Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

been expressly founded, ministers declined to surrender the invidious power with which they had been intrusted. Strenuous resistance was offered by the opposition to the continuance of the act; but it was renewed again and again, so long as the public apprehensions continued. From 1798 to 1800, the increased malignity and violence of English democrats, and their complicity with Irish treason, repelled further objections to this exceptional law.1

sion Act

At length, at the end of 1801, the act, being no longer Habeas Cor- defensible on grounds of public danger, was sufpus Suspen- fered to expire, after a continuous operation of expired 1801. eight years. But before its operation had ceased, a bill was introduced to indemnify all persons who since Indemnity the 1st of February, 1793, had acted in the appreBill, 1801. hension of persons suspected of high treason. A measure designed to protect the ministers and their agents from responsibility, on account of acts extending over a period of eight years, was not suffered to pass without strenuous opposition.R When extraordinary powers had first been sought, it was said that ministers would be responsible for their proper exercise; and now every act of authority, every neglect or abuse, was to be buried in oblivion. It was stated in debate that some persons had suffered imprisonment for three years, and one for six, without being brought to trial;✦ and Lord Thurlow could "not resist the impulse to deem men innocent until tried and convicted." The measure was defended, however, on the ground that persons accused of abuses would be unable to defend themselves, without disclosing secrets dangerous to the lives of individuals and to the

1 In 1798 there were only seven votes against its renewal. In 1800 it was opposed by twelve in the Commons, and by three in the Lords. It was then stated that twenty-nine persons had been imprisoned, some for more than two years, without being brought to trial. — Parl. Hist., xxxiv. 1484. 2 The act 41 Geo. III. c. 26, expired six weeks after the commencement of the next session, which commenced on the 29th of Oct., in the same year.

8 Parl. Hist., xxxv. 1507-1549.

4 Ibid., xxxv. 1517.

state. Unless the bill were passed, those channels of information would be stopped, on which government relied for guarding the public peace.1 When all the accustomed forms of law had been departed from, the justification of the executive would indeed have been difficult: but evil times had passed, and a veil was drawn over them. If dangerous powers had been misused, they were covered by an amnesty. It were better to withhold such powers, than to scrutinize their exercise too curiously; and were any further argument needed against the suspension of the law, it would be found in the reasons urged for indemnity.

Suspension

of Habeas

For several years, the ordinary law of arrest was free from further invasion. But on the first appearance of popular discontents and combinations, the govern- Corpus Act, ment resorted to the same ready expedient for 1817. strengthening the hands of the executive, at the expense of public liberty. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act formed part of Lord Sidmouth's repressive measures in 1817,2 when it was far less defensible than in 1794. At the first period, the French Revolution was still raging': its consequences no man could foresee; and a deadly war had broken out with the revolutionary government of France. Here, at least, there may have been grounds for extraordinary precautions. But in 1817, France was again settled under the Bourbons: the revolution had worn itself out: Europe was again at peace; and the state was threatened with no danger but domestic discontent and turbulence.

Again did ministers, having received powers to apprehend and detain in custody persons suspected of treason- Bill of Inable practices, and, having imprisoned many men demnity, 1817. without bringing them to trial, - seek indemnity for all concerned in the exercise of these powers, and in the suppression of tumultuous assemblies. Magistrates had seized papers

1 Parl. Hist., xxxv. 1510.

2 Supra, p. 186.

8 Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxv. 491, 551, 643, 708, 795, &c.; 57 Geo. III. c. 55; repealed by 58 Geo. III. c. 1.

[blocks in formation]

and arms, and interfered with meetings, under circumstances not warranted even by the exceptional powers intrusted to them but having acted in good faith for the repression of tumults and sedition, they claimed protection. This bill was not passed without strenuous resistance. The executive had not been idle in the exercise of its extraordinary powers. Ninety-six persons had been arrested on suspicion. Of these, forty-four were taken by warrant of the secretary of state; four by warrant of the privy council; the remainder on the warrants of magistrates. Not one of those arrested on the warrant of the secretary of state, had been brought to trial. The four arrested on the warrant of the privy council, were tried and acquitted. Prisoners had been moved from prison to prison in chains; and after a long, painful, and even solitary imprisonment, discharged on their recognizances, without trial.2

Petitions

of ill-usage.

