judgement which he has formed is a regular one, to declare it publicly in his place, to abide by it, and boldly to face any difficulties which may encounter it. I am under no restraint either from this or that fide of the Houfe; I know and feel my own independence on both; and while I continue here, I will exert it; and upon this occafion execute an office greater than any which the wildest applause of the multitude can give, or than the King himself can bestow, greater than the office of first Commiffioner of the Treasury, or either of the Secretaries of State. The honourable and noble office of speaking the truth, and of doing impartial justice, I will not palliate this man's offences, or try to move your compaffion; for that would be to appeal to your weakness against your judgement, much less will I inveigh against him in bitter terms, and strivė to excite your indignation; for instead of your weakness, I fhould then apply to your wicked paffions. With these sentiments I fhall proceed to the immediate examination of the queftion before you. And in the first place, I cannot agree with those who have urged in behalf of Mr. Wilkes, that this motion ought not to be complied with, because he is already the most unhappy, as well as the most oppreffed and injured man that this age has feen; he is indeed unhappy, because he is guilty, and guilt must ever produce unhappiness; but in other respects, confidering his repeated offences, he has certainly been more fortunate than his most sanguine wishes could have expected. I mean not to enter into a detail of all that has happened to him, it would carry me too far; but to justify what I have faid, let me ask a few questions. When he wrote that feditious libel against the King and both Houses of Parliament, could he foresee that he should be taken up by a general warrant, against the declared opinion and defire of the two Secretaries of State, who repeatedly proposed to have his name inferted in the warrant of apprehenfion, but were over-ruled by the lawyers and clerks of the office, who infifted they could not depart from the long-established precedents and course of proceedings?

N 2

proceedings? Could Mr. Wilkes forefee, that after an hundred years practice, under the eye of the greatest lawyers, before the Supreme Courts of Juftice, without being ever questioned in one fingle instance, that this irregularity and illegality would be first found out in this cafe, and afterwards adopted by the voice and clamour of the people upon the occafion of his apprehenfion? Had he been tried and convicted without this irregularity, what would have been his fituation, and where his popularity and the liberal fupport which he has met with? What would have become of the large damages which he has already obtained by this means, or the immenfe fums which he now fues for, and on which he plans his laft dependance? Are these the proofs that he has been the moft unfortunate, or is it more true that he has been the moft oppreffed and injured man this age has seen! Dr. Shebbeare was taken up by a general warrant from the Secretary of State, dated 12th of January, 1758, conceived word for word in the fame terms for writing the fixth letter to the People of England on the progress of national ruin, in which is fhewn, that the prefent grandeur of France and calamities of this nation are owing to the influence of Hanover on the Councils of England. Under this general warrant all his papers were feized as in the cafe of Mr. Wilkes, and he was profecuted for this offence by Mr. Pratt, then Attorney General, now Lord Chancellor of Great Britain. He was tried and convicted of it on the 17th of May, and on the 28th of November following he was fentenced to be fined, to ftand in the pillory, to be imprisoned for three years, and then to give fecurity for his good behaviour for feven years. The profecution against Mr. Wilkes was directed by the unanimous address of both Houses of Parliament. He was tried and convicted by a favourable Jury, for a libel certainly not lefs feditious or criminal than Dr. Shebbeare's. He was fentenced to be fined five hundred pounds, and to be imprisoned for one year instead of three years, to give security for his good behaviour for feven years, and the ignominious part

