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 North[387] 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 [397] 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 law[400] 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’s[401] 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]