: thorough-paced tool of Government and leges of the House of Commons, in every Mr. Webb had been acquainted with the inftance wherein they can be fuppofed extraordinary evidence this man was ready to be concerned: and at the fame time, to give. By thefe two worthy Gentle- thinking it of the utmost importance not men, was one of Mr. WILKES's fervants to fuffer the public juftice of the kingdom corrupted to betray his master's fecrets, to to be eluded, had chosen to direct the said become evidence againft him before the libel, and alfo copies of the examinations, Parliament, and the Courts of Juftice, upon which Mr. WILKES was apprewith respect to printing both the North hended and fecured, to be laid before that Britons and the Effay on Woman. This Houfe for their confideration." fellow was the only pofitive evidence that the Government could bring against Mr. WILKES. And he went through all this dirty work, with fuch dexterity and adroitnefs, that he feemed to have been well prepared and inftructed, for this infamous bufinefs. The day of the meeting of Parliament, Kidgel, Webb, Faden, Hafal and Curry, dined together, and held a grand conference, at one of the Taverns in Westminster, in order, no doubt, to arrange and fix their weighty affairs. As foon as the feffions was opened, Mr. WILKES (who had been fome time returned from France) offered to make a complaint of a breach of the privileges of Parliament. But Mr. Grenville, Chancellor of the Exchequer, had a meffage from the King to communicate to the House, and it was determined to hear that first though a complaint of a breach of privilege generally takes place of every thing elle But this was not the only inftance of the unexpected complaifance of the Houfe of Commons to the views of the Crown. The ineffage was to this effect: "That his Majesty having received nformation, that JOHN WILKES, Efq; a Member of that Houfe, was the author of a moft feditious and dangerous libel, published fince the last session of Parliament, he had caufed the faid JOHN WILKES, Efq; to be apprehended and fecured, in order to his being tried for the fame, by due courfe of law; and Mr. WILKES having been difcharged out of the cuftody by the Court of Common Pleas, upon account of his privilege as a Member of the Houfe; and having, when called upon by the legal procefs of the Court of King's Bench, itood out, and declined to appear and anfwer to an information, which had been exhibited against him by his Majefty's Attorney General, for the fame offence; in this fituation, his Majesty being defirous to fhew all poffible attention to the privi [The reader will obferve, that these papers were, the North Briton number 45, of the original publication, for which Mr. WILKES was never profecuted; and the informations of Kearly and Balfe, neither of which were upon oath.] Had Charles the First, when he was fo defirous of feizing the five Members in 1641, acted with the fame policy, he would most effectually have destroyed the Liberties of England. But Charles was too precipitate; and the House of Commons taking fire at his violence, from that moinent refolved to refift him. The Minifters of George the Third, feem to have profited by that imprudence. The King wants a Member to be punished; they do not advife his Majefty to come himself and feize him; but to fend a meffage. The Houfe returned thanks for this meffage, and went directly into the confideration of the paper and though, according to the meffage, the matter was clearly fub judice, and they had not heard what their own Member had to offer why it was not come to an hearing, yet they refolved, by a majority of 273 against 111, "That the paper entituled, The North Briton, No. 45, is a falfe, fcandalous, and feditious libel, containing expreflions of the most unexampled infolence and contumely towards his Majefty, the groffelt afperfions upon both Houses of Parliament, and the most audacious defiance of the authority of the whole Legiflature, and moft manifeftly tending to alienate the affections of the people from his Majefty, to withdraw them from their obedience to the laws of the realm, and to excite them to traiterous infurrections." Was not this pre judging the law, and foreftalling the opinion of a Jury? In order, however, to compleat their ftigma, they ordered the paper to be burnt by the common hangman. Then Mr. WILKES was permitted to make his complaint of a breach of Privilege, which he did in a very matterly speech, which may be found in our Magazine for 1763, p. 706, but the confideration of it was put off. In the Houfe of Lords complaint was made of the Effay on Woman, which was produced; that is, as much as the evidence, Curry, had folen. Its obscenity and profanenefs were particularly execrated by the Earl of S-D-CH; and the B-p of G-CE-R complained of a breach of Privilege, his name being inferted in one of the notes. Such was the bufinefs of the first day's feffion, with regard to Mr. WILKES. When he heard of the motion against him in the House of Lords, he was thunderftruck; he had not the leaft fufpicion that the Effay on Woman, in which he thought he had been fo cautious, was to furnith a new accufation against him Now, perfectly indifferent what he did, or whether he lived or died, grown defperate by miffortunes, and knowing the malice of his enemies, he came home on Wednesday morning (the 16th) the houfe having fat 'till that time, and wrote the following letter to Mr. Martin, who had infulted him the preceding evening. Great George-freet, Wednesday, Nov. 16. "SIR, "You complained yesterday before five