THE Attention of the public being at this Time entirely taken up with the affair of John Wilkes, Esq member of parliament for Aylesbury, in Buckinghamshire; a gen­tleman of the greatest honor and abilities, and friend to liberty and his country, and a steady asserter of the invaluable rights and privileges of Englishmen; we hope the following impartial state of the case, and authentic account of all the proceedings and papers relative to that interesting and alarming en­croachment on the prerogative of the subject, late­ly exhibited by the most arbitrary and unjust ex­tension of power ever yet known, will meet with the approbation and protection of every honest man, and well-wisher to his Country.

Indeed such is the frame of our government, so prudently and strongly have our ancestors secured liberty and property (rescued by inches out of the hands of encroaching violence) that we cannot be enslaved but by chains of our own making. By the wisdom of our forefathers, the meanest [Page 4] subject in this kingdom is protected from being given up as a prey to the arbitary pleasure, not only of the Prince, if he should attempt it, but (which is far more grievous) to the unreasonable passions and lusts of Favourites, Chief Ministers, and Women.

There are three things that the Law of England (which is the law of Mercy) principally regards and takes care of, viz. Life, Liberty, and Estate. Next to a man's Life, is the freedom of his person; for what is imprisonment but a kind of civil death? And Fortescue, Cap. 42. justly remarks, Anglioe jura in omni casu libertati dant favorum. "The laws of England do, in all cases, favour liberty."

The Writ of Habeas Corpus, is a remedy granted by the common law, for such as are unjustly de­tained in custody, to procure their liberty; but before this statute was rendered less useful than it ought to be, partly by the judges pretending a power to grant or deny the said writ at their plea­sure, in many cases; and especially by the ill practice of sheriffs and goalers, in putting the prisoner to the trouble of an alies and pluries; that is a second and third writ, before they would obey the first (as at that time there was no penalty till the third) and after all, the judges would fre­quently alledge, that they could not take bail, be­cause the party was a Prisoner of State, &c. Therefore to remedy these inconveniencies, this wholesome law was provided. And as no man is sure but at one time or another he may have oc­casion [Page 5] to make use of it, we shall give a brief ex­planation of it to the meanest capacities, by divid­ing it into its several branches.

The Habeas Corpus Act concerneth either, 1. Persons committed for some other criminal, or supposed criminal matter, besides Treason or Fe­lony, and these are to have an Habeas immedi­ately. 2. Such who in their Mittimus are charg­ed with Treason or Felony; and these shall have the said writ after the time herein limited. 1. If any goaler, or under-keeper shall not deliver a true copy of the Mittimus within six hours after the prisoner demands it, the head goaler or keeper forfeits to the prisoner, for the first offence, the sum of 100l. for the second offence 200l. and loses his place; nor is there any fee to be paid for the same, the turnkey must deliver it at his peril.—Note, If any prisoner shall be locked up, or no one suffered to come near him, any friend may demand it on his behalf.

2. Whatever the criminal matter may be, if Treason or Felony be not expresly charged, any person on the prisoner's behalf, carrying such true copy of the commitment to the Lord Chancellor, or any of the Judges, or Barons of the Exchequer, or upon oath made that a copy was demanded, and denied, he shall grant an Habeas Corpus, or forfeit 500l. to the prisoner. But such request must be made in writing, and attested by two witnesses.

[Page 6]3. If the sheriff or goaler do not carry up the prisoner, and return the true causes of his detainer within three days, if within 20 miles distance; or within ten days, if above 20 and under 100 miles; or within twenty days if above 100 miles, he for­feits 500l. to the prisoner.—Note, The prisoner must pay the charges of his carrying up, and the Judge when he grants the writ may order how much; but it must not be above 12d. a mile.

If upon the return of such Habeas Corpus it ap­pears that the prisoner is not charged with Trea­son of Felony, especially and plainly expressed, or for such matters as by law are not bailable, the Judge shall discharge the prisoner on bail.

