Marriage of the Princess Augusta with the Hereditary Duke of
Brunswick.—His marked opposition to the wishes of the King.—Debates
on Wilkes’s complaint of Breach of Privilege.—Sir William
Meredith and Sir George Saville.—The “Essay on Woman.”—The
Marriage Bill.—Debate on Breach of Privilege.—Cases of Carteret
Webbe and Wood.
So early as in the late reign there had been thoughts
of a double alliance with the ducal house of Brunswick;
but when the jealousy of the Princess Dowager had
prevented the marriage of her son with a princess of
that line, there had remained no great propensity in
the Court of Brunswick to the other match between
the hereditary Prince and Lady Augusta.413 It had,
however, been treated of from time to time; and in
1762 had been agreed, but was abruptly broken off by
the influence of the King of Prussia. Lady Augusta
was lively, and much inclined to meddle in the private
politics of the Court. As none of her children but the
King had, or had reason to have, much affection for
their mother, she justly apprehended Lady Augusta’s
instilling their disgusts into the Queen. She could
not forbid her daughter’s frequent visits at Buckingham
House, but to prevent any ill consequence from them,
often accompanied her thither. This, however, was an
attendance and constraint the Princess of Wales could
not support. Her exceeding indolence, her more
excessive love of privacy, and the subjection of being
frequently with the Queen, whose higher rank was a
never-ceasing mortification, all concurred to make her
resolve at any rate to deliver herself from her daughter.
To attain this end, profusion of favours to the hated
House of Brunswick was not thought too much. The
hereditary Prince was prevailed on to accept Lady
Augusta’s hand, with fourscore thousand pounds, an
annuity of 5000l. a year on Ireland, and 3000l. a year
on Hanover. Fourscore thousand pounds were given
with the late Princess Royal414 to the Prince of Orange,
but she was a King’s daughter. The Princess Mary415
and Louisa had but forty thousand each.
Lady Augusta was not handsome, but tall enough,
and not ill-made; with the German whiteness of hair
and complexion, so remarkable in the Royal Family,
and with their precipitate, yet thick, Westphalian accent.
She had little grace or softness in her manner:
yet with more attractions she might have failed to
gain a heart that was not inclined to part with its liberty,
and least of all to one of her family. The Prince
arrived on the 12th of January; and, as if to prejudice
him against his bride, the plan was formed to disgust
him as much in order to send him away as soon as
possible. He was lodged at Somerset House: no
guards were stationed there. The Lord Steward chose
the company that should dine with him: and every
art was used to prevent his seeing Mr. Pitt, or the
chiefs of the Opposition. At the wedding, which
was on the 16th, the servants of the King and Queen
were ordered not to appear in new clothes. But
though these little artifices had the desired effect of
affronting the Prince, they only drew mortifications on
the Court. The people, enchanted with novelty and
a hero, were unbounded in their exultations wherever
he appeared; and, as the behaviour of the Court got
wind, took pleasure, when he attended the King to
the theatres, to mark their joy at the presence of the
Prince, and to show the coldest neglect of their Sovereign.
Nor was the Prince less assiduous to intimate
his dissatisfaction, even to ill-breeding, turning his
back to the King, as he stood over against him in the
box at the Opera; and even going away during half
the representation. To the Duke of Newcastle, and
others in disgrace, he was full of attentions; dined
twice with the Duke of Cumberland, and affectedly
lingered there, though the King and Queen waited for
him to a ball: and, as he found that step would be the
most offensive, though indeed due from him to one so
partial to his family, he made a visit to Mr. Pitt, at
Hayes.416 These little hostilities were carried on with
such vigour on both sides, that, notwithstanding all his
curiosity and desires expressed of a longer stay, the
King forced him and his bride to depart on the 25th—only
thirteen days after his arrival. They were overtaken
in a great storm at sea, and in extreme danger
of being lost; but escaped, not only with good fortune
to themselves, but to the Court of England, who would
have appeared as guilty to the people in driving them
out at such a season, as if they had raised the tempest
by sorcery.417
The Parliament having reassembled on Jan. 16th,
the House of Commons on the 19th proceeded on the
affair of Wilkes. He had given out that he would
return from Paris, and make his defence: and to carry
on the delusion, a dinner was bespoken, and company
invited to meet him; but on the day destined for
deciding his fate, a letter from him was delivered to
the Speaker, accompanied by a certificate from two
French surgeons, attesting his incapacity of travelling
from the ill state of his wound. The Court party
objected even to the reading of the certificates, but
though they could not prevent it, so eager was the
curiosity of the House, they did frustrate a motion for
adjournment by 239 to 102; on which many of the
minority finding their weakness left the House. Others
battled for the criminal till near four in the morning,
but their numbers still dwindling away, Wilkes was
at last expelled with scarce a negative, the warmest
sticklers for him having been discountenanced and
discouraged by the harsh epithets bestowed on him
by Pitt in one of the former debates.
