Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 61.djvu/250

 the ‘Briton;’ and founded in concert with Churchill a rival organ, entitled ‘The North Briton,’ of which the first number appeared on 5 June. The title was adopted in irony, of which abundant use was made in the earlier numbers. The Scots were magnified, and felicitated on their triumph in the person of the favourite over their hereditary enemies, the English. Henry Fox, Halifax, and Mansfield were represented as Bute's faithful henchmen. Comparisons were ostentatiously deprecated between George III and Edward III, between the Princess Dowager of Wales and Queen Isabella, between Bute and Roger Mortimer. The attack was reinforced by an adaptation of William Mountfort's ‘Fall of Mortimer,’ prefaced (15 March 1763) by an ironical dedication to Bute. Nor did Wilkes disdain to fly at lower game. He lampooned Hogarth, quizzed Lord Talbot, the steward of the household, and established a reputation for spirit by exchanging pistol-shots with him on Bagshot Heath (5 Oct. 1762). He satirised his quondam friend Dashwood, the luckless chancellor of the exchequer, whose cider tax proved more damaging to the government than the peace of Paris; he insulted Samuel Martin, the secretary to the treasury; he even stooped to cast a jibe at Bute's son, a mere lad. The succeeding administration, in which Bute's influence was believed to be still paramount, fared even worse [see ]. ‘North Briton’ No. 45 (23 April 1763) dealt with the speech from the throne preceding the recent adjournment, and characterised a passage in which the peace of Hubertsburg was treated as a consequence of the peace of Paris, as ‘the most abandoned instance of ministerial effrontery ever attempted to be imposed on mankind;’ nay, even insinuated that the king had been induced to countenance a deliberate lie. The resentment of the king and the court knew no bounds, and the law officers advised that the article was a seditious libel. Proceedings in the ordinary course were, however, precluded by the anonymity of the publication; and accordingly the two warrants which were issued by the secretaries of state (Egremont and Halifax) for the apprehension of the authors, printers, and publishers of the alleged libel and the seizure of their papers contained the names of the printers only. The secretaries had no higher jurisdiction than justices of the peace, and as a justice's warrant was valid only against the persons named therein, there was thus in fact no warrant under which Wilkes could be legally arrested. The printers were first apprehended, and, on the information of one of them, Wilkes was taken early in the forenoon of 30 April, on his way from the Temple to his house in Great George Street, Westminster. The officers entered the house with him, and John Almon [q. v.] calling about the same time, the news was carried to Lord Temple, who at once applied for a habeas corpus. Wilkes was meanwhile taken before the secretaries. He parried their questions and protracted the examination until the habeas corpus had been granted. There was, however, some delay in the actual issue of the writ, of which the secretaries took advantage by committing Wilkes to the Tower under a warrant which directed him to be kept close prisoner. The direction was obeyed to the letter, neither his legal advisers nor the Duke of Grafton nor Lord Temple being permitted to see him. Temple, as lord-lieutenant of Buckinghamshire, received the king's express orders to cancel Wilkes's commission in the militia. He obeyed (5 May), and was then himself dismissed from the lieutenancy (7 May). Wilkes's house had meanwhile been thoroughly ransacked, and his papers, even the most private and personal, seized.

There were not wanting precedents (see Addit. MSS. 22131–2) which, but for privilege of parliament, would have given a colour (though no more) of legality to the action of the secretaries; but the arrest of a member of parliament in such circumstances was a very grave matter, and accordingly on the return to the writ of habeas corpus, Lord-chief-justice Pratt discharged Wilkes on the ground of privilege (6 May). Actions maintained in Wilkes's name by Lord Temple were at once instituted against Halifax and under-secretary Wood, the chief agent in the seizure of Wilkes's papers. The action against Halifax was delayed until November 1769 (see below). The latter resulted (6 Dec.) in a verdict for Wilkes with 1,000l. damages. The affair gave rise to other successful actions by persons who had suffered in a similar way at the hands of the government; and thus a procedure essentially identical with that in use in France under lettres de cachet was finally abrogated [see, first ; , first ].

Egremont, by whom he had been treated superciliously during the examination, Wilkes resolved to challenge so soon as he should be out of office. In the meantime he went to France, where in August he was himself challenged by a Scottish officer (Forbes), who resented the manner in which