producing considerable mischief. The other act was brought in at the period of the Restoration, when the people were wearied of the evils they had suffered under the former usurpation, and were willing to throw all their liberties into the hands of the crown. Let the House look at the statutes, and recollect the prevailing spirit of that day. They would find that very parliament, which the present was about to imitate, giving to the king a power to raise a military of his own, and money to pay them, which was to be applied afterwards without the consent of parliament. They gave to the king the power which they ought to have kept in their own hands;-a scandalous negligence, and for which the people suffered most deplorably! Englishmen had, indeed, the happiness to feel that justice had been administered in this country for a century past, in a manner more mild, more pure, and more independent, than perhaps in any other country upon earth for the same period; they ought nevertheless to take care not to copy the sort of laws that were enacted in those abominable times of blind submission. They were about to adopt laws similar to those passed in one period of our history. And what period? the period of the reign of Charles 2nd, that period which of all our history was most abominable and scandalous in the administration of its justice; the most scandalous, perhaps, in the world, under all the circumstances of it. -With regard to that reign, one of its most remarkable features was, that the names of those who perished on the scaffold for high treason, were among those that were most dear to the recollection of Englishmen. He knew that Sydney and Russell were not, indeed, tried by the statute which he had alluded to, the time being expired within which that law allowed them to be accused, but those eminent men perished on the scaffold for high treason. He said this to show the general spirit of jurisprudence that governed this country at that period. Those, therefore, who admired that reign, were not to look to its ministers or its judges, but to those who expired on the scaffold for high treason. The law which then was enforced, was such as the law under consideration was proposed to be; it expired, however, with the prince for whom it was brought forward. Richard 2nd was also a prince for whom such a law was enacted, and soon after he was de posed and assassinated. Charles 2nd had a long, and, as some said, a flourishing reign; but it was not flourishing in the mind of any man who really knew what a flourishing reign was. Was there any one who looked to the history of those times, to the unprincipled policy of the court, and the open profligacy of public measures, who did not consider it as a blemish on the English character, and a reproach to the spirit of our ancestors, that the reign of that monarch was suffered to be protracted till the period of his natural life? Were those auspicious times, from which to derive a precedent for their present conduct? Two reasons had been adduced in favour of the present bill. The first he should dispose of very shortly. It was said to be a declaration of the meaning of the statute of Edward 3rd. A declaratory act it could not be, because a declaratory act must be plain and simple; and, indeed, that part of the case had not been seriously insisted upon by the learned gentleman. The other reason was, the general prevalence of libels; and in proof of this, much had been said about the disposition of some people to treat all authority with contempt. It was true that a stone had been thrown at his majesty; but whoever attended to speeches upon that subject, would find how small a part of the people were concerned in that outrage, or tinctured with the disposition he had just maintained. The act, every body knew, was an odious and a detestable one; but ought the whole people of England to be deprived of their rights on account of that act?-The learned gentleman had adverted to what passed at the Old Bailey last year. If the temper of some of the people had been seen to be so dangerous at that time, it was extraordinary that the measures now proposed had not been proposed sooner. The truth was, ministers had not an opportunity to suit their views till just at present. They took the advantage of the generous indignation of the people at the atrocious outrage offered to his majesty, and, under pretence of providing against a similar outrage, were going to deprive the people of their rights. They turned the best passions of the people of England into a delusion; in order to deprive them of their dearest interests. He was justified in saying this; else why had not the bill been brought forward sooner? With respect to the state trials, the learned gentleman contended that they had proved much, and that notwithstanding the persons indicted had been acquitted, the trials were calculated to produce a considerable effect on the public mind. So they certainly had, but not the sort of effect the learned gentleman would insinuate. In that acquittal he, for one, had already declared, that he most sincerely exulted, and he should ever continue to exult. That acquittal, in his view of the subject, tended to produce an impression of the happiest kind. If there were men to whom the constitution had begun to appear odious, that acquittal must have softened their animosity, and disposed them to regard it with a friendly eye: if there were others wavering in their sentiments, it must have had the effect of reviving their attachment, and confirming them in the line of their duty, more than all the penal laws that the legislature could enact in a century. Even if those persons who had been tried entertained opinions hostile to the constitution-and he did not deny that in the societies there were some men of that description-still he considered it as a glorious event for the constitution itself, that those persons had been acquitted. Nay more, if even men, whose sentiments were hostile to the constitution, had found