The next day Sir William Meredith and Sir George
Saville moved to have Wilkes’s complaint of breach
of privilege examined. George Grenville tried to
evade it, but was strongly attacked by Charles Townshend,
and reproached with the dismission of General
A’Court, and with the arbitrary influence exerted by
the Administration. Sir John Griffin418 the day before
had mentioned too the case of A’Court, and said he
himself would not be intimidated by the disgrace of
ten more generals. The Court at last yielded the
point; and the 26th was fixed for hearing the complaint.
Sir William Meredith419 and Sir George Saville were
both men of character, and both singular in different
ways. The first was a convert from Jacobitism; inflexibly
serious, and of no clear head: yet practice
formed him to a manner of speaking that had weight,
and was worth attending to by those who had patience
for it. He was, I believe, an honest man, though not
without personal views, which a little sharpened his
scorn of those who had unlike views, and were not
equally honest.
Sir George Saville had a head as acutely argumentative
as if it had been made by a German logician
for a model. Could ministers have been found acting
by the advice of casuists and confessors, Sir George
would still have started distinctions to hamper their
consciences; but though they walked not in such ruled
paths, his want of ambition carried him so seldom to
the House, that they were not often troubled with his
subtleties. He had a large fortune, and a larger mind;
and though his reason was sharp, his soul was candid,
having none of the acrimony or vengeance of party:
thence was he of greater credit than service to that in
which he listed.420
On the 23rd these two Baronets moved to put off
the affair of Wilkes’s complaint of breach of privilege
to the 13th of February, as the material evidence,
Wilkes’s servant, was in France with him. Sir
George particularly attacked Grenville with much
spirit. Grenville, as usual, spoke too long, though not
ill, insinuating that this delay was calculated to keep
up the flame. “He had always,” he said, “been averse
to having this matter discussed, which had better never
be decided; and that he had only given way in order
to vindicate Lord Halifax and Lord Egremont.” It
was perhaps true, that in some cases it were better that
certain powers should not be defined. It might be of
use that traitors should think Ministers have power of
committing by General Warrants even members of
Parliament; and at the same time Ministers ought not
to have that power absolutely bestowed on them. But
when once the case has happened, and that dormant
or supposed power has been abused, it must be inquired
into and regulated; or acquiescence constitutes
the second evil hinted at above. But in any case
Grenville’s argument was faulty, for if it was desirable
for the public that the case should not be defined, the
private vindication of two men ought not to supersede
that utility. However, though the minority on putting
the question were not loud for it, the ministry gave
it up. Sir George Saville took occasion to make it
observed, that so bad was his opinion of Wilkes, he
had taken no part till, the man being expelled, nothing
but the cause of the House in point of privilege
seemed to remain. This did honour to Sir George,
but prejudiced Wilkes and the cause of liberty. The
former’s character, as I have said, was very fair: and
indeed most of the Opposition were unexceptionable
in that light. Yet Wilkes had, early in his warfare
on the Court, told Rigby that he liked the ministers
better than their opponents (no great compliment to
the first), and desired him to apply to Fox to make
him (Wilkes) governor of Canada—a proposal Fox
rejected. It was not to be wondered at that Wilkes,
so libertine and jovial, should not be captivated with
the company of a set of young men who were as free
from the spirit and vivacity as from the vices of their
age. The chiefs were of eminent rank, and besides
losing the power they thought affected to their birth,
had been wantonly insulted by the Court. But wanting
parts to preserve their power, they equally wanted
them to recover it. Yet was the Court itself alarmed
at a club into which the Opposition formed themselves,
holding their weekly meetings at a tavern erected on
the occasion by one Wildman, in Albemarle Street421—a
circumstance I mention rather as an antiquary than
historian; several pamphlets being published at this
time addressed to, or written in the name of, that
society.