hundred Gentlemen, that you had been ftabbed in the dark by the North Briton, but I have reason to-believe you were not fo much in the dark as you affected, and chofe to be. Was the complaint, made before so many Gentlemen, on purpofe that they might interpofe? To cut off every pretence of ignorance as to the Author, I whisper in your ear, that every paffage of the North Briton, in which you have been named, or even alluded to, was written by Your humble fervant, JOHN WILKES." Mr. MARTIN's Answer. Abingdon freet, Nov. 16, 1763. "SIR, "As I faid in the Houfe of Commons yesterday, that the writer of the North Briton, who had ftabbed me in the dark, was a cowardly, as well as a malignant and infamous, fcoundrel; and your letter of this morning's date, acknowledges, that every paffage of the North Briton, in which I have been named, or even alJuded to, was written by yourself, I must take the liberty to repeat, that you are a malignant and infamous fcoundrel, and that I defire to give you an opportunity of fhewing me whether the epithet of cowardly was rightly applied or not. "I defire that you may meet me in Hyde-Park immediately, with a brace of pistols, each to determine our difference. "I thall go to the Ring in Hyde-Park, with my piftols fo concealed that nobody may fee them; and I will wait in expec tation of you one hour. As I fhall call in my way at your houfe to deliver this letter, I propofe to go from thence directly to the Ring in Hyde-park, from whence we may proceed, if it be neceffary, to any more private place; and I mention that I fhall wait an hour in order to give you full time to meet me, I am, Sir, Your humble fervant, SAM. MARTIN."* After a feries of adjournments, the Commons, on the 23d of November, refumed the confideration of his Majesty's meflage, particularly the great and important point of privilege. They had already voted the North Briton a libel, and now they were refolved to vote away privilege in the cafe of a libel, which they actually did, by a majority of 258 against 133. A conference was then demanded with the Lords, in order to communicate to them the refolutions of the Commons, That the North Briton was a feditious libel, That it be burnt, and That privilege of Parliament does not extend to the writing and publishing feditious libels, and to defire the concurrence of the Lords; who thereupon agreed with the Commons. This was fuch a furrender of the antient rights of Parliament, in mere compliment to the views and purposes of the Crown, that the most fenfible and judicious people without doors began to be feriously alarmed, and wondered how, in God's name, the Parliament could think of deftroying their own perfonal fecurity, to put an odium upon the Chief Justice, whofe determination on privilege had given fuch univerfal fatisfaction, and to cover by that furrrender, the blunders of a Minifter, and the hitherto fuppofed mistaken opinions of the King's Lawyers. But this unbounded complaifance of the NOTE. The particulars of the duel nay be feen in our Magazine for 1763, p. 708, U uu a Par Parliament feemed to have been foretold, or rather pre-determined by the Attorney General; for though his Majesty had declared in his meffage, that he had stayed the law proceedings against Mr. WILKES on account of his privilege, yet, before this point was given up by Parliament, the Attorney-general treated Mr. WILKES as an unprivileged person, by serving him with a fubpoena In other times, it would have been confider'd as a most daring act of prefumption in any fervant of the Crown, to anticipate the determination of Parliament, but these times were full of lenity and forgiveness. Such an effort, however, not only fuperfeded the intention of his Majesty, but conveyed difhonour upon the Parliament; for in May, his Majesty orders a profecution against a Member of Parliament, who is served with a subpoena, but thinking his privilege violated by it a fecond time, refufes to appear. His Majefty, tender of privilege, chufes that no coercive procefs fhould iffue, and is defirous of receiving the fenfe of his Parliament upon the proceeding; but before it can be taken (agreeably to his Majefty's wishes) the Attorney-general prefumes to renew a process, the propriety of which a Houfe of Parliament was deliberating upon. If the fervice of the subpoena was clearly legal, where was the neceflity of applying to Parliament? If his Majelty had been advifed that doubts had been entertained, what can be faid in defence of the Attorney-general, who arrogated to himfelf the authority of fettling this great point (which alone impeded the original profecution) at the very eve of a Parliamentary decifion, fo graciously defired by his Majefty? It was a piece of ftrange conduct but the whole of this bufinefs was of one complexion. The oppofition in the House of Lords, to this furrender of privilege, was vigo rous and powerful. It was managed and led by the Earl TEMPLE, who fhewed himself to be as zealous a defender of the privileges of Parliament, as he had been the fecurer of the liberties of the people; and though out-voted, yet he tranfmitted his opinion to pofterity, in a proteft that does infinite honour to his judgment and fpirit. The reader will find it in our Magazine of 1763, page 733, and, the names of the diffenting Lords were as follow, Temple, Bolton, Grafton, Corn. wallis, Portland, Briflol, Devonshire, Scarborough, Dacre, Abergavenny, Fred. Litch. Cov. Grantham, Walpole, Ponsonby, Folkeflone. Afhburnham, Fortescue, And it is worthy of notice, that at a previous meeting at Devonshire-house, of fuch