agreed with one another, and how far they agreed with those writers who have hitherto been considered to be authorities upon the constitution.-When the author of this book asserts that the Lords and Commons spring from the crown, is that a criminal assertion? The origin of this, as of every other government, is hid in obscurity and mystery; and a man might be wrong in point of historical accuracy, and yet not in any degree guilty of the charge imputed to the author. Nothing could tend, in a stronger degree, to show the difficulty of men exactly agreeing upon any great political or constitutional point, than the Revolution. There were many opinions, and those of very great men too, which totally differed upon that event. And among those who did not totally differ, what innumerable shades and gradations were there in the opinions formed upon it. He was sure that every gentleman who fairly and impartially considered that event, must be of opinion that the ideas now so industriously circulated about it, were equally dangerous and false the object of them was to prove, that the king, in this country, held his crown by the choice of his people; a proposition utterly incompatible with the constitution; but a proposition, the object for circulating which was extremely apparent.-But, after all, what was the ground of charge against this book? It was founded upon a metaphor, which, in his opinion, was rather a bad foundation for a prosecution. -Mr. Windham then proceeded to read the objectionable passage. He con tended that, particularly as to the expression of "lopped off," the author did not use that expression indefinitely, but talked of one of those temporary suspensions of parliament, of which history afforded many instances; and what might be considered as a proof that such was his meaning was, that two pages before, viz. in page 11, he says, that the legisla. tive power is lodged in the king and both Houses of Parliament.-He came now to what he contended was, in his opinion, the strongest part of the passage, viz. "The kingly government may go on in all its functions without Lords or Commons." He admitted there might be ambiguity or incorrectness in this passage, but having in a former part of his work stated, that the power of making laws was vested in the King, Lords, and Commons, he could not be supposed, in the [VOL. XXXII.] part he had just read, to mean, that the King, by going on in all his functions without Lords or Commons, would have the power to make laws. On that supposition, what an absurdity were they attributing to this man! They supposed him to say, that the king might, without parliament, enjoy all the powers of government, and yet that he had no legis lative power. But suppose there was a degree of incorrectness and ambiguity in this particular passage (which he wished the House to recollect was only a metaphorical passage), though it might affect the author's reputation, yet it would not justify such a resolution as the one proposed. Taking his proposition generally, it was certainly true, for the kingly government did go on, while parliament was interrupted either by prorogation, dissolution, or other regular causes. would that hold good vice versa? Would parliament remain if the king were gone? Certainly not. It was upon this ground that the author argued, and in his opinion argued constitutionally. So thoroughly convinced was he of the innocent intentions of the author, that he would as soon put his hand in the fire, as adopt the constructions of the other side of the House. But Mr. Pitt said, that however little doubt he might entertain upon the meaning and effect of this passage, he could not suffer it to be imputed to his right hon. friend, that an assertion which tended to degrade the English constitution and to rob the people of one of the securities which they had for their happiness, could be considered by him as not worthy of punishment. His right hon. friend only considered that no such tendency had been proved with respect to the pamphlet in question; and no one who knew his right hon. friend's character, could for a moment entertain a doubt of his extreme anxiety to maintain the constitution in all its parts. He had carefully read the book in question, and confessed he was not able to put that construction upon it which his right hon. friend had pressed with so much ability. His right hon. friend seemed to think that if, by refinement of argument, the passage in question would bear another meaning than that in which it was considered as criminal, then it would be wrong for a jury to find the defendant guilty, or for that House to agree to any such resolution as the present. It was with extreme reluc→ [T] tance that he differed from his right hon. friend, but he considered it to be the duty of a jury not to look for a meaning, which, by a possible construction, the words would bear; but to take the fair and obvious meaning of the passage, and such as they had the most reason to suppose was in the contemplation of the author when he wrote it. It was in that way that a jury should consider the meaning of any passage; and it was in that way that he, as a member of parliament, would endeavour to construe them. Upon reading over the whole of this pamphlet, he was ready to admit that there were many contradictory passages in it; but they by no means went the length of showing, by fair inference of reasoning, that the passage alluded to did not convey the meaning attributed to it. They might, indeed, afford a ground of argument to a counsel employed in his defence; but, in the impartial consideration which that House would give them, they would appear only as inconsistencies, which might, perhaps, create some confusion, but by no means tended to qualify the assertion complained of. What was it that was maintained by the author of this book, and what was the defence