CHAPTER X.
Douglas Peerage Claim.—Andrew Stuart.—Trial of Macquirk and Balf.—Discussions concerning Wilkes Resolutions on America.—Wilkes appears before the House of Commons.—Censure on him passed.—His Expulsion carried.—Republican Party in England.—Grenville’s State of the Nation.—Burke’s Reply.
1769.
On the 2nd of January Wilkes was chosen alderman of the ward of Farringdon Without. Bromwich, a merchant of paper for furniture, stood against him, but soon gave up the contest, Wilkes polling thirteen out of fifteen hundred; and thence the latter became a magistrate of the Metropolis, while yet a criminal of State, and a prisoner! At the same time the outrageous abuse, for which he had been sentenced, was continued in North Britons (though no longer written by him), and in other public papers. Even the constables of the City were, almost to a man, devoted to Wilkes.
On the 13th, at a ballot at the East India House, the agreement with the Government was rejected by 248 proprietors against 207.
The next day two of the rioters at Brentford, on the side of the Court, were tried at the Old Bailey, and convicted of the murder of George Clarke; but their counsel, urging that there was a flaw in the indictment, judgment was stayed till the point could be argued, when that plea was overruled, and the criminals were ordered for execution on the 17th, the King not daring to interfere with a pardon.
The 16th, the House of Lords meeting after the adjournment, Wilkes’s writs of error were argued before them by his counsel, Glynn and Davenport; on the side of the Crown by the Attorney-General De Grey and Thurloe—Dunning, the Solicitor-General, not choosing to act, as he had been so much employed in behalf of Wilkes. Wilmot, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, in the name of the other judges, (Lord Mansfield, and the judges of the King’s Bench, not being present as parties,) gave a full opinion against Wilkes, and the verdicts were confirmed without one peer saying a syllable against them, but suffering themselves to be directed by the judges.
About this time was heard decisively the great cause between the Houses of Douglas and Hamilton, by appeal to the Lords,—a cause as singular and as ambiguous as perhaps ever came before a court of judicature. The last Duke of Douglas,[167] a kind of lunatic, had at various periods made different wills; at first in favour of the Hamiltons, the nearest males of his race; but latterly he had substituted as his heir the son of his sister, who having offended him by marrying a poor, elderly gentleman,[168] had retired to France, and there, though herself past fifty, had been, or pretended to have been, delivered of two boys,[169] of whom one only survived. A cloud of circumstances concurred to make the Hamiltons suspect that both children were supposititious, and purchased of different peasants. The Duchess of Douglas, a woman of bold and masculine spirit, and herself a Douglas, who had artfully procured to get married to the Duke after the death of his sister, whom she had never seen, espoused the cause of Lady Jane’s children, and prevailed on the Duke, in his last days, to restore the inheritance to his rejected nephew. The widow Duchess of Hamilton, one of the beautiful Gunnings, and of a spirit equally proud and pertinacious, though of the most delicate frame and form and outward softness, as obstinately defended the cause of her sons, particularly of the youngest, who had been named the former heir; and being incited by one Andrew Stuart, a very able young man, and one of the trustees of her children, she, at immense expense to the Duke, her son, had pursued the disquisition into the births of Lady Jane’s children; and, by the books of the police at Paris, had, at the distance of near twenty years, and by the industry of Stuart, collected such a mass of circumstantial evidence, that it seemed to many men to prove that Lady Jane had never been with child, nor ever resided long enough in one place to give even an air of probability that she had lain in; to which should be added, that Lady Jane could never fix on any consistent account of the person in whose house, or of the house in which she had been delivered, and in which she allowed she had not staid above three or four days. Much proof appeared of Lady Jane’s art and hypocrisy: on the other side, little or none that she had acted like a mother, having neglected the younger child entirely for a year;[170] and the survivor proving to have all probable appearance of a swarthy French peasant,[171] and no ways resembling his pretended parents, who were fair and sandy, like most Scots. The Duke, Lady Jane’s brother, had, till near his death, been persuaded of the imposture; and the cause coming before the Lords of Session in Scotland, had, after the fullest discussion, been determined in favour of the Hamiltons. Mankind grew wonderfully divided in their opinions, when the cause was now brought before the English Peers. Though the cheat, if one, had its foundation, and almost its detection, in France, the French inclined to the legitimacy of the children; so did the generality in Scotland: and, above all, the compassion excited in favour of infants avowed by both parents, though, in truth, very equivocally by Lady Jane on her deathbed, carried the current in favour of young Douglas. He was not less eagerly patronised by the Duke and Duchess of Queensberry: the Duke was his guardian; and the Duchess, no less celebrated formerly by Prior, Pope, and Swift, than the Duchess of Hamilton, in the times of which I write, was still more singular and persevering than the two other dames of the same rank,—circumstances that contributed powerfully to attract the attention of the public. Much perjury appeared on both sides—certain proof on neither; the want of which decided the suit, at last, in favour of the compassionate part of the question.
