Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

attempt had been made directly on the person of the sovereign. The treasonable speeches and writings which had of latetry; and by new framing the words and been so assiduously disseminated at public meetings, most particularly called for the interference of parliament. As one of the king's servants, indeed, he might say as a member of that House, he felt it an indispensable duty to endeavour to check their flagitious tendency. Upon reference to former periods, he had found precedents which showed what measures our ancestors had thought proper to pursue in similar situations with the present. The bill he should submit to their lordships was in a great measure copied from the act in the reign of queen Elizabeth, and the act of Charles 2nd, passed soon after the commencement of his reign; acts passed in approved times and applied to circumstances by no means dissimilar from the present. In the present bill there would be found no other variations from those acts, but such as existing circumstances rendered indispensably necessary. While he sincerely lamented the necessity of proposing any measure that might appear in the smallest degree harsh and severe; he appealed to their lordships whether that necessity was not obvious; at the same time he trusted, when the measure came to be discussed, he should be able to prove to the satisfaction of their lordships, that the bill did not exceed the occasion, or press unnecessarily on the constitutional liberty of the subject. His lordship concluded with offering to the House a bill intituled, "An act for the Safety and Preservation of his Majesty's person and government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts."

The bill was read a first time. On the motion that it be printed,

The Earl of Lauderdale said, that when he had left the House the other night, he had left it in some degree comforted from having as he thought heard from the highest authority that there was an end to all apprehension of disloyalty, sedition, or treason. Let their lordships then guess what his surprise must have been on reading the proclamation, and how much that surprise must have been increased at hearing the bill that had just been read. After all they had done, ministers found themselves obliged to come forward with a measure ten times. stronger than they had dared to do, at the moment of their greatest alarm, By the bill, a variety of

new crimes and new treasons were introduced into the criminal code of the counphrases to describe those crimes, the bill held out a total alteration of the existing laws respecting treason, and a most dangerous innovation upon the constitution. No counexion had been proved between the persons assembled in the fields near Islington, and those who had been guilty of the flagitious acts committed upon the person of their sovereign, in his way to his parliament. Was a proclamation a fit ground for an act of parliament, which was so direct an attack on the privileges of Englishmen? After such a bill passed, where would be the boasted constitution of the country? He could not suppress his astonishment that ministers should prefer precedents drawn from times infi. nitely more questionable than any that had passed since the Revolution. The bill spoke in language too plain to be misunderstood. From the moment it passed into a law every liberty and privilege of the subject would be done away. No publie meeting could be held, however legal, necessary or useful. No meeting could be held with a view to petition parliament for the repeal of any law which they considered as a grievance. There was a clause in it reserving their rights and liberties to members of parliament; but that very reservation convinced him of the extent to which ministers meant to carry the law. In the old government of France there was nothing more despotic than what this bill went to create. It was the introduction of the system of terror into this country. Ministers having involved the country in a destructive war, now found that they must have recourse to extraordinary measures as the only means of continuing a war entered into against the sense of the peo ple, and carried on at an expense so enormous. Another alarming circumstance was, that the bill was not brought in to check any specific or immediate danger, and was to continue during the life of the king, and even a session afterwards. The bill went to a total destruction of British liberty, and when it came to be compared in its future stages with those old laws of times that had been held up as precedents he was sure it would gain nothing by the comparison. His lordship concluded by pronouncing the bill one of the severest and most dangerous to the rights and li berties of the people that had ever been introduced.

The Duke of Bedford did not now mean to enter into a discussion of the subject, but thought it by far too strong a measure He was convinced that while it was yet in their power to assemble, the people would meet and display a sense of this attack upon their liberties.

The Earl of Radnor said, he was not sure, that in the remarks he had to offer, he might not tread on delicate ground; but he would seriously recommend to the attention of government the statute of Edward 3d, which was the foundation of the law of treason in this country. It was an act expressly made to prevent constructive treasons, and provided, that only two species of crimes, which it defined, should be punished as such It then proceeded to say, that if any other crime appeared, which the judges thought ought to be declared high treason, they should bring it before the parliament. He was of opinion that the attempt to convict the prisoners, in the late state prosecutions, was in direct violation of that act; and that, acting as a juryman upon that occasion, he would have acquitted every one of them, although he had believed every thing brought in evidence against them, and although every thing which chief justice Eyre stated to be treason, beyond the words of the statute, had been proved against them; and this upon the authority of the very statute on which the indictment was founded. He knew, indeed, that the greater part of the chief justice's direction, and the prosecutor's assertions, had long been held to be law; but he, in a capital case, would have acted upon no holding or construction of law, contrary to the plain words of the statute. He might be an odd man, but he believed there were many who entertained similar sentiments. He mentioned this in hopes the law might be amended. It was ridiculous in the extreme to have it high treason to kill the king, and not high treason to destroy the monarchy itself. The plea of not augmenting the list of treasons was a mere bugbear. A positive law ought, in his opinion to be made on the subject. As to. the pending bill, from once hearing it, he had taken no alarm; but he did not pledge himself to support it.