part of the punishment was wholly remitted. He was tried
and convicted likewife for being the author and publifher of
the three obscene and impious libels, upon a profecution di-
rected in confequence of an addrefs from the House of Lords,
for which he received exactly the fame fentence as for the for-
mer offence, including the two months imprisonment, which
he had fuffered before judgement was given. Was he for either
of thofe offences, or indeed for all of them taken together, so se-
verely dealt with as Dr. Shebbeare for one alone? I do not
go any
farther back, though a multitude of fimilar inftances,
and some were more fevere than that of Dr. Shebbeare, might
be produced within thefe laft forty or fifty years. What I
have already mentioned feems to me fully fufficient to fhew,
that Mr. Wilkes is not intitled to any extraordinary favour on
the present occafion, from the plea of his having been the object
of extraordinary feverity during the course of the former pro-
ceedings. But though not to favour, yet he is most certainly
entitled to that juftice which is due to every man, and which
we ought to be more particularly careful to preferve, in an in-
ftance where paffion and prejudice may both concur in the
violation of it. There are principles which no one will dispute
with me, and in confequence of them, after having thoroughly
confidered the charge contained in your question, and the ar-
guments urged in fupport of it, I am clearly of opinion that I
ought not to give my affent to the propofition which has been,
made to you; because if I did, I fhould thereby commit a ca-
pital injuftice. I am fenfible that the expreffion is a ftrong one,
and that it is incumbent upon me to fhew my reasons for ap-
plying it to the motion now under your confideration, which
I fhall endeavour to do as fully and as fatisfactorily as I am
able.

I perfectly agree with the gentleman who has told you, that this Houfe has a right to inquire into the conduct of its members, and that they have exercised that right in a great variety of inftances, in which they have tried, cenfured, and expelled N 3

them,

them, according to the established courfe of our proceedings. and the law of Parliament, which is part of the law of the kingdom. Let us examine the propofition now before you by this rule, and we shall then be able to judge, whether it is conformable to the usage and law of Parliament, to the practice of any other court of juftice in the kingdom, or to the unalterable principles of natural equity; or whether it is a new and dangerous mode of proceeding, unfupported by any precedent or example in the journals of Parliament, or the records of any other court, calculated merely to serve a present purpose, and. as such, well deferving the term which I gave to it of a capital injuftice. The charge contained in this motion contended is fufficient fingly to justify the conclufion drawn from them allput together, that Mr. Wilkes ought to be expelled. Upon this complicated charge, the House is now called upon to give a judgement for or against the question. It is a well-known and undeniable rule in this Houfe, founded in common fenfe, that, whenever a queftion, even of the most trivial nature, is complicated, and contains different branches, every individual member has an indubitable right to have the queftion feperated, that he may not be obliged to approve or disapprove in the lump, but that every part of the propofition should stand or fall abstractedly upon its own merits. I need not fhew the propriety and the abfolute neceffity for this; it is fo felf evident, that every argument I could urge in fupport of it would only weaken it. And furely it holds good in all cafes where we act only in a deliberative capacity, it will not be contended that it is lefs true, or lefs neceffary, when we are to cenfure and to punish, and to affect not only the rights of our own member, but the franchises of thofe who fent him hither as their reprefentative; I may fafely challenge the gentlemen, the most knowing in the journals of this Houfe, to produce a fingle precedent of a fimilar nature. And if none fhall be produced, as I am convinced there cannot, am I not founded in saying that

this is a new attempt, unfupported by law and ufage of Parlia ment?

Mr. Grenville, Feb. 3, 1769.

In moving the commitment of a printer, the Houfe is attempting to ufurp an authority, which, in my opinion, they have no right to do. According to my ideas of the law, this proceeding of theirs is directly oppofite to Magna Charta. The firft of this House affuming this authority was in the reign of that defpot, Queen Elizabeth, who had a complaifant Parliament that would punish any perfon fhe took a dislike to. The next attempt was made in the reign of King Charles, and I imagine the House would be forry to hear precedents quoted from his reign. The most fanguine for the power of the House will not allow it can go farther than imprisoning the offender for the remainder of the feffion. Printers will not mind imprisonment for three or four months, as it will poffibly be the making of them, for the public will support them, not as 'libellers, but men who have been falfely imprifoued. The House has no right to form themselves into a Court of Criminal Judicature; there is scarcely a person among them but is prejudiced in favour of what they are contending for (the privilege of the House), and therefore are not fit persons to be Judge and Jury in their own caufe. If this caufe was to come into the Court of King's Bench, and any of the members were to be on the Jury, the printer would have a just right to strike them off as prejudiced perfons: by punishing the printer they will increase the number of libels; for during the eight months the Parliament does not fit, and as it appears the Courts of Law have no right to interfere, the prefs would teem with the moft fcurrilous abufe, knowing they cannot be hurt; they would then have some reason to restrain the liberty of it, which, imagine, is what is aimed at.

Mr. Sawbridge, March 4, 1772.