possession, through a subordinate agent, and by not very creditable means, and Lord Sandwich holding it forth in his hand with the air of injured innocence denounced it as not only scandalous and impious, but also as a breach of Privilege against the Bishop as a Peer of Parliament. He likewise complained of another profane parody, written by the same hand, and printed on the same occasion; this last was entitled, "The VENI CREATOR paraphrased." The most offensive passages of both were now by Lord Sandwich's order read aloud to the House, until Lord Lyttleton with a groan entreated that they might hear no more.

In the discussion which ensued Bishop Warburton, forgetting that such ribaldries could not really tarnish his character, showed a heat which little became it. He exclaimed that the blackest fiends in Hell would disdain to keep company with Wilkes, and then asked pardon of Satan for comparing them together! Both the Earl and Bishop in their passion would have readily overleaped the common forms of justice. The former, after producing evidence at the Bar as to the authorship of Wilkes, wished the House to take measures for his prosecution without the least delay. But the Peers, although readily agreeing to vote the two parodies blasphemous and breaches of Privilege, resolved, on the motion of Lord Mansfield, to adjourn all further questions until the day after the next, so as to give Wilkes the opportunity, if he desired it, of alleging any matter in denial or defence.

how,

While these things were transacting in the Lords, Horace Walpole, as a Member of the House of Commons, happened to hear of them, and going up to Pitt, with whom he was dividing in the lobby, told him what had passed, as it seemed, the Government had been ransacking Wilkes's desk in search of libels. Pitt replied with just indignation: "Why do they not search the Bishop of Gloucester's study "for heresy?"*

The Commons had, however, on that day sufficient busi* Lord Orford's Memoirs of George III., vol. i. p. 312,

ness of their own. Grenville delivered a message from the Crown acquainting the House with the imprisonment of one of their Members during the recess. Wilkes stood up in his place to complain of that imprisonment as a breach of Privilege. Lord North, still one of the Board of Treasury, who had undertaken the management of this business conjointly with the new Attorney General, Sir Fletcher Norton, caused the depositions of the two printers to be read confessing Wilkes the author of the famous Number 45; and after such preliminaries Lord North and the Attorney pressed for vigorous measures against it and him. Several debates and divisions ensued, but at length it was carried by large majorities that the Paper entitled the North Briton, Number 45, was a false, scandalous, and seditious libel, tending to traitorous insurrections, and that it should be burned by the hands of the common hangman, an order in which the other House afterwards concurred. Pitt spoke several times with great spirit and effect. He moved to omit the epithet "traitorous," fully acknowledging, however, the guilt of the libel and of the libeller, but always distinguishing between the criminal act and the illegal prosecution. "For my 'part," he added, "I never could learn exactly what is a "libel. - Alas, could any lawyer tell him now?

It was not till the next day that Pitt found occasion in another speech to refer to the late negotiation with His Majesty, which he did in obscure and doubtful terms. One of his political opponents owns in a private letter to a friend that "he spoke civilly and not unfairly of the Ministers, but "of the King said everything which duty and affection could "inspire."*

Among the speeches on the first evening of the Session was one from Mr. Samuel Martin, who had been Secretary of the Treasury under both the Duke of Newcastle and Lord

*Lord Barrington to Mr. Mitchell, Nov. 1763. Note to Chatham Papers, vol. ii. p. 263. Lord Barrington adds (a little too much in the style of Sir Robert Walpole): "I think if fifty thousand pounds had been given "for that speech it would have been well expended. It secures us a quiet "Session."

1763.

WILKES EXPELLED.

49

66

Bute. In an earlier Number of the North Briton Wilkes had mentioned him with some contempt as a low fellow and dirty tool of power. Mr. Martin mindful of the affront took this opportunity of referring to it, and said that he did not know its author, but that, be he who he might, he was a cowardly, malignant, and infamous scoundrel; and these words he repeated twice over trembling with anger. Wilkes took no notice at the time, but next morning addressed to Mr. Martin a letter, concluding as follows: "To cut off every pretence "of ignorance as to the author, I whisper in your ear, that every passage of the North Briton in which you have been "named or even alluded to was written by your humble ser"vant, JOHN WILKES." A duel ensued between them that very day, when Wilkes was dangerously wounded with a bullet in the body. His wound produced some delay but no mitigation in the measures against him. The House of Lords carried an Address to the Crown praying for a prosecution of the author of the "Essay on Woman.' The House of Commons manifested at least equal rigour against the author of the North Briton, Number 45. Wilkes himself, dauntless as he seemed on most occasions, quailed before this formidable combination of King, Lords, and Commons, and when only half recovered of his wound withdrew for safety to France. He sent certificates of his continued illness from Paris, and sued for further time, but nevertheless the House of Commons proceeded with his case. A whole night was spent in stormy debates and divisions on collateral points, but at last at four in the morning, Wilkes's friends having then mostly withdrawn, he was by an unanimous vote expelled.

