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.'1 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 opprobium of further oppression : but their proceedings had not escaped the indignation and ridicule which they deserved.

2

Leaving Wilkes, for a time, as a popular martyr, -and passing over his further contests with the government in the courts of law,-we shall find him, a few years later, again coming into collision with Parliament, and becoming the successful champion of popular rights.

Droit Le

The discussions on his case were scarcely concluded, when a complaint was made to the Lords, by Lord Lyttelton, of a book with the title of Droit Le Roi. It was the

Roi' or

red to be

burned.

"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.

2 Parl. Hist., xv. 1346.

very opposite of Wilkes' writings,-being a high prerogative treatise, founded upon statutes, precedents, and the dicta of lawyers before the Revolution. It was too monstrous to be defended by any one; and, like the North Briton,' it was ordered by both Houses to be burned by the hands of the common hangman.' There was no pretence for dealing with this case as a breach of privilege: but as the popular cause had suffered from the straining of privilege, in the person of Wilkes, no one attempted to save this ultra-loyal treatise from the flames. At the dissolution of Parliament in 1768, Wilkes, who had, in the meantime, resided abroad,

Wilkes returned for Middlesex,

1768.

He

an exile and an outlaw,-offered himself as a candidate for the city of London. was defeated: but the memory of his wrongs was revived; and with no other claim to popular favour, he found himself the idol of the people. He now became a candidate for Middlesex, and was returned by a large majority. His triumph was celebrated by his partisans, who forced the inhabitants of London to illuminate, and join in their cry of Wilkes and liberty,'-marking every door, as they passed along, with the popular number 45.'

His impri

sonment

by the

6

6

But he was soon to suffer the penalties of his past offences. On the first day of the ensuing session, having appeared before the Court of King's Bench on his outlawry, he was committed on a capias utlagatum. Rescued by the mob, he again surrendered himself;

Court of

King's
Bench.

1 Parl. Hist., xv. 1418; Lords' Journ., xxx. 477, &c.; Walpole's Mem., i. 383.

and his imprisonment was the unhappy occasion of riots, and of a collision between the military and the people. His outlawry was soon afterwards reversed but he was sentenced to two years' imprisonment for his libels.

Wilkes' charges against Lord Mansfield and Mr.

Webb, 1768.

During the first session of this Parliament, therefore, Wilkes was unable to take his seat; and as yet no proceedings were commenced against him in the House of Commons. At the opening of the second session, in November, he brought himself into notice by accusing Lord Mansfield,-in a petition to the House, -of having altered the record on his trial; and Mr. Webb, the Solicitor of the Treasury, of having bribed Curry, the printer, with public money, to appear as a witness against him. His charges were voted to be groundless: but they served the purpose of exciting popular sympathy. He was brought down to Westminster to prove them, attended by a large concourse of people; and for a moment he perplexed the House by submitting whether, being a member, he could stand at the bar, without having taken the oaths, and delivered in his qualification. But he soon received the obvious answer that being in custody at the bar, the acts affecting members sitting in the House, did not apply to his case.2

But a graver matter in which Wilkes had involved himself, was now to be considered. He had Libel upon Lord Weypublished a letter from Lord Weymouth mouth.

1 Walpole's Mem., iii. 314; Wraxall's Mem., ii. 303.

2 Com. Journ., Nov. 14th, 1768, to Feb. 1st, 1769; Cavendish Deb., i. 46-131.

to the magistrates of Surrey, advising them to call in the military for the suppression of riots, with a prefatory letter of his own, in which he had applied the strongest language to the secretary of state; and had designated the late collision between the troops and the populace in St. George's Fields, as a bloody massacre. Here again, a strange and irregular proceeding was resorted to. The letter was a libel upon a secretary of state, as an officer of the crown; who, being also a peer, complained of it as a breach of privilege. But instead of proceeding against the author in the House of Lords, the paper was voted an insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel; and a conference was held with the Commons on the conduct of Wilkes, as a member of their House.1 They immediately took the matter up; and rushing headlong into a quarrel which did not concern them, called upon Wilkes for his defence. He boldly confessed himself the author of the prefatory letter; and gloried in having brought 'to light that bloody scroll' of Lord Weymouth. The letter was voted to be an insolent, scandalous, Resolutions and seditious libel. A motion was then made for the expulsion of Wilkes, founded upon several distinct grounds: first, this last seditious libel, which, if a breach of privilege, was cognisable by the Lords, and not by the Commons, and, if a seditious libel, was punishable by law: secondly, the publication of the North Briton,' five years before, for which Wilkes was already under sentence,

for his expulsion.

Lords' Journ., xxxii. 213.

and had suffered expulsion from a former Parliament: thirdly, his impious and obscene libels, for which he was already suffering punishment, by the judgment of a criminal court; and, fourthly, that he was under sentence of the court to suffer twentytwo months' imprisonment.

Such were the cumulative charges, upon which it was now proposed to expel him. Nothing can be more undoubted than the right of the House of Commons to expel one of its own members, for any offence which, in its judgment, deserves such punishment,-whether it be a breach of privilege or not. But here the exercise of this right was unjust and oppressive. It was forcibly argued, that for all the offences enumerated, but one, Wilkes had already suffered, and was still suffering. For his remaining offence, the libel on a secretary of state,-it was not the province of the House to condemn and punish him by this summary process. It should be left to the courts to try him, and, if found guilty, to inflict the punishment prescribed by law. For his old offences he could scarcely be expelled. During a whole session he had been a member; and yet they had not been held to justify his expulsion. Then why should they now call for such severity? Clearly on the ground of his libel on Lord Weymouth. The very enumeration of so many grounds of expulsion, implied their separate weakness and insufficiency; while it was designed to attract the support of members, influenced by different reasons for their votes. These arguments were urged by Mr. Burke, Mr. Pitt, Mr. Dowdeswell, Mr. Beckford,