set up for him? Was it to be contended, that, according to the constitution of this country, the king could go on and exercise the functions of government without parliament? He would not stop to inquire what a king might do, if both Houses of Parliament were lopped off; but he would not hesitate to say, that he could not be a constitutional king; and that, from the moment the two Houses ceased to be integral parts of the constitution, that moment the constitution ceased to exist. If he did continue to govern, it must be by a power totally new to the constitution; as much so as if it were contended that a House of Commons alone could exercise the functions of all the branches of the constitution, and yet that constitution remain entire. His right hon. friend had treated this as a mere dry, abstract, speculative question, in which the author was inquiring into the origin of our constitution, and arguing that monarchy was the source from whence the other branches had sprung. It was not easy to trace out any period in our history when kingly government existed without a check on the part of the people. During the reigns of the Saxon monarchs that check certainly did exist; and if by the Conquest, and the feudal system super-induced upon it, there was a temporary interruption to the existence of that check, still it revived: the root lay too deep to be destroyed.-His right hon. friend had compared the author to a man taking away some part of a machine, in order to see the effect of the remainder of the works. This might be a very curious experiment with a machine; but when a man sat about to to inquire what part of a mixed government might be taken away, the inquiry at best would be useless; but if, by showing that one part might be taken away without injury to the others, it had a tendency to recommend a practical experiment, then it would cease to be merely useless, and begin to be criminal. To point out one branch of the constitution as less important than the others, was, in his opinion, criminal; yet that was what the author of this pamphlet had done in speaking of the two Houses of Parliament. The reasoning in this book did not merely go to say, that if, in consequence of a foreign invasion, a pestilence, or any other extraordinary event, the parliament was prevented from sitting, then in that interim the king might exercise the functions of government; for that argument would be true; it spoke not of a temporary interruption to the functions of parliament, but of their being lopped off totally. Now, in saying that the king could go on alone, whether the author meant that the king should possess the legislative power or not, he conceived him to be equally wrong. If he was supposed to have the power of making laws, then a total subversion and destruction of the constitution must be presumed. If it was supposed that the king had not the legislative power, then it was equally wrong and absurd; because a revision of the conduct of the executive government formed a part of the duty and privilege of parliament; and it was absurd to talk of the king having the sole government vested in him, and yet not the power of making laws. Upon all these grounds, he was inclined to think, that the construction which his right hon. friend had put upon this pamphlet was erroneous, and that the real meaning was a doctrine incompatible with the existence of the British constitution. Mr. Courtenay asked, if there could be a possible doubt of the nature and ten A duction from the school of Filmer. He had little doubt but that Mr. Reeves was the author; it breathed his language, his spirit, and his principles. dency of the pamphlet? After exalting | and worshipping the power of the crown, the author adds "Still farther to strengthen this all-powerful sway, two qualities are added that seem to bring Mr. Wilberforce said, that if they conthis royal sovereignty, as far as mortal sidered the character and situation of institutions can be, still nearer to the go- the supposed author of the pamphlet, vernment of heaven." Now, observe the it could not be viewed as a despicasublime reasoning by which this is proved. ble performance. It was with much "First, this power is to have perpetual satisfaction that he had attended to the continuance the king never dies: se- two speeches of his learned friends; but condly, such unbounded power shall be he confessed that satisfaction was allayed presumed to be exercised with as eminent by the speech which he had heard from goodness; and it is accordingly held that the secretary at war, who perhaps, had the king can do no wrong.' After this gone a little farther than he ought to have preliminary flourish, the author proceeds done, in defending a man whom he might to lop off the Lords and Commons, as su- think loyal and deserving. He hoped that perfluous branches, and leaves the royal right hon. gentleman would consider the trunk free and disincumbered to flourish subject according to the true principles of in secula seculorum. In every part of this the constitution. In adhering to these, he wretched performance, the constitution, should himself be led to combat some of as fixed at the glorious Revolution, is vi- that right hon. gentleman's expositions. lified and traduced. The pamphlet ad- He had argued, as if it was a matter of subvanced a new and dangerous doctrine, tle inquiry, to find out the exact meaning namely, "that the kingly government of the author of the pamphlet; but the may go on in all its functions, without plain question, to his mind, was, not what either Lords or Commons; and that the a nice logician might or might not extort Lords and Commons derive their exist- from it; but what the sense of certain ence and authority from the king." With- passages really was, as compared with out submitting that question to the so- the context, the general drift of the perciety