Читать книгу The History of King George the Third - Horace Walpole - Страница 27

Table of Contents

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 North387 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 Chancellor397 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 200l. 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 25,000l. 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 law400 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’s401 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 1000l. 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.