After a hearing of many and long days, with an attendance scarce ever known there on a cause, the House of Lords reversed the decree in favour of the Hamiltons, and restored the Douglas.[172] The Lord Advocate Montgomery spoke for thirteen hours in three days, and with applause. Mr. Charles Yorke was the least admired. The Duchess Douglas thought she had retained him; but hearing he was gone over to the other side, sent for him, and questioned him home. He could not deny that he had engaged himself for the House of Hamilton—“Then, sir,” said she, “in the next world whose will you be, for we have all had you?” Mr. Alexander Wedderburne (for the Hamiltons, too,) spoke with greater applause than was almost ever known. Dunning, on the same side, and Norton for the Douglas, made no great figure. The Duke of Bedford, Lord Sandwich, and Lord Gower,[173] were the most zealous for the Hamiltons. Lord Mansfield, it had long been discovered, favoured the Douglas; but the Chancellor Camden, with dignity and decency, had concealed his opinion to the very day of the decision. The debate was opened by the Duke of Newcastle, and very poorly. He was answered by Lord Sandwich, who spoke for three hours with much humour, and scandalised the bishops, having, with his usual industry, studied even the midwifery of the case, which he retailed with very little decency. The Chancellor then rose, and with becoming authority and infinite applause, told the Lords that he must now declare, that he thought the whole plea of the Hamiltons a tissue of perjury, woven by Mr. Andrew Stuart; and that were he sitting as judge in any other court, he would order the jury to find for Mr. Douglas; and that what that jury ought to do on their oaths, their Lordships ought to do on their honours. He then went through the heads of the whole case, and without notes recapitulated even the dates of so involved a story; adding, that he was sorry to bear hard on Mr. Stuart, but justice obliged him. This speech, in which it was allowed he outshone Lord Mansfield, had the most decisive effect. The latter, with still more personal severity to Stuart, spoke till he fainted with the heat and fatigue; and, at ten at night, the decree was reversed without a division,[174]—a sentence, I think, conformable to equity, as the child was owned by both parents, and the imposture not absolutely proved; yet, in my opinion, not awarded in favour of truth—a declaration I should not be so arrogant as to make, if many very able men were not as much persuaded as I am of the child being supposititious. Nor was the cause terminated at last without a duel between Andrew Stuart and Thurloe, who had poured out torrents of abuse on his antagonist in the course of the pleadings; but no mischief was done. This curious trial was set forth by each party in such ample volumes, that it is unnecessary to give a larger detail of it here; but a few concomitant and subsequent circumstances require a place.
The Duke of Bedford, the Earls of Sandwich, Bristol, and Dunmore, and Lord Milton, protested against the decision in favour of Mr. Douglas, for that he was not proved to be the son of Lady Jane, and for that they thought it had been proved that he was not so. The next morning Mr. Andrew Stuart found on his table a bond for four hundred pounds a-year for his life, a present from Mr. Johnstone Pulteney,[175] his friend, in consideration of the cruel treatment he had met with. When the news arrived at Edinburgh that the Douglas had carried his cause, the mob rose and almost killed the President of the Session who had been against him. They broke into Holyrood House, plundered the apartments of the Hamiltons, and made it dangerous for their friends to remain in the town. The sedition lasted two days, nor was put an end to but by the guards. Mr. Andrew Stuart, some considerable time after, printed and gave away a tract on the case, and more particularly in his own defence against Lord Mansfield. It was a prodigy of abilities, reasoning, and severity, yet observing a show of tenderness and decorum that did not abate the edge of the satire.[176] Some circumstances too, corroborating the question he supported, had abated since the trial; and at last the principal evidence for the Douglas was convicted of perjury in another cause in France.[177] Lord Mansfield, agreeably to his cowardice and implacable character, answered the book only by preventing Stuart from being sent to India in a very lucrative employment.