Lords as were expected to fign the proteft, the Duke of NEWCASTLE defired to be excufed putting his name to it, on account of his friend Lord HARDWICKE, who had declared his opinion against privilege. By this determination (which the Lords came to without calling in the advice of the Judges) the Members of both houfes lie at the mercy of the King's Attorney General, who may, on the fuggeftion of any of them being Libellers, imprison their perfons, merely for the fake of preventing their attending any particular vote or debate. Doubtless, neither of the Houses conceived, by furrendering this fuppofed privilege, they thereby broke in upon the rights of the people of England, in thus fubjecting their Reprefentatives to the poffibility of fuch restraints. which the Parliament had come to, the In the progrefs of the three refolutions Adminiftration repeatedly declared, that Mr.WILKES was not in the predicament of a charged man; that thefe proceedings affected him no more than any other Member; and that nothing which imme diately concerned him fhould be agitated in his abfence. thefe declarations, and notwithstanding Yet, notwithstanding every Member of the House of Commons knew he was confined to his bed by his wound, on the first of December notice was taken, that in the examination of Kearsley and Balfe, laid before the House (which were difclaimed, even as a fpecies. of evidence, before they were read) Mr. WILKES is mentioned, as having been concerned in the writing and publishing the North Briton; and the Houfe being informed that there was evidence ready to be produced at the bar, charging Mr. WILKES with being the Author and Publifher of that paper, it was ordered that Mr. WILKES fhould attend the Houfe on the 8th day of that month, to answer that charge. This was not only a manifeft breach of a public promife, and a grofs deviation from all candour; but charging Mr. WILKES with being the Publither, was an innovation that exceeded the limits of the King's mellage, which feemed to have been fairly and moft fully answered by by the determination of privilege. On the 7th Mr. WILKES'S Phyfician and Surgeon attended the Houfe, with an account of his ill ftate of health; upon which a further day was appointed for his attendance; and it then appearing that Mr. WILKES was ftill unable to attend the Houfe, the 19th of January, 1764, was appointed. And his complaint of a breach of privilege, which had, from time to time, been adjourned, was ordered to be heard on the fame day; when it fell of courfe. But before that time Mr. WILKES withdrew to France. The principle of this retreat was obviously fear; and indeed there feems to have been caufe fufficient to frighten a more intrepid perfon. There was a profecution against him in the King's Bench for the North Briton, and another for the Eflay on Woman; for neither of which he could expect mercy, if a Jury found him guilty. There were befides, the vengeance of the Lords, and the whole weight of the Crown: any one of which was enough to crush an ordinary man. He had likewife the misfortune to be pre-judged; both papers having been voted libels by the Parliament, before the fenfe of a Jury had been taken: fo that he was reduced to the alternative of ftaying and becoming a martyr, or withdrawing till the malice of his enemies was abated. He wifely chofe the lat ter. On the 19th of January, the Speaker acquainted the Houfe that he had received a letter, and a paper inclosed, from Mr.WILKES, relating to the ftate of his health, and the impoffibility of his being able to attend the Houfe on that day. A motion was then made to adjourn the confideration of the order of the day, but it was carried in the negative, by a majority of 239 against 102. Upon which the Houfe refolved, that Mr. WILKES, by withdrawing himself, was guilty of a contempt of the authority of that Houfe, and, therefore, they would proceed to hear the evidence against him. The reader will obferve, that, from the state of the proceedings hitherto related, it is evident, that the complaint against Mr. WILKES was confined to the original publication of the North Briton; that is "the printed paper" fo often alluded to in the refolutions upon the journals; the writing of which is the avowed and only object of the King's meffage. The examinations of Kearsley and Balfe, have relation to only that paper; consequently, Mr WILKES could be charged with only that publication. But the Houfe ordered one and twenty witneffes to attend, most of whom could only prove the re-publication; that is, the printing the North Bitons in volumes; which was not before the Houfe. Curry, before mentioned, was the chief evidence, but he could only prove the reprinting the North Briton, and the Effay on Woman As to the latter, he acknowledged he had received money for furnishing a copy of that which he had ftolen out of Mr. WILKES's houte. After feveral motions for adjourning, all of which were carried in the negative, the House, at length, refolved, without a divifion, or any other evidence, that Mr.WILKES was guilty of writing and publishing the North Briton; and then they immediately expelled him; which was alfo carried without a divifion. To people without doors, thefe proceedings appeared unaccountably ftrange and precipitate. Mr. WILKES had been served with a fubpœna, and he had entered his appearance to the profecutions against him in the Court of King's Bench, where the matter muft, if the Attorney General pleafed, be determined within a month at fartheft, What need was there then of this pre-judging his caufe, and pre-determining