Wilkes continued to fight against the British establishment after being released from the Tower of London. Wilkes successfully sued Lord Halifax for his ’45’arrest, and eventually, in 1769, received 4,000 pounds from Lord Halifax for ‘unlawful arrest’. Such that the case established a precedent such that General Warrants were illegal, at least against a Parliamentarian whose expressions were now considered ‘privileged.’ This was progress indeed for ‘free speech.’
Long before the Honourable Wilkes’ 1769 exoneration, he had an action-packed 1763 and 1764 after which he struggled through four years of exile. On April 30, 1763 Wilkes was thrown into the Tower of London for a week, and later in November he was seriously wounded in the stomach during a duel with fellow MP Samuel Martin (1714-1788) whom Wilkes had viciously libeled in The North Briton. After the surgeon had removed the bullet, Wilkes was visited at home by a worried trio of the Duke of Bolton (1720-1794), Richard Grenville the Earl Temple (1711-1779) and William Pitt the Elder (1708-1788)1.
As John Wilkes continued to rail against the establishment on privacy rights he was asked by an acquaintance, “How far [is]liberty of the press extended in England?” Wilkes answered, “I cannot tell but I am trying to find out.”2
The Empire Struck Back in 1763 by scheming to get Wilkes thrown out of Parliament so he would lose his privilege and thus could be jailed, exiled or, at the very least, be out of their hair in Parliament. Lord Sandwich, his old foe- now Secretary of State located an old written piece by Wilkes that was considered pornographic (it hadn’t been published, the General Warrant could even seize, use unpublished papers as evidence against an English subject) and the adjudged ‘pornography’ was sufficient reason to throw Wilkes out of Parliament. The government secured the private press writings called, “Essay on Woman”3 Wilkes fled the country to Paris to visit his only child, beloved daughter, Mary (‘Polly’) Wilkes(1750-1802) (4)who lived with him most of his life.
On January 20, 1764 the British Ministers carried the vote to oust Wilkes from Parliament. In February he was tried in court in absentia and the court found him guilty for an obscene and impious libel (“Essay on Women”) as well as penning ’45’, a serious sedition. Wilkes was convicted for Libel and Sedition. Wilkes’s sentencing was deferred till when he returned to English jurisdiction; after a few months when he hadn’t returned to England he was considered, “an outlaw for impeding royal justice” 5 6
For the next four years Wilkes followed a profligate (read drinking, carousing)exiled life in Europe, mostly in Paris. He was always hoping for a change in government and, or some aid from his Parliamentary friends, so he could return to England triumphantly: neither was forthcoming. Finally, his indebtedness catastrophic, his European creditors chasing him, threatening him, he sailed to England on a desperate gambit: that if he stood for Parliament and won a seat his person would be inviolable as before when he was a Parliamentarian. An 18th century, ‘get out of jail free card’. He was defeated in an election in London, but because his opponents were tardy in trying to capture Wilkes-probably because as that would have been viewed as an unpopular act by the London ‘mob’-he scrambled admirably and managed to get elected to his old Middlesex seat.
Parliament threw him out once more. Three times Wilkes was thrown out of Parliament and three times he got himself elected back to Parliament. On the fourth try, on April 13, 1769 in Middlesex, his old seat ,he won the election handily over his opponent, Henry Luttrell (1743-1821)-Wilkes received 1143 votes, Luttrell 266 votes 7. Yet the Parliamentarians were so incensed, frustrated with Wilkes that they recognized his defeated opponent for the Middlesex seat.votes as the member of Parliament which was wholly unconstitutional.8
John Wilkes was not just an isolated English politician and journalist, Wilkes, his struggles for freedom from the Crown [not independence from the Crown, rather more freedoms to be bequeathed from the Crown to the people, editor] were followed almost religiously by many colonial Americans. Wilkes was sympathetic to American rights. Wilkes fight against General Warrants touched a raw American nerve with the 1765 Stamp tax. 9 Pauline Maier writes,
In the years between 1768 and 1770 no English political figure evoked more enthusiasm in America than the radical John Wilkes. Celebrations in his honor, subscriptions for his cause [suing Lord Halifax for the General Warrant, inter alia] demonstrated the colonists’ devotion, which in one instance of quasi-religious commitment: I believe in Wilkes, the firm patriot maker of number “45” [began political creed reprinted in Boston] Who was born for our good. Suffered under arbitrary power. Was banished and imprisoned. he ascended here with honour and sitteth amidst the great assembly of people, where shall judge both the favourite and his creatures……I believe in the spirit of his abilities, that they will prove to the good of our country. In the resurrection of liberty, and the life of universal freedom. Amen
I believe in Wilkes, the firm patriot maker of number “45” [began political creed reprinted in Boston] Who was born for our good. Suffered under arbitrary power. Was banished and imprisoned. he ascended here with honour and sitteth amidst the great assembly of people, where shall judge both the favourite and his creatures……I believe in the spirit of his abilities, that they will prove to the good of our country. In the resurrection of liberty, and the life of universal freedom. Amen
The most significant aspect of this credo is its assumption that Wilkes could save liberty within British political institutions especially Parliament (“the great assembly of the people”). In 1768 the colonists were, by fact and inclination, Britishers…..But Wilkes’s struggle against the apparent arbitrariness of the King’s government failed, and in Wilkes’s defeat Americans saw their own prospects frustrated”…10
Friends and admirers of Wilkes helped the penniless man pay his legal bills as well as his mundane bills. They called it the, “Society for the Defense of the Bill of Rights,” to uphold his cause and pay his debts” Even with another brief imprisonment in 1770 it didn’t take Wilkes long to figure out he could turn these supporters and their capital into a political machine. In 1769 got himself elected in the City of London with the Society’s help becoming first an alderman (1769), a sheriff (1771) and finally in 1774, mayor of the City of London 11.