Another trial intervened and divided the notice of the public—at least, of the people. Macquirk and Balf, the persons condemned for murder at the election at Brentford, were Irish chairmen, and had notoriously been hired with other mob on the side of the Court candidate. When they were pronounced guilty, the populace gave a shout—a shocking indecency, very properly reproved by the Recorder. Execution was decreed on the 17th. However, on the eve of their appointed fate, the Ministers took courage and reprieved them pro tempore, on these considerations—one Allen, the prosecutor, finding himself in the midst of the adverse mob at Brentford, had been protected and his life saved by Macquirk. Allen thence carried Macquirk to an ale-house, and there the ungrateful villain wormed out of his benefactor many circumstances that proved Macquirk had been engaged in the riot, though he had not struck the deceased. The wretch was so heated by party, that he turned informer against Macquirk, though when condemned, Allen did intercede in his favour, but the Judge told him he had made that intercession vain. Macquirk behaved with great decency, only desiring three or four days to prepare for death. Balf, though dipped in the riot, had clearly had no hand in the murder, yet was found guilty of constructive murder, which induced the Court to recommend him to mercy.
The glaring cruelty of putting two men to death, who had neither committed the deed nor meditated it, made such an impression on Mr. Boyle Walsingham[178], a seaman and man of quality, that though warm in party, his good nature was revolted, and on the 20th he declared in the House of Commons that he wished to see the chairmen pardoned, and though he knew not in what manner it might be proper to apply for mercy, he should be happy to see it extended to those unfortunate men. Sir William Meredith, a man remarkably averse to punishments that reached the lives of criminals, joined in the same humane sentiments. Lord North said it would not be necessary to make a motion, for he was persuaded his Majesty would be ready to grant his pardon the moment he should know it was the sense of the House of Commons. This application coming from two gentlemen of fair characters, and both in Opposition, was very fortunate for the Court, who were embarrassed how to act, the people being savagely inflamed against the chairmen, and instigated by a virulent North Briton to clamour for the execution: but in the House of Commons there was not a dissenting voice against pardon; and the criminals were accordingly respited during pleasure, the Ministers fearing that entire pardon at once would but more enrage the populace.[179]
In the mean time the Court of Aldermen having discovered that the election of Wilkes into their body had been irregular by the poll being closed on the withdrawing of Bromwich without making the proper notification, the election was declared void. Wilkes, in strong terms advertised his protest against the vacating his election, and exhorted the citizens to oppose that step. The electors at Westminster also instructed their members to support his right of election for the county of Middlesex, and enjoined them never to cease endeavouring to obtain redress of the illegal measures pursued against him, and vindicating the rights of the people who had chosen him their representative. Martin, a banker of a very fair character,[180] who had voted against him at all the late elections, was so shocked at the resolution of the House of Commons,—which, though having voted that writing and publishing a libel was not within the case of privilege, had yet gone farther than even that vote of their own, and had censured Wilkes, who had only republished the North Briton, and had not been proved to have written it,—that he moved a new resolution, that Wilkes did not come within the description of that resolution, which seemed to make both writing and publishing necessary; and which being very penal, ought to be interpreted in the mildest sense. This Lord North opposed; and even George Grenville voted against Martin’s motion, which, if just, would seem to make the House trifle in its resolution. Much was said for and against Wilkes. Colonel Lutterel was particularly severe on him, and both Lord Granby and Conway voted against the motion, which towards eight o’clock was rejected by above one hundred and sixty to seventy-one.
Conway was in one of his difficult situations. A Council had been held during the holidays on Wilkes, in which it was determined to bring on his affair. Rigby the next day prevailed to have that resolution changed without acquainting Conway; and then the Bedford faction told the King there was no acting with Conway, who always in the House adhered to his own opinion, and would not acquiesce in what was determined in Council. This, which was often true, was false now; but Lord Ligonier was dying, and the Bedfords wished to procure the Blues for Lord Waldegrave. The Duke of Grafton, however, told them that the Blues were engaged to Conway; yet the Duke and the King too complained to Lord Hertford of his brother’s impracticability. Conway justified himself to the King on the falsehood of the present charge, at the same time avowing his own delicacies. The King received his declaration but coolly. Lord Hertford (I believe by his Majesty’s order) spoke to me on his brother’s future behaviour on Wilkes, fearing he would ruin himself should he oppose Wilkes’s expulsion. I told him, as was true, that I had avoided talking to Mr. Conway on that subject, as I would neither take upon me to advise Mr. Conway again to the prejudice of his fortune, nor on the other hand would counsel him to counteract his former behaviour. Indeed, I saw great confusion arising. The House of Commons acted without justice or decency: the other party were no less violent, and were setting up juries against the judges. The latter were generally inculpable; and though juries ought to be still more sacred, yet in the hands of a Middlesex jury at that time, no man’s life was safe. Integrity could not attach itself to either party. Captain Walsingham, Martin the banker, and Sir William Meredith, were proofs on different sides that conscientious men condemned the excesses of their own parties. Though the Court relaxed nothing of its animosity to Wilkes, yet it had received too many mortifications not to be cautious how it ventured on any farther strides of power. Still, I would not make my court by trying to influence Mr. Conway to countenance their plans; nor, though I began to fear the consequences of Wilkes’s unprincipled rashness and despair, would I suffer any interested motive to fix the balance of my opinions.