On the 24th, Dowdeswell proposed a Committee of
the whole House, to consider the Cider Bill. Grenville
opposed that motion, agreeing only to have a Committee
to examine the grievances occasioned by it,
and to suggest corrections, but not with power to repeal
the bill. These restrictions were carried by 167
to 125.422
The same day the House of Lords sat on the Essay
on Woman. Lord Sandwich moved to vote Wilkes
the author of it, and to order him to be taken into
custody. The Duke of Devonshire, and even the
Duke of Richmond, though a courtier, spoke against
this summary proceeding; and warm words passed
between Lord Temple and Lord Marchmont, the
latter of whom said, that though Wilkes was gone,
he had left his gang behind him. At last both questions
were formed into this one,—that it appearing to
the House that Wilkes was the author, he should be
taken into custody: but as he had withdrawn himself,
a Committee was appointed to search for precedents
how to proceed.
On the 25th, Sir John Glynn in a very thin House
moved to re-consider the Marriage Act; and a Committee
was appointed. Sir John Philipps, too, proposed
to re-appoint the Committee of the last year for
inspecting the public accounts, and it was carried by
90 to 30 odd. Lord Holland and the Duke of Newcastle
had concurred to bring that inquiry to nothing,
contriving to have the time wasted on the accounts of
the ordnance.
On the 31st Dowdeswell moved a question against
excise, though without naming it, in the Committee
on the Cider Bill, but it was thrown out by 172 to
152, seven of the minority being shut out when the
question was putting: so near was the Court run by
the minority, though without leaders, and frequently
obstructed and distressed by the fluctuation of the
family of Yorke, and the duplicity of Charles Townshend,
who oftener spoke against than for them, and
that generally when he had given the most solemn
assurances of his support.
On Feb. 3rd, late in the day, Sir William Meredith
moved for the evidence on which the Secretaries
of State had granted the warrant against Wilkes.
The Ministry complained of the lateness of the hour,
and Rigby moved to adjourn. Charles Townshend
attacked Grenville on it, and was even seconded by
his brother, the General; but the adjournment was
carried by 73 to 60.
On the 6th there was a good debate423 on Wilkes’s
complaint of breach of privilege, when Sir W. Meredith
and Sir George Saville defended themselves
against the imputation of want of candour, in having
made their motion late in a thin House; the former
proving that many violent questions had been proposed
seven hours later than theirs had been. He
moved for the warrant on which Wilkes had been
apprehended, and for the information on which it
had been grounded. To avoid the demand, Sir John
Philipps moved the previous question, declaring that
he meant to discharge the complaint. Lord Strange
was at first for having the warrant produced; but
soon retracted, and said the complaint ought to be
discharged, as the suit was depending at common law—an
argument that had been pressed on the Ministers
when Wilkes’s expulsion was agitated, and which they
then had refused to admit.
I have more than once, in the former part of these
Memoirs, touched on the character of Lord Strange,
as a man acting on notions of his own, unwedded
to any faction, and above temptations of money.
He had, however, been gained by Fox to the Court,
in the present reign, by the offer of the post of Chancellor
of the Duchy of Lancaster, the county where
his estate and interest lay. The large number of
places in the disposal of that officer, could gratify his
passion for sway in his own province; so true was the
maxim of Sir Robert Walpole, that every man has his
price; and so judiciously was this office held out to
Lord Strange; for though he accepted the post on
the views I have mentioned, he nobly refused to take
the annexed salary of 1200l. a year. He seldom afterwards
differed with the successive administrations, but
rarely attended Parliament.
Sir William Meredith consented to waive his demand
of the information, though Beckford protested
that he himself had never, as a justice of peace, granted
a warrant without information on oath. Norton
pleaded, that to grant it would instruct the accuser,
Wilkes, in the defence of the accused Secretaries and
Under-Secretaries of State; but T. Townshend urged
that it had already appeared in the Court of Common
Pleas, and in the ordinary newspapers. George Grenville424
said that producing the warrant would engage
the House to pronounce on the legality or illegality
of it. Would the House declare that any papers
might be seized? Would it declare that none might?
