and the necessary parliamentary writs were sued for new elections. The writ, how-ver, for supplying Mr. Grenville's seat, was not moved for till the 19th, the day on which the parliament was prorogued, although e had been appointed immediately on lord Bute's resigning. This delay arose from his ing obliged to apply to his brother, carl emple, for permission to be re-elected for he town of Buckingham; a request which as peculiarly distressing to himself, because this time there subsisted the most bitter imosity between the brothers. This apication was made on the 18th; and Mr. harles Lloyd, Mr. Grenville's private secrey, carried the letter, in which was enclosed opy of the king's speech (perhaps as a comment) to be delivered from the throne the xt day. Mr. Pitt, afterwards earl of Chatm, was at his lordship's house in Pall Mall en this message arrived; and he added his sonal entreaty that lord Temple would cont to his brother's re-election, with which lordship complied. But it does not scem able that his consent would have been En without Mr. Pitt's intercession; for in "Remarks on the Letters which passed ween Mr. Allen, of Bath, and Mr. Pitt," ich lord Temple himself dictated, there is ery strong insinuation to that effect. Lord Temple and Mr. Pitt were much leased on reading the king's speech, which had thus received. Mr. Pitt spoke with mth and indignation on the passage reting the king of Prussia; and lord Temadopted his sentiments. At this instant, Wilkes happened to call upon his lord ; having just returned from Paris. Mr. kes agreed in sentiment concerning the h; and when he returned home he e a sketch of the conversation which ed on the subject while he was present. this sketch, and some additions of his he wrote this celebrated paper, the forty number, which was published on Say the 23d of April, 1769." mediately on the publication of this xious number, lord Halifax, who secretary of state for the home dement, issued a GENERAL WARRANT, out any information upon oath, in h only the publisher was mentioned me, to seize the authors, printers, publishers, with their papers, and them before his lordship. The conences of this exertion of " vigour be the law," to use a familiar phrase, are n to every body. The stand which Wilkes, supported by his high-spiand firm friend lord Temple, made st this impudent violation of the ies of the subject, was a noble one, -ntitles them both to the gratitude ery Briton. Mr. Wilkes was treated great cruelty on this occasion, but the insulted laws of his country wreaked for him an ample vengeance on the heads of his oppressors. lord Temple desired his solicitor, Mr. Instantly on the seizure of Mr. Wilkes, Arthur Beardmore, to apply to the court of common pleas for a writ of habeas corpus, to bring Mr. Wilkes before the court. The writ was granted, and it shews the audacity of ministers at that time, and their rooted determination to sacrifice the victim they had selected, that the secretaries of state, when in formed of the issuing of the writ, treated the information with contempt. After some consultation, however, they thought proper, in order to evade it, to shift the custody of their captive from the messengers who had taken him into the hands of other messengers, and in this manner was the custody of Mr. Wilkes changed no less than four times in half a day! When the writ of habeas corpus therefore was shewn to the two messengers, Blackmore and Watson, their an swer was," that they had not him in their custody." Mr. Wilkes was accordingly kept a close prisoner in the tower. No human being was admitted to him, and a list was kept of those persons who made application to see him. The court of common pleas would not suffer the return which was made to their writ to be filed; they directed another to the "constable, and so forth, of the tower of London." Mr. Wilkes was accordingly brought up, his commitment pronounced invalid, and he of a prodigious multitude of people. was discharged amidst the acclamations. Mr. Wilkes brought actions against taries of state, and obtained damages in the messengers, and against the secreevery action. The determination of ministers to make the purse of the public support them in their own wilful infraction of the laws of the realm, and in their own invasion of the liberty of the subject, is proved by the following ex tract from the treasury minute-book. "Whitehall Treasury Chamber. "Present Mr. Grenville, first commissioner, and chancellor of the exchequer ; Lord North, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Hatris. "Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer sig nifies to my lords his majesty's pleasure, that all expences incurred, or to be incurred, in consequence of actions brought against the earl of Halifax, one of his majesty's princi pal secretaries of state, the under-secretary and messengers, and the solicitor of this office, for proceedings had by them in executing the business of their respective offices against the publishers of several scandalous and seditious libels, should be defrayed by the crown; and that a sufficient sum of money should be, from time to time, issued to the solicitor of the treasury for that pur pose. "Another circumstance not unworthy of notice is, that lord North confessed in one of the debates on the arrears of the civil list some time afterwards, that these law proceedings cost government upwards of one hundred thousand pounds." "Actions were also brought against lord Halifax, secretary of state; Mr. Wood, the under-secretary of state; and Mr. Webb, solicitor of the treasury. Lord Halifax evaded the action by casting essoigns, pleading privilege, and at length standing out in contempt of the court, till Mr. Wilkes was outlawed. "But when the outlawry was reversed, the action was revived; and it was tried in the court of common-pleas, before lord-chief-justice Wilmot, on the 10th of November, 1769, when the jury gave Mr. Wilkes 4000l. damages.