On the 25th the resolutions on America were considered in the House of Commons. Beckford offered a petition from persons calling themselves a majority of the Assembly of Boston, praying a repeal of the late taxes; but that Assembly being dissolved, Lord North objected to the reception of their petition;[181] yet, as petitioning the Parliament was the most decent and desirable mode of compromising the heats, many wished to accept it, and Dyson proposed words to qualify that acceptance. Lord North, after some irresolution, yielded, and the farther consideration of the resolutions was postponed to the next day, when they passed by a great majority.[182] Colonel Barré, in the debate, drew ridiculous portraits of the several Ministers.
On the 27th Wilkes was once more chosen Alderman of Farringdon Ward, without opposition. The same day he was carried before the House of Commons, attended by a great concourse of people, who, however, by his order soon dispersed, or behaved with singular decency. His committees too, who had regimented the mobs of London and Westminster, conducted them with composure and regularity. Lord Barrington moved that Wilkes might be confined to speak only to the two allegations of his complaint,—the alteration of the writ, and the subornation of witnesses. The Opposition objected to the restrictions, and combated them till ten at night. Serjeant Glynn pleaded for Wilkes, and spoke with a clearness, argument, decency, and propriety, that was applauded by both sides; and though attacked by Norton and the Attorney-General, who called him Wilkes’s representative,[183] he defended himself with a modesty that conciliated much favour. The debate turned chiefly on general warrants and libels: George Grenville defended the former, and himself, and the Lords Egremont and Halifax:—on the latter, to pay his court, he said that libels against Ministers were not to be regarded, but against the King were serious. Dyson, as usual, was shrewd, and, as usual, ill-treated by the Opposition; Colonel Barré, the day before, having baptized him by the name of Mungo, a black slave in a new farce called “The Padlock,” who is described as employed by everybody in all jobs and servile offices. Burke ridiculed the Ministers as he had done the day before with greater applause; and Barré, repeating his attacks, was called to order by Rigby, whom he had described as a jolly, eating, drinking fellow, who finding himself now in a comfortable situation, seldom spoke. Being provoked at the interruption, Barré rejoined surlily, “The gentleman denies being a Minister, and calls me to order; but I have not done with him yet. Whether Minister or not, he lies in a bed[184] to himself; I do not envy him, nor would I have his principles to lie in his bed.” This unpleasant attack thunderstruck Rigby, who coloured, and not choosing to have the last sentence explained, made no reply. The House then divided, and the restrictions were carried by 278 to 131, Grenville and his friends being in the majority, as were Lord Granby, Sir Edward Hawke, and Conway.[185]
Wilkes was then called in, seemed abashed, and behaved with great respect to the House. He demanded to be admitted and to take the oaths as a member, which after some debate was refused on his being a prisoner. His counsel were then called in, and were informed that they must confine themselves to the two points of his allegation; but it being then near midnight, the House adjourned to the 31st. The next day Conway told me, he and Lord Granby had agreed to stay away on the expulsion: having declared against violent measures, they would not concur in it; and disapproving Wilkes’s attacks on the Government, they would not defend him.
