LORD CHATHAM'S RESIGNATION.

353

Ch. 9.

1768

alleging generally his broken health, but censuring in significant and pointed terms the dismissal of Amherst, and the contemplated breach with Shel- Anxiety of the ministry to reburne. It was in vain that Grafton remonstrated tain Chatham. against this decision; in vain did the King himself address a letter to his haughty minister claiming his services as a right. Chatham remained inflexible; and thus, because the insolence of one adherent was not to receive unbounded license, and the unreasonable demands of another were refused, he did not hesitate, at a moment when the integrity of the empire was at stake, to withdraw from the government not only the moral weight and influence of his name which had hitherto sustained it, but those invaluable counsels of which his country had never stood in greater need.

At the same time, Shelburne quitted the government with every mark of contempt. The Lord Chancellor, while he expressed similar sentiments towards the administration, nevertheless consented, by the express desire of his great patron, to retain for a while the Great Seal.k At the instance of Camden, the Privy Seal was given to Lord Bristol who was distinguished by the especial confidence of his predecessor in that office.

An administration thus constituted, resting on no principle of policy, and never preferring any

j Whately to Grenville, Oct. 27th.-Corr. vol. iv.

Chatham Corr. vol. iii. p. 345.-Diary, Grenville Papers, vol. iv. p. 402-6.

354

Ch. 9. 1768

FAILURE OF DEMAGOGUES IN PARLIAMENT.

other claim to public confidence than that which belonged to the great name of its founder, could Internal weak- hardly last long even in times when public opinion Government. was but imperfectly developed, and the House of

ness of the

Determination of the King.

Popular orators lost in Parliament.

Commons was a pliant tool in the hands of any Government. But the support of the Crown, together with the disorganised state of the opposition, again split up into self-seeking factions, kept even the listless and reluctant Grafton in power; and having no policy of his own, he accepted that which was dictated by the pride and passion of the King.

Besides his fixed idea of destroying party, George the Third was now intent upon two particular objects to which he seemed to attach equal importance. The one was the suppression of the American revolt; the other was the destruction of Wilkes.

Modern experience has ascertained that the best mode of quenching a political firebrand is to put him into Parliament. The fame and popularity which have been acquired on the hustings or the platform, fade away beneath the fatal contempt or neglect of the House of Commons; and the patriot sinks into insignificance, unless he should be qualified to aim at a higher object of political ambition. Had Wilkes been allowed to take his seat for Middlesex, the prosecution against him being at the same time terminated by requiring him to enter into his recognisance to come up for judgment when called upon, it is certain that his vocation as

RIOTS AT THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

a demagogue would have been terminated at once and for ever. But the three estates of the realm, combining to effect the same object by forcible means, were baffled at every turn.

355

Ch. 9.

1768

1768 Glynn elected

In the spring of this year a vacancy had been caused in the representation of Middlesex by the for Middlesex. death of Mr. Cooke. On this occasion, Sir William Proctor, the defeated candidate at the general election, was again put forward by the Government: but Sergeant Glynn, the nominee of Wilkes, obtained an easy victory. This election, like its immediate predecessor, was attended with riot and bloodshed. Two men, partisans of the unsuccessful candidate, were tried for murder and convicted; yet the Government not only granted a free pardon to these but conferred a pension upon one of persons, them. As there appeared to be no sufficient ground for interfering with the course of justice in either of the cases, certainly none for rewarding the principals in the fatal affray, these proceedings revived and aggravated the resentment which had been excited by the largesses given to the soldiers who were charged with murder in firing on the populace during the riots in St. George's fields.

tions.

At the meeting of Parliament in November, Wilkes petiWilkes preferred a petition enumerating the wrongs which he had endured at the hands of the Govern

ment during the last five years. His complaints, however, were pronounced frivolous or overruled; and being disposed of, Parliament, in return, proceeded to bring a charge against their petitioner.

356

Ch. 9.

1769 Lord Wey

IMPRUDENT LETTER OF LORD WEYMOUTH.

Lord Weymouth, as Secretary of State, had addressed a letter to the magistrates of Surrey, instructing them to resort promptly to military aid in the repression of tumults within their jurisdicmagistrates. tion. This imprudent measure having been imme

mouth's letter to the Surrey

diately followed by the collision between the military and the populace in St. George's Fields, Wilkes seized an opportunity so favourable to his purpose, and published the official letter, accompanied with comments of the most inflammatory and insulting character. His object was probably to provoke a new prosecution against himself, as well as to exasperate the people. The publication was, no doubt, a seditious libel, and if noticed at all, should have been made the subject of an information by the Attorney-General. But instead of taking this, the fair and legitimate course, the Government, either fearful of not getting a verdict, or determined to make sure of a pretext for the expulsion of their formidable foe, brought the matter forward as a breach of privilege. It is plain, however, that Wilkes's publication applied to Lord Weymouth in his ministerial conduct, and did not in any wise affect him in his capacity as a Member of Parliament. But there was another

difficulty.

The privilege alleged to be violated, was the privilege of the House of Lords; and as it was the settled law of Parliament that each branch of the legislature was solely competent to judge and to punish any breach of its privileges, it followed that neither House could visit upon one of its own

WILKES TRIED BY THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

members, or any person, a breach of the privileges of the other. Wilkes must accordingly be dispunishable in the Commons for a breach of the privileges of the Lords. Upon a conference between the two Houses, therefore the charge, as it affected the privileges of the Lords, was dropped; and the Commons proceeded to take the matter into their own hands.

Nothing could be more arbitrary and absurd than their mode of dealing with it. To pronounce an offence against a peer of Parliament a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons would have been too violent. But they proceeded to try Wilkes as for a libel. And, instead of requiring him to attend in his place, or to withdraw, according to the practice of the House when the conduct of one of its members is to be impugned, they had him brought to the bar in custody, and there required him to answer to a charge of libel, in support of which, they had without a shadow of authority, and by usurping the functions of a court of law, already taken evidence.

357

Ch. 9.

1769

of defence.

Wilkes might, of course, have declined such an Wilkes' mode unconstitutional and illegal authority. But it suited his purpose to accept the issue now ripe for trial between the House and the Constituency. When put to his defence, therefore, he at once avowed the publication of the libel; and, with the cool effrontery which belonged to him, added the expression of his regret, not for having written it, but for the mildness of the language in which it was couched.