refuge from that strict and impartial justice which it administered to all, such an event he could not but consider as calculated to convert disaffection and enmity into admiration and applause. This he believed to be the real effect of these trials, although the learned gentleman made use of them in his argument, in order to show a spirit of disaffection to the constitution in a considerable paft of the people. upon the old law, and deprive the jury of the privilege of examining into the intention of the accused, and from that intention to find their verdict; or, were they to be left to find the dry matter of fact, and was all the rest to be in the hands of the court, to be disposed of as mere matter of law? The most material part of the case in this view was that which subjected a man for the second misdemeanor to transportation. How the learned gentleman would answer this he could not tell, but he was sure it was not in the power of human skill to answer it satisfactorily. His learned friend had observed, that this description of offence was so wide and general, that by applying a sentence of equal severity whenever an offence was repeated, the same punishment might be made to include the most venial errors, and the blackest crimes. It was a great principle of justice, that the punishment should be proportionate to the offence; but by the regulation proposed, this principle would be entirely defeated. Would the learned gentleman say, that by the analogy of law a comparative distinction could be made between the second misdemeanor and the first? Was it not essential, that the distinction should be kept up between a misdemeanor and a felony? And was it not essential that there should be a proportion between the punishment for one and another misdemeanor? There were some misdemeanors of so slight a nature, that though a thousand times repeated, they would not, in point of enormity, be equal to one of a more serious description. Under the head of misdemeanors was defined whatever might tend to excite hatred and contempt against the constitution. He, who complained of the inequality of the representation, and, in illustration of his argument in support of a reform in parliament, referred to a borough so and so situated, might, from the operation of this bill, be sent to Botany Bay for seven years! With regard to that part of the bill which regarded the penalty of misdemeanor, it called for animadversion, as it referred to an offence more likely to occur often than the offence of high treason. The learned gentleman had urged, that it did not, in the first instance, create new I wish (said Mr. Fox) you had made it misdemeanor: he did not know that it death; the punishment would not have been did; this, however, he knew, that it de- more severe; and your law would be betfined that which, by the law as it stood,ter understood by it. Compare this with the was subject only to the penalty of misdemeanor, to the penalty of felony, although it should not be stated in the indictment to be a felony. He wished to know, whether the provision in the late libel-bill would be allowed to apply to the new law, or whether the bill was not to renew the usurpation of judges [VOL. XXXII.] most atrocious misdemeanor in cases that are not political. Suppose a man be con victed of an assault, with intent to kill his own father, and repeats it as often as imagination can suggest, still he will be punished as for a misdemeanor only, which is fine and imprisonment; but if he be guilty twice of insisting on the propriety of a re[2K] form in parliament, he may be punished severe and unwarrantable punishments. with transportation to Botany Bay. I have If the state of Scotland was, as they stated this case in the extreme, to show pretended, they ought not at least to the enormous disproportion which this think of extending the penalties of the bill creates in the punishment of offences. bill to that country. The best way to It was in the nature of the thing, that mis- attach the people to the constitution, demeanor should be punished by a dis- would be to preserve the mildness of cretionary sentence, and that it should its laws. Could the learned gentleman, stand distinct from felony: a thousand or any of his friends, learned in the hismisdemeanors could not, by the spirit tory of this country, point out an inand genius of the law of England, amount stance of such a punishment as that to, or be punished as, a felony: that was which was proposed by the bill? He to confound all the principles of our law. warned them against the policy of multiThe sort of punishment which the bill en- plying new codes of penal laws, and of acted for misdemeanors was for the first accumulating oppressive restrictions betime introduced into the country from the yond what the temper of the people could pretended law of Scotland; though such bear? But in answer to all this, they had was the horror with which Englishmen re- been told that the corresponding and garded it, that when, some time since, it other societies did such and such things; had been presented to their minds, it ex- and he was applied to on a former night, cited an universal sentiment of indigna- by an hon. gentleman, who said, that he tion. He called it, "pretended law;" avoided stating his opinion upon those sofor he would never so far degrade Scot- cieties. He did not avoid stating his opiland, as to suppose it could really be the nion. That hon. gentleman had asked him, law of that country. Had any want of what those societies meant? To that queseffect, he asked, been experienced from tion he had answered, that he could not punishments formerly inflicted, because decisively say, because he believed there they were not sufficiently severe? He ad- were some in that society who meant one verted to the case of Messrs. Muir and thing and some another. He had disPalmer, men of enlightened minds, of tinctly said, that there might be a few respectable rank in society, of irreproach- persons in those societies