of arts and sciencies, or even to formance, and the impression which the that board of agriculture under which perusal was likely to make on the geneMr. Arthur Young holds so conspicuous rality of readers. He should therefore a place, he would rather appeal to the decline entering on a nice inquiry, as to judicious Montesquieu, who said, that the precise meaning of particular expreswhosoever read Tacitus on the manners sions. He remarked that the right hon. ' of the Germans, would find that he said, gentleman had found out what made in "De minoribus rebus principes consul- | favour ofthe author, more than what made tant, de majoribus omnes.' Hence they against him. In the passage so frequently would see, that the English had taken quoted, there appeared to him something the idea of their government from that clearly unconstitutional; the author conauthority, and that the beautiful system sidered the component parts of the conof the British constitution and government stitution, as if they could be disjointed, as was first invented in the woods of Ger- if one part could survive the extinction of many." To assert that the Lords and the others; how far, or for how long a Commons derived all their functions from period, this might take place, he knew the crown was most unconstitutional not; but he was fully convinced, that if a doctrine. Not under the Saxon or disjunction ever took place there was an even the Norman line had any such doc-end of the British constitution, each branch trine prevailed; during the latter period, the English always claimed the rights they enjoyed under the Saxon government, though they were not always successful in their claims. The pamphlet, dull as it was, contained doctrines that were absurd, and principles that were bigotted. It dimly shone from the borrowed lustre of a treatise written by a man of the most celebrated parts and luxurious fancy, and was evidently a pro of it being inseparably connected with the others. He appealed, in illustration of this fact, to the days of Charles 1st. The three component parts of our constitution were so blended and assimilated in one inseparable essence, that they were incapable of being detached. He denied that the kingly government could subsist independent of parliament; it was from the votes and grants of that House, that the crown derived its strength, its assistance, which he declared the other night, and which his attentive perusal of the whole and its supplies.-Mr Wilberforce discussed the practical effect which the publication was calculated to produce, and in-context had confirmed, but upon account of sisted that it was likely to do mischief, by ingenious difficulties which he felt in his detaching the affections of the people own mind, that he adopted the doubts of his from that which they ought all to cherish hon. friend who spoke last respecting the as an object of profound veneration and amendment upon the original motion, conesteem; and more especially considering tained in the new words imputing to this the present circumstances of the times, he pamphlet a libel upon the Revolution. He thought it was likely to produce great could not, satisfactorily to his own mind, practical harm without the timely inter- agree to that amendment; for though he ference of that House. In looking over was convinced the writer did not love the the pamphlet, he said a sort of ridicule Revolution, or wish to have its principles appeared to him to be applied to the con- treated with respect, he had been rather stitution. Now, if ever there existed a sarcastical upon it than libellous, and had time when it particularly behoved the even studiously, though perhaps artfully, House not to suffer a pamphlet of that na- commended the act as well as the actors in ture, to be slightly passed over, the pre- some parts of the work. The chancellor sent was that period. The parliament was of the exchequer had expressed a doubt then endeavouring to check seditious and whether by the resumption " of the kingly libellous publications of an opposite ten- power in all its functions when the Lords dency; it therefore became them, to and Commons were lopt off," the writer vindicate themselves from the charge of meant executive capacities alone, or leinjustice and partiality. Let every asper- gislative too. It was clear to his convicsion of that sort be done away; and let tion that he meant both; for having desthem not subject themselves to the impu- cribed, in one of the passages preceding tation of passion or prejudice in their de- this, a king, who made, as well as exeterminations. He had voted for the treason cuted the law, who never died, and who and sedition bills, from the consideration could never do wrong, he adds, "these that the speeches, publications, and pro- are the the original and main principles ceedings of the societies referred to, in- upon which plain Englishmen could flamed the minds of their hearers and safely rest for their property and freedom. readers; not only by defaming the monarch, But the English will not always confide; but also the people of England; and for the jealousies arose and fears. To meet and same reason he was ready with equal wil- appease them, qualifications were annexed. lingness, to stand forth and vindicate the The king was accordingly in future to constitution from the stigmas of men of make these laws, with consent of the Lords an opposite description. The pamphlet and Commons." Then he introduces the treated with disrespect the labours of their figure of this "tree, and of its branches ancestors, at the period of the Revolution lopt off," upon which event the "kingly to whom they were indebted for the prac- power would exercise all its functions." tical liberty they at present enjoyed. It What functions? Those which it exerstruck him as a matter of difficulty how cised when the king made the law, and