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 Griffin[418] 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 Meredith[419] 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]