Sir Anthony Abdy,425 a lawyer attached to the Duke
of Devonshire, said, a sight of the warrant was demanded
as much for the excuse of such members of
the House as had been concerned in it, as for blame;
and General Conway added, that if the information
was the defence of Wood and the others, how would
it hurt them? But, said he, this matter is treated as
too high for our inspection. I thought I lived in a
free country. We have already chosen to give up
our own privilege, and now are afraid to inquire on
what grounds it is taken from us.426 Nugent, Morton,
Elliot, Wilbraham, Dr. Hay, Wood himself, Lord
Frederick Campbell, Forester, Oswald,427 Ellis, Lord
North, and Sir John Glynn, debated the question for
the Court, besides those I have mentioned; on the
other side, Hewet,428 King’s Sergeant, Mawbey, Lord
George Sackville, Dowdeswell, Fitzherbert, Dempster,
Charles Townshend, and Onslow; but the previous
question was carried by 217 to 122.
The next day the Cider Bill was compromised, and
two shillings imposed instead of five.
On the 9th, the day appointed for considering the
Marriage Bill, Charles Yorke opposed going into Committee,
and said Sir John Glynn should have stated
objections, and proposed amendments; wished to have
a bill brought in for that purpose. He talked of the
wisdom and temper with which it had been carried
through before: the truth of which may be seen in
my former account of that bill. Rigby was for going
into the Committee, his patron the Duke of Bedford
having been, and continuing to be, its warm adversary.
Lord Strange ridiculed ecclesiastical law, and frankly
spoke of marriage as only legal cohabitation. George
Grenville stayed away, and Lord Holland’s friends were
for repealing the bill. The Opposition, to court the
Yorkes, were against altering it; but it was carried
by 157 to 79, for a Committee to re-examine it. It
was then proposed to go into the Committee on that
day sevennight: Charles Yorke and General Townshend
for the Monday sevennight after. Charles
Townshend, who had shone so brightly against the
original bill, kept away; but it was carried for the
Wednesday, by 70 to 39.
On the 13th, the House of Commons entered seriously
on the great question of breach of privilege
on Wilkes’s complaint, and the first day sat till midnight,
four hundred and fifty members being present.
Sir William Meredith opened the debate with calling
for the three messengers who had executed the warrant,
and for Matthew Brown, Wilkes’s servant, who
gave an account of what had passed when his master
was seized. I shall not recapitulate these examinations,
which may be found in the journals of the
House; nor what was said by other witnesses. Their
depositions lasted till nine at night. Philip Carteret
Webbe then made his defence; and it was so scurvy,
that he was reduced to plead inadvertence, and his
being a servant of the Secretary of State. He even
had the front to affirm, that there had been no intention
of making Wilkes close prisoner. He then offered
to produce his evidence, but, it being late, G. Grenville
asked if they would proceed or not? Mr. Pitt said
he thought they ought not to stop till they knew
whether they still had a Constitution or not? Lord
Frederick Campbell, supported by Rose Fuller and
General Townshend, moved to adjourn. Thomas
Townshend the younger urged that the House had
voted the expulsion of a member at four o’clock in
the morning—would not they proceed to hear his
complaint at eleven at night? Mr. Pitt said it was
derogatory from the honour of the House to adjourn.
His own first wish had been to crush foreign enemies;
now it was to crush domestic. When that was done
he should die willingly. The question was then put,
but the Ministers not caring to hazard their majority,
when the House seemed inclined to proceed, few of
their party went out in the division; and thence it was
carried by 379 to 31, to go on.
The record of the writ of Habeas Corpus, and the
returns to it, were then read; but so many of the
members had retired after the division, to eating-houses
and coffee-houses to refresh themselves, that
the Ministers objected that evidence was not fairly
heard on their side; and Sir James Lowther moving
to adjourn, it was carried without a division a quarter
before twelve.
The next day was spent in hearing precedents of
general warrants, in which there appeared but too much
countenance for the practice, yet founded on no law.
