Proceed against Wilkes, 1763. asserting its rights, but failing in its usurpations; it has gradually assumed its proper position in the State,controlling all other powers, but itself controlled and responsible. The worst period of its dependence and corruption, was also marked by the most flagrant abuses of its power. And the more it has been brought under the control of public opinion, the greater have been its moderation and forbearance. The reign of George III. witnessed many remarkable changes in the relations of Parliament to the people, which all contributed to increase its responsibility. Moral causes also extended the control of the people over their rulers, even more than amendments of the law, by which constitutional abuses were corrected. Events occurred early in this reign, which brought to a decisive issue, important questions affecting the privileges of Parliament, and the rights of the subject. The liberty of the subject had already been outraged ings of the Commons by the imprisonment of Wilkes, under a general warrant, for the publication of the celebrated No. 45 of the "North Briton ;"1 when Parliament thrust itself forward, as if to prove how privilege could still be abused, as well as prerogative. Being a member of the House of Commons, Wilkes had been released from his imprisonment, by the Court of Common Pleas, on a writ of habeas corpus, on the ground of his privilege.2 Wilkes denied his privilege. The only exceptions to the privilege of freedom from arrest, which had ever been recognised by Parliament, were "treason, felony, and breach of the peace,” “or refusing to give surety of the peace." The Court perly acknowledged the privilege, as defined by Parliament itself; and discharged Wilkes from his imprison 1 See Chap. X., on the Liberty of the Subject. pro 2 Wilson's Reports, ii. 150. St. Tr., xix. 539. He was afterwards served with a subpoena, on an information against him in the Court of King's Bench, to which, on the ground of privilege, he had not entered an appearance. On the meeting of Parliament, however, in November, 1763, he lost no time in stating that if his privilege should be affirmed, he was ready to waive it," and to put himself upon a jury of his countrymen." Parliament,-which had ordinarily been too prone to enlarge its privileges was now the first to abridge and surrender them. Eager to second the vengeance of the king, the Commons commenced by voting that the "North Briton," No. 45, was "a false, scandalous, and malicious libel," and ordering it to be burned by the hands of the common hangman. Then, in defiance of their own previous resolutions, they resolved "that privilege of Parliament does not extend to the case of writing and publishing seditious libels, nor ought to be allowed to obstruct the ordinary course of law, in the speedy and effectual prosecution of so heinous and dangerous offence." " 2 To the principle of the latter part of this resolution there can be little exception; but here it was applied ex post facto to a particular case, and used to justify a judicial decision, contrary to law and usage. Mr. Pitt, while he denounced the libel and the libeller, remonstrated against the abandonment of the privilege. These resolutions being communicated to the Lords, were agreed to; but not without a most able protest, signed by seventeen Peers, against the surrender of the privilege of Parliament "to serve a particular purpose, ex post facto, et pendente lite, in the Courts below." 1 Parl. Hist., xv. 1361. 2 Com. Journ., xxix. 689; Parl. Hist., xv. 1362-1378. 3 Parl. Hist., xv. 1371; Ann. "3 Reg., 1763, 135. Horace Walpole says it was drawn up by Chief Jus tice Pratt. Such a libel as that of Wilkes, a few years later, would have attracted little notice; but at that time it is not surprising that it provoked a legal prosecution. It was, however, a libel upon the king's ministers, rather than upon the king himself. Upon Parliament it contained nothing but an obscure innuendo 1, which alone brought the matter legitimately within the limits. of privilege. There were, doubtless, many precedents, to be avoided, rather than followed,—for pronouncing writings to be seditious; but sedition is properly an offence cognisable by law. So far as the libel affected the character of either House, it was within the scope of privilege; but its seditious character could only be determined by the courts, where a prosecution had already been commenced. To condemn the libel as seditious was, therefore, to anticipate the decision of the proper tribunal; and to order it to be burned by the hands