一本道久久桃花综合网 88_一本一道久在线综合色爱爱_一本道久久综合久视频_一本一道久久中综影

THREE:

---

THREE:Parliament met on the 15th of November, and the very first object which engaged the attention of both Houses was Wilkes. In such fiery haste were Ministers, that Lord Sandwich, in the Peers, started up, before the king's speech could be considered, and declared that he held in his hand a most filthy and atrocious libel, written by Wilkes, called "An Essay on Woman." Wilkes never had published the filth. He had written, as it appeared, by the assistance of a profligate and now deceased son of Archbishop Potter, this "Essay on Woman;" but he had never published it. It had lain in his desk, and had only been read to two persons��one of whom was Sandwich himself. When Wilkes, however, was driven to set up a printing press in his own house, he had printed a dozen copies of the "Essay on Woman," to give to his dissolute friends, whom he used to meet at the Dilettanti Club, in Palace Yard. Sandwich, aware of the existence of the essay, had bribed one of Wilkes's printers, named Curry, to lend him a copy of it, and had paid him five guineas as a guarantee for its safe return. The whole thing was a stupid parody of Pope's "Essay on Man;" in which, instead of the inscription to Bolingbroke, commencing "Awake, my St. John!" there appeared an invocation beginning, "Awake, my Sandwich!" and there were also ridiculous notes attributed to Warburton.On the 18th of February, Colonel Fitzpatrick, Fox's most intimate friend, presented another petition from the electors of Westminster, praying to be heard by counsel, in consequence of new facts having come to light, but Lord Frederick Campbell, on the part of Government, moved that such counsel should not argue against the legality of the scrutiny. The counsel, on being admitted, refused to plead under such restrictions. The House then called in the high bailiff, and demanded what the new facts were on which the petition was based, and he admitted that they were, that the party of Mr. Fox had offered to take the scrutiny in the parishes of St. Margaret's and St. John's alone, where Mr. Fox's interest was the weakest, in order to bring the scrutiny to an end, and that Sir Cecil Wray had declined the offer. Colonel Fitzpatrick then moved that the high bailiff should be directed to make a return, according to the lists on the close of the poll on the 17th of May last. This motion was lost, but only by a majority of nine, showing that the opinion of the House was fast running against the new Minister, and on the 3rd of March Alderman Sawbridge put the same question again, when it was carried by a majority of thirty-eight. It was clear that the Government pressure could be carried no further. Sawbridge moved that the original motion should be put, and it was carried without a division. The next day the return was made, and Fox and Lord Hood were seated as the members for Westminster. Fox immediately moved that the proceedings on this case should be expunged from the journals, but without success. He also commenced an action against the high bailiff for not returning him at the proper time, when duly elected by a majority of votes. He laid his damages at two hundred thousand pounds, and the trial came on before Lord Loughborough, formerly Mr. Wedderburn, in June of the following year, 1786, when the jury gave him immediately a verdict, but only for two thousand pounds, which he said should be distributed amongst the charities of Westminster.

---

THREE:

---