Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

in this measure; but the marquis of Lansdowne accufed the minifters of intending to feize this opportunity to work upon the paffions and fears of the people, and to lead their representatives into conceffions derogatory to the public liberty, and debafing to their character, in order to confirm their own power at the expence of the conftitution.

A conference with the commons was held accordingly in the course of the day, and witnefles were examined in relation to the outrages committed. Their evidence was communicated to the commons, and both houfes unanimoufly concurred in the addreffes propofed.

On the fixth of November, lord Grenville brought forward a bill, for better securing the king's perfon and government. The motive he alleged, was the neceffity of preventing abuses fimilar to thofe that had taken place on the opening of the feffion. He explicitly attributed them to the licentious language and maxims held forth in the audacious meetings, which had been fo long fuffered, without due notice on the part of the legislature, but which were now arrived to fuch a degree of infolence, that they required immediate reftriction. He would recur on this occafion, he faid, to precedents framed in approved times, the reign of Elizabeth, and the commencement of the reign of Charles II. He entertained no doubt that the house coincided with his opinion, that a remedy ought inftantly to be applied to the danger that threatened monarchy, in the attack fo daringly made on the king's perfon. In order more effectually to obviate fo great an evil, he would move the paffing of a bill, VOL. XXXVIII.

which he produced, and which was entitled "an act for the fafety and prefervation of his majesty's perfon and government against treasonable and feditious practices and attempts."

The bill introduced by lord Grenville was represented by the earl of Lauderdale, as creating new crimes and treasons, in addition to those already contained in the criminal code of this country. It tended materially to enlarge the laws refpecting treafon, and would effect an alarming alteration in the very nature and fpirit of the conftitution. There was no evidence that the infults offered to the king originated in the meetings of the people in the fields near Iflington, or in any other places. Thefe meings had been remarkably peaceable, and thofe who harangued the crowds that reforted to them from all quarters of the metropolis, were particularly careful to warn them againft all riotous proceedings, left minifters should avail themselves of that pretext, to put an end to all affemblies of the people. So harh a measure as that propofed had not therefore the leaft foundation in the unruly behaviour of those meetings,. and were it to pass into a law, the liberty of conferring together, fo long enjoyed by the English, and which they juftly confidered as their indubitable right, would be radically deftroyed, and with it the firmeft fupport of public freedom. The intent of minifters, in adopting fo unprecedented a measure, was clearly to filence the complaints of the nation against a war that had involved it in fo many calamities, and which they were determined to carry on in defiance of the neral inclination to peace The [C]

ge.

vaft

[ocr errors]

vaft acquifition of power, that would accrue to minifters from fuch a law, would enable them to ftrain the words and actions of individuals into treasonable meanings, when ever they were inclined to exercife tengeance on those who were obnoxious to them. For thefe reafous, whoever valued the conftitution of this country, muft confider this bill" as one of the fevereft and moft dangerous to the rights and liberties of the people that had ever been introduced."

It was afferted in reply by lord Grenville, that it was owing to the firmnefs of parliament, that the feditious principles imported from France, and indufirioufly propagated in England, had been fuccefsfully refifted, and the conftitution protected against the malevolent designs of its domeftic enemies. When the provifions of the intended bill came into examination, the neceffity of adopting it would be rendered manifeft; nor would it prevent the people from holding legal meetings. None but evil-difpofed perfons could fuffer by the enacting of fuch a law.

In answer to thefe allegations, the duke of Bedford, after declaring his difapprobation of the bill, expressed in ftrong terms his perfuafion, that while it ftill remained in their power to meet together, the people would every where allemble to teftify their averfeness to fo gla ring an infringement on their freedom, in fo explicit and refolute a manner, that he could not think the houfe would confent to a bill fo vifibly repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen.

It was oblerved on this occafion by lord Radnor, that if in the old ftatutes of the reign of Edward III.

relating to treafon, certain offences had been omitted that ought to be confidered and punished as fuch, they ought in fuch case to be declared and enacted to come within that meaning, in order to put men or their guard, and prevent them from committing what they would then know to be criminal. The queftion was then put, and carried for the printing of the bill.