of the common hangman, - --if no great punishment to the libeller, -- yet branded him as a criminal before his trial. The mob took part with Wilkes,— assailed the Sheriffs who were executing the orders of Parliament; and having rescued part of the obnoxious "North Briton" from the flames, bore it in triumph to Temple Bar, beyond the limits of the city jurisdiction. Here they made another bonfire, and burned a jack-boot and a petticoat, the favourite emblems of the late unpopular minister Lord Bute, and the Princess.2 This outrage was resented by both Houses; an address being voted for a prosecution of all persons concerned in it.3 The passage reflecting upon Parliament was as follows: "As to the entire approbation of Parliament [of the peace] which is so vainly boasted of, the world knows how that was obtained. The large debt on the Civil List, already above 2 Walpole's Mem., i. 330. sconds, and The severities of Parliament were still pursuing Wilkes abWilkes. He had been ordered by the Commons to is expelled. attend in his place, with a view to further proceedings; but having been wounded in a duel, — provoked and forced upon him by Mr. Martin, one of their own members1, his attendance was necessarily deferred. Meanwhile, expecting no mercy either from the Crown or from Parliament, tracked by spies, and beset with petty persecutions2,- he prudently withdrew to Paris. Being absent, in contempt of the orders of the House, the proceedings were no longer stayed; and evidence having been taken at the bar, of his being the author and publisher of the "North Briton," No. 45, he was expelled the House. In expelling a member, whom they had adjudged to have committed the offence of writing and publishing a seditious libel, the Commons acted within their powers; but the vote was precipitate and vindictive. He was about to be tried for his offence; and they might at least have waited for hist conviction, instead of prejudging his cause, and anticipating his legal punishment. Lords. But the Lords far outstripped the other House, in Proceedthis race of persecution. On the first day of the ings of the session, while the Commons were dealing with the "North Briton," Lord Sandwich complained to the Lords of an "Essay on Woman," with notes, to which the name of Bishop Warburton was affixed; and of another printed paper called "The Veni Creator paraphrased." Of the "Essay on Woman," thirteen copies only had been printed, in Wilkes' private printingpress there was no evidence of publication; and a proof-copy of the work had been obtained through the 1 See Corresp., Parl. Hist., xv. 1356, n. 2 Grenville Papers, ii. 155. treachery of one of his printers. If these writings were obscene and blasphemous, their author had exposed himself to the law: but the only pretence for noticing them in Parliament, was the absurd use of the name of a bishop,―a member of their Lordships' House. Hence it became a breach of privilege! This ingenious device was suggested by the Chancellor, Lord Henley; and Mr. Grenville obtained the bishop's consent to complain of the outrage, in his name.1 But it was beneath the dignity of the House to notice such writings, obtained in such a manner; and it was notorious that the politics of the author were the true ground of offence, and not his blasphemy, or his irreverence to the bishop. The proceeding was the more ridiculous, from the complaint of obscenity having been made by the most profligate of peers,-"Satan rebuking sin."2 Nevertheless the Lords were not ashamed to examine the printers, from whom the proof-sheets had been obtained, in order to prove that Wilkes was the author. They at once addressed the king to order a prosecution of Wilkes; but as he was, at this time, laid up with his wounds, proceedings against him for the breach of privilege were postponed. On the 24th January, when he had escaped from their jurisdiction, they ordered him into custody. They were at least spared the opprobrium of further oppression; but their proceedings had not escaped the indignation and ridicule which they deserved. Leaving Wilkes, for a time, as a popular martyr, — and passing over his further contests with the govern Grenville Papers, ii. 154. 2 "The Beggar's Opera' being performed at Covent-Garden Theatre soon after this event, the whole audience, when Macheath says, "That Jemmy Twitcher should peach me, I own surprises me,' burst out into an applause of application; and the nick-name of Jemmy Twitcher stuck by the earl so as almost to occasion the disuse of his title."— Walpole's Mem., i. 314. 3 Parl. Hist., xv. 1346. |