The

of the court, nor could it without the affiftance of a jury. As to the third head, the chief juftice admitted, that the privilege of parliament was violated in the person of Mr. Wilkes-for the privilege of parliament could be forfeited only by treason, felony, or breach of the peace; but Mr. Wilkes flood accufed only of writing a libel, which did not come within that defcription. At moft, it had but a tendency to difturb the peace, and this was not fufficient to deftroy the privilege of a member of parliament. court then discharged Mr. Wilkes, against whom nevertheJefs a profecution was immediately commenced by the attor ney general; and he was at the fame time, by an official notice from the fecretary of state to lord Temple, lord-lieutenant of the county of Bucks, difmiffed from his military command as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia, and lord Temple was himself in a fhort time difmiffed from his lieutenancy, to make room for lord le Defpencer, late Sir Francis Dafhwood.

Upon the meeting of Parliament, November 15, 1763, his majesty, in his fpeech from the throne, exhorted the two houses "to cultivate the arts of peace; to employ their utmost attention to the difcharge of the heavy debts contracted in the late war:-he recommended to them the care and fupport of the fleet; and towards the close of the fpeech he urged them to domestic union, and that they would difcourage that licentious spirit which is repugnant to the true principles of liberty, and of our happy constitution." Before the King's fpeech could be reported to the house, the minifter, Mr. Grenville, knowing the intention of Mr. Wilkes to prefer a formal complaint of the breach of pri vilege committed in his perfon, declared, that he had a mef fage to deliver from the king. The meffage being read, imported, “that his majesty having received information, that John Wilkes, Efq. a member of that houfe, was the author of a moft feditious and dangerous libel, he had caufed the faid John Wilkes, Efq. to be apprehended and se

cured,

cured, in order to take his trial in due courfe of law. And Mr. Wilkes having been discharged out of cuftody by the court of common Pleas, on account of his privilege as a member of that houfe, and having fince refufed to answer to an information filed against him by his majefty's attorney-general; his majefty, defirous to fhow all poffible attention to the privileges of the house of commons, and at the fame time folicitous not to fuffer the public justice of the kingdom to be eluded, had chofen to direct the faid libel, and alfo copies of the examinations upon which Mr. Wilkes was apprehended and fecured, to be laid before them:" and the minifter then delivered the papers in at the table. On this a violent debate arofe, and it was argued in extenuation of the offence of Mr. Wilkes, that no greater liberties had been taken by the author of this obnoxious paper than had been common on former occafions of the fame kind;- that the speech of the king had never been confidered in any other light than as that of the minifter, and had always been treated with equal freedom. But the house, moft unwifely making itfelf a principal in the quarrel, and entering with violence into this vexatious and perplexing bufinefs, voted by a great majority, "that THE NORTH BRITON, No. 45, is a falfe, fcandalous, and feditious libel, manifeftly tending to alienate the affections of the people from his majefty, and to excite them to traitorous infurrections ;" and ordered it to be burnt by the common hangman. Thus was this queftion, fo trivial and infignificant in its origin, fwelled to vaft and national importance. No legal conviction having as yet taken place, Mr. Wilkes now made his complaint to the house, of breach of privilege by the imprisonment of his perfon, the plunder of his houfe, the feizure of his papers, and the ferving him with a fubpoena upon an information in the court of king's bench. The complaint being confeffedly regular, it was refolved to take it into confideration on the 17th. In the interim, Mr. Wilkes in a duel fought with

Mr.

Mr. Martin, late secretary of the treasury and member for Camelford, from whom he had received a challenge, in refentment of the freedom taken with his character in a former number of The North Briton, being dangerously wounded, was unable to appear in his place on the day ap pointed, and the confideration of the question was adjourn ed.

