granted to Mr. Wilkes, for his life, would have been forfeited. Earl Temple would not expose himself to this risk; it was therefore arranged, that if Mr. Wilkes should be called on at the poll to produce his qualification, he should immediately decline the poll: but Mr. Wilkes was not called on. I mention this anecdote, to show how often important events depend on little circumstances. If Mr. Wilkes had not been elected for Middlesex, his expulsion, and all the consequent questions, could never have taken place. But the most important consequence resulting from this persecution was, that it appeared that there was no measure so humiliating to those who supported it, but that a majority of the House of Commons might be brought to vote for it. It was seen that this House of Commons, elected under the auspices of the Duke of Grafton, in 1768, was perfectly well suited to adopt every measure proposed by the interior Cabinet.

The Royal Family Marriage Act of 1772, was the measure of importance next brought forward. I think it is the wickedest Act in

to gratify the late Queen's pride, to protect her from the mortification of having the Countess Dowager of Waldegrave and Mrs. Horton raised to the rank of her sistersin-law. The reason assigned for bringing forward this Act, was to prevent the King's children from contracting improper marriages; but this was only a pretence. The King's eldest son, who has now succeeded to the Throne, was at that time only nine years and a half old; and as far as regarded the honour of the King's children, or the succession of a person from an humble walk in life, the Act was wholly inadequate : it was the late Queen's German pride which was to be protected. I remember an intimate friend of mine, then high in office, using to me this language, a very short time after the Act had been passed: “ And now all our trouble and all our danger appear to have been unnecessary, for the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Cumberland have been with the King, and told him, that they were married before the Act was passed." The Bill was carried through the two Houses with great difficulty. In the House of Commons it was carried only

by a majority of forty; and in the House of Lords nineteen Peers entered a protest, declaring that the Bill, if passed into a law, would be void. I think they were right in this opinion. Sir Edward Coke, Sir Matthew Hale, and Sir John Holt, have all laid down this doctrine in the most explicit terms, that an Act of Parliament repugnant to the law of God, is void. Suppose an Act of Parliament were passed, declaring that those who have been made the objects of this Royal Family Marriage Act, viz. the descendants of George II., should be dispunishable for murder, would such an Act be void, or valid? I think no man can hesitate to say, that such a Statute would be void; because it would permit men to do that with impunity, which God has forbidden them to do. The law of God has not commanded marriage, but it has pointed it out as the means by which man may continue his race, and live in his posterity. What right could Parliament have to say, "The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Cumberland shall die without issue?" I hesitate to speak of the mischiefs which have been already produced by this Act. I

fear still more to point out the greater mischiefs which may hereafter flow from it. What tyranny has not been practised over His present Majesty? what cruelty has not been exercised towards the Duke of Sussex and his children? It was well said by some persons, while this Bill was depending in Parliament, that the title of the Bill should be, " An Act to encourage Fornication and Adultery in the Descendants of George II." But the subject is too painful; I will more on it.

66

say no

The Parliament closed its career with passing Acts intended either to compel the Americans to yield unconditional submission, or to take arms immediately in defence of their rights: they chose the latter: they declared that George III. had forfeited all right to their allegiance, and erected themselves into a Federative Republic. This Parliament was then dissolved. The American war was persevered in for eight years. The inhabitants of this island were deluded into the support of it. I recollect in one debate, Lord North stated, that the inhabitants of Great Britain, considered collec

tively, paid one man with another twentyfive shillings a year in taxes; while the inhabitants of our American colonies, considered collectively, paid each only sixpence a year in taxes: he added, "Is this equitable?" The country gentlemen were weak enough to believe, that by persevering in the contest, their taxes would be diminished. The language held in the House of Commons sufficiently proved that the Americans were not represented in that House. war was considered as the war of the King personally. Those who supported it were called the King's friends; while those who wished the country to pause, and reconsider the propriety of persevering in the contest, were branded as disloyal.

The

I

The zealous supporters of the American war have thrown blame on the War Minister, and the Generals who conducted it. In this I think they have acted unjustly. believe that Lord George Germaine was as able a War Minister as could have been found; and the Generals employed were men of the first reputation. It always ap→ peared to me that the design of compelling