The greater part had been issued against Jacobites, on
the accession of the present Royal Family, when their
establishment was new, and precarious. The Lord Viscount
Townshend,429 a zealous, bold, and authoritative
Minister, had made free with the practice. It had
been used even in cases of libels, but always in those
of Jacobite tendency. Many in times of rebellion had
been issued by the Duke of Newcastle, and three by
Mr. Pitt himself, but against persons suspected of
treasonable practices. These documents had Carteret
Webbe now collected: he printed them, too, in his
justification. But the case of Wilkes was not only
dissimilar, but was important enough to call for redress
of a power so obnoxious and liable to abuse. At one
in the morning Sir William Meredith commenced the
debate, and to what I have said added the history of
those warrants. Fifty persons, he owned, had been
taken up on such warrants; and then Wilkes on a
like indefinite warrant. His very pocket-book had
been seized to find evidence against him. The gentlemen
who apprehended him were mere ministerial
officers. The first warrant quoted was of 1662, for
then was passed the first act for licensing the press:
and as that act was temporary, and has not been
revived, it is a proof that there is no law since to
authorize such restraint. The warrants themselves
have been found by the Court of Common Pleas
to be illegal. He then read the two resolutions he
proposed to move; the first, that a general warrant
for seizing authors and papers is not law. The second,
that seizing Members of Parliament by general warrant
is contrary to privilege. Breach of privilege, he added,
might be committed in the manner, even where there
is no privilege. These warrants had never been used
but in times of danger, and then were followed by
Acts of Indemnity, and thence never came to be questioned.
They were suspended from 1675 to 1690,
and then were resumed to protect the Revolution.
Again in 1715 and 1745, the years of the Scottish
rebellions. They were now used for such a trifle as
a libel, that was in every man’s hand. The licentiousness
of the people had been checked: it was time now
to quiet their minds by checking the licentiousness of
power.
Lord Frederick Campbell, with much warmth, called
on the House to vindicate Wood and Webbe, their
accused members. Wood said he had done his duty,
and hoped to be restored to the precise situation in
which he had stood before the accusation. Sir W. Meredith
said, Lord Chief Justice Keeling being accused,
pleaded he had acted by precedent. The practice was
censured before the person, as it is necessary to ascertain
the crime ere the criminal can be condemned.
Charles Yorke said he hoped to hear Keeling’s case
read another day; and then moved to adjourn. Norton
said he was willing to have the general case adjourned,
but not the particular one of the accused. The debate
took that turn of postponing the case of the warrants,
but the Ministers insisted on disculpating the accused,
Grenville particularly declaring for discharging the
complaint of breach of privilege. Pitt replied, that
if the second question should pass, it would be impossible
entirely to acquit the accused. They could not
be acquitted or condemned till the general question
should be affirmed or condemned. If the warrant
should be declared illegal, he would extenuate their
behaviour as having acted by precedent. To this
Wood, with much heat and arrogance replied, that he
would not accept of being excused.
Wood,430 originally a travelling tutor and excellent
classic scholar, is well known from those beautiful and
simple Essays prefixed to the editions of the Ruins of
Balbec and Palmyra;431 whither he had travelled with
two432 young gentlemen of fortune and curiosity. His
taste and ingenuity had recommended him to Mr. Pitt
for his private secretary when Minister; but the observance
required by Pitt, and the pride, though dormant,
of Wood, had been far from cementing their
connection. Wood had then attached himself to the
Duke of Bridgwater, and through him to the Bedford
faction; but remaining in office when Mr. Pitt quitted,
had, with too much readiness, complied with the
orders of his new masters. His general behaviour was
decent, as became his dependent situation; but his
nature was hot, and veering to despotic.
Lord George Sackville told him that intentionally
he had done right, but was not ready to say that he
had done legally right. Lord Strange said he would
not consent to postpone the acquittal of the accused.
General Townshend desired to have the debate adjourned
to Friday 17th, being obliged to give attendance
on his father, who was dying. His brother
Charles, more decently than the rest, said the questions
were the same, and required the same discussion: he
would not consent to divide them. In truth, there
could be no thought of separating them but in compliment
to Wood, for few could have any partiality
for Webbe. Sir William Meredith and Sir George
Saville, both candid men, had wished to avoid naming
persons,—a respect detrimental in great national questions;
for not only the multitude will more easily be
led by names than by speculation and theory, but what
Ministers will fear to offend, if censure only touches
their practice, not their persons? It is to the honour
of the persons who composed that Opposition that their
delicacy frequently, nay, constantly, hurt their cause.