hostile to the able morals, who, because they expressed constitution, but the greater number he themselves warmly with respect to what believed to be sincere in the object which they considered to be grievances, were they professed-a parliamentary reform. sent to Botany Bay, to associate, not That there might be others who had difmerely with the lowest of men in point of ferent views he did not deny; but he rank, but with a description of persons so could not separate the whole from a part, degraded and abandoned, that the neces- and therefore in the mass he gave them, sity of associating with them under any as he thought he ought, credit for the sincircumstances, was a deep disgrace, and cerity of their professions. Such he must itself constitute a considerable pu should always give to large bodies of nishment. What effect did ministers pre- people. There had been long established tend to say that had produced? Had it in this town a society against what were produced a greater reverence for the laws, called republicans and levellers. What was or occasioned a cessation of those libels his opinion of that society? The same as which were the subject of complaint? his opinion was of the Corresponding SoNo; for they were told that libels had in-ciety; that they were in a mass sincere in creased since that period a thousand fold. If, on the other hand, it had produced those effects, what necessity was there to resort to new measures? If it had failed, did not experience demonstrate the futility of again having recourse to a similar policy? But it was said, that in Scotland, where those measures had been adopted, no discontent existed. He believed the case was quite the reverse, and that the discontent really felt in that quarter was not the less because the expression of it had been subdued by the terror of what they professed; that they were in favour of the constitution. Did he believe that one of them wanted to overturn the monarchy of this country, and the other to make it absolute? No such thing; he gave them each credit for being sincere in preserving the constitution; the one dreading one event, the other dreading the opposite event. He knew none of the leaders of the Corresponding Society; he however knew the leading member of the society against republicans and levellers; he knew Mr. Reeves. He knew he had published libels after libels, attacking the constitution; that he had, year after year, circulated such publications; that he had circulated a pamphlet, a direct libel on that House, in which it was said that rotten boroughs, extravagant courts, selfish ministers and corrupt majorities were essential to the well-being of the constitution of the country. The conclusion to be drawn from such abominable doctrine, he did not ascribe to every man in that society; the greater number he believed to have united, in order to guard the constitution, against a danger which they supposed to be pressing and imminent. The few who took advantage of their fears for the constitution in order to forward their own designs for its destruction; of those he judged from their actions. He knew, that with respect to those societies, there were violent opinions on both sides; but he saw Mr. Reeves's society with as much industry, and with more means, because with more money, circulating such doctrines as were contained in the sentence he had just quoted; he saw circulated by the same authority a book called " John Bull to Thomas Bull," and he saw such doctrines accompanied with incendiary handbills against the Protestant Dissenters, and fraught with every species of gross and inflammatory misrepresentation. He saw, on the other hand, libels ascribed to the Corresponding Society, so monstrous, that he could only compare them with the others to which he had referred; with this difference, that when it was proposed to inquire into their authenticity, the proof was denied. He would say, therefore, that those who professed that they had no other aim but a reform of parliament were in ear-viduals; but all political libels he would nest in the mass, as he said of the society against republicans and levellers, and he saw no ground for a parliamentary provision against the mass of either society, although individuals among the members of each of them might deserve censure. books were sold, and who at any rate had only been in the exercise of their business, without being aware that they were committing a breach of the law, had been confined for two or three years. Some had been convicted on the oaths of witnesses, notoriously perjured. One man had been convicted and punished at Manchester, on the oath of a person named Dunn, who was afterwards proved to be guilty of perjury, and another upon the same evidence at Lancaster.-It had been said by the learned gentleman that libels were so numerous that they could no longer be prosecuted. Was he satisfied that the severity of the bill would infallibly diminish their numbers, or that he should be able more safely to apply the new law than the old? If there was a spirit of discontent so widely diffused in the country, and still likely to increase, arising, as he verily believed, from the bad administration of public affairs; and as the learned gentleman thought from the obstinacy and perverseness of the people; it would be proper, in order to stop the progress of the evil to send whole fleets of libellers to Botany Bay. The learned gentleman had spoken of libels against the king and other persons. His opinion was, that libelling the king and individuals had not been sufficiently punished. He would prosecute with the utmost severity, all libels on the characters of persons, with whatever party they were connected. The most exemplary rigour of that sort he would connect with equal temperance in respect to libels of another description. He would punish whatever reflected on the dignity of the chief magistrate, or the fair fame of indi His two principal objections to the bill were, that it narrowed the power of