Meanwhile, however, there arose among the people an idea that Wilkes was a persecuted man, and that as a persecuted man he ought to be upheld. This is a feeling which prevails in England more perhaps than in any other country, and which should never be referred to without high respect and praise, often as it has led, or may lead, to the support of unworthy objects. In the case of the "Essay on Woman" a most acute bystander observes that the public mind was Mahon, History. V. 4

instantly diverted from indignation at the piece itself to indignation at the means by which it was obtained. * The conduct of Lord Sandwich, above all, was loudly reprobated. His private life was known to be full as irregular as Wilkes's, and it was asserted that only a fortnight before Wilkes and he had been supping with other loose revellers at a London tavern, and singing lewd catches together. A few days after the opening scene in the House of Lords a strong proof of the popular sentiment was given at Covent Garden Theatre as the Beggar's Opera was acting. When Macheath came to the words. “That Jemmy Twitcher the whole audience

"should peach I own surprises me," with one unanimous shout of applause marked the application. It was an age of nicknames, and from that night forward the by-word of Jemmy Twitcher was applied to Lord Sandwich as often and more gladly than his title.**

Nor should I neglect to note on this occasion the caustic irony of Chesterfield: "It is a great mercy that Mr. Wilkes, "the intrepid defender of our rights and liberties, is out of "danger, and may live to fight and write again in support of "them; and it is no less a mercy that God has raised up the "Earl of Sandwich to vindicate and promote true religion "and morality! These two blessings will justly make an "epoch in the annals of this country!" ***

With such feelings amongst both low and high, we need scarcely wonder at the scene which the Royal Exchange presented on the 3d of December, when the attempt to burn the North Briton, Number 45, by the hands of the common hangman, and according to the order of both Houses, was disturbed, and well-nigh prevented by a riot. Before the order could be fully executed the proper officers were thrust aside, and a jack-boot with a petticoat was committed to the flames amidst loud acclamation and applause. The cry of the multitude on this occasion was "Wilkes and liberty for ever;"

*H. Walpole to Sir H. Mann, Jan. 8. 1764.

** Lord Orford's Memoirs of George III., vol. i. p. 313. *** Letter to his son, Dec. 3. 1763.

1763.

WILKES CENSURED BY PITT.

51

and the Sheriffs declared that the tumult was encouraged by gentlemen from windows and balconies. Only three days afterwards came on for trial Wilkes's action for damages against the Under Secretary of State, when Lord Chief Justice Pratt delivered a charge on the popular side, and the jury by their verdict awarded to Wilkes one thousand pounds.

Some months afterwards, however, Wilkes being still abroad, and not appearing to answer to the indictments against him, he was outlawed by the Courts, as he had already been expelled by the Commons. "And this," says a contemporary with pity, as it proved a little premature, "this completed the ruin of that unfortunate gentleman."* Other incidental proceedings arising from his case took up nearly the whole remainder of this Session. - Complaint was made against a person named Dun a madman as he was afterwards clearly shown to be who had attempted,

or more accurately speaking threatened, the life of Wilkes.

In contradiction to the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in the previous spring the Ministry proposed and carried through both Houses a Resolution: "That Privilege "of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and "publishing seditious Libels." Pitt, though at that time ill of the gout, came down in flannels and on crutches to speak against this surrender of Privilege. He took occasion in the course of his remarks to express both his reprobation of Wilkes and his tender friendship for Temple. "I condemn," he cried, "the whole series of North Britons; they are il"liberal, unmanly, detestable. I abhor all national reflec"tions. The King's subjects are one people; whoever divides "them is guilty of sedition. His Majesty's complaint was "well-founded; it was just, it was necessary. The author "of these Essays does not deserve to be ranked among the "human species; he is the blasphemer of his God, and the "libeller of his King. I have no connection with him; none "with any such writer. I neither associate nor communicate * Annual Register, 1764, part. i. p. 25.