On the 23d of November, however, the deliberations on his majesty's meffage being refumed, the house refolved, by a majority of 125, in direct contradiction of the late decifion of the court of common pleas, and the precedents upon record in their own journals, "that privilege of par liament does not extend to the cafe of a libel;" and an address was presented to his majefty, in which the peers concurred, fignifying their deteftation of thefe feditious practices, and their warm affection for his majesty's perfon and government. Mr. Pitt, who attended the house on this occafion, though obliged by illness to be fupported to his feat, declared himself with warmth against the refolution now paffed. No man, he faid, could condemn the paper or libel more than he did; but he would come at the author fairly, not by a facrifice of their conftitutional privileges, and by fubjecting every member who did not vote with the minister to the dread and danger of imprisonment. Under fuch circumftances, how can a parliament be free, or bold, or honeft? To talk of the abufe of privilege, was to attack the very being and life of parliament; it was an arraignment of the juftice and honor of parliament to fuppofe that they would protect any criminal whatever. The dignity of parliament called upon them doubtless to fupport and protect the purity of his majesty's character: this they had done by a strong and decifive condemnation of the libel in queftion; the reft belonged to the courts below.

In pursuance of the former vote, the fheriffs of London attempting to execute the order of the house of commons

for

for burning the 45th number of The North Briton at the royal exchange, a violent riot enfued; the paper was refcued from the hands of the executioner, the peace officers were attacked and the fheriffs themfelves put in danger of their lives. Upon this the two houfes refolved, that the rioters were perturbators of the public peace, dangerous to the liberties of this country, and obftructors of the national juftice. The thanks of the commons were voted to the sheriffs, and an addrefs prefented to his majesty, that he would give directions for the punishment of the rioters. Parliament now began fenfibly to feel the ill effects of its indifcretion, in thus committing themfelves by an eager interference with a business to which their jurifdiction did not extend, and of which the established courts of judicature alone could properly take cognizance.

Notwithstanding the votes, addreffes, and resolutions of the two houfes, which were regarded in Westminster Hall as mere waste paper, Mr. Wilkes brought his action against the earl of Halifax for feizing his papers; and on the 6th of December 1763, after an hearing of fifteen hours before lord chief justice Pratt, and a special jury, he obtained a verdict for 10ool. damages and full costs of fuit. In the charge given by the chief justice on this occafion to the jury, his lordship, varying in some degree from his former opinion, ventured to declare the GENERAL WARRANT under which Mr. Wilkes was apprehended illegal→→→→→→ with fubmiffion, however, to the opinions of the other judges, and of the highest judicial authority in this kingdom, the house of peers. "If," faid his lordship," thefe fuperior jurifdi&tions fhould declare my opinion erroneous, I fubmit, as will become me, and kifs the rod; but I must fay, I fhall always confider it as a rod of iron for the chattifenent of the people of Great Britain." During the Chriftmas vacation, Mr. Wilkes thought proper to cross the channel to France, and on the 16th of January 1764, the day fixed for his appearance, the speaker produced a

letter

letter from Mr. Wilkes, inclofing medical certificates of the ill state of his health, as an apology for his non-appearance. The house, notwithstanding, voted Mr. Wilkes guilty of a contempt of the authority of the house, and that they would proceed to hear evidence on the charge against him; and on the 29th of January 1764, after a long and vehement debate, they refolved, that John Wilkes, Efq. was guilty of writing and publishing the paper, entitled The North Briton, No. 45, and that for this offence he be expelled his feat in this house.

On the fame day, in the houfe of peers, a complaint or accufation of a nature moft improper for the cognizance of the house, and inconfiftent with the dignity and decorum of its proceedings, was brought forward by the earl of Sandwich, who alleged, "that Mr. Wilkes had violated the most facred ties of religion, as well as decency, by printing in his own house a book or pamphlet, entitled, 'An ESSAY on WOMAN,' with notes or remarks, to which the name of a right reverend prelate, Warburton bishop of Glocefter, had been fcurrilously affixed." This book was originally printed with the utmoft fecrecy, and finifter and fcandalous artifices were adopted to provery cure a copy of the work, in order thus to convert it to the prejudice of the author. That the privileges of the house were violated by the ufe made of the name of the learned prelate was incontrovertible; and on the flightest inspection the book appeared to be deteftably obscene and impious. The house therefore voted, without hesitation, an address to his majesty, to order a profecution to be instituted against the author Mr. Wilkes. But this only ferved to increase the refentment of the public, who now regarded Mr. Wilkes as a victim devoted to ruin by the vengeance of the government, and whom it was therefore incumbent upon them to countenance and protect. As if to demonftrate that the real object of government bore no analogy to the oftenfible pretext, the charge refpecting this infa

mous