So early as in the late reign there had been thoughts of a double alliance with the ducal house of Brunswick; but when the jealousy of the Princess Dowager had prevented the marriage of her son with a princess of that line, there had remained no great propensity in the Court of Brunswick to the other match between the hereditary Prince and Lady Augusta.413 It had, however, been treated of from time to time; and in 1762 had been agreed, but was abruptly broken off by the influence of the King of Prussia. Lady Augusta was lively, and much inclined to meddle in the private politics of the Court. As none of her children but the King had, or had reason to have, much affection for their mother, she justly apprehended Lady Augusta’s instilling their disgusts into the Queen. She could not forbid her daughter’s frequent visits at Buckingham House, but to prevent any ill consequence from them, often accompanied her thither. This, however, was an attendance and constraint the Princess of Wales could not support. Her exceeding indolence, her more excessive love of privacy, and the subjection of being frequently with the Queen, whose higher rank was a never-ceasing mortification, all concurred to make her resolve at any rate to deliver herself from her daughter. To attain this end, profusion of favours to the hated House of Brunswick was not thought too much. The hereditary Prince was prevailed on to accept Lady Augusta’s hand, with fourscore thousand pounds, an annuity of 5000l. a year on Ireland, and 3000l. a year on Hanover. Fourscore thousand pounds were given with the late Princess Royal414 to the Prince of Orange, but she was a King’s daughter. The Princess Mary415 and Louisa had but forty thousand each.
Lady Augusta was not handsome, but tall enough, and not ill-made; with the German whiteness of hair and complexion, so remarkable in the Royal Family, and with their precipitate, yet thick, Westphalian accent. She had little grace or softness in her manner: yet with more attractions she might have failed to gain a heart that was not inclined to part with its liberty, and least of all to one of her family. The Prince arrived on the 12th of January; and, as if to prejudice him against his bride, the plan was formed to disgust him as much in order to send him away as soon as possible. He was lodged at Somerset House: no guards were stationed there. The Lord Steward chose the company that should dine with him: and every art was used to prevent his seeing Mr. Pitt, or the chiefs of the Opposition. At the wedding, which was on the 16th, the servants of the King and Queen were ordered not to appear in new clothes. But though these little artifices had the desired effect of affronting the Prince, they only drew mortifications on the Court. The people, enchanted with novelty and a hero, were unbounded in their exultations wherever he appeared; and, as the behaviour of the Court got wind, took pleasure, when he attended the King to the theatres, to mark their joy at the presence of the Prince, and to show the coldest neglect of their Sovereign. Nor was the Prince less assiduous to intimate his dissatisfaction, even to ill-breeding, turning his back to the King, as he stood over against him in the box at the Opera; and even going away during half the representation. To the Duke of Newcastle, and others in disgrace, he was full of attentions; dined twice with the Duke of Cumberland, and affectedly lingered there, though the King and Queen waited for him to a ball: and, as he found that step would be the most offensive, though indeed due from him to one so partial to his family, he made a visit to Mr. Pitt, at Hayes.416 These little hostilities were carried on with such vigour on both sides, that, notwithstanding all his curiosity and desires expressed of a longer stay, the King forced him and his bride to depart on the 25th—only thirteen days after his arrival. They were overtaken in a great storm at sea, and in extreme danger of being lost; but escaped, not only with good fortune to themselves, but to the Court of England, who would have appeared as guilty to the people in driving them out at such a season, as if they had raised the tempest by sorcery.417
The Parliament having reassembled on Jan. 16th, the House of Commons on the 19th proceeded on the affair of Wilkes. He had given out that he would return from Paris, and make his defence: and to carry on the delusion, a dinner was bespoken, and company invited to meet him; but on the day destined for deciding his fate, a letter from him was delivered to the Speaker, accompanied by a certificate from two French surgeons, attesting his incapacity of travelling from the ill state of his wound. The Court party objected even to the reading of the certificates, but though they could not prevent it, so eager was the curiosity of the House, they did frustrate a motion for adjournment by 239 to 102; on which many of the minority finding their weakness left the House. Others battled for the criminal till near four in the morning, but their numbers still dwindling away, Wilkes was at last expelled with scarce a negative, the warmest sticklers for him having been discountenanced and discouraged by the harsh epithets bestowed on him by Pitt in one of the former debates.
The next day Sir William Meredith and Sir George Saville moved to have Wilkes’s complaint of breach of privilege examined. George Grenville tried to evade it, but was strongly attacked by Charles Townshend, and reproached with the dismission of General A’Court, and with the arbitrary influence exerted by the Administration. Sir John Griffin418 the day before had mentioned too the case of A’Court, and said he himself would not be intimidated by the disgrace of ten more generals. The Court at last yielded the point; and the 26th was fixed for hearing the complaint.
Sir William Meredith419 and Sir George Saville were both men of character, and both singular in different ways. The first was a convert from Jacobitism; inflexibly serious, and of no clear head: yet practice formed him to a manner of speaking that had weight, and was worth attending to by those who had patience for it. He was, I believe, an honest man, though not without personal views, which a little sharpened his scorn of those who had unlike views, and were not equally honest.
Sir George Saville had a head as acutely argumentative as if it had been made by a German logician for a model. Could ministers have been found acting by the advice of casuists and confessors, Sir George would still have started distinctions to hamper their consciences; but though they walked not in such ruled paths, his want of ambition carried him so seldom to the House, that they were not often troubled with his subtleties. He had a large fortune, and a larger mind; and though his reason was sharp, his soul was candid, having none of the acrimony or vengeance of party: thence was he of greater credit than service to that in which he listed.420
On the 23rd these two Baronets moved to put off the affair of Wilkes’s complaint of breach of privilege to the 13th of February, as the material evidence, Wilkes’s servant, was in France with him. Sir George particularly attacked Grenville with much spirit. Grenville, as usual, spoke too long, though not ill, insinuating that this delay was calculated to keep up the flame. “He had always,” he said, “been averse to having this matter discussed, which had better never be decided; and that he had only given way in order to vindicate Lord Halifax and Lord Egremont.” It was perhaps true, that in some cases it were better that certain powers should not be defined. It might be of use that traitors should think Ministers have power of committing by General Warrants even members of Parliament; and at the same time Ministers ought not to have that power absolutely bestowed on them. But when once the case has happened, and that dormant or supposed power has been abused, it must be inquired into and regulated; or acquiescence constitutes the second evil hinted at above. But in any case Grenville’s argument was faulty, for if it was desirable for the public that the case should not be defined, the private vindication of two men ought not to supersede that utility. However, though the minority on putting the question were not loud for it, the ministry gave it up. Sir George Saville took occasion to make it observed, that so bad was his opinion of Wilkes, he had taken no part till, the man being expelled, nothing but the cause of the House in point of privilege seemed to remain. This did honour to Sir George, but prejudiced Wilkes and the cause of liberty. The former’s character, as I have said, was very fair: and indeed most of the Opposition were unexceptionable in that light. Yet Wilkes had, early in his warfare on the Court, told Rigby that he liked the ministers better than their opponents (no great compliment to the first), and desired him to apply to Fox to make him (Wilkes) governor of Canada—a proposal Fox rejected. It was not to be wondered at that Wilkes, so libertine and jovial, should not be captivated with the company of a set of young men who were as free from the spirit and vivacity as from the vices of their