imprison' the 'miscreants;' and were just then better able than the Commons to bear the odium of such

Scurrility of the

newspapers.

There was some ground for the proceedings against Wheble and Thompson. The journals of which those persons were the printers, had not only published the debates, but misrepresented them. It certainly was not desirable that the proceedings of Parliament should be reported in this form :-- Utopia: Some Account of the Proceedings upon the Nullum Tempus Bill. Jeremiah Weymouth, Esquire, the d-n of this country,' † and so forth. And, perhaps, the mover had some right to complain of being called a little scoundrel,' and 'little cocking Onslow.' Such scurrility as this is harmless, unless the person to whom it is applied is so indiscreet, or so wanting in self-respect, as to notice it. However, as it is undoubtedly a breach of privilege to defame a member of Parliament, as well as to report his speeches, whether correctly or otherwise, Onslow was in strictness entitled to have the printers of the Middlesex Journal' and of the 'Gazetteer' brought to the bar. But the case was different with regard to the other printers against whom he moved. No complaint was made of those men as having libelled any member in their newspapers. The only ground, therefore, upon which they could be condemned was, that they had infringed the order of the House by publishing the debates. But, as the House could have, or at least could avow, no other object than that of vindicating their privileges, their assent to a motion of such a compendious character, brought forward also with such indecent levity and haste, could be ascribed only to vindictiveness, or hostility to the freedom of the press. The proclamation, offering rewards for the Jeremiah Dyson sat for Weymouth.

* Letter to Lord North, February 21, 1771.

1771.

VIOLENCE OF THE DEBATES.

77

Obstinacy of the

apprehension of Wheble and Thompson, had issued only three days previously; and it was reasonable to expect, therefore, that they would be brought in; but even if they escaped, that was no ground for visiting their contumacy upon all the newspapers in London. The Opposition disputed every step of the proceedings against the printers. On the first day, they divided the House no less Opposition. than twenty-three times, and the debate lasted till four in the morning. The following day the battle was renewed with undiminished pertinacity. It was justly argued, that the best way to prevent misrepresentation was to permit the free publication of their proceedings; some members even went so far as to state the broad principle, that the constituency were entitled to be informed as to the proceedings of their representatives. It was shown, too, that scurrility and falsehood were not confined to one party. Barré, in his strong language, spoke of a villain, a dirty scoundrel,' who wrote in the service of the Government, under the signature of Panurge and Cinna. One member, to throw ridicule over the whole proceeding, divided the House upon an amendment, that the printer should attend, together with all his compositors, pressmen, correctors, blackers, and devils.' The excitement of the debates was heightened by frequent and bitter personalities. One of the Onslows, who seconded his cousin, the member for Guildford, boasted of the part which he had taken as peculiarly becoming the descendant of three speakers. So palpable a mark for ridicule was immediately hit. 'I have not the advantage,' said Burke, of a parliamentary genealogy. I was not born, like the honourable gentleman, with "Order" running through my veins. But as that gentleman boasts of his father,* his son will never boast of him.

6

6

* He was the son of the great Speaker Onslow.

78

PARLIAMENTARY SPEAKERS.

CH. XV.

The

The parliamentary line is cut off.' Burke then turned round upon Conway, who had spoken against the printers, though with his usual moderation; and, urged by former animosity, assailed him with the fiercest invective. Barré also, who excelled in strong sarcasm bordering on abuse, dealt his blows with more than usual vigour on this occasion. Speaker interposed several times to stem the torrent of invective, but in a style very different from that to which the Parliaments of Victoria have been accustomed. I am heartily tired,' said he, of this business, and should be glad to put an end to it.' Again he endeavours to stop the quarrel between Conway and Burke, by exclaiming, when it was at the height of its fury, For God's sake let us go on with the debate!'

6

The

It was not until five o'clock in the morning that the printers were called in. Four out of the six were in attendance, and were discharged, after receiving reprimands from the Speaker, on their knees. fifth was already in Newgate, by order of the House of Lords. One only stood out-Miller, the printer of the 'London Evening Post.' The Serjeant-at-Arms was ordered to take Miller into custody.

Contest between the Commons and the City.

The real struggle now commenced. It was said in the City, 'If the House of Commons have a Serjeant-at-Arms, we have a Serjeantat-Mace. If the House of Commons can send our citizens to Newgate, we can send their messenger to the Compter.' The City was, therefore, prepared for resistance. The very day after the House of Commons had reprimanded the four printers who had obeyed their summons, Wheble and Thompson were discharged from custody, by Wilkes and Oliver, as already described. Miller made no attempt to evade the officer of the House; he only refused to yield himself prisoner; and when the officer laid hand upon him, the officer was himself given in charge to

1771.

CONTEST WITH THE CITY AUTHORITIES.

79

a City constable, who was ready for the occasion. The messenger immediately sent to inform the Serjeant-at-Arms of what had taken place; and the Deputy-Serjeant accordingly attended at the examination at the Mansion House the same evening. The proceedings were very short. The Lord Mayor, who was supported by Aldermen Wilkes and Oliver, asked the messenger of the House whether he was a constable within the City of London, or whether his warrant was backed by any City magistrate? These questions being answered in the negative, the Lord Mayor decided that the arrest of Miller was illegal.

At this point the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms announced himself, and formally demanded that his messenger should be released, and that Miller should be rendered to his custody. The Serjeant was informed, that the arrest of a citizen in the City of London, and without the authority of one of its magistrates, was a violation of their charters; and that an arrest by a person who was not a constable, was a violation of the law of the land. Upon either of these grounds the Lord Mayor pronounced Miller entitled to his discharge. Miller's charge of assault against Whittam, the messenger, was then taken; and an order having been made for Whittam's committal to the Compter, the Serjeant, thinking he had gone far enough, tendered bail, and his man was set at liberty.

At this stage of the affair, Lord North called a meeting, at his house, of a few members Meeting at of the Commons friendly to the Govern- Lord North's. ment, for the purpose of considering what should be done. The minister himself inclined to moderate counsels; and such was the general temper of the meetings. Even the Onslows were willing to drop all further proceedings. But at a second meeting

*

* Walpole. From George Onslow himself.—History, vol. iv.

80

CONTEST WITH THE CITY AUTHORITIES. CH. XV.

the next day, Sir Gilbert Elliot, now known as the principal organ of the Court, strongly urged firmness and penal measures against the City magistrates. At the same time, the King wrote to Lord North that the authority of the House of Commons would be annihilated unless the Lord Mayor and Oliver* were committed. And he desired Lord North to send Jenkinson to Lord Mansfield, for the purpose of obtaining his advice as to the best means of making the commitment with effect.

On the following day, therefore, the Speaker acquainted the House with the treatment their messenger had received at the hands of the City magistrates; and the Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms having made his report of the proceedings in detail, it was moved that the Lord Mayor and Alderman Oliver, being members of the House, should attend, in their places, on a given day.

But as the House were about to engage in a conflict with no less an antagonist than the City of London, the business was no longer left in the hands of the Onslows. The question was therefore undertaken by Welbore Ellis, a privy councillor, and a member of the Government. The debate which ensued was remarkable for the absence of that heat and violence which had distinguished the former discussions relative to the printers. But the ground was now changed. The question no longer regarded the expediency of punishing newspapers for supplying a demand, as to the urgency of which all reasonable men were agreed. The House of Commons were to decide whether they should permit the privilege of commitment for contempt, which they had always exercised, to be directly challenged. This was a question paramount to party considerations; for it

His Majesty makes no mention of the third committing magistrate. He had had enough

of Wilkes.-NORTH MSS. King to Lord North, March 17, 1771.