4. If a person once so bailed out shall again be imprison'ed for the same offence, those that do it forfeit 500l.

5. If there be High Treason for Felony, plainly and specially expressed, that is, not only gene­rally for Treason or Felony, but Treason in con­spiring to kill the King, or counterfeiting the King's coin, or Felony for stealing the goods of such an one to such a value, &c. then the priso­ner cannot have his Habeas Corpus, till be has, on the first week of the Term, or first day of sessions of Oyer and Terminer, or general goal delivery, pertitioned in open court, to be brought to his trial the next term or sessions following; on the last day thereof he shall be bailed; and if not indicted the second term or sessions, shall be discharged.

[Page 7]6. This act extends to all places within En­gland and Wales; the Tower cannot be supposed to be exempted, nor Windsor Castle, ^* nor any such royal forts, for the words are general. And be­sides, there is a special Act of Parliament, that unites the King's castles to the counties wherein they stand; there having formerly, it seems, been some pretensions, and ill practices, to hold them distinct, that therein they may detain priso­ners against law, and not admit any writ to en­large them.

Lastly, No person shall be sent prisoner out of England or Wales, into Scotland, Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or any other place beyond the seas.

This Act took its rise in 1674, when it was calculated to set bounds to the arbitrary proceed­ings of Ministers. In 1679 the House of Com­mons brought in a bill for excluding placemen and pensioners from seats in Parliament. They also voted the standing army, and even the King's guards, to be illegal. But to compensate for the faction and violence into which they had been led by their prejudices, they got the ever-memorable Habeas Corpus Act pasted into a law; which crowned the security of the subject, by ratifying one of the most essential parts of MACNA CHAR­TA, and the PETITION of RIGHTS.

[Page 8]Having thus given a concise account of the above act, which we hope will not be unenter­taining to our Readers. We shall proceed with the case of Mr. Wilkes.

The North-Briton of Saturday, April 23, 1763, was the cause of Mr. Wilkes's being taken into custody by a warrant from the Secretary of State, for writing the said paper; he was accordingly taken into custody on Saturday the 30th of April, and, after being examined, was committed to the Tower. The same afternoon and Habeas Corpus was granted by the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas.

The following papers being authentic, will give a farther insight into the matter.

[End of the North-Briton.]

As the Apprehension and Commitment of John Wilkes, Esq Member of Parliament, to the Tower, must have raised the curiosity of many people to know the circumstances attending it; the following detail of simple facts (upon which every reader will make his own comments) can­not be unseasonable, and are perhaps absolutely necessary to be laid before the public.

On Saturday the Thirtieth of April, at Ten in the Forenoon, three of his Majesty's messengers, by a warrant from the Secretary of State, seized on the Person of the said John Wilkes, Esq Mem­ber of Parliament; of which warrant the following is a true copy.

N. B. The Officers had a verbal order to put this warrant in execution, by entering forceably into the house of John Wilkes, Esq Member of Parliament, at midnight; and those officers are (the hand bill says) now threatened with the loss of their places, for not complying with such ver­bal Instructions.

On the intimation of Mr. Wilkes, Member of Parliament, being in custody, a motion was made in the Court of Common Pleas, then fitting in Westminster-Hall, for a Habeas Corpus, which was [Page 14] granted; though by reason of the prothonotory's office not being open, such Habeas Corpus could not be sued out till four o'clock in the afternoon.

Several Gentlemen, Friends, and Acquaintance of the said John Wilkes, Esq Member of Parlia­ment, applied for admittance into his house, which was then peremptorily refused by a pretended order from the Secretary of State; which order, though repeatedly requested, was not, nor could not be produced.

As no proper of legal authority appeared to countenance such refusal, the Gentlemen thought themselves no ways obliged to obey the verbal commands of officers acting only under verbal au­thority; and entered accordingly without further question or molestation from those officers.

Mr. Wood, the Deputy Secretary of State, be­ing sent for, demanded the reason of such forcible entry: It was replied, that no force had been used, and that the Gentlemen thought themselves legally justified in what They had done.

Soon after this (whether sent for, or not, does not appear) Phillip Carteret Webb, Esq Solicitor to the Treasury, came into the room, and some private conversation between him and Mr. Wood having past, the latter asked, if any Gentleman then present would attend or inspect the officers while they were sealing up all the papers in the house of Mr. Wilkes; or used words to the like effect.