-A singular circumstance appeared upon the trial. Lord Halifax did not rely entirely upon the document entered in the treasury minute-book, for his exoneration from the expences of this action; but had also procured a privy-seal for that purpose, -that is, a warrant signed by the lord-privy seal, by way of indemnification for whatever damages Mr. Wilkes should recover. "The action against Mr. Wood was tried in the court of common-pleas on the 6th of December, 1763, before lord chief justice Pratt; when the jury gave Mr. Wilkes 1000l. damages."S Mr. Wilkes erected a printing press in his own house: he reprinted the North Briton, for which republication he was tried and convicted. The law proceedings against him on this occasion were supported by the evidence and treachery of the people whom he employed, and who were the only witnesses produced against him. He also printed a few copies of a third volume of the North Briton for particular friends; but this was never published. He at the same time printed, under the strictest privacy and caution, twelve copies of part of an infamous poem, called an "Essay on Weman," for which he was also prosecuted and convicted upon the same evidence. One of the journeymen was bribed by the solicitor of the treasury to steal a copy of it. The copy thus obtained was laid before the cabinet council, who resolved to prosecute Mr. Wilkes for printing it on the single evidence of this treacherous rascal. Mr. Almon has given a full account of the affair, which, in all its parts, shows that Mr. Wilkes was an object of personal resentment to the ministry, who stooped to every meanness for the accomplishment of their inglorious and successless projects. Alexander Dunn, a Scotsman, was taken in an attempt to assassinate Mr. Wilkes: complaint was made in the house of commons against this outrage. The house ordered Dunn to appear at the bar; but when he was there, without examination, the house were of opinion that he was insane, and therefore-discharged him!¶ On the 15th of Nov. 1763, the session of parliament opened: as soon as the speaker had taken his chair, Mr. Wilkes rose and informed the house that he had a complaint to make of a breach of privilege. Notwithstanding the usage of parliament, that complaints of this nature are heard before any other business, the chancellor of the exchequer (Mr. George Grenville) rose and delivered a message from his majesty, stating that Mr. Wilkes had been discharged out of custody by the court of common pleas, Lord Egremont, the other secretary of state, died. This warrant was signed by the duke of Marlborough, who then held that office. Mr. Wilkes, in his letter to the duke of Grafton, alluding to the conduct of lord Halifax, says, that "for nearly two years he availed himself of every advantage which privilege and the chicane of law could furnish. He never entered any appearance to a cou of justice; and the common pleas had, as far as they could, punished such an open co tempt, such a daring proof that administration would not submit to the law of the land, and had endeavoured to compel his lordship to appear. Towards the end of 1764, I wzs outlawed: the proceedings continued against his lordship till that hour. He then appeared, and his only plea was, that as an outlaw I could not hold any action. No other defence was made against the heinous charge of having, in my person, violated the rights of the people." For this anecdote, which requires ample authentication to give it credit, Mr. Almon refers to the commons' journals, vol. xxix. page 702. upon account of his privilege as a member of parliament, and that when called upon by the legal process of the court of king's bench, he had "stood out and declined to appear and answer to an information, which had since been exibited against him by his majesty's atcorney general for the same offence:" he message concluded with referring the bel and contumacy of Mr. Wilkes to he consideration of the house. Mr. Wilkes immediately rose, and stated the reach of privilege which the house had uffered in his person, on having been etained a prisoner in the tower; that n being served with a subpoena from he court of king's bench, he had conulted the best books and the greatest ving authorities, and was thence led to onclude that the act of serving him ith a subpoena, after he had been disarged by a solemn and unanimous desion of the court of common pleas, was other violation of the privilege of parment. He had therefore declined to ter an appearance; but if the house, its wisdom, should decide that he was titled to privilege, he (Mr. Wilkes) ould not only be ready, but eagerly sirous, to wave that privilege, and to t himself upon a jury of his country n. The future hearing of this complaint The debate in the house on this day s soon as he was sufficiently recover afresh, and it was impossible for him to return (as he had fully intended) to his duty in parliament on the 19th of the