66

Numerous petitions were presented, complaining of cruelties and hardships; and though falsehood and excomplaining aggeration characterized many of their statements, the justice of inquiry was insisted on, before a general indemnity was agreed to. They were called upon," said Mr. Lambton, "to throw an impenetrable veil over all the acts of tyranny and oppression that had been committed under the Suspension Act. They were required to stifle the voice of just complaint, to disregard the numerous petitions that had been presented, arraigning the conduct of ministers, detailing acts of cruelty unparalleled in the annals of the Bastile, and demanding full and open investigation." But on behalf of government, it appeared that in no instance had warrants of detention been issued, except on information upon oath; * and the attorney-general declared that none of

1 Lords' Report on the State of the Country. In ten other cases the parties had escaped. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 573; Sir M. W. Ridley, March 9th, 1818; Ibid., 901.

2 Petitions of Benbow, Drummond, Bagguley, Leach, Scholes, Ogden, and others. Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 438, 441, 453, 461, 519.

8 March 9th, 1818; Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 891.

4 Lords' Rep. on State of the Nation, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 574.

the prisoners had been deprived of liberty for a single hour, on the evidence of informers alone, which was never acted on, unless corroborated by other undoubted testimony.1

Indemnity was granted for the past: but the discussions which it provoked, disclosed, more forcibly than Habeas ever, the hazard of permitting the even course of Corpus Act the law to be interrupted. They were not with- respected. out their warning. Even Lord Sidmouth was afterwards satisfied with the rigorous provisions of the Six Acts; and, while stifling public discussion, did not venture to propose another forfeiture of personal liberty. And happily, since his time, ministers, animated by a higher spirit of statesmanship, have known how to maintain the authority of the law, in England, without the aid of abnormal powers.

In Ireland, a less settled state of society,

rages,

agrarian out

Corpus Act

feuds envenomed by many deeds of blood, Suspension and dangerous conspiracies, have too often called of Habeas for sacrifices of liberty. Before the Union, a in Ireland. bloody rebellion demanded this security; and since that period, the Habeas Corpus Act has been suspended on no less than six occasions.2 The last Suspension Act, in 1848, was rendered necessary by an imminent rebellion, openly organized and threatened: when the people were arming, and their leaders inciting them to massacre and plunder.3 Other measures in restraint of crime and outrage have also pressed upon the constitutional liberties of the Irish people. But let us hope that the rapid advancement of that country in wealth and industry, in enlightenment and social improvement, may henceforth entitle its spirited and generous people to the enjoyment of the same confidence as their English neighbors.

But perhaps the greatest anomaly in our laws, the most

1 Feb. 17th, 1818, Hans. Deb., 1st Ser., xxxvii. 499, 881, 953, &c.

2 It was suspended in 1800, at the very time of the Union; from 1802 till 1805; from 1807 till 1810; in 1814; and from 1822 till 1824.

8 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., c. 696-755.

signal exception to personal freedom, is to be found in the custom of impressment for the land and sea ser

Impressment.

vice. There is nothing incompatible with freedom in a conscription or forced levy of men for the defence of the country. It may be submitted to, in the freest republic, like the payment of taxes. The services of every subject may be required, in such form as the state determines. But impressment is the arbitrary and capricious seizure of individ uals from among the general body of citizens. It differs from conscription, as a particular confiscation differs from a general tax.

Impress

army.

The impressment of soldiers for the wars was formerly exercised as part of the royal prerogative; but ment for the among the services rendered to liberty by the Long Parliament, in its earlier councils, this custom was condemned, "except in case of necessity of the sudden coming in of strange enemies into the kingdom, or except" in the case of persons "otherwise bound by the tenure of their lands or possessions." The prerogative was discontinued but during the exigencies of war, the temptation of impressment was too strong to be resisted by Parliament.

1

The class on whom it fell, however, found little sympathy from society. They were rogues and vagabonds, who were held to be better employed in defence of their country, than in plunder and mendicancy. During the American war, impressment was permitted in the case of all idle and disorderly persons, not following any lawful trade or having some substance sufficient for their maintenance. Such men were seized upon, without compunction, and hurried to the war. It was a dangerous license, repugnant to the free spirit of our laws; and, in later times, the state has trusted to bounties and the recruiting sergeant, and not to impressment, for strengthening its land forces.

1 16 Charles I. c. 28.

2 Parl. Hist., xv. 547.

[ocr errors]

8 19 Geo. III. c. 10; Parl. Hist., xx. 114.

« ForrigeFortsett »