Mr. Wilkes having declined to accept of the like offer, no person then present thought himself au­thorized to take upon him such inspection.

[Page 15]Notwithstanding it was known, that the Court of Common Pleas had granted an Habeas Corpus, of which fact Philip Carteret Webb, Esq Solici­tor to the Treasury, at that time at Lord Halifax's, was then well assured; yet was the said John Wilkes, Esq Member of Parliament, committed to the Tower of London.

His Solicitor and one of his council, soon after they heard of such commitment, went to the Tower, in order to consult with the said John Wilkes, about the legal methods to be pursued for his enlargement; but were denied admittance; Major Ransford informed them, that he had re­ceived orders from the Secretary of State, not to admit any person whatsoever, to speak with, or see the said John Wilkes: And further informed them, that he has just before refused the right honoura­ble the Earl of Temple such admittance.

On Sunday, May the first, the same gentlemen, between the hours of 12 and 1, called again, up­on Major Ransford, on the same occasion, but were again denied admittance, as were soon af­ter many Noblemen and Gentlemen of the first distinction, and Mr. Wilkes's own Brother.

After such denial, Mr. Wilkes's Solicitor de­manded of the Major, a copy of the warrant un­der which Mr. Wilkes was committed to the Tow­er; which was readily granted by the Major, and of which the following is a true copy.

Philip Carteret Webb, Esq Solicitor to the Trea­sury, then being present in the said Major Rans­ford's room, Mr. Wilkes's Council and Solicitor applied to the said Mr. Webb for admittance to the said Mr. Wilkes.

Philip Carteret Webb, Esq re-answered, He believed there must have been a mistake in the Orders, and that, if either of the Secretaries of [Page 17] state were in Town, He would apply to Them, are obtain such admittance as aforesaid; and that he would either send or bring, an order for such ad­mittance in the afternoon.

Upon this assertion the said Mr. Wilkes's Coun­cil and Solicitor, between Eight and Nine o'Clock in the evening of the same day, again went to the Tower, and applied for admittance as aforesaid. The Major, having received no instruction from either of the Secretaries of State, of Philip Carteret Webb, Esq refused, as before.

On the morning of this day (Monday, the se­cond of May) the Court of Common Pleas order­ed a return to their writ of Habeas Corpus; which return not the appearing to the court to be suf­ficient, the court ordered, that the said return should not at present be filed: But, upon motion, granted another Habeas Corpus, directed to the constable and so forth of the tower of London.

Mr. Wilkes's solicitor and council, this same day, between the hours of two and three, again went to the tower, and made application to major Rans­ford for admittance to the said John Wilkes, Esq but were refused such admittance; major Ransford declaring, that he had received no orders from either of the Secretaries of State to that purpose. There appeared upon the table of the said major Ransford a written order for him to take down the names of all persons applying for admittance to Colonel Wilkes.

[Page 18] MAGNA EST VERITAS.

During his consinement, in order to divert the hours of iolitude, he wrote to his Daughter at Paris; and, having obtained a copy (which was sent open to the Earl of Halifax, in order to be forwarded) we take the liberty of presenting it to the public.

On Tuesday, May 3, at half an hour past ten in the morning, Mr. Wilkes was brought to the Bar of the Court of Common Pleas, where he made the following Speech, truly becoming a Man, and a member of the House of Commons.

[Page 20]He then pleaded by his council, Mr. Sergeant Glynn, for his discharge, alledging that his com­mitment was not valid. The point in debate last­ed from eleven o'clock till a quarter past two; he was offered the liberty of being bailed, which he refused; and after several learned arguments on both sides, he was remanded back to the tower; and his friends had, for the first time, the opor­tunity of free access to him.—At his departure from the hall, the acclamations of the people ec­choed, Liberty! Liberty! Whigs for ever, and no Excise!—The court then adjourned till Friday the 6th of May, at which time he was ordered to be brought up, in order that the affair should be final­ly determined.

His friends now embraced the opportunity of visiting him; and perhaps no prisoner in the tower of London ever before, was attended by such an illustrious train of Wellwishers.

During this respite his Majesty was pleased to issue orders to Lord Egremont, to discontinue him from his being a colonel in the militia of the county of Buckingham, which was signified to him in the following letters.