Lord Grenville moved the second read

ing of the bill. He had already stated the grounds upon which this bill was brought in, and the circumstances were so notorious, that when all the facts were collected, he believed there would be no

man in or out of that House who did not see the necessity of this measure. Could any of their lordships doubt that the outrages lately committed against his majesty's person had a connexion with measures pursued by a class of men, who were systematically undermining and endeavouring to destroy the constitution of the country? In the framing of the bill, the spirit of former times, and the best of times, had been consulted. That same spirit which dictated the treason laws of Edward 3d, was followed in framing the present law. The provisions it contained differed in no way from the acts which had been adopted as prudent and wise by their ancestors: there might be a few variations, but these were regulated by the difference of circumstances. The bill might be divided into two parts: the first for the safety and protection of his majesty's person; the other for the punishment of treasonable crimes against the state. On the first, he did not expect there would be any difference of opinion; and on the second, he asserted that there were no punishments created for crimes that were not already acknowledged to be so by the existing laws, excepting that it was intended by the present bill to include treasonable publications and discourse, as equally criminal and dangerous with the acts stated to be treason by the laws now in force. To devise or compass the king's death was already treason, and the whole of that part of the bill was grounded upon the solemn opinions of the best lawyers in this country. There could not be a doubt but such compassing or conspiring against the king's person and government as was specified in the bill, amounted to that degree of guilt which called for the most severe punishment, whether it amounted to levying civil war against the king, or en couraging foreign enemies, or by writing, printing, publishing, or even speaking, the effect of the crime was the same, and the punishment ought to be so likewise. The provisions of the bill had been made upon the same principles as the acts of queen Elizabeth and Charles 2nd, and were as similar as the circumstances of the present times would admit; and it having been found that difficulties sometimes arose in the construction of the acts now in force, it was intended by the variations from them in this bill, to ascertain precisely the meaning which was to be given to the whole of the treason laws. One alteration he meant to move when the bill

existing law, as far as it regarded the king's life, was defective, or wherein this bill was likely to amend it. He never thought that the noble lord would have so far forgotten what the nation owed to those who brought about the Revolution, as to speak of the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles 2nd as models for example. The noble lord ought to reflect on the events that followed those precedents. In queen Elizabeth's time, these laws were chiefly directed against bulls issued by the pope, and when the country was in a very distracted state, both from foreign and domestic foes; and in Charles 2nd's reign, these measures were adopted when he was just restored, after a twenty year's absence, and when such laws might be absolutely necessary for his protection. But how could a comparison be drawn be tween such times and the present? Even allowing that some bill was necessary for the greater protection of his majesty, there was nothing in this bill that could tend to that purpose. If it was a bill fit to be passed at all for that object, it ought to be a permanent one.