Wilkes appeared again before the House on the 31st. He complained that his character had been aspersed in the printed votes, which accused him of blasphemy, though he had not been convicted of it; and demanded reparation. The case was this:—some time before, when the House, at the motion of Lord Clare, had sent for the roll of his conviction on the North Briton and “Essay on Woman,” it appeared that the clerk had forgotten to endorse them; on which he had been ordered to endorse them as they ought to have been; on which he wrote there the titles of seditious libel and blasphemy. Dyson, who adjusted the votes for the Speaker, had (probably by design) inserted these titles in the votes. When Martin the banker had lately moved to admit Wilkes, and the House had refused on account of his condemnation for those libels, they were going to renew those words; but Beckford objecting to the word blasphemy, the House had acquiesced, and intituled the piece a profane and impious libel. Norton now endeavoured to prove that he had been convicted of blasphemy, because it being in the charge, and he being brought in guilty of the premises, Norton inferred that he was convicted of it; but Serjeant Glynn showed that in all indictments charges are ridiculously exaggerated, and though a man may be brought in guilty of a crime, half the articles of a charge are never attempted to be proved. Sir George Saville and Sir Joseph Mawbey stiffly maintained the same argument. Lord North, Dyson, and the Ministerial party as obstinately supported the contrary ground, till General Conway showed the injustice of the tenet, and that it was at most constructive blasphemy; on which Sir George Saville joining him, and the House applauding, Dyson was forced to insert other palliating words—a great point gained to Wilkes, to have gotten rid of the actual condemnation for blasphemy. He then proceeded on his defence, and brought Curry, a printer, to prove the manner in which the “Essay on Woman” had been stolen from Wilkes by the means of Carteret Webbe, who had sent Curry to Carrington the messenger to be paid for the theft. Curry showed and owned himself an infamous rogue; and having first sold Wilkes, was now in his pay. Men were shocked at the treachery used towards Wilkes, and thence he again gained ground. The two Earls were then brought before the House. Wilkes only asked Lord Sandwich (the projector of the plot) if he knew of Curry being bribed by the Ministry, and being promised a place? The Earl answered, that he had promised him all proper protection, but had nothing to do with the disposition of public money. Lord March said, Kidgell had shown him the fragment of the Essay on Woman, and he had advised him to complain of it; but had never seen Carteret Webbe till within the last four days. Webbe, now blind, sat there at the bar, and was grievously abused by Davenport, Wilkes’s counsel. At two in the morning the House adjourned the farther consideration till the next day.[186]
Amongst these notorious personages, notice must be taken of Sir Fletcher Norton. He had been purchased for this business (for even his attachment to Lord Mansfield and the Court were not sufficient to secure his zeal, though the cause was so bad) by the place of Chief Justice in eyre and a pension of 3000l. a-year. It was stipulated that Norton should quit the law, and be chief manager in the House of Commons: but no sooner was the bargain struck and the pension secured, than Norton, not caring to give up 7000l. a-year, which he got by his profession, pleaded that he could not in honour abandon his clients. His next point of honour was trying to prove by construction that Wilkes had been condemned of more than he had been condemned. Another acquisition to the Court was Sir Laurence Dundas, the rich commissary, a friend of Grenville, and now seduced from him by Rigby, another late friend of Grenville. Dundas commanded the votes of nine members. He demanded a peerage for himself, having acquired above eight hundred thousand pounds in less than four years of the late war—so far fairly that he had executed the commission on cheaper terms than anyone else had offered. He was, besides, nobly generous; yet it would have been gross indeed to have raised him to the peerage on no other foundation than the money he had gained from the public. It was known too, that Prince Ferdinand had been on the point of hanging him on part of his contract not being furnished so soon as he had engaged it should be.[187]
Carteret Webbe’s counsel was then heard in his defence, and to move compassion, pleaded before his face that he was decayed both in eyesight and understanding. Wilkes’s counsel replied. Dr. Blackstone[188] then moved a long, obscure question, setting forth that Wilkes’s complaint against Lord Mansfield was frivolous and trifling; and as the Courts below had pronounced that alteration of writs was not unusual, the charge was scandalous, as tending to calumniate the Chief Justice, and lessen the respect of the people for the law and the judges. He was seconded by a young Mr. Payne,[189] who spoke for the first time with much applause, though his language was wonderfully verbose. He was connected with Lord Mansfield, and as his speech was interlarded with law anecdotes, the person in whose behalf it was uttered was supposed to have assisted in the composition. Payne was a good figure and possessed himself well, having been accustomed to