-
Wilkes wrote of fellow Parliamentarian Samuel Martin in The North Briton: “the most treacherous, base, selfish, mean, abject, low-lived and dirty fellow that ever wriggled himself into a secretaryship”. I guess that could get a Gentleman upset enough to demand a duel. This source provides a more detailed account of the Wilkes/Samuel Martin duel.
↩ -
Britannica, Fifteenth Edition, 1987, pg.661-662.
↩ -
“Essay on Women” was a 15 year old obscene parody of Alexander Pope’s, “Essay on Man.” The essay was probably meant to be disseminated to the Monks (the Hell Fire Monks, not real monks) but had not yet been shared when seized by the government in 1763. Source Ibid.
↩ -
For a William Hogarth (1699-1764) caricature of Wilkes along with a picture of Wilkes with his daughter, Polly, who does looks like her father.
↩ -
Britannica, Fifteenth Edition, 1987,pg 661.
↩ -
When Prime Minister George Grenville (1712-1770) decided to sue Wilkes for seditious libel in 1765. Wilkes replied, “The government have sent the spirit of discord through the land, and I will prophesy, that it will never be extinguished, but by the extinction of their power. A nation as sensible as the English, will see that a spirit of concord, when they are oppressed, means a tame submission to injury, and that a spirit of liberty ought then to arise, and I am sure ever will, in proportion to the weight of the grievance they feel.”
↩ - ↩
-
Britannica, Fifteenth Edition, 1987, pg. 661
↩ -
In The Seven Years War (1756-1763) the British Crown subsidized Prussia’s Frederick the Great (1712-1786, ruled 1740-1786), fielded an army in Europe as well as field, finance their own troops in fighting the French army, navy in North America. There were serious losses were for all participants: during the war the English lost 160,000 men, Prussia 180,000, while their opponents, France lost 350,000 men, Austria 373,000 men (Russian losses unknown) as well as 33,000 civilians killed on both sides. England was also responsible for financing ‘peace time’ military forces to defend the Americans against the Indians which was also costly. This left George Grenville’s (Prime Minister 1763-1765) government desperate for capital, the British treasury was deep in debt. The English people were overtaxed already so Grenville sought to tax the American colonists. The Sugar Act in 1764 which was not liked at all by the American colonists, was followed by the even more repellant ‘The Stamp Act’ which was put into law by the British Parliament on March 22, 1765. The new Stamp tax was to be imposed on every American colonist which required them to pay a tax on each and every piece of printed paper they used. Everything. Ship’s papers, legal documents, journals, licenses, letters, tax receipts, newspapers, other publications, books and even playing cards were to be taxed.
↩ -
After The Stamp Tax was made law in 1765 Americans en masse boycotted British goods. Further, no one wanted to be an official harvesting the hated Stamp Tax for the British King; actually not one penny was ever collected in this tax debacle, the British Parliament had to rescind the tax. The only product created by The Stamp Act/Tax was disillusionment and bad feelings from the American colonists towards the King’s government.
↩ -
“John Wilkes and the American Disillusionment with Britain”, Pauline Maier, 1963, The William and Mary Quarterly, Volume 20, Number 3, pages 373–374, July 1963.
↩ -
“In 1774 John Wilkes was elected Lord Mayor of London. According to his biographer, Peter D. G. Thomas: “The mayoralty of Wilkes was one of the most splendid in London’s history. His generosity, popularity, and flair for publicity combined to make it memorable; and affection for his daughter, Polly, an elegant lady mayoress, also explained why he put on such a show. He gave frequent and lavish entertainments – his expenses of £8,226 exceeding by £3,337 his official allowances and he ended heavily in debt. Wilkes, as when sheriff [1771], took his duties seriously. He concerned himself with the regulation of food prices and with charity for prisoners, and he initiated a campaign against prostitutes [12], thereby gaining respect and respectability; the archbishop of Canterbury attended one of his functions.” Source.
↩ -
John Wilkes initiating a campaign against prostitutes is highly ironic, though it does bring a smile to one’s face. I wonder if the Archbishop ever had the opportunity to attend one of the Hell Fire’s Clubs ‘vicars and tarts’ dress up, drink up bashes? Ha! Editor.
↩