contradiction of the late decifion of the Court of Common Pleas, and the precedents upon record in their own Journals, " that privilege of Parliament does not extend to the cafe of libel ;" and an Address was presented to his Majesty, in which the Peers concurred, fignifying their deteftation of these feditious practices, and their warm affection for his Majefty's perfon and government. Mr. Pitt, who attended the Houfe on this occafion, though obliged by illness to be supported 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 imprifonment. 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 suppose that they would protect any criminal whatever. The dignity of Parliament called upon them doubtless to support and protect the purity of his Majefty'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

In pursuance of the former vote, the Sheriffs of London attempting to execute the order of the Houfe of Commons for burning the 45th number of The North Briton at the Royal Exchange, a violent riot enfued; the paper was rescued from the hands of the executioner, the peace officers were attacked, and the Sheriffs themselves put in danger of their lives. Upon this the two Houses 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 Majefty, 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 themselves 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, Addroffes, and Refolutions of the two Houfes, which were regarded in Westminster Hall as mere wafte 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 bours before Lord Chief Juftice Pratt, and a Special Jury, he obtained a verdict for 1000l. damages

and

and full costs of fuit. In the charge given by the Chief Juftice on this occafion to the Jury, his Lordship, varying in fome 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.

66

If," faid his Lordship, " these superior jurisdictions should declare my opinion erroneous, I fubmit, as will become me, and kifs the rod; but I muft fay, I fhall always confider it as a rod of iron for the chastisement of the people of Great Britain." During the Christmas vacation, Mr. Wilkes thought proper to crofs the channel to France; and on the 16th of January 1764, the day fixed for his appearance, the Speaker produced a 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 resolved, 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 from his feat in this House.

On

On the fame day, in the House of Peers, a complaint or accufation of a nature most 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 moft facred ties of religion, as well as decency, by printing in his own houfe 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 scurriloufly affixed." This book was originally printed with the utmost secrecy, and very finifter and scandalous artifices were adopted to procure 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 flighteft * inspection the book appeared to be deteftably obscene and impious. The House therefore voted, without hesitation, an Address to his Majefty, to order a profecution to be inftituted 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 oftenVOL. I. H fible.

fible pretext, the charge refpecting this infamous publication, juft as it was admitted to be in itself, was made by a Nobleman, fo far from being able to boast of the immaculate purity of his own morals, that the Prelate perfonally concerned in this bufinefs has been described as co-adjutor to a LayLord," homini poft homines natos turpiffimo, fceleratiffimo, contaminatiffimo."

On the 14th of February, 1764, a motion was made in the Houfe of Commons by Sir William Meredith, a diftinguished Member of the Oppofition," that a GENERAL WARRANT for apprehending and feizing the Authors, Printers, and Publifhers of a feditious libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law." The Minifters found themselves extremely embarraffed by the plaufibility and popularity of this motion. They however forcibly urged, that it was not confiftent with the dignity of the House to pass a Refolution respecting a point of law, which, though it should pafs, would not therefore be law. And if the Courts of Law fhould in the caufes actually depending be influenced by this refolution, and the Houfe of Lords in their judicial capacities fhould decree for the legality of General Warrants, the confequences would be very difagreeable. They acknowledged that the power in question, to which ufage had given a fort of function, was very liable to

abuse ;