“I will take up no more of your lordship’s time than to add that, if I had been conscious of the guilt now imputed to me, I could have kept myself and my fortune out of the reach of the laws of this country. I am a citizen of the world; I could have lived anywhere: but I love my own country, and submit to its laws, resolving that my innocence should be justified by the laws. I now, by my own voluntary act, by surrendering myself to the Court of King’s Bench, stake, upon the verdict of twelve men, my life, my fortune, and, what is dearer to me, my honour.
“March 25, 1768.”
“Baltimore.”
The substance of the defence of Mrs. Griffenburg and Mrs. Harvey consisted principally in alleging that Miss Woodcock had consented to all that had passed, and that no force had been used towards her either by Lord Baltimore or themselves.
The whole of the case having now been heard, Lord Chief Baron Smythe, in a clear and lucid manner, proceeded to sum up the case to the jury. Having pointed out to them the law of the case, as it affected the charge against the prisoners, and their defence, his lordship proceeded to recapitulate the evidence which had been produced, in doing which he was occupied during a period of three hours. He concluded by saying—“In point of law, the fact is fully proved on my lord and the two other prisoners, if you believe the evidence of Sarah Woodcock. It is a crime which in its nature can only be proved by the woman on whom it is committed; for she only can tell whether she consented or no: it is, as my lord observes, very easy to be made, and hard to be disproved; and the defence can only be collected from circumstances; from these you must judge whether her evidence is or is not to be believed. Lord Hale, in his ‘History of the Pleas of the Crown,’ lays down the rules:—1. If complaint is not made soon after the injury is supposed to be received; 2. If it is not followed by a recent prosecution; a strong presumption arises that the complaint is malicious. She has owned the injury was received December 22; the complaint was not made till December 29; but she has accounted for it in the manner you have heard. The strong part of the case on behalf of the prisoners is her not complaining when she was at Lord Mansfield’s, the supreme magistrate of the kingdom in criminal matters. You have heard how she has explained and accounted for her conduct in that particular, which you will judge of. Upon the whole, if you believe that she made the discovery as soon as she knew she had an opportunity of doing it, and that her account is true, you will find all the prisoners Guilty; if you believe that she did not make the discovery as soon as she had an opportunity, and from thence, or other circumstances, are not satisfied her account is true, you will find them all Not guilty: for if he is not guilty, they cannot be so; for they cannot be accessory to a crime which was never committed.”
After an absence of an hour and twenty minutes, the jury returned with a verdict that the prisoners were not guilty.
This singular affair was tried at Kingston, in Surrey, on the 26th of March, 1768.
It would be useless to offer any observations upon this extraordinary case. From the verdict returned by the jury, there ought to exist no doubt of the innocence of the persons charged of the offence imputed to them; but although Lord Baltimore and his companions were acquitted of the charge of rape, there can be little doubt that the ruin of the unfortunate girl Woodcock—even if what was admitted by his lordship were only true—was the effect of a vile conspiracy among the prisoners to sacrifice her to the libertine passions of his lordship.
JOHN WILKES, ESQ.
CONVICTED OF SEDITION AND BLASPHEMY.
THE year 1768 will ever be memorable in the annals of English history on account of the murders and mischief committed by a deluded mob, stimulated by the writings and opposition to the government of John Wilkes, Esq. an alderman of London, and member of parliament for Aylesbury.
The most scandalous and offensive of his writings were in a periodical publication called the “North Briton,” No. 45; and a pamphlet entitled “An Essay on Woman[12].” The “North Briton” was of a political nature; the other a piece of obscenity: the one calculated to set the people against the government; the other to corrupt their morals.
Amongst the ministers who found themselves more personally attacked in the “North Briton” was Samuel Martin, Esq. member for Camelford. This gentleman found his character, as secretary to the Treasury, so vilified, that he called the writer to the field. He had before been engaged in a duel with Lord Talbot, and had then escaped unhurt, but Mr. Martin shot him; and the wound proved so dangerous that he lay uncertain of recovering during several days, and was confined to his house for some weeks.
His sufferings, however, did not end here, for the attorney-general filed informations against him as author of “The North Briton,” No. 45[13], and the pamphlet entitled “An Essay on Woman.” On these charges he was apprehended; and his papers having been seized and inspected, he was committed prisoner to the Tower, but was soon admitted to bail. Before his trial came on, Mr. Wilkes fled to France, under the pretext of restoring his health, which had suffered from his wound, and the harassing measures taken against him by the secretaries of state, Lord Egremont and Lord Halifax; and no sooner was he out of the kingdom, than the ministers proceeded to outlawry, dismissed him from his command as colonel of the Buckinghamshire militia, and expelled him from his seat in parliament.
While in Paris, he was challenged to fight by a Captain Forbes, on account of the reflections which he had cast upon the birthplace of the gallant captain, Scotland; but he declined the invitation, alleging that he had still an affair to settle with Lord Egremont before he could venture to take any other duel upon his hands. The death of that noble lord, however, left him free to fight; but on his writing to accept the challenge, his antagonist was not to be found. Mr. Wilkes subsequently returned to London, and gave notice that he should appear to answer the charges preferred against him on a certain day; and then having appeared in his place, as an alderman, in Guildhall, on his return, the mob took the horses from his carriage and dragged it to his house, crying “Wilkes and liberty!” On the 21st of February 1764, the trial of Mr. Wilkes, upon the accusations alleged against him, came on before Lord Mansfield, and he was found guilty on both charges, subject to arguments upon certain points as to the validity of his apprehension, the seizure of his papers, and the judgment of outlawry which had been obtained against him. The discussions preliminary to these arguments occupied the courts at various times during a space of two years; and in the mean time, the popularity of Mr. Wilkes and the outrages of the mob increased daily.
At length, on the 27th of April 1768, Mr. Wilkes having been served with a writ of Capias utlagatum,