The House of Commons was full of converted Jacobites and soldiers, while the House of Lords, undoubtedly the more liberal assembly of the two during the first half of the century, was rapidly losing that character.[1] In the affair of Wilkes, there was only one safe and honourable course between the fanaticism of the Court and the Parliament on one side and of Temple on the other; that of championing the liberties of which Wilkes was become the representative, and at the same time keeping clear of all connection with Wilkes as an individual. This was the course adopted after some hesitation by Pitt, who abruptly separating himself from Temple, sent for Shelburne with whom on the 18th November he had an interview of three hours. The result of this interview was soon apparent when on November 24th the resolution that "the privilege of Parliament does not extend to seditious libels" came on for discussion in the House of Commons. It was then observed that the three people supposed to be influenced by Shelburne, viz. Fitzmaurice, Barré, and Calcraft, voted in the minority against the Government, as well as Conway. "The King, greatly pleased with the success of the day, showed great resentment at Mr. Conway's conduct, and was inclined immediately to have dismissed him; but Mr. Grenville advised His Majesty to wait till the recess at Christmas, and then to extend it to Colonel Barré and the others."[2] When the same resolution was discussed on the 29th in the House of Lords, Shelburne spoke with success against it,[3] making a compliment at the same time to Bute, who was absent, and flattering the Crown, in order to separate himself from Lord Temple, whose protest he did not sign.[4] But George III. was a king to whom all opposition was alike. It was enough that it was opposition. Stet pro ratione voluntas was his motto, and absolute submission was what he required. Those who were not prepared to grant it were his enemies; his Ministers were to be his servants in fact as well as in name, and Parliament