came into the committee; it was to omit the clause against advisedly speaking, and that being done, there would remain nothing in the bill which was not already acknowledged by the existing laws to be treason. With regard to the clause respecting sedition, it did not interfere with the present laws, nor prohibit any acts or mectings which were now legal, but in some cases it provided a more adequate punishment according to the degree of crime than the existing laws, it having in many instances been found that though the crime was sufficiently proved, the law did not point out an adequate punishment. The remaining provisions of the bill were all of a nature favourable to the persons who might be accused. He then moved, "That the bill be now read a second time." The Duke of Bedford said, that on the first part of the bill there could be no difference of opinion, as far as it related to the flagitions outrage committed against the sovereign: every man must reprobate such crimes, and earnestly wish to see them punished in an exemplary manner; at the same time, he saw nothing in the bill that tended to secure or protect his majesty's The Earl of Lauderdale said, that conperson more than what the existing laws sidering the magnitude and importance provided for. The second part of the bill of the question, he did expect that some was founded upon the proclamation against argument would have been offered in this certain meetings. Now, he would submit stage of the bill, to convince the House to the House, whether it was not incon- of the necessity of such an extraordinary sistent with their dignity to proceed to so measure. The noble lord had confidently solemn an act as the introduction of this said, that no man doubted the fact, that extraordinary bill, without having before the outrage upon the king was ascribeable them proof of any sort, that the proceed- to the meeting in the fields near Islingings of those meetings had rendered such ton. He would tell the noble lord, that a strong measure necessary. When the he doubted it, and that he did not believe same ministers had thought it proper to there was the smallest connexion between suspend the Habeas Corpus act, they did the London Corresponding Society and not dare to propose it without previously the mob who committed the outrage in appointing a select committee, who re Westminster. The London Correspondported to the House a mass of evidence ing Society had no more to do with it which gave their proceedings at least an than his majesty's cabinet. The cabinet appearance of deliberation; whereas, in were ten times more involved, because by the present instance, they seemed to disre- their commencement of the war, and their gard all idea of deliberation, inquiry, or mad continuance of it, they had reduced evidence, and merely because an abomi- the lower order of people to the most abnable outrage had been committed on the ject distress. Was it to be wondered at, first day of the session, they were to be therefore, if some thirty or fifty infatuated satisfied that such dangerous consequen-individuals, in a mixed assembly of per ces were likely to follow, as nothing but haps 100,000 should break out and vent this strongest of all measures could pos- their indignation in any manner that the sibly prevent. It was not enough that irritation of the moment suggested? As the noble lord should declare that he was far as was yet known, the assertions upon satisfied on this point. Parliament ought which the present measure was founded to know the necessity of the measure be- were so general, that no man could before they adopted it. He wished the no-lieve them upon such authority. The ble lord would explain in what respect the precedents in the reign of Charles 2nd

did not apply at all to the present case. If they talked of precedents from better times, why had the noble lord chosen to pass over the first years of the reign of William 3rd? Had there then been no danger to the person of the sovereign, and the safety and security of the government? The acts passed in that reign would have been as good models to copy from as those in the reign of Charles the 2nd. He recurred to the statute of Edw. 3rd which at present was reckoned the best definition of the treason laws, and which he concluded was very different from the present bill. He compared the preamble of the bill with its contents, and denied that there was any thing in it applicable to any circumstances that were known to exist. That part of the bill concerning misdemeanors, struck him as infinitely more dangerous than the other; for where treason was the crime, and a man's life was at stake, both judges and juries acted with more hesitation, and of course the subject was better guarded and more safe, than when merely property or the personal liberty of the subject were at stake. The words of the second enacting clause, he considered as a libel on the times, in consequence of words being put in that were never before used; for instance, the word "constitution" who could define the constitution in an act of parliament? Law and government could be defined, but he had good authority, from a pamphlet which he imagined was well known to ministers, to say, that the word constitution could not. From the wording of this clause, he must insist, that it created new crimes by new phrases. The word "people" came under the same uncertainty as constitution, and was not to be found in other acts. He still, however, conceived the reservation in favour of members of parliament to be the most dangerous innovation on the laws; and when laws were either strained to a degree of oppression, or new laws made totally subversive of the liberty of the subject, it must be expected, and would follow, that the people would resort to force. He was supported by great authorities in saying, that times and circumstances might be such as not only to justify, but to make resistance become a duty, and, in certain instances, he should feel himself compelled by a sense of duty to resist an act of parliament founded in tyranny and oppression, if prudence did not restrain him. He was much against parlia

ment giving great latitude to judges by any new powers. There never had been an instance of either judges, or the legislature, stretching their proper functions, but it had been followed quickly by consequences of the most fatal tendency. He mentioned the case of the archbishop of Canterbury, in 1640, when it was held that an attack on a privy counsellor was levying war against the king. If the present bill was only one of a series about to be introduced, the prospect was truly alarming.