To which Mr. Wilkes made the following sen­sible and genteel Answer.

Here it will not be improper to insert some de­tached Pieces published in the Public Papers re­lative to the Affair, in order to render this Pub­lication more entertaining and complete. The two following were printed in the Public Ledger, on Friday, May 6th, the Day fixed for the De­cision of this important Affair.

On Friday, May 6, about eight o'clock in the morning, Mr. Wilkes was brought from the Tow­er, attended by the proper officers, and reached Westminster-Hall about nine. The Lord Chief Justice and the other Judges came about the, and the court being assembled, Mr. Wilkes himself opened the business upon which they were met, with the following Speech, which was handed about the next day.

When Mr. Wilkes had made an end, that dis­tinguished ornament to justice and humanity, Lord Chief Justice Pratt, stood up, and delivered the opinion of the Court to the following purport, arranging the matter in question under these three separate heads.

First, The legality of Mr. Wilkes's Commitment.

Secondly, the necessity for a specification of those particular passages in the 45th number of the NORTH BRITON, which had been deem'd a Libel. And,

Thirdly, Mr. Wilkes's Privilege as a Member of Parliament.

[Page 27]In regard to the first, his Lordship remarked, That he would consider a Secretary of State's Warrant thro' the whole Affair, as nothing supe­rior to the Warrant of a common Justice of the Peace; and that no Magistrate had in reality a Right ex officio to apprehend any Person, without stating the particular Crime of which he was ac­cused; but at the same Time he observed there were many Precedents where a nice Combination of Circumstances gave so strong a suspicion of Facts, that tho' that Magistrate could not be justi­fied ex officio, he was nevertheless supported in the Commitment, even without receiving any particu­lar Information for the Foundation of his Charge. The Word Charge, his Lordship took Notice, was in general much misunderstood, and did not mean the Accusation brought against any Person taken up, but his Commitment by the Magistrate before whom be might be brought. Upon the Whole of this Point, according to the customary Rule, which had been for a Series of Years observed by the Sages of the Law, even in the Reign of Charles the Second, when this Matter was to frequently contested, his Lordship was of Opinion, that Mr. Wilkes's Commitment was not illegal.

In relation to the next Article, which required a Specification of the particular Passages in the 45th North Briton, which were deemed a Libel, his Lordship took Notice that the Insertion of these Passages, so far as they related to the Point in Question, was not at all necessary; for even sup­posing the Whole of the 45th North Briton had been [Page 28] inserted in the Body of the Warrant, yet it by no Means came under his Lordship's Cognizance at that Time; for the Matter in Consideration then was, not the Nature of the Offence, but the Le­gality of the Commitment; the Nature of the Offence not resting in the Bosom of a Judge, without the Assistance of a Jury; and not being a proper subject of Enquiry, till regularly bro't on to be tried, in the customary Way of Proceeding.

With respect to the third and last Point, How far, Mr. Wilkes had a Right to plead his privilege as a Member of Parliament, my Lord Chief Jus­tice remarked, that there were but three Cases which could possibly affect the Privilege of a Mem­ber of Parliament, and these were Treason, Felony, and the Peace. The Peace as it is written in the Institutes of the Law, his Lordship explained to signify a Breach of the Peace: He remarked, that when the Seven Bishops were sent to the Tower, the Plea which was used when the Spiritual Lords contended for their Privilege, was, that they had endeavoured to disturb the Peace. This, at that Arbitrary Time, was judged sufficient to forfeit their Privilege, but remarked his Lordship, out of the four Judges then upon the Bench, there was but one honest Man; that was Powel, and he declined giving any Opinion. This great and good Man then answered, that the Privilege of Parliament should be held sacred and inviolable, and as there were but three particular Cases in which that Privilege was forfeited, it only remain­ed to examine how far Mr. Wilkes's was endanger­ed. [Page 29] Mr. Wilkes stood accused of writing a Libel, a Libel in the Sense of the Law was a High Mis­demeanour; but did not come within the Descrip­tion of Treason, Felony, or Breach of the Peace, At most it had but a tendency to disturb the Peace, and consequently could not be sufficient to destroy the Privilege of a Member of Parliament.

