་

.

mane virtues of a prince, under whose mild and gentle government I have met with that protection which an innocent man has a right to expect, but could not find in his own country, under his own Yet let me do juftice, and carry my complaints to the fource from whence they spring, to the bafe contrivances of minifters exceedingly wicked and corrupt, and befides ftung to the quick, 'who had obtained a moft unhappy afcendency over the mind of their ******, and to fecure themfelves, have made their most odious meafures pafs for the meafures of their ******, that the enormous load of their guilt, may be thrown from themfelves upon him; a practice not new, but of which every reign of the Stuarts, 'furnishes examples. I hope foon to fend you fomething, quod et bune in annum vivat et plures. My large work opens with the general idea of political liberty; then proceeds to examine the fentiments of the European nations on this head, as diftinguished from the almoft univerfal grofs defpotifm of the reft of the world. The third part is a critique on the various governments of Europe. The fourth and laft is entirely on the English conftitution, the various changes it has undergone, the improvements made in it by the glorious revolution, and the no less happy than timely acceffion of the houfe of Brunswick. There are a few hints of fome remedies to the defects ftill fubfifting in this noble, and if my prayers are heard, this eternal fabric. A large appendix contains, I hope a full juftification of Mr. W-, upon conftitutional grounds: a variety of characters are drawn from the life, which if I miftake not, will entertain you; and I believe they are not skeletons, though I hope the originals will be fo before the book is publifhed.'

6

6

Having given all the authentic letters and papers which were published relative to every branch of Mr. Wilkes's cafe, we now come to the ftrictures and obfervations made upon them.

W

Queries on Mr. Wilkes's cafe.

HETHER the apprehenfion of Mr Wilkes under a warrant without oath, and without name, is not illegal.

2. Whether in either of the warrants, which have been iffued, the ufual and neceffary word FALSE is to be found among the epithets applied to the fuppofed libel, No. 45 of the North Briton?

3. Whether any difingenuous and unfair method was not employed by the fecretaries of ftate to elude the effect of the firft Habeas Corpus?

4. Whether the commitment of Mr. Wilkes to the Tower for a bailable offence, and yet for above two days preventing any perfon from having accefs to him, was not depriving him of all poffibility of offering bail, and is not therefore a direct act of injuftice, and a violation of the laws of England?

5: Whether the counsel, relations, and friends, of the lords Lovat, Kilmarnock, Cromartie, Balmerino, &c. committed to the Tower for high treason, werè not from the first moment admitted to them?

6. Whether the first warrant, under which Mr. Wilkes's perfon was feized, his house rifled, his locks broke open, and his papers carried off, is not univerfally allowed to be arbitrary and tyrannical?

7. Whether (except in cafes of high treason) the papers of any English fubject ought ever to be feized and whether all apparent proof being believed to be deficient, this is not to be deemed a moft odious method of fifing for evidence.

8. Whether Mr. Wilkes did not from the first reft his cafe on the univerfal liberty of the fubject, and not on privilege only? 9 Whether

K 3

9. Whether the many profecutions now carrying on by Mr. Wilkes at so great an expence, bear the leaft relation to privilege, and whether they are not clearly in vindication of the liberty, property, domeftic quiet, and fecurity of every Englishman?

10. Whether Mr. Wilkes was admitted to fee any one of his accufers, and whether there is yet any accufation on oath against him, relative to the North Briton, No. 45?

11. Whether Mr. Wilkes has not been treated as guilty, though justice as well as candour would yet pronounce him innocent, the law of England never prefuming guilt?

12. Whether fureties of the peace have been demanded or taken from any of the perfons fuppofed to have been concerned in the North Briton, No.45?

13. Whether in all cafes of breach of the peace, the fubject has not a right to be discharged from his confinement upon giving fureties for the peace, and whether a member of parliament can be difcharged, without giving them, if demanded?

14. Whether every fubject of England is not interested in the prefervation of the privileges of parliament, the houfe ofcommons being the guardians of the liberties of the people against the defpotifm

of minifters?

15. Whether the privileges of parliament have not been extorted from former kings, and whether they have not ever been confidered as the firmest barrier of the English nation against the encroachment of the crown, when unhappily under the influence of arbitrary ministers ?

16. Whether any one fact reflecting on Mr. Wilkes's private character has been yet afcertained, and whether, (as in the cafe of the Winchester falsehood of lord Bute's fon) any proof whatever has been brought to fupport the infinite calumnies fo induftrioully propagated against Mr. Wilkes?

17. Whether

17. Whether it be not the clear language of the conftitution, that the king can do no wrong, but that fome minister is responsible for the exercise of all the royal functions of peace, war, and even the darling attribute of mercy, not excepted?

18. Whether the king's fpeech has not at all times been advised and made by minifters, and whether it is not the language of every conftitution, that good kings may be furprised and impofed upon by bad minifters?

19. Whether the liberty of the press, which is always deemed the bulwark of our liberties, can fubfift, if there be a privileged vehicle of fallacy?

20. Whether in the North Britou, No. 45, there appears the leaft intention of vilifying the facred dignity of royalty, and whether the whole charge is not printed against adminiftration-contrary to the opinion of royalty itself-a prince of so many, great, amiable qualities, whom England truly reveres the perfonal character of our prefent amiable fovereign makes us eafy and happy that fo great a power is lodged in fuch bands?

Standing order of the house of lords, April 18, 1626.

THE privilege of the houfe is, that no lord of parliament, fitting the parliament, or within the ufual times of privilege of parliament, is to be imprisoned or restrained, without fentence or order of the house, unless it be for treason, or felony, or for refusing to give fecurity for the peace.

Standing order of the boufe of commons, June 1, 1626, 19 Jac.

ORDERED upon the QUESTION, That in cafe of any arreft, or any diftrefs of goods, ferving any procefs, citation for his perfon, arresting bis perfon, ftaying him in any court, or BREAKING

K 4

ANY

ANY OTHER privilege of this houfe, a letter ball iffue under Mr. Speaker's hand, for the party's relief therein, as if the parliament were fitting; and the party refusing to obey it, to be cenfüred at next meeting.

Cafe of Chief Justice Scroggs.

THE fixth article of impeachment of high treafon and other great crimes and mifdemeanors, against Sir William Scroggs, chief justice of the court of King's Bench, by the commons in parliament, A.D. 1680, is expreffed in the following words. That

the faid Sir William Scroggs, in further oppreffion of his majefty's liege people, hath fince his being 'made chief juftice of the faid court of King's Bench, in an arbitrary manner, granted divers general ⚫ warrants for attaching the perfons and feizing the goods of his majefty's fubjects, not named or defcribed particularly in the faid warrants; by means whereof many of his majesty's fubjects ' have been vexed, their houfes entered into, and they themselves grievously oppreffed contrary to

' law.'

Query? Was Mr. Wilkes either named or particularly defcribed in the warrant iffued by the fecretaries of ftate for attaching his perfon? If not, what cenfure would the house of commons, who impeached Sir William Scroggs, have paffed upon them for granting a warrant against a perfon not named or particularly defcribed in the faid warrant.

Short note from Sir William Temple.

SIR WILLIAM TEMPLE, in relation to king CHARLES II. fays, in his Memoirs, p. 28, 29, edition 8vo. At a long audience in his closet,- I fhewed that the force feeming neceffary to fub

• due