following January, to which day it had been adjourned. Certificates of his inability were transmitted to the speaker of the house of commons, by one of the French king's surgeons, and by a surgeon of the French army. The speaker, however, sir John Cust, remarked upon it that it was not authenticated before a public notary; and it was entered upon the journals as an unauthenticated certificate. When parliament assembled, notwithstanding the unavoidable absence of the accused member, he was expelled the house, on the motion of lord North, asthe author of No. 45 of the North Briton. Mr. Wilkes, when he heard of his expulsion, sent a second certificate to: the speaker, attested by two notaries, and by the English ambassador at Paris-but neither the second le ter, the certifi cate, nor the attestation, were entered on the journals! Mr. Wilkes now perceiving himself. to be an object of pointed and implaca ble persecution, considered himself as an exile, having determined not to return to England. The reasons for this determination are stated in one of his letters to Mr. Cotes, (see Almon's edition, vol. ii. p. 48 et seq.), to which we must refer those who are desirous to learn them-they are forcible ones. On the 21st of February, 1764, Mr. Wilkes's trials came on at the court of king's bench, for the republication of the North Briton, and the publication of the Essay on Woman: lord Mansfield's conduct on this occasion will not be forgotten. On the evening preceding the trials, the judge, who in a criminal pro ceeding ought to know nothing of the record before the trial comes on, actually sent to Mr. Wilkes's solicitor, and desired his consent to alterations in the records in both the causes! His lordship had, no doubt, studied the records, and from the circumstance of these al terations being deemed necessary, we may conclude with Mr. Wilkes, that the original records were too loose and vague to have convicted him, and that the information would perhaps have been quashed. Mr. Wilkes's solicitor refused Mr. Almon, however, mentions some very suspicions circumstances relative to the uct of Mr. Martin (vol. ii. pp. 16 and 99), which, for the honour of human nature, cil as for that of the individual, we regret to see so strongly supported. his consent; and against his consent the records were altered at his lordship's own house, under his lordship's immediate inspection, and by his lordship's express orders. On the following morning lord Mansfield sat as judge before these very causes, where the defendant, it is obvious, was tried on two new charges, different from those to which he had answered. Mr. Wilkes, in his letter to the electors of Aylesbury, asserts also that several of the jury were by counter-notices, signed by the summoning officer, prevented from attending on the day appointed for the trial; while others had not only private notice given them of the real day, but likewise instructions for their behaviour." Mr. Wilkes was found guilty, and not making his appearance when afterwards summoned to receive judgment, being then at Paris, he was outlawed for contumacy, in November 1764. In July 1766, the marquis of Rockingham's party was removed, and a new administration was formed according to an arrangement made under the auspices of the earl of Chatham, with the duke of Grafton at the head of the treasury. As the duke had supported Mr. Wilkes in all his late proceedings, this seemed a favourable opportunity to risk a return to England. Mr. Wilkes was further encouraged to make the experiment by the following circumstance:* "Lord Southampton (then colonel Fitzroy) was at that time at Paris, and Mr. Wilkes had several interviews with him. Lord Southampton assured Mr. Wilkes that he had it in charge from his brother, the duke of Grafton, to inform Mr. W. that he would find in him a real and sincere friend, extremely desirous to concur in doing him justice, but that many of the particulars could not be communicated by the post." Mr. Wilkes, as every man of common sense would have done, construed this into a fair invitation to return to England, He quitted Paris therefore, and reached London on the first of November 1766. Immediately on his arrival he saw Mr. Cotes, Mr. Fitzherbert, and other friends, by whom he was advised to address a letter to the duke; Mr. Fitzherbert undertaking to deliver it. The letter was perfectly respectful and decorous, but the only answer was a verbal one, "that Mr. Wilkes must apply to lord Chatham; that the duke of Grafton did nothing without the concurrence of lord Chatham." In utter astonishment and disgust Mr. Wilkes instantly, and without hesitation, returned to his exile; his behaviour on this occasion did honour to him; lord Temple and lord Chatham differed so violently upon the nomination for places in this new ministry, that a dissolution of all their former friendships succeeded. Mr. Wilkes adhered firmly to his friend lord Temple, and refused to apply to lord Chatham. It must be recollected that by this honourable conduct he voluntarily returned to an exile which had long been excessively odious to him. The anguish he felt in the disappointment of his hopes is not to be described: he often said it was the bitterest he ever suffered. At his return to Paris he gave vent to his feelings in a letter of indignant eloquence to the duke of Grafton. In this celebrated letter he recapitulated the political acts of his life, and related the conversation