strong had been the alarm on seizing the papers, and so
evident was it that the Ministerial majority had been the work of
venality against conviction.
Dr. Hay then moved to discharge the complaint; but Pitt, roused
by this swell of his party, and feeling the weight of so large a
minority, poured forth one of his finest rhapsodies on liberty, though
at that late hour, and after the fatigue of so long an attendance
and attention: and he severely reprimanded Wood’s insolence, telling
him that, if he would not accept excuse, he deserved censure.
Grenville asked why these persons were blamed, and not all their
predecessors?[433] Pitt, still rising in fire and importance, took the
whole debate on himself, asking what he had done, but in a war which he
was called upon to invigorate? He had never turned out officers; he had
sought for merit in those who _now_ held precarious commissions, not by
military service. They had not only saved their country, but him who
had been undone if they had not saved their country.
Grenville, not losing courage on this turn of fortune, replied ably
and finely. He knew, he said, the nation was left on the brink of
ruin.[434] The Ministers had had enough to do without hunting in alleys
for libels. He then painted faction, first setting England against
Scotland; then reviving party names, and drawing the line between the
Parliament and people. Look! said he, look at Wilkes’s letters, where
he talks of _rare combustibles_!
_Colonel_[435] Barré, rising to speak, and being pointed to by the
Speaker under that military appellation, thanked him, but said he had
no right to that title; yet it gave him occasion to ask why he had
been dismissed? what had his Majesty done on his accession? He looked
out if any man had been whispered out of the service, and did him
ample justice. (This alluded to Sir Henry Erskine, dismissed in the
late reign, and restored to his rank by the present King; a speaking
instance against the change of measures since adopted.) Himself, he
said, was of no consequence, but let Ministers take care how they
deprived the Crown of other faithful servants at the end of a glorious
war. Non de vectigalibus agitur, sed de animâ nostra res agitur.
Precedents did not justify: Charles the First had acted on precedents.
Onslow congratulated Grenville ironically on having never given one
vote for the last ruinous war, which he now so much condemned. And
they, said he, who are for acquitting these gentlemen, ought to
remember who insisted on having their two names inserted, when Sir
George Saville and Sir W. Meredith would have omitted them. In fact,
the Ministers had got the names inserted with the view of having them
cleared by a vote of the House.
Mawbey then moved to adjourn, which was overruled by 208 to 184, and
then the complaint being discharged, the House rose at half an hour
after seven in the morning, the longest sitting on record, exceeding
that on the Westminster Election, in 1742, and the last sitting on
the Militia Bill, in 17--; but this latter was less a debate than the
perseverance of a very few persons who sat till six in the morning to
perfect that bill.
The Court was strangely alarmed at this sudden rise of the Opposition,
and set them roundly to oppose its progress, well knowing that when
once the scale turns, it is difficult to secure even the venal, who
hurry over to the side to which fortune seems inclining. Nor was much
time given them to rally their forces, the great question coming on
within four days.