his guilt, while the matter was clearly fub judice in Weftminster Hall? A month's patience in the House of Commons could not hinder the course of juftice. Why then was he put to the fad and affecting neceffity of revealing his defence fo near his trial? Was it merely to obviate a motion of expullion; or was it to give the Crown Lawyers an opportunity of knowing and anticipating his defence upon the day of trial? or upon what principle can this rapid proceeding be juftified? Surely it would have fhewn a more tender regard for the Liberties of the fubject, and the conftitutional principles of government, to have taken the fense of a jury first ; and to have declined this grand attack until the Court below had determined the point. It would have been more humane, and more generous. And what material difference could arife in the trivial delay of a month, at fartheft, to the difcuffion of a question of fuch extraordinary mag→ nitude and importance? Here 522 The Hiftory of the late Minority. Here ended the confideration of the royal complaint. The Commons could do no more. They had arraigned, found guilty, and punished. It now remained for Weftminster-hall to do its part; and there the Court of King's Bench followed the example of the Houfe of Commons, by trying Mr. WILKES upon the evidence of the re-publication.-After being tried and found guilty, and not appearing to receive sentence, he was outlawed. When the Parliament had done its utmoft, and all its proceedings against Mr. WILKES were finished, and when the Crown, and the honour of the Crown, were both fatisfied and vindicated, the confideration of the illegal proceedings of Government was taken up. The matter was opened to the House upon general grounds, arising out of the complaint against Mr. WILKES at the beginning of the feffion, and fo purely for the honour and dignity of the Houfe, and the rights of the fubject, without the leaft regard to individuals, that it was, by the direction of the Houfe, formed into a complaint of a breach of privilege, committed by Mr. WOOD and Mr. Webb, and the Meffengers, in imprisoning Mr.WILKES, and feizing his papers. Another motion was made to lay the warrant before the Houfe, by which Mr. WILKES had been apprehended. This would have led to a pofitive determination, as far as the opinion of one branch of the legislature can be called fo, of the legality of that warrant; for the justification of the gentlemen complained of muft have depended upon the validity of it. But this fecond motion was ordered to be heard on the 13th of February, 1764. Conferences, in the mean time, were held by fome of the then principal perfons in the Minority, for the management of this bufinefs, particularly at Sir GEORGE SAVILLE'S, where the motions were fettled, at a meeting confifting of Sir Anthony Abdy, Sir William Baker, Peter Burrell, Efq; Lord John Cavendish, John Dodd, Efq; William Fitzherbert, Elq; Col. Fitzroy, Right Hon. James Grenville, Serjeant Hewitt, SirWilliam Meredith, Lord Middleton, George Onflow, Efq; Col. Onflow, Robert Pratt, Efq; Sir George Saville, Tho. Townshend, jun. Efq; Hon. Thomas Walpole, and John Whyte, Efqrs. On the 13th of February the matter of complaint was adjourned to Sept. the 14th. On that day it was entered into; and the facts having been fully examined, it became necessary to condemn the warrant, in order to establish the breach of privilege which had been committed under it. For this reason the following general question was propofed, "That a warrant for apprehending and feizing the Author, Printers, and Publishers, of a feditious libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law." Yet the confideration discharge the complaint against Mr. Wood of this question was declined, in order to and Mr. Webb, previous to the examination into the legality of the warrant ; upon what ground of reafon, law or juftice, is not eafy to be conceived, there being fuch a connection between the warrant, and the perfons complained of, that the House had determined nothing could feparate them in the beginning; nothing therefore could equal the inconfiftency of first discharging the order of complaint, and then going into the confideration of the legality of the warrant. The House having fat till half an hour past seven in the morning of the 16th, the queftion was put to adjourn to the 17th, which though fo late in the morning, and many staunch friends to the Minority known to be gone home, was carried but by a small majority, only 208 against 184; which, confidering the very great fuperiority the Adminiftration had had upon all the other divifionis, was confidered as a kind of victory over them; and it was univerfally believed, that on the 17th they would be totally defeated. However, on the 17th, the Administration, by several motions and alterations, narrowed the ground of the general question, in order to bring it to the individual warrant that had iffued, and to add thereto facts relative to the practice of Secretaries of State and Courts of Law. At laft the resolution adopted by the Houfe for its question was this, ing and feizing the Authors, Printers and That a general warrant, for apprehendPublishers of a feditious and treafonable libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law; although fuch warrant has been iffued according to the usage of office, and has been frequently produced to; and fo far as appears to this House, the validity thereof has never been debated in the Court of King's Bench, but the parties thereupon have been frequently bailed by the faid Court." And the Lawyers |