the jury in cases of treason, and that it provided for misdemeanors a new punishment which would apply with undistinguished severity to the greatest and least degrees of delinquency. The learned gentleman had stated the increased and increasing number of libels as a justification of the present bill; some of these libels he understood, had been punished pretty severely; and the publishers who might have been in their beds at the time the leave to themselves; discussions on government, so far as they did not interfere with private character, he would permit to pass entirely unrestrained; that was the way to make the press respected and useful; and he was convinced, that if this policy had been adopted sooner, things would not have been in the situation in which they were at present; but such was not the object of the bill; the chief point which its promoter had in view was to terrify the people from making free with him under the name of government. He should therefore vote against the Speaker leaving the chair. If another bill should be brought in less exceptionable in its clauses, and better calculated to answer the purpose in view, he should have no objection to give it his support. The Master of the Rolls said, that the two gentlemen had construed the law of treason, as relating to the levying war, and to attacks upon the king's person, in a manner that perfectly astonished him. According to the positions that had been advanced, if a number of men conspired together for the purpose of deposing the king, and of compelling him to quit this country, they could not (provided there was no intention expressed of taking away his life), be indicted for high treason, unless they had actually levied war. He was sure no lawyer, at least no man who was guided in his own judgment by the adjudications of the courts, could seriously maintain that doctrine. If that, however, was the law, it was high time that some alteration should be made in it; for what security could there exist for a government, if it was necessary that the rebellion should be actually commenced, and perhaps St. James's attacked, before any of the conspirators could be indicted for high treason? The other argument was no less extraordinary. It was said, that if any persons should make an attack upon his majesty's person, and even maim and wound him, such persons could not be convicted of high treason, unless the jury were convinced that there actually existed an intention of depriving the sovereign of his life. This was placing an attack upon the king exactly upon the level of an assault with intent to murder an individual, where it was necessary to prove, to a certain degree, the intention; but in the case of an attack upon the king, it never was expected that the intention should be proved, because the imposing a restraint upon the king's person, or attacking him in any way, if proved, left no inference to the jury--the law inferred the guilt. He thought it necessary to state, than in one case, and one case only, the bill before the House might be considered as an extension of the law of treason. It had not hitherto been understood, that a conspiracy against the king was a substantive treason against his person, but a levying of war against his authority. It was true that the clause in this bill would include every act committed against the regal authority of the king; but every other article which it contained was at this moment treason by the existing law of the land. Excepting, indeed, this clause, the whole of the bill, was in effect and purport the same with the statute of Edward 3rd. It might be necessary in the committee, to make some specific declaration of what acts of levying war shall be deemed treasonable by this bill, for no man would hesitate to allow that there were some species which should be so defined. He was not fond of adding to the catalogue of treasons, and instanced the case of lord George Gordon, which, if it was not treason, ought to be so. He denied Mr. Erskine's assertion, that there had been no explanation of the law of treasons, except in bad times. The learned gentleman had alluded to the statute of the 1st of Mary, in a way not consistent with his known accuracy. He had alluded to that act, and to its preamble, and then hurried away by the warmth of his imagination, had asserted that there were no acts in that reign for increasing the treason laws. His learned friend must have forgotten the act of the 2d and 3rd of Phillip and Mary. But to quit those times of persecution, were there no additions to the law of treason in the reign of king William? Was it not increased by the acts of the 3d and 9th of that monarch's reign? And was it not again increased by the act of the 6th of Anne, which de clared it to be high treason to dispute the power of parliament to limit the succession to the crown, or to question the Hanover succession? These instances, he trusted, were sufficient to show, that even in those times which gentlemen had applauded so highly, the laws of treason were always increased, in order to meet the exigency of the case. But gentlemen had adverted to the clause in the present bill, which inflicted the punishment of transportation upon advisedly speaking, &c. and had considered it as a total innovation on the penal code to punish a misdemeanor in that manner. He wished again to refer to the 6th of Anne, in which it was enacted, that if any man should, by advisedly speaking, maintain, that parliament had no right to limit the succession, &c. he should be guilty of a premunire, the punishment of which was imprisonment during the king's pleasure, forfeiture of all lands and tenements, goods and chattels, and incapacity to maintain any action. Transportation for a misdemeanour was by no means new, Perjury, which was a misdemeanor, was punishable with transportation; but it appeared to him rather absurd to attempt to class crimes in that manner. He thought the punishment should be directed rather to meet the exigency of the |