Yet should that delicacy not be imitated. When the
freedom of a nation is at stake, what chance has
liberty, if opponents have scruples for Ministers who
have none?
Charles Yorke and Dowdeswell then moved to adjourn
till Friday; and General Conway observed justly,
that if the accused were acquitted first, the general
question would not be left entire; for could the House
vote that general warrants were illegal, after it should
have voted that they who executed those warrants
were blameless? Yet Wood continued loudly to demand
his justification. Mr. Pitt was for adjourning
the whole debate; and said, if this was not agreed to,
he would debate the whole. Sir George Saville said,
Wood was guilty of impatience, though an honest
one; and complained that he and Sir William Meredith
were not suffered to prove their whole charge.
At half an hour after four in the morning the House
divided, the Opposition being for adjourning the whole
matter; and to the great dismay of the courtiers, the
Ministerial party were but 207, and the opponents
197—a triumph in parliamentary cases little preferable
to a defeat; so strong had been the alarm on seizing
the papers, and so evident was it that the Ministerial
majority had been the work of venality against conviction.
Dr. Hay then moved to discharge the complaint;
but Pitt, roused by this swell of his party, and feeling
the weight of so large a minority, poured forth one of
his finest rhapsodies on liberty, though at that late
hour, and after the fatigue of so long an attendance
and attention: and he severely reprimanded Wood’s
insolence, telling him that, if he would not accept
excuse, he deserved censure. Grenville asked why
these persons were blamed, and not all their predecessors?433
Pitt, still rising in fire and importance, took
the whole debate on himself, asking what he had done,
but in a war which he was called upon to invigorate?
He had never turned out officers; he had sought for
merit in those who now held precarious commissions,
not by military service. They had not only saved
their country, but him who had been undone if they
had not saved their country.
Grenville, not losing courage on this turn of fortune,
replied ably and finely. He knew, he said,
the nation was left on the brink of ruin.434 The Ministers
had had enough to do without hunting in alleys
for libels. He then painted faction, first setting England
against Scotland; then reviving party names, and
drawing the line between the Parliament and people.
Look! said he, look at Wilkes’s letters, where he
talks of rare combustibles!
Colonel435 Barré, rising to speak, and being pointed
to by the Speaker under that military appellation,
thanked him, but said he had no right to that title;
yet it gave him occasion to ask why he had been
dismissed? what had his Majesty done on his accession?
He looked out if any man had been whispered
out of the service, and did him ample justice. (This
alluded to Sir Henry Erskine, dismissed in the late
reign, and restored to his rank by the present King;
a speaking instance against the change of measures
since adopted.) Himself, he said, was of no consequence,
but let Ministers take care how they deprived
the Crown of other faithful servants at the end of
a glorious war. Non de vectigalibus agitur, sed de
animâ nostra res agitur. Precedents did not justify:
Charles the First had acted on precedents.
Onslow congratulated Grenville ironically on having
never given one vote for the last ruinous war, which
he now so much condemned. And they, said he, who
are for acquitting these gentlemen, ought to remember
who insisted on having their two names inserted,
when Sir George Saville and Sir W. Meredith would
have omitted them. In fact, the Ministers had got
the names inserted with the view of having them
cleared by a vote of the House.
Mawbey then moved to adjourn, which was overruled
by 208 to 184, and then the complaint being
discharged, the House rose at half an hour after seven
in the morning, the longest sitting on record, exceeding
that on the Westminster Election, in 1742, and
the last sitting on the Militia Bill, in 17—; but this
latter was less a debate than the perseverance of a
very few persons who sat till six in the morning to
perfect that bill.
The Court was strangely alarmed at this sudden rise
of the Opposition, and set them roundly to oppose
its progress, well knowing that when once the scale
turns, it is difficult to secure even the venal, who hurry
over to the side to which fortune seems inclining.
Nor was much time given them to rally their forces,
the great question coming on within four days.