On the tenth of November, the fecond reading of the bill was moved by lord Grenville, who obferved, that the feditious fpeeches and treasonable libels, circulated in the meeting that had been held near Copenhagen-houfe, three days only before the opening of the prefent feflions, had, in the opinion of all reflecting people, prompted that audacious fpirit which infulted the perfon of the fovereign, and bid defiance to the legiflature. The purpofe of the bill, he faid, was to protect the king from fimilar outrages, and to punish treafonous proceed ings. No punishments would be enacted by the bill for crimes not already acknowledged deferving of them; its fole intent was to include treafonable publications and dif courfes among them, as being no lefs criminal in their confequences. It was high treafon to devife the king's death; to confpire againft his perfon and government, as specified in the bill, amounted therefore to a degree of criminality that evidently merited the feverest chaftifement, whether fuch confpiracy confifted in levying civil war against him, or in encouraging foreign enemies, by publications, writings, or fpeeches. The provifions of the bill were conformable to the principles admitted in the acts of Elizabeth and Charles II. and were as

fimilar

imilar as circumstances would petmit. Difficulties having arifen in the conftruction of the laws relating to treafon already in force, the intent of this bill was to explain and Fix the meaning of thofe laws. It would not prohibit any act or meeting, allowed to be legal, but only provide a more fuitable punishment according to the degree of criminalty, than that ordained by the laws in force, as in various cafes, notwithstanding criminalty was evidently proved, an appofite punithment had not been enacted. On thefe grounds he moved the fecond reading of the bill.

It was acknowledged by the duke of Bedford, that every man ought, in duty, to abhor the treat ment offered to the king, and earneftly defire the punishment of the guilty; but the bill before the houfe did not tend to procure more fafety to the perfon of the fovereign, than the laws already exifting. There was no fufficient proof that the outrages committed were connected with the meetings to which they were attributed; and though minifters declared themfelves convinced of this connection, that was not fufficient to induce the houfe implicitly to coincide with their conviction. When the habeas corpus-act was fufpended, a felect committee was appointed to invef tigate the neceffity of fuch a meafure, and the proceedings on that occafion gave them at least an appearance of deliberation; but the prefent measure required certainly much more confideration. It was not the temporary fufpenfion of an act. It was the enacting of a law entirely new to the fpirit of the conftitution, and which was undeniably an abridgement of the

liberty of the fubject. Before fo dangerous an innovation fhould be fuffered to pafs, parliament ought feriously to weigh its certain confequences against the mere allegations of its neceffity. The pretence of the bill was the fecurity of the king's perfon; but, were the laws in being any ways deficient in that refpect? The duke then adverted to the times, from which the ministry had borrowed their prefent proceedings, the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles II. but was it not an infult to the understandings of Englishmen, to speak of such times as models fit to be copied; but even the precedents alluded to in thofe times would not authorise minifters to follow them. Thofe enacted in queen Elizabeth's reign were directed against the bulls iffued by the Pope, and those that were adopted under Charles II. paffed immediately after the restoration, when it was thought indifpenfible to protect him by the ftrongest fences against the fanatic rage of thofe who had oppofed it.

The duke of Bedford was warmly feconded by the earl of Lauderdale, who reprefented the actual sufferings of the people, as the causes of the outrage offered to the king. It was not aftonifhing, he said, that, among a hundred thoufand indivi duals cafually affembled, forty or fifty of them fhould be prompted, by the feelings of diftrefs, to exprefs them in that outrageous manner. Oppreffive and cruel laws were contrary to the difpofition of the people of this country, and tended to render them averfe to the government that framed them. The ftatutes of Edward III. were made at a time when the power of the crown was very great; yet the de

[C2]

finition

[ocr errors]

finition of what was to be accounted treason, was much clearer and precife than in the words of the prefent bill, which contained words and phrases, the meaning of which might be fo conftrued as to create new crimes at the option of minifters. There were times, he said, when refiftance on the part of the people was juftifiable, and even confidered as a duty, by great and well-known authorities. The heads of the law fhould not therefore be entrusted with a difcretionary power of extending, or interpreting the laws, as thereby the freedom of individuals could never be fecure; and as the fenfe of fuch a ftate of infecurity might juftly rouse them to fuch exertions, for the recovery of their rights, as might throw the realm into the most fatal diforders.

