Читать книгу The History of King George the Third - Horace Walpole - Страница 29

Table of Contents

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 5000l. a year on Ireland, and 3000l. a year on Hanover. Fourscore thousand pounds were given with the late Princess Royal414 to the Prince of Orange, but she was a King’s daughter. The Princess Mary415 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 Griffin418 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 Meredith419 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 Street421—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 debate423 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 1200l. 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 Grenville424 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 two432 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!

Colonel435 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.