Thus this Point of Privilege was determined, and Mr. Wilkes immediately discharged, through the universal Acclamations of an incredible Num­ber of Spectators, all impatient to know the Re­sult of so important a Question. He had however been scarcely discharged, when a Gentleman of Eminence in the Law stood up, and told my Lord Chief Justice, that he had just received a Note from the Attorney and Solicitor General, to in­treat his Lordship would not give Mr. Wilkes leave to depart till their coming, which would be instant, as they had something to offer against his Plea of Privilege. The Motion was however heartily laughed at by the whole Court, as that Gentleman had been discharged already, and the Question finally ended.

'Tis impossible to do sufficient Honour to that amazing Power of Elocution, and Depth of Un­derstanding which My Lord Chief Justice displayed upon this Occasion; he was florid without Parade, and profound without Oftentation; to say all, in one Word, he was a perfect Image of Integrity the most refined, and Wisdom the most elegant. After the Court had proceeded to give their Opini­on, and Mr. Wilkes, was ordered to be discharged, [Page 30] he then addressed himself to the Court in the Words following:

When Mr. Wilkes had ended, the Audience burst into an univer­sal Shout, which was often repeated. Mr. Wilkes said some little Time in a Room adjoining to the Court, in Expectation that the Croud would disperse: At last, finding there was no Likelihood of their dispersing, he walked out of the back Door of the Common Pleas, and was received by a prodigious multitude of People, who attended him, amidst continual Acclamations, to his House in Great George­Street, Westminster. As soon as he got in, he went into his Dining Room fronting the Street, and throwing open his Windows, politely paid his Compliments to the People, who joined in the most ser­vent Prayers and Wishes for the Continuance of his Health and Life.

The Evening concluded in several Parts of the Town in a different Manner from the preceding one (though it was the Day appointed for a general Thanks giving on account of the Peace Bonefires and Illuminations were displayed, and the Friends of Liberty spent the Night with an uncommon Satisfaction and Festivity. In short, there never was so much Pleasure to be seen in the Countenances of all Ranks of People on any other occasion.

The next Day the following Letter was printed, and some Thou­sands dispersed through this Metropolis.

Having given the foregoing candid and complete Account of the Proceedings relative to Mr. Wilkes, we cannot quit the Subject without making some Reflections on this unconstitutional Affair.

By the Laws of England, every Man is sup­posed to be innocent, till it be proved that he is guilty, and has a Right, when accused of any Crime, to make Use of the best Means he can for his Defence. This fundamental Principle was so far violated in the Case of Mr. Wilkes, that, for more than two Days, he was denied the Privi­lege of seeing any Person whatsoever. This surely is making an English Prison but little better than the French Bastile, where Men are often taken up, confined, and executed, without so much as know­ing any Thing of the Crime they are charged with, or even seeing the Face of their Accusers.

Justice and Humanity demands that every man should be allowed the Advice and Assistance of his Friends, to clear up his Character and Repu­tation to the World. It is the Business of Justice to furnish every Opportunity, instead of denying it; and whenever a man is refused this, we can't avoid thinking that his Enemies are less solicitous about the Nature of his Offence, than studious about his destruction; and that so far from pro­secuting from and equitable View, they rather pro­ceed from Motives of a Nature easily to be guessed at, though not so safe to be named.

[Page 32]It is impossible for a man to make a regular Defence without the Help of legal Advice. There­fore to refuse a Prisoner the Benefit of Council, is diametrically opposite to the fundamental Spirit of the British Constitution, which, so far from wanting to condemn, wishes nothing more than to give every Advantage of proving the Innocence of the unhappy Culprit: For if a man is not al­lowed to prepare for his Defence, Sentence may as well pass upon him at once, without the useless Parade and idle Formality of a Trial. How far this had like to have been the Case with Mr. Wilkes, let every unbiassed Person decide within himself, had not the spirited and patriotic Efforts of Lord Temple, and other noble Patrons of Liberty, gone Hand in Hand with his Resolution, Steadiness, and persevering Disposition.

