Page images
PDF
EPUB

sisting of King, Lords, and Commons." | There were many persons, who, while they professed the greatest attachment to the constitution, indulged themselves in the most virulent invectives against its component parts; so that his intention was, to mark an attack against any one of the branches, as equally coming under the description of an offence against the constitution.

The Lord Chancellor was inclined to think, that the amendment would tend to create that very confusion which it was intended to prevent. If these words were inserted, it would be necessary, in framing an indictment upon this bill, to introduce the very words of it, and to say, that such an act was done, or word spoken, with intent to destroy, &c. the constitution, consisting of King, Lords, and Commons. Now, would it not be very easy, if the law stood so, to write a most atrocious libel with impunity? For instance, a person might write thus, "The constitution of England consists of King, Lords, and Commons; but I do not like an hereditary monarchy; it is an absurdity. I think an hereditary House of Lords still worse; and I think the Commons should be chosen in a very different manner. I would have an elective monarchy, and the dignity of peerage should be granted only for life, or for a session of parliament." Here was an instance of a man admitting the constitution, as consisting of King, Lords, and Commons, and yet destroying the very foundations of the constitution.

Lord Thurlow said, it was difficult to define, with logical accuracy, the terms government and constitution. He reprobated with great severity the attempt to vilify or degrade the person of his majesty, which he reckoned a subject too sacred for petulant and wanton attacks: but he considered the operation of the penal enactment of this clause as too severe in many cases to which it might be applied. Was it a matter of such criminality as that to which he had alluded, to say that it was an abuse that twenty acres of land below Old Sarum Hill should send two representatives to parliament? Yet, this might be represented as tending to create a dislike of the established constitution, since under it such a case existed. He was decidedly of opinion that the present laws of the country were fully adequate to the punishment and restraint of the crimes which this clause was meant to

embrace. It was not from the want of proper laws that dangerous principles had been disseminated, and had assumed a threatening aspect, but because those laws had not been employed by the executive power to remedy the evil, and to punish the offenders. New acts and severe penalties he thought little calculated to attain the object proposed. He was convinced in his own mind, that severe penal laws never conduce to the safety of a prince, or the preservation of any constitution. A jury would be inclined to acquit a person prosecuted under the penalties of this bill, who was guilty of the facts in the indictment, rather than expose him to transportation to Botany-Bay for seven years. It was by accommodating the severity of punishment to the magnitude of the offence, and by properly exercising the moderate penalties of the laws, in every case which occurred, that crimes were to be restrained. In adverting to the succeeding clause of the bill, which places the power of prosecution at the discretion of ministers, he observed, that though he would not suspect that the present administration could convert to an improper use any authority with which they might be invested, there was much danger that in future it might be misapplied. The minister might choose to protect one culprit, while he launched the whole vengeance of the law upon another. He might even employ, for sinister purposes, creatures to commit trespasses under this bill, from the punishment of which he might wish to shield them.

The Lord Chancellor was surprised at the opinion which the learned lord had expressed. The magnitude of the crimes. against which this clause was directed, must be obvious to every noble lord who read the publications which the press teemed with. They aimed at the subversion of every part of the constitution. They taught the people that royalty was a usurpation of their rights, and aristocracy a nuisance to which they should not submit. They laboured to persuade them that they had no political existence, that they were slaves, and that they ought to assert their importance, and menaced the same evils which this country had once experienced, and of which a neighbouring nation afforded a distinct example. Were such enormities too rigorously punished by the penalties of this bill?

The Bishop of Rochester spoke in favour of the clause, and of every part of

§

the bill, without going into any abstract questions about the borough of Old Sarum, or any other place. He conceived the bill to be necessary, because any attack against either of the three branches of the legislature was equally dangerous and criminal, and if ministers did any thing that was wrong, they were responsible for what they did.

The Amendment was negatived.

The Duke of Leeds suggested, that there obviously was a degree in all acts of sedition, and from the difference of circumstances some were less criminal than others; it would, therefore, be proper to alter the penal part of the clause, and instead of adjudging transportation for seven years for all convictions of high misdemeanours under the act, to leave the punishment to the discretion of the court.

Lord Grenville admitted the propriety of the proposed amendment; and after some farther conversation it was modified. The Duke of Bedford could not let the clause pass without giving it his decided opposition. He looked upon it as a daring attack and flagitious outrage on the liberty of the subject, and felt as a man that might incur the penalty in making this declaration. He then adverted to the observations of a noble prelate, and in contradiction to him, said, he must regard every borough as a component part of the House of Commons, and every law a component part of the constitution. Otherwise a man might first write or speak against the representation of the borough of Old Sarum with impunity, and so go on singly, from borough to borough, and from county to county, till he had shown that the whole system of the representation of the House of Commons was corrupt.

