scars on her face. He delighted in telling his friends how patient and good-humoured she had been the whole time. When at last she had recovered he took her down to Aylesbury, as his playfellow for a long summer's holiday, with "two maid-servants solely to attend her." No father had ever been more unselfish and devoted. The conduct of the mother, however, was very different. When the little girl began to be unwell Wilkes had written to his wife begging her to go to her daughter at once. As soon as the crisis was over he had reminded her again that her place was by the bedside of her child. His appeals fell upon deaf ears. Either Mrs. Wilkes was not competent to undertake the duties of a nurse, or she feared the infection, or perhaps she was jealous of her husband's love for his daughter, but whatever may have been the cause of her neglect, she never once visited the sick girl. And Wilkes, whose own mother waited upon the invalid every day with loving care, bitterly resented the inhuman conduct of his wife, which in his eyes was as infamous as a breach of her marriage vows.1 Thenceforth the pair never lived together, and a formal deed of separation was drawn up by the family lawyers.

Soon afterwards the chief ambition of Wilkes's life was at length gratified. A vacancy occurred at Bath, whereupon Pitt, who had long wished to represent the city which he was compelled through ill-health to visit so frequently, gladly accepted a unanimous invitation to become its member, resigning the family borough of Oakhampton in favour of Thomas Potter. In spite of his matrimonial fiasco there was nothing to prevent Wilkes from seizing the opportunity, which this combination of politics and hygiene afforded him, to offer himself as candidate for the borough of Aylesbury. For many months his plans had been carefully matured and his popularity with the towns

1 Correspondence of Wilkes and Dell, April 19, April 26, May 3, May 12,

folk was still unimpaired, "palmistry," as he had euphemistically expressed it, having made them his most obedient

servants.

"I will give two guineas per man, with the promise of whatever more offers," he informed the faithful Dell, when he wrote to tell him that he was standing for the constituency, and he went on to add, "If you think two guineas not enough I will offer three or even five." 1

Apparently five guineas proved sufficient, and on the 6th of July 1757, the incorruptible politician, who had boasted that he would never offer a bribe to any man, was elected member of Parliament for the town of Aylesbury without opposition.2

1 Correspondence of Wilkes and Dell, June 22, 1757.

• Public Advertiser, July 8, 1757; Hist. of Aylesbury, R. Gibbs, p. 220.

CHAPTER IV

MEMBER FOR AYLESBURY

1757-1761

HE new member for Aylesbury commenced his parliamentary career at an auspicious moment, for the choleric George II, after struggling vainly

T

against the inevitable, had been compelled at last to admit the Great Commoner and his friends as members of a new ministry, under the nominal leadership of the Duke of Newcastle. Indeed, the Grenville party was the most powerful faction in the Government. Temple and his brother, George Grenville, as well as the recently disgraced Legge, all held high office; while Pitt, who had become Secretary of State for the first time, was for all practical purposes the head of the administration. His old rival Fox, to whom the acquisition of a fortune was of far more importance than political prestige, had chosen the lucrative post of Paymaster of the Forces, and was prepared to acquiesce in any policy that would afford him an opportunity of making money. To all appearance the friends of Wilkes were destined to a long reign of power.

The tactful John did not lose a moment in bringing himself before the notice of his leader, and the morning after the Aylesbury election he posted up to town for the sole purpose of calling upon Pitt, with whom, however, he did not obtain an interview. A few days later he wrote to inform the minister of his visit to St. James's Square.

"I was desirous of so early an opportunity of saying how greatly I wish to be numbered among those who have

the highest esteem and veneration for Mr. Pitt"; he continued, "I am very happy now to contribute more than my warmest wishes for the support of his wise and excellent measures; and my ambition will ever be to have my parliamentary conduct approved by the ablest minister, as well as the first character, of the age. I live in the hope of doing my country some small services at least; and I am sure the only way of doing so is by a steady support of your measures." 1

Pitt appears to have been gratified by this homage, for he still had a soft corner in his heart for the vivacious young squire, whose lively wit and engaging manners had so often diverted his mind from the cares of statecraft, and he penned an early answer to the letter, assuring his follower that he had a sincere regard for him, and flattering him by a reference to his 'great and shining talents." 2 Lord Temple's brother, the dull and industrious George Grenville, Treasurer of the Navy, also wrote to congratulate Wilkes on the day of his unopposed return, remarking that he was glad "to be the first to felicitate and embrace his new brother member." 3

The Alyesbury election, together with the arrangements that occasioned it, was believed to have cost the sum of £7000, and Wilkes, whose personal extravagance seems to have been increasing year by year, began to have large dealings with Hebrew moneylenders, his transactions with Isaac Fernandes Silva in particular bringing to the unfortunate debtor infinite opprobrium in after years. The corrupt borough that had returned him to Parliament also threatened to prove an expensive luxury. It was not long indeed before he was wont to declare that a gentleman

1 Add. MS. 30,867, f. 138; Chatham Correspondence, i. 239. 2 Add. MS. 30,877, f. 5.

* Add. MS. 30,877, f. 4.

4 Life of Wilkes, J. Almon, i. 35; ii. 55; cf. Gentleman's Magazine, lxxx., Part I, p. 499; Controversial Letter of Wilkes and Horne (1771), P. 206,

never ought to represent the constituency in which he resided, for his constituents would prove too heavy a tax upon his table and his wine cellar. Soon after his election, in spite of his financial embarrassments, he left the lodgings in St. James's Place and took a lease of No. 13 Great George Street, a commodious house at the western corner of Little George Street, a fashionable quarter of the town.1 It was the first time that Wilkes's residence, both at Aylesbury and in London, did not happen to be next door to a church, a circumstance which caused some amusement to his friends, for he had long since earned a reputation for profanity owing to his habit of jesting upon sacred things.

In the course of the next year he made an effort to obtain a restitution of conjugal rights, issuing a writ of habeascorpus to compel his wife to appear before the Court of King's Bench. In the deed of separation she had surrendered a large portion of her estate to her husband with the provision that he was to allow her an income of two hundred pounds, and it was alleged by his enemies that he had brought the law suit in order to compel her to relinquish this pittance as well. There is no proof, however, that this was his motive, which, by reason of the smallness of the annuity, appears an inadequate one. When the case was heard at Westminster Hall it seemed far more probable that Wilkes was playing for higher stakes, being anxious to compel his wife to live with him again in order to withdraw her from the influence of her mother and her uncle, so that the large fortune which she would inherit sooner or later might come into his hands. The attempt was a failure, for Mrs. Meade still had absolute power over her daughter's mind, and Wilkes was warned by the judge that since his wife wished to abide by the terms of their deed of separation

1 Westminster Rate Books, Xmas 1757. Cf. Grenville Papers, i. 222; Lecture at the Surveyor's Institution by Mr. Julian Rogers on Jan. 22, 1912. There is a picture of the house in the Satirical Prints at the British Museum, No. 4055.