The Earl of Mansfield said, that, differing with the noble lord upon many of the topics which he had introduced into the discussion, he perfectly agreed with him in the observations on the danger of extraordinary powers vested in the executive government. He could not repose so much confidence in the integrity of any ministers as to confer an authority they might easily abuse, and in such a situation he would distrust even the noble lord's moderation. Yet it had ever been the practice in this country to accommodate the laws of treason to the circumstances which occurred, and to enact such regulations as the exigencies of the case required. Could their lordships forget the provisions adopted in the reign of William 3rd and queen Anne for the security of the Protestant succession? The periods from which the precedents were drawn, had been much insisted on, though he con. ceived that the present bill was in itself a wise and salutary measure, and had no need to be defended by example. He had, however, heard with surprise, the arguments maintained upon this head. Reprobated as the times of Charles 2nd had been, he would venture to say that they were good times. He asked, who was the minister at the era alluded to? It was the earl of Clarendon, whose attachment to the constitution, and whose distinguished virtues had contributed essentially to its preservation, and whose whole conduct exhibited a model which was worthy the imitation of every minister.-There were two points which it was important to consider: first, whether, in the existing circumstances, any legal provision were necessary, and whether that now proposed was proper to be adopted? He believed there was but one sentiment with regard to the outrage committed on his majesty; but it was their duty to guard against the renewal of such attempts. It had been said, that the statute

of Edward 3rd was sufficient; but he con- | mited monarchy" proved it. To define sidered this statute as furnishing too many the point at which the right should begin evasions, and as liable to too much uncer- to be exercised, or even to discuss it withtainty, to be a suitable remedy for such an out strong and urgent occasion, appeared attack as had been made upon his majesty. to him to be highly improper. With reThe statute of Elizabeth had been justi- gard to the present bill, the evidence their fied by her situation: but he would re- lordships had heard at their bar, on the mark, that the provisions it contained were first day of the session, certainly proved, copied into that of queen Anne. A de- that a most daring outrage had been comnial of her right was declared to be high mitted upon his majesty; every one of treason; and upon this act a person had their lordships, therefore, would heartily been convicted and executed. In Charles concur in taking immediate measures to 2nd's reign, he said, much of the leaven of mark their indignation at what had haprepublicanism remained. There were also pened, and effectually to protect the perFifth Monarchy men, who indeed differed son of his majesty from the possibility of from the republicans of the present day, such a circumstance again arising. who wished for no king, as they adhered far, the measure had his concurrence; to the idea of a king of a certain descrip- but he could not say that, from any thing tion. On the second part, he justified the he had heard, he was reconciled to the words" and constitution," which had been rest of the bill. When the attack upon put into the clause. The people of this his majesty was coupled with the proceedcountry had been accustomed to hold ings of certain societies, he could not their constitution in the utmost veneration, see the chain of reasoning that connected and to prize the blessings it produced; the two together. No proof whatever and he hoped this sentiment in general was of such connexion had been adduced, and not impaired in consequence of the com- therefore he was not prepared to consent parisons they had of late an opportunity to the whole of the bill. to make. He said, that all the ill temper and ill blood which pervaded this country arose from the seditious publications with which it was inundated.

So

The Earl of Abingdon objected to the bill, as a violation of the constitution, and an unnecessary multiplication of the law of treasons.

material for their lordships to weigh the bill most seriously, for there never was a measure more imminent in its consequences to the king and people.

"Hoc fonte derivata clades, The Duke of Leeds said, that his reIn patriam, populumque fluxit." spect for the sacred person of his MaThe experience of every age and country jesty would induce him to consent to go had demonstrated the fatal effects of sedi- into a committee with the bill, in hopes tion. However men of sense might de- that it might be so qualified, as to be a spise the gross publications so industri- sure protection to the king without vioously circulated, it was a mistake to ima-lating the rights of the people. It was gine that their grossness would form the antidote to their pernicious influence. It was easy when the cup was presented to the multitude to conceal the poison it contained. The most enormous crimes had been found to originate in the delusions which false principles had inspired, and the murderers of Henry 4th confessed, that they had been induced to perpetrate the crime by the doctrines they had imbibed. He cautioned the House against being lulled into security by the syren eloquence of the noble lord, and concluded with giving his hearty assent to the bill.

The Duke of Norfolk observed, that the doctrine of resistance was a principle inherent in the constitution, and it was to the exercise of that principle that the family of Brunswick owed their elevation to the throne. In every limited monarchy the right of resistance must necessarily exist; indeed, the very words "li

The House divided: Contents, 56;
Proxies 23. Not-Contents, 7; Proxy, 1.
The bill was then read a second time.
List of the Minority.

Earl of Lauderdale,
Duke of Bedford,
Earl of Abingdon,
Lord vis. Chedworth,
Earl of Derby,

Earl of Besborough,
Lord vis. St. John,
Proxy.
Earl of Guilford.

Nov. 11. The House being in a committee on the bill,

The Duke of Leeds moved an amendment on the second clause, that instead of the words "established government, or constitution," there should be inserted the words "established constitution, con

« ZurückWeiter »