The Bishop of Rochester thanked the noble duke for the honour he had done him in noticing what he said, and in order to explain his meaning more fully, repeated his argument respecting the borough of Old Sarum, declaring, at the same time, that he concurred with the noble duke that, if any person were so to proceed through the whole state of the representation of the House of Commons, or through all the laws and statutes of the country, as to suggest a general conclusion, that the government was corrupt, he would incur the penalties of this bill. Common speculative and philosophical disquisitions, however, might be still written and published, though he always [VOL. XXXII.]

thought they did more harm than good; for the bill was merely directed against those idle and seditious public meetings for the discussion of the laws where the people were not competent to decide upon them. In fact, he did not know what the mass of the people in any country had to do with the laws but to obey them, with the reserve of their undoubted right to petition against any particular law, as a grievance on a particular description of people.

He

The Earl of Lauderdale said, a short speech required a short answer. should have supposed the noble prelate had been educated in a foreign country, and not in England, when he declared that he did not know what the people had to do with the laws, but to obey them. If he had been in Turkey, and had heard such a declaration from the mouth of a Mufti, he should have attributed it to his ignorance, the despotic government of his country, or the bias of his religious opinions; but to hear a British prelate, in a British house of parliament, declare that he did not know what the people had to do with the laws but to obey them, filled him with wonder and astonishment.

The Committee divided on the clause: Contents, 45; Not-contents, 3.

Nov. 13. The Bill was read a third time. On the motion, that it do pass,

The Duke of Bedford said, that after the ample discussion the bill had undergone, it was not his wish to occupy their lordships time, by going over the grounds of objection that had already been taken to it. He felt, however, so great a depression of spirits, and found himself so overwhelmed with anxiety of mind, when he contemplated the measure in question, that he was impelled to oppose the bill through every stage of it, and would endeavour, by one more effort, to impress their lordships with the sentiments he entertained on the subject. I conceive, said his grace this measure to be, not merely an extension of the criminal law, but a stab to the constitution, and an attempt to strike at the foundation of the liberties of Englishmen. I shall therefore shortly advert to the reasons by which this measure is supported, and the arguments by which these reasons are enforced. I ought to say reason, for one only has been assigned, namely, the outrage against his majesty. This outrage we all equally lament: the sentiments of regret and abhorrence which [S]

we felt on the occasion, we have stated in our address to his majesty, and requested him to take all possible means to discover and punish the authors. How, then, can this bill operate, with respect to that outrage? It is stated, that its object is, to render the person of his majesty more secure. No doubt we would all cheerfully concur in any measure, which might tend to the greater security of his majesty's person. But how can the person of his majesty be rendered more secure? Does it not already possess all the guard which it can derive from the reverence of office, and the enactments of law? An attempt has been made to connect the outrage against his majesty, with the proceedings of certain meetings, where seditious doctrines are said to have been delivered. To this I have only to answer, that to the proceedings of those meetings we cannot legislatively refer; they are not before us in any shape upon which we can act. I may be told that the notoriety of these proceedings, are sufficient grounds upon which we may go on the present occasion. But it has not been proved, that their proceedings were of the nature which has been described; much less has it been made out, that there existed any connexion between those proceedings and the outrage against his majesty. But not only is there this absence of proof, which should preclude us from taking any steps on the subject; in the conduct of ministers there are positive circumstances which give room for suspicion that they do not believe their own assertion. If the proceedings of those meetings were of that notoriety which has been described; if their tendency went to those objects which has been imputed to them; if the tenor of their discourses was calculated to alienate the affections of those present from his majesty, and incite their minds to dislike and hatred of the constitution, are there not laws already existing to repress those meetings, and to punish the authors of those discourses? I must, therefore, contend, that ministers were guilty of a most shameful breach of their duty, if they neglected to enforce those laws, and allowed the meetings to go on, while they were aware of their dangerous tendency. Ought they not rather to have repressed their progress by those means which the constitution has put into their hands, than now, by a new law, to seek to take away the lives of those, whom by their neglect,