which passed at his examination before lord Halifax. The public, on whom it made a deep impression, now saw very clearly that Mr. Wilkes was an object of ministerial persecution, and that it was determined to crush him at all events. The nation, however, had generosity enough to espouse the cause of him who had suffered so much in the cause of the nation. Towards the end of the year 1767, Mr. Wilkes resolved to venture once more to England, and stand the conse quences, whatever they might be. The general election was fixed to take place in the spring, and his principal motive for returning was to obtain a seat in parliament. Mr. Wilkes was not defcient in personal intrepidity and assurance. On the 6th or 7th of February, 1768, he reached London, and addressed a supplication to his majesty, imploring his mercy. No notice was taken of this letter, nor indeed could it be expected; for Mr. Wilkes, either from ignorance, which is hardly credible, or from an in tentional disrespect to his majesty, which to have shown on that occasion would have been a perfect paradox in conduct, sent his letter to the queen's palace by his own footman! Parliament was dissolved on the 12th of March, and Mr. Wilkes, with an outlawry on his head, offered himself a We quote Mr. Almon. andidate for the city of London. The uke of Grafton, notwithstanding the everity of Mr. Wilkes's letter, issued Capias against him. Mr. Wilkes poll1947 livery-men, but lost his election: = immediately offered himself as a canlace for the county of Middlesex, and arried his election on the 28th of March an immense majority. week before this, namely on the 22d March, Mr. Wilkes had sent "A written notice to the solicitor of the asury, that he would present himself bee the court of king's bench on the first of the ensuing term, which was the h of April. Accordingly he appeared Tore the court on that day, and declared mself ready to submit to the laws of his untry. But lord Mansfield suggested, t as he was not before the court by any al process, the court could not take any nizance of this gratis appearance; and was permitted to depart at perfect liOn the 27th Mr. Wilkes, having been ed by a cupias utlegatum, was brought court in custody. Serjeant Glynn, was Mr. Wilkes's counsel, pointed out ral errors in the outlawry, and offered to any amount. Mr. Tharlow replied he serjeant on the outlawry. The bail refused, and Mr. Wilkes was committed e king's bench prison. V. He was put into a hackney coach, ated by the marshal. When they came Vestminster bridge, the populace took horses from the carriage, and drew it gh the city to a public house in SpitalThe marshal was forced out of the at Temple-bar. When the tumult ded, he escaped through the back door e public house, in disguise, and went diately to the king's bench prison; e the marshal was highly rejoiced to see He several times desired the people to Tse; but they refused. Next day he was visited by an incredible ber of friends; and the prison was unded by a numerous concourse of peo next term. On the 7th of May, the outlawry was d again; but judginent was postponed Mr. Wilkes gave full credit to some intion he had received, that lord Manshad made up his mind, to establish the vry. What happened between the 7th ay and the 8th of June, when the outwas reversed, to alter lord Mansfield's on, cannot now be explained. The vry was reversed by the unanimous ent of the court; and, on the 18th of Mr. Wilkes was again brought before court to receive sentence. After the exordium, the senior judge pronoune sentence as follows: should pay For the re-publication of the North Briton, No. 45, he should pay a fine of 500l. and be imprisoned ten calendar months. And for publishing the Essay on Woman he twelve calendar months; to be computed a fine of 5001. and be imprisoned from the expiration of the term of the for mer imprisonment. And that he afterwards should find security for good behaviour for seven years; himself in the sum of 10001. and two sureties in 500l. each."-He had already been imprisoned two months; so that the whole imprisonment made exactly two years. The severity of the sentence was universally condemned. Upon a candid review and consideration of the several circumstances of the case, all impartial people thought it cruel, malignant, and indefensible." Mr. Wilkes, although a prisoner in the court of king's bench, was a niember of parliament: as in the preceding short session his case had been passed over, he resolved to force himself into notice, and therefore drew up a petition, stating the principal points of his case which he conceived to be illegal, and praying redress. In the interval he had published some very severe and biting remarks on a letter addressed by lord Weymouth (secretary of state) to the magistrates at Lambeth, on the riotous disposition of the populace, and the strong preventive measures which it would be necessary for them to take. This ir ritated the ministry very much; and when Mr. Wilkes was called to the bar of the house in order to make his defence, he gloried in acknowledging himself to have been the author of those remarks, and to have brought to light that "bloody scroll" which occasioned them. The next day (Feb. 3, 1769), on the motion of lord Barrington, he was expelled the house, by a majority of 83 therefore, was issued; but the freeholders of Middlesex, persevering in their constitutional judgment, that expulsion did not of itself create incapa |