act plays in a private set; but his usual dialect being as turgid as Othello’s when he recounts his conquest of Desdemona, he became the jest of his companions and the surfeit of the House of Commons. Serjeant Glynn showed the injustice of the motion, for as it was clear and allowed that the writ had been altered, had not the prisoner a right to plead that alteration in his own defence? Norton and the Crown lawyers were warm on the other side; on which Barré called them the heavy artillery of the Court; or rather, said he, they resemble the elephants in Eastern armies, which fall back upon and put their own troops in confusion. The Ministers maintained their point till very late at night, though the House gave many signs of disgust at the violence of their proceedings. At last George Grenville, with attention to Lord Mansfield, and yet disapproving the question, wished some middle and temperate method could be hit upon. The House loudly agreed with him, but Lord North and Norton stuck firm, and the latter declared he would divide the House, though he should be alone. The Ministerial party then cried out as loudly on that side; till Conway rose, and taking notice that a minute before everybody had roared for moderation, and now were again for violence, proposed that, instead of harsh words, they should correct the motion, and say, that the alteration of writs not being unprecedented, the charge against Lord Mansfield should be declared groundless. Grenville approved this, and even Norton, and that amendment was accepted without a division. Thurlow then, at past one in the morning, moved that Wilkes had not made out his charge against Webbe, (though a letter had been produced from him to Curry and three other printers, bidding them take care to be uniform in their evidence, and though Curry had been subsisted at the expense of the Government,) and that the charge was frivolous and groundless. If these last words, he said, were disputed, the debate must be adjourned to another day. The Opposition, weakly or fatigued, objected only to the latter words, and offered to acquiesce in the former part of the vote, if the censure was promised to be omitted; with which Thurlow complied, and then carried the rest of his motion.[190]
On the 2nd, Wilkes was again heard; owned his preface to Lord Weymouth’s letter, said he gloried in it, and only wished he had made it stronger. The Attorney-General moved to vote that preface a scandalous and seditious libel, tending to subvert all order and government. Sir George Saville moved the previous question. Grenville, and even Dr. Blackstone, opposed the Attorney’s motion, as Wilkes ought to be tried for a libel at common law, and not by the Houses of Lords and Commons. Dyson reminded Grenville that he himself had brought a message from the King against Wilkes’s North Briton; was it a greater violation of the privileges of the House of Commons to receive a message from the House of Lords than from the Crown? Grey Cooper[191] spoke well against mobs; Burke warmly against the Lords extorting evidence, and usurping powers. He called Lord Weymouth’s letter a bloody scroll, and dwelt much on the word effectual in the orders to the soldiers. Rigby asked if it would have been wise to order the soldiers to do their duty ineffectually? At past two in the morning the House divided; the courtiers were 239, the minority 135, Grenville and his friends, who were not above ten, being in the latter number. The House then agreed with the Lords and passed the censure.[192]
Soon after the division happened a singular event. Some hours before, Humphrey Cotes[193] sent for Sir William Meredith out of the House, and told him Mr. Allen wanted to speak with him. Sir William said he did not know him, and went back. This Allen, who had been in the army, had been deservedly abused in the House by Sir William for persecuting the condemned chairmen, one of whom had saved his life. Sir William afterwards going to the House, had been met by Allen, who demanded satisfaction. Sir William said he did not know him; if he had injured him he would give him satisfaction next morning, but would not occasion a disturbance then. Captain Walsingham Boyle (who had been concerned with Sir William in saving the chairmen) hearing of this altercation, complained to the House of the violation of their privileges by Allen’s taking notice of what had passed in the House. This occasioned a heat and debate, which lasted till half an hour after four in the morning, when Allen was ordered into custody, and to be brought to the bar the next day with Humphrey Cotes.
Allen absconded for some hours, but surrendered himself in the morning. He was a handsome young fellow, and had stolen a marriage with an idiot sister of the Spanish Charles Townshend; but he had such a savage thirst of blood, that he had been broken by a court-martial at Belleisle, for having forged and sent challenges to six officers in the names of others. Cotes was not called upon by the House, but Allen was carried to their bar, where he denied the charge,—both he and Cotes having been so cautious as not to tell Meredith that the occasion of the challenge was words spoken in the House: yet Sir William and Captain Walsingham had heard, for three days, that Allen was lurking about, and intended to challenge one of them. The House being satisfied of the charge, and with the behaviour of the two members, committed Allen to Newgate.