they suffered to advance to that pitch of criminality, which they now contend, renders an alteration of the constitution necessary? I have therefore a right to infer, either that ministers were guilty of a most scandalous breach of duty, or that they do not believe their own assertion, when they impute to the meetings the seditious proceedings and the dangerous tendency, which they have made the pretext for the present measure. Such, then, being the only reason which has been urged in support of this bill, it remains with your lordships to decide whether it is of that weight and authority, which ought to influence you to sanction the passing of a new law, so serious in its nature, and so alarming in its probable consequences.-It was a mistaken idea, that the severity of the law was the best protection of a government. It was common for noble lords to go to France for their examples, nor would he there decline to meet them. He would confess that the French revolution was the most sanguinary and calamitous which the history of mankind ever exhi bited; but he would tell their lordships how this disastrous revolution was produced. It was not effected by the ha rangues of field preachers, or the discus. sions of political clubs; it was by the profligate manners of a licentious court, which sanctioned by its example, and extended by its influence, a contempt of morals and of decency; a corrupt and unprincipled succession of ministers, who involved the nation in an unjust and unnecessary war-who squandered the resources, and irretrievably ruined the finances of a flourishing nation-who stretched the severity of the law beyond the sufferance of human nature. It was by these causes that the old government of France forfeited the attachment and the support of the people. In this country, the personal virtues of the monarch constitute a marked difference, the amiable character of the king may banish the licentious immorality of a French court. In the constitution of the cabinet, and the measures of corrupt and wicked ministers, will be found the conduct that contributed to the fall of the French monarchy: a war undertaken and obstinately prosecuted, without regard to the interest or to the wishes of the people of this country; new places created, and rewards bestowed upon the partizans of their corrupt system; and pensions of almost unparalleled profusion lavished upon the avowed advo

bill.

cates of economy; nay upon the very man who distinguished himself at one time as the advocate of rigid economy, but whose conduct, and whose writings had, in an eminent degree, contributed to create and continue the war, and to cause all its consequent enormous expenses. Though happily the finances of this nation have not yet reached that pitch of confusion which hastened the destruction of the French government, how long can that system of prodigality be maintained; or how will a similar catastrophe be avoided? And will severe measures or daring encroachments upon the liberties of the people prevent their dissatisfaction? Gracious God! that any set of men could think such measures could enliven the hopes, or cheer the despair of a starving people. Such attempts may silence the voice of complaint, but they cannot reach the mind that will brood over the injustice; they may restrain and fetter the actions of men, but cannot make them love the constitution, or reconcile them to the government.

The noble had duke asked, what proof was there of the connexion between the proceedings at the meetings alluded to and the outrage which was offered to his majesty? The answer was, the dangerous doctrines held forth at such meetings tended to inflame the minds of the infatuated multitude. The bill created no new crimes, nor did it constitute any new treasons; it only altered the punishment applied to both under the existing laws. The noble duke had alluded to the French revolution. He had stated, that that revolution arose not out of clubs and public meetings, but from a form of go. vernment in itself bad, and from the heedless waste of the finances of the country by a profligate administration. That the French revolution was owing to a government in itself bad he was ready to admit. He would admit also, that the dissolute manners of the court, and the wasteful expenditure of the public money were undoubtedly the chief causes of that revolution; a revolution so far from being deprecated by the government of this country, was regarded by them in a favourable point of view, as it afforded a prospect of increasing the felicity of a great nation, and of contributing to the continuance of the tranquillity which then subsisted throughout Europe. So far it was a revolution that every good man must approve; he had long wished it a happy termination; and happy would it have been had it proceeded on the principle with which it set out. But what brought on all the plunders, assassinations, blood, and horror, which afterwards desolated France, was the system maintained by clubs and various public meet

Lord Grenville said, the noble duke had set out with despairing of advancing much new argument against the bill, and he certainly had urged little or none. He had relied chiefly on denying that he had any parliamentary knowledge of the proceedings of certain societies, and had asked if their lordships knew any thing of them in their character of legislators? To this he must answer again, that the matter was too notorious to be doubted, and, instead of making a question of that, he would ask another. Could any man exist in this metropolis who did not know it? Was the subject brought before their lordships now for the first time? It had been beings which took place. Political assemfore them long, and debated over and over again; they had on their table a voluminous body of evidence not attempted to be denied or refuted. Had noble lords really forgotten the reports of a committee of their lordships, and the resolution the House had come to in consequence. Parties were afterwards pro secuted ;_ and yet the proceedings of the London Corresponding Society were carried on with increased boldness. No longer age than the preceding day there had been a proof of this. These proceedings were inconsistent with the pub- The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the lic tranquillity, and ought to be sup- noble secretary of state had complained pressed. The present law was noto- that the doctrines held and the publicariously insufficient. Upon that convictions circulated by these meetings necestion their lordships had entertained this sarily led to endanger the king's life, and

