treachery of one of his printers. If these writings were obscene and blasphemous, their author had exposed himself to the law: but the only pretence for noticing them in Parliament, was the absurd use of the name of a bishop,-a member of their Lordships' House. Hence it became a breach of privilege! This ingenious device was suggested by the Chancellor, Lord Henley; and Mr. Grenville obtained the bishop's consent to complain of the outrage, in his name.1 But it was beneath the dignity of the House to notice such writings, obtained in such a manner; and it was notorious that the politics of the author were the true ground of offence, and not his blasphemy, or his irreverence to the bishop. The proceeding was the more ridiculous, from the complaint of obscenity having been made by the most profligate of peers,-"Satan rebuking sin."2 Nevertheless the Lords were not ashamed to examine the printers, from whom the proof-sheets had been obtained, in order to prove that Wilkes was the author. They at once addressed the king to order a prosecution of Wilkes; but as he was, at this time, laid up with his wounds, proceedings against him for the breach of privilege were postponed. On the 24th January, when he had escaped from their jurisdiction, they ordered him into custody. They were at least spared the opprobrium of further oppression; but their proceedings had not escaped the indignation and ridicule which they deserved. Leaving Wilkes, for a time, as a popular martyr, – and passing over his further contests with the govern 1 Grenville Papers, ii. 154. 2 "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."Walpole's Mem., i. 314. 3 Parl. Hist., xv. 1346. ment in the courts of law,-we shall find him, a few years later, again coming into collision with Parliament, and becoming the successful champion of popular rights. Roi" or The discussions on his case were scarcely concluded, “Droit Le when a complaint was made to the Lords, by Lord dered to be Lyttelton, of a book with the title of " Droit Le Roi." burned. It was the very opposite of Wilkes' writings, being a high prerogative treatise, founded upon statutes, precedents, and the dicta of lawyers before the Revolution. It was too monstrous to be defended by any one; and, like the "North Briton," it was ordered by both Houses to be burned by the hands of the common hangman.1 There was no pretence for dealing with this case as a breach of privilege; but as the popular cause had suffered from the straining of privilege, in the person of Wilkes, no one attempted to save this ultra-loyal treatise from the flames. Middlesex, At the dissolution of Parliament in 1768, Wilkes, who Wilkes rehad, in the meantime, resided abroad,· an exile and turned for an outlaw, offered himself as a candidate for the city 1768. of London. He was defeated; but the memory of his wrongs was revived; and with no other claim to popular favour, he found himself the idol of the people. He now became a candidate for Middlesex, and was returned by a large majority. His triumph was celebrated by his partisans; who forced the inhabitants of London to illuminate, and join in their cry of "Wilkes and liberty,"-marking every door, as they passed along, with the popular number "45." But he was soon to suffer the penalties of his past offences. On the first day of the ensuing session, having Parl. Hist., xv. 1418; Lords' Journ., xxx. 477, &c.; Walpole's Mem., i. 383. His impri the Court sonment by Bench. of King's appeared before the Court of King's Bench on his outlawry, he was committed on a capias utlagatum. Rescued by the mob, he again surrendered himself; and his imprisonment was the unhappy occasion of riots, and of a collision between the military and the people. His outlawry was soon afterwards reversed; but he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for his libels. Wilkes' Lord Mans- field and 1768. Libel upon - During the first session of this Parliament, therefore, Wilkes was unable to take his seat; and as yet no proceedings were commenced against him in the House of Commons. At the opening of the second session, in November, he brought himself into notice by accusing Lord Mansfield, -in a petition to the House, — of having altered the record on his trial; and Mr. Webb, the Solicitor of the Treasury, of having bribed Curry, the printer, with public money, to appear as a witness against him. His charges were voted to be groundless; but they served the purpose of exciting popular sympathy. He was brought down to Westminster to prove them, attended by a large concourse of people1; and for a moment he perplexed the House by submitting whether, being a member, he could stand at the bar, without having taken the oaths, and delivered in his qualification. But he soon received the obvious answer that being in custody at the bar, the acts affecting members sitting in the House, did not apply to his case.2 But a graver matter in which Wilkes had involved Lord Wey- himself, was now to be considered. He had published a mouth. letter from Lord Weymouth to the magistrates of Surrey, advising them to call in the military for the suppression of riots; with a prefatory letter of his own, 1 Walpole's Mem., iii. 314. 2 Com. Journ., Nov. 14th, 1768, to Feb. 1st, 1769; Cavendish Deb., i. 46-131. in which he had applied the strongest language to the Secretary of State; and had designated the late collision between the troops and the populace in St. George's Fields, as a bloody massacre. Here again, a strange and irregular proceeding was resorted to. The letter was a libel upon a Secretary of State, as an officer of the Crown; who, being also a peer, complained of it as a breach of privilege. But instead of proceeding against the author in the House of Lords, the paper was voted an insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel; and a conference was held with the Commons on the conduct of Wilkes, as a member of their House.' They immediately took the matter up; and rushing headlong into a quarrel which did not concern them, called upon Wilkes for his defence. He boldly confessed himself the author of the prefatory letter; and gloried in having brought "to light that bloody scroll" of Lord Weymouth. The letter was voted to be an insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel. A motion was then made for the expulsion Resoluof Wilkes, founded upon several distinct grounds: first, tions for this last seditious libel, which, if a breach of privilege, sion. was cognisable by the Lords, and not by the Commons; and, if a seditious libel, was punishable by law: secondly, the publication of the "North Briton," five years before, for which Wilkes was already under sentence, and had suffered expulsion from a former Parliament: thirdly, his impious and obscene libels, for which he was already suffering punishment, by the judgment of a criminal court; and, fourthly, that he was under sentence of the court to suffer twenty-two months' imprisonment. Such were the cumulative charges, upon which it was now proposed to expel him. Nothing can be more undoubted than the right of the House of Commons to 1 Lords' Journ., xxxii. 213. his expul expel one of its own members, for any offence which, in its judgment, deserves such punishment,-whether it be a breach of privilege or not. But here the exercise of this right was unjust and oppressive. It was forcibly argued, that for all the offences enumerated, but one, Wilkes had already suffered, and was still suffering. For his remaining offence,-the libel on a Secretary of State, it was not the province of the House to condemn and punish him by this summary process. It should be left to the courts to try him,—and, if found guilty, to inflict the punishment prescribed by law. For his old offences he could scarcely be expelled. During a whole session he had been a member; and yet they had not been held to justify his expulsion. Then why should they now call for such severity? Clearly on the ground of his libel on Lord Weymouth. The very enumeration of so many grounds of expulsion, implied their separate weakness and insufficiency; while it was designed to attract the support of members, influenced by different reasons for their votes. These arguments were urged by Mr. Burke, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dowdeswell, Mr. Beckford, Mr. Cornwall, and, above all, by Mr. George Grenville. The masterly speech of the latter does great credit to his judgment and foresight. When a minister, he had been the first to bring the House of Commons into collision with Wilkes; but he now recoiled from the struggle which was impending. Having shown the injustice of the proposed punishment, he proceeded to show its impolicy and danger. He predicted that Wilkes would be re-elected, and that the House would have but two alternatives - both objec tionable; either to expel him again, and suspend the issue of the writ for the entire Parliament; or to declare 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 546; Cavendish Deb., i. 151. |