the House could act on the present occa- before his power to make it was limited. sion; though the pamphlet abounded with He would say no more upon the libel, excontradictions and political heresies, he cept only to re-assert, that it was gross and could not tell how far an ingenious lawyer scandalously false. What measures the might be able to confound the minds of a House would, in its justice and wisdom, common jury; he had his doubts, in par- pursue against the offender, he gave no ticular, as to that part of the motion, opinion, more than to say, that he wished which charged the pamphlet with being a for lenity, as far as it could be reconciled libel on the glorious Revolution; because with honour. But he thought, in times although the writer had indirectly cen- like these, to censure such a libel, was an sured some of the principles on which the act of sound policy, as well as justice. It Revolution was founded, and again, and would show to the people out of doors, again, by inference, reflected upon it, impartial judgment in the House of Comall that he had said, did not, in his mind mons against libellers of all descriptions, clearly amount to a libel upon it. when those of the worst kind were so prevalent; though he was not sure whether such false friends as the writer of this Mr. Hardinge said, it was not for the purpose of compromising the opinion libel, were not the worst enemies a government could find. they would regain, and perhaps they would be considered as once more to have formed the wish of making public opinion the ground of all their strength. Without it, all the bills they may carry through parliament and add to our heap of laws, will avail but little to secure them in their places. He hoped the House would follow up the motion by some farther measures expressive of their indignation at doctrines so prejudicial to the interests of the country as those contained in the pamphlet. Mr. For said, that when he saw the secretary at war attempting to give a sense to the pamphlet different from what it would obviously bear, he could not help thinking that there was some lurking partiality towards the principles asserted in that pamphlet. Would any gentleman venture to declare, that there did not appear as settled a design in Reeves's association to attack the constitution, as in any of the Corresponding societies? To the pamphlet of Mr. Arthur Young, an express vote of Mr. Serjeant Adair thought, that as to thanks, signed by Mr. Reeves, as chair- the main question, whether this pamphlet man of the association, and an approba- was a libel, there was no difference of opition of the doctrines contained in Mr. nion. He, however, doubted the proYoung's pamphlet were subjoined. The priety of the amendment, which charged principles which Mr. Reeves's association this pamphlet with being a libel on the wished to adopt were, that rotten bo- Revolution: he thought it would be ex. roughs, extravagant courts, selfish minis-tremely difficult for any lawyer to perters, and corrupt magistrates, formed the suade a jury to bring in this verdict. security for the constitution of England. What could such doctrines proceed from but a settled design in that society to destroy the constitution of this country? If they analyzed the pamphlet minutely, they would find the doctrine contrary not only to fact, but to the language of the Statute book, which declared that the government of this country was not simply a monarchy, but a government in King, Sir W. Dolben said, he had come down Lords, and Commons. My own difficulty to the House in the opinion that the book (said Mr. Fox) is, what the conduct of was a libel, but the speech of the secrethe House should be on this occasion. Itary at war had made such an impression profess myself an enemy to prosecutions upon him of a contrary kind, that he for libellous attacks; and yet, at such a would vote against the motion. time as this, when Mr. Reeves's association are spreading their pernicious doctrines abroad, I am anxious that the House should express their disapprobation of principles recommended by that association. I wish to get at the author of this pamphlet ; and this is so material an object, that I think the better way would be, for the House to keep this business in its own hands. The Master of the Rolls said, that though he had no doubt as to the malignity of this pamphlet, he had his doubts whether it was a breach of the privileges of the House, or whether it was of such a dangerous tendency as to require the interposition of the House, rather than to be left to the ordinary course of justice. However, he should vote for the motion. The original motion was then put and carried, with only two dissenting voices, Mr Sheridan having, with the leave of the House, withdrawn his amendment. Mr. Sheridan then said, that the House having adopted 'his motion, it was proper that some proceedings should be grounded upon it. He had been made more anxious in pushing this proceeding, because he did not consider the publication to be a solitary libel, but to have issued from a quarter possessing extensive means of circulating attacks against the constitution. He stated the various modes of proceedMr. J. T. Stanley thought it a fortunateing that might be adopted, and referred circumstance that the pamphlet in questo precedents in former times. At a petion had been brought to the consideration of the House. The debates occasioned by it proved, that many Englishmen still harboured in their bosoms an affection for Mr. Buxton considered the pamphlet to be a libel on the glorious Revolution, and hoped that steps would be taken to bring the author to exemplary punishment. whig principles. The administration he was sure would not have to repent their conduct. Some of their lost confidence riod when party ran very high, a pamphlet by Swift on the Public Spirit of the