blies it was well known, had been held in
England which openly professed to imi-
tate the clubs in France.
Their publi-
cations, their doctrines, and the princi-
ples they avowed were similar, and si-
milar consequences were to be appre-
hended and guarded against.
If they
were suffered to continue scattering fire-
brands where there was much combus-
tible matter, their lordships and his ma-
jesty's ministers would have to answer to
themselves and to their country for the
effects that might follow.

therefore the bill had been brought in clare, that the mass of the people had noto check the progress of such proceed- thing to do with the laws but to obey ings, and the better to secure his ma them. [Here the bishop of Rochester jesty's person. It was thus ministers had cried Hear, hear!]-He heard the vocifealways acted. They always alleged ration of the learned prelate. He believed danger to the state, as a pretext for ex- he was the only man in the House who tending their own power, instead of using could have used it; he believed that no the power which they already had with temporal lord could have soared so high. vigour and energy. He was willing to Be that as it might, there could be no admit that discontent among the people doubt but that ministers must have relish. did exist in a considerable degree, but he ed it extremely, because it exactly fell in must contend that it was not from dis- with their own principles. Indeed it was not loyalty that these complaints came. It wonderful that the reverend prelate should was from the conduct of his majesty's ad- have expressed himself so boldly, as it was visers; and under that view of the sub- always remarked by those who were best ject, he would say, it would be strange acquainted with the human character, that indeed if the people did not complain. converts were the most violent, and the He would go farther; he would say they most prone to run into extremes. The ought to meet, and energetically oppose learned prelate was willing to atone in parthis bill. In order to strengthen their own liament for his conduct before his voice hands and set control at defiance, minis. could be heard in it. He had formerly ters had made use of the infamous attack entertained different sentiments; he had on his majesty, to introduce bills which attended, as he understood, a meetwent to destroy the liberties of the subject. ing that was held in the Borough some If the bill passed, the most valuable part years ago for the purpose of obtaining a of the constitution would be gone. Enough parliamentary reform, but the opinions of might, indeed, be left of it to enable mi- bishops as well as of other men changed nisters to swell their speeches with pomp- with circumstances, and therefore the ous epithets upon its excellence, but no- right reverend prelate could do no less thing to swell the heart of an honest Eng- than read his recantation. The right relishman with pride and joy. Instead of verent prelate had, however, not very imendeavouring to correct their errors, mi- properly, at the same time confessed his nisters manifested a disposition to silence ignorance of law. Indeed, without any the people who complained of them. Was thing more than a general knowledge of it wonderful that the people should com- law, and some acquaintance with politi plain? They were insulted by seeing the cal treatises, he might have learnt that the most shameful negligence of their inter-people had something else to do with the ests, by seeing ministers attempting to laws than merely to obey them; that they make it criminal to complain, by seeing had a right to discuss their propriety, to the most profligate waste of the public consider their justice, and when they felt money, by seeing the most provoking in- them oppressive to petition against them, sults offered to them, in the vast sums that to complain of them as grievances, and to were lavished upon courtiers, and court pray the parliament to repeal them. These dependents; by seeing pensions granted were acknowledged constitutional docdaily to apostates; a pension, for instance, trines, doctrines laid down by every writer and a large one too, to a man who was of authority on the constitution, in almost once the champion of economy, but whose every reign of our history. The reverend chief merits with ministers were that of prelate appeared, however, to have made a having attacked the principles of freedom convert of the noble secretary, whos ideas and contributed very considerably to in- of the rights of the people, pretty much volve us in the present war. Mr. Burke, corresponded with those of the reverend the man he meant (for why should he not prelate. What did the noble secretary name him), was to have an enormous pen-mean by stigmatizing with every term of sion for endeavouring to inculcate doctrines, that tended to extinguish the prin ciples of freedom. It was upon this idea of the success such doctrines had met with in a certain quarter, no doubt, that a right reverend prelate had founded his political creed, and thought proper to de

reproach a peaceable assembly, convened for the purpose of considering a bill, which they regarded as an infringement of their just and lawful privileges? Was there ever a common turnpike bill brought into parliament without being discussed in some meeting, more or less numerous, ac

« PreviousContinue »