The ftatute of Edward III. was represented by lord Mansfield, in reply, as too lax and imperfect; it was not explanatory in various cafes fimilar to that which was now under confideration; it was not fufficient therefore to prevent or to punish adequately delinquencies of this nature. The ftatute against treafon in the reign of Elizabeth ferved as a precedent to that under queen Anne, and ought not to have been spoken of as unfit to be imitated. The laws enacted to the fame purpofe under Charles II. were pointed at the republican party at that day, which, like the fame party at the prefent, confifted of fworn enemies to monarchy, and of confequence to the fovereign that wore the crown: if it was deemed neceffary then to protect him from their fury, it was no lefs indifpenfible now, that principles of the moft rebellious nature were openly circulated in

defiance of all law and government. He juftified the wording of the bill as fufficiently clear and intelligible, and was of opinion that feven years transportation was not too fevere for the offence on which the bill inflicted it.

The duke of Norfolk took this occafion to affert, that to the prin ciple of refiftance the family of Brunswick owed its exaltation to the British throne; this principle ought therefore never to be forgotten by the friends of liberty. Though they fhould be careful not to mifapply it, yet occafions might arife, as they had formerly arifen, when the application of it would become as neceffary as at the periods to which he alluded. From the evidence relating to the infult offered to the crown, he was perfuaded that measures might eafily be adopted to prevent fuch outrages in future; but he thought himself bound to reject the bill produced by minifters in its prefent form, as invading the liberty of the fubject in a variety of refpects, and placing it too much at their difpofal.

After other peers had delivered their opinions on the fubject, the duke of Bedford concluded it, by faying, that the reafonings against the bill had met with no adequate anfwers; they ftood upon conftitutional ground, and though they might be out voted, they could not be refuted. The bill added nothing to the perfonal fafety of the king, but increased the power of the crown in a most unconstitutional degree; he would therefore oppose it, as a direct attack on the liberty of Englishmen. Should it unhappily pafs into a law, it would prove fo fatal an infringement on the confti

tution,

dency to disturb the peace of the kingdom." Mr. Fox hoped that the people would perceive the danger that threatened their freedom, and meet together, while it ftill remained lawful, to confult in what manner to preferve it from the infringement defigned in the bill propofed, and to exprefs their deteftation of it. He had feen and heard of revolutions, but experience had fhewn they were not owing to the freedom of popular meetings, but to the tyranny exerted to enflave men. The French revolution arose from minifterial oppreffions, and the arbitrary proceedings of a defpotic government that held the people in continual dread, and filenced their very fears by the terror of thofe punishments fufpended over those who dared to utter their fentiments. If the people's complaints were groundlefs, the lefs they were noticed, the fooner they would ceafe, as falfe furmifes would very foon be difcovered and lofe their effect; but, if well-founded, the efforts made to reprefs them muft terminate, either in a bafe minded fubmiffion of the people, or in a refiftance fatal to their rulers as well as to themfelves. Were the introduction of fuch a bill infifted on, he thought himfelf bound, previoufly to any farther difcuffion, to move for a call of the houfe.

Mr. Fox was fupported by Mr. Stanley, who explicitly affirmed, that if the bill fhould pafs, he fhould confider this country as on the eve of a revolution. He reminded minifters of the well-known affertion of Montefquieu, that a numerous increase of penal laws was a fure prognoftication of a state's verging to its decline. This alone

appeared to him a fufficient motive for oppofing fo oppreffive a bill. There exifted laws adequate to the fuppreffion of unlawful meetings; but the bill was, in fact, the fevereft libel on the good fenfe and attachment of Englishmen to their conftitution; it reprefented them as infenfible of its worth, incapable of enjoying liberty, and deferving, for that reason, to be deprived of it.

In answer to these arguments, fir William Pulteney admonished the oppofers of the bill to consider it impartially, before they defcribed it in fuch odious colours. It by no means prevented free difcuffion, that of the prefs particularly, which he viewed as fully adequate to the fupport of that public fpirit, and thofe popular maxims on which the conftitution refted. The prefs was the ftrongeft pillar of liberty, by the latitude with which every poli tical fubject was allowed to be treated: while this remained untouched, the public was in no danger of ever feeing the conftitution fubverted, and it was a privilege which he would never confent to part with; but it could not exist in a democracy any more than under an arbitrary government, nor, in truth, any government but a limited monarchy like our own. great danger of popular meetings was, that they heard only one fide of the queftion. Uninformed multitudes were eafily deluded by the fpecious and inflammatory fpeeches of defigning perfons, who well knew, that in fuch meetings they would have little, or rather no contradiction, to encounter, and find their audience ready prepared to acquiefce in whatever they might think proper to deliver. Times [94]

The

and

« ForrigeFortsett »