The same evening, Lord Barrington moved for the expulsion of Wilkes, for the three libels—of the North Briton, the Essay on Woman, and the Preface to Lord Weymouth’s Letter. The House sat again till three in the morning, when the expulsion was voted by 219 to 137. Grenville spoke against it as an accumulative charge, not one of the crimes alone being sufficient to deserve that punishment. Burke spoke admirably on the same side. Lord Granby and Sir Edward Hawke, who had declared so strongly against it, both voted for the expulsion. Conway kept away. Serjeant Glynn gained great fame by the candour of his conduct on the whole proceeding; owning, that as counsel for Wilkes, he had maintained points which he would not assert in the House. Wilkes himself made a very indifferent figure, showing neither parts nor quickness in his speeches or examination of the witnesses.[194] The same day, Earl Cornwallis[195] kissed hands as Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, to make room for Norton to be Justice in Eyre. This worthless man, though disposed to the Court, as I have said, and originally employed in the prosecution of Wilkes, would not support his own principles—at least, his own inclinations—without this immoderate bribe. The Crown, though possessed of so much power by the disposition of honours, offices, and pensions, was sunk to the lowest contempt, and reduced to purchase every man whose vote or service it wanted, and thus was surrounded by none almost but those who had insulted and forced it to buy them. If, on the contrary, the King had tried by good and popular measures to secure the affections of the people, he might have maintained the balance against the parliamentary chiefs: but, having lost the hearts of the nation, his sole resource was the prostitution of honours and money to those who were most obnoxious to himself and the people.
Wilkes was no sooner expelled, than he again presented himself as candidate for the county of Middlesex, and in the North Briton, published a very bold address to the freeholders, in which, under the title of the Administration, he severely lashed the House of Commons. There was at this time an avowed, though very small republican party, the chiefs of which were Mrs. Macaulay, the historian, her brother Sawbridge, his brother-in-law, Stephenson, a rich merchant,[196] and Thomas Hollis, a gentleman of strict honour and good fortune, a virtuoso, and so bigoted to his principles, that, though a humane and good man, he would scarce converse with any man who did not entirely agree with his opinions. He had no parts, but spent large sums in publishing prints and editions of all the heroes and works on his own side of the question: but he was formed to adorn a pure republic, not to shine in a depraved monarchy.[197]
On the 10th, Mr. Seymour[198] moved a question, that condemnation for accumulated libels should not be made a precedent. Lord North proposed to alter the word accumulated into many, which being adopted, and the favourers of the motion then abandoning it, it was thrown out.[199]
The same day the liverymen of London met, and drew up instructions to their members against the proceedings of the House of Commons. Alderman Beckford attended that meeting, and told them, he should think it his duty to obey his constituents, even in points against his opinion; and whereas they enjoined an attempt for triennial Parliaments, he wished they were to be annual. He declared too that he never would accept place or pension.
At the India House the Ministers were now successful, and prevailed by 290 voices against 250, to obtain the Company’s agreement to pay to the public 410,000l. annually, for five years, out of their newly-acquired territories.
Allen might have had his liberty, but refusing to ask pardon of Sir William Meredith, as the House enjoined, was continued in Newgate.
Mr. Grenville, though dipped with them in opposition, had never forgiven Lord Rockingham and his friends for succeeding him in power, and for repealing the Stamp Act, nor had ceased pelting them in pamphlets. Just before the Parliament met, he had written, or assisted in writing, a tract called the State of the Nation, in which they had been bitterly treated.[200] Hoping union with him, at least, willing to act with him in opposition, they had borne all former provocations. They now at last replied, in a large quarto called Observations on the State of the Nation. It was drawn up by Edmund Burke, and did more honour to his talents as a writer than as a politician. The book solidly confuted Grenville, exposed him, and exploded his pretensions to skill in finance; but then it made all approach to him impossible, notwithstanding Lord Temple’s endeavours to unite them. It almost as explicitly abjured Lord Bute,—a step the party two years after tried as injudiciously to recover, when it was too late. If the work did honour to the author and to his party’s principles, yet it showed that that party was composed of impracticable men; and, what was worse for their cause, it declared inviolable attachment to the Marquis of Rockingham, a weak, childish, and ignorant man, by no means fit for the head of Administration. Burke had far more shining abilities than solid conduct, and, being dazzled by his own wit and eloquence, expected that those talents would have the same effect on others. His ambition built airy castles, and would not attend to those parts of policy that make no immediate show. One quotation in his book was singularly happy, and in one line drew the portrait of Grenville,—Vixque tenet lachrymas quia nil lachrymabile cernit. It was, in truth, Grenville’s character to weep over woes that he wished to exterminate by rigour.[201]