What heavier Crime can be laid to a Subject's Charge than Treason against so gracious a Sove­reign as this Nation is at present blessed with?—And what Reparation is to be made Mr. Wilkes, for the Confinement of his Person, and Injury in­tended his Character? Shall a British Senator suf­fer such Violence and Indignity without finding Redress from the Laws of his Country, merely for standing foremost in the Cause of Liberty!—Forbid it Heaven!

It we look through the whole Course of Mr. Wilkes's Life, we shall find that Liberty has been the governing Principle of all his Actions. He has always been ready to serve our gracious Sove­reign and his Family, knowing his Government [Page 33] to be founded on Liberty. His was the daring Task to rescue the Royal Person from ill-placed Imputations, and fix them on the Ministers, who alone ought to bare the Blame, nay, the Punish­ment, of their unconstitutional Proceedings. He had the Virtue in these Days of Corruption, to re­sist the most advantageous and lucrative Offers, in order to seduce him to their Party; and rather than associate with Men, who are Enemies to the Liberty of this Country, he chose to suffer the se­verest Persecutions. Hitherto he has had the Happiness to surmount every Difficulty, in a Man­ner becoming an Englishman, and the Friend and Guardian of our Liberties; and as the Validity of the Warrant by which he was committed, will soon be called in Question by Mr. Wilkes, in the Court of Common Pleas, we shall say no more on that Head, until its Legality shall have received a Judicial Determination in that Court; when we shall resume the Subject, and give a further Ac­count of the Affair.

We shall conclude at present with some enter­taining Pieces relative to the Subject:

On Saturday Morning Mr. Wilkes in Person, at­tended only by Mr. Grignion, of Russel-Street, Co­vent-Garden, went to Sir John Fielding's in Bow-Street, and demanded a Warrant to search the Houses of the Earls of Egremont and Halifax, his Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, for Goods stolen from the House of the said Mr. Wilkes, which he had received Information were lodged at the said Houses, or one of them. John Spinnage, Esq the Sitting Justice, refused to issue the said Warrant.

[Page 41]The following Extracts from the MONITOR of last Saturday, being aplicable to the Subject, we think proper to insert here.

THIS Writer proceeds to enquire, what those Things are, which a Man ought not to ut­ter either in Speech or Writing; and what a good Subject has a Right, and is bound in Duty, as well as Interest, to say.

"He ought not to speak Evil of the Ruler of the People, to cause Disaffection, or to raise Cla­mour, Murmurs of Discontent. He that ruleth with Justice, Judgement and Righteousness, is in­titled not only to our Obedience, but to our Ap­plause."

"He ought not to solicit any one to sell his Vote or Interest either in or out of Parliament. A free Election, and an uncorrupt Parliament is the best Security of our Constitution."

"He ought not to commend bad Men, nor bad Measures; nor defend Men in Power, whose Actions discover their Ignorance or bad Intentions."

"He ought not to favour passive Obedience, and Non-resistance; or to deny the Subject his Right to petition to the King against any Usurpa­tion upon Liberty in a free State. One Step more would reconcile such Advocates to Insallibility: For, if the Subject must take every Thing upon the Word and Authority of a Minister, it is no Matter whether he lives at London, or Rome."

"He particularly ought to be cautious whom he commends; for very often Praises, where not deserved, fit as aukwardly upon the great Man, [Page 42] who does not fill his Post with Satisfaction to the Publick, as fine Cloaths upon those, who has not been used to Dress; and be careful how he de­tracts from the Merit of him, that has met with universal Applause for his Wisdom and Virtue; because it is not only the Height of Injustice, but it raises this Reflection, ‘If this Man with all his Virtues, Graces, and Successes be so despiseable; what must be thought of those that succeed him, should they not be able to plume themselves with the Graces of his Person, and Virtues, and glorious Events of his Administration?’

"In a Word, it is equally unreasonable and unjust to praise and support, the great undeserv­ing Man, as it is to slight, abuse, and run down the Man, who deserves every Thing of his King and Country."

The following Letters, we are assured, are genuine, and the Originals of some of them in the Possession of the Earls of Egremont and Halifax. They are presented to the Public, because they bear an immediate Relation to the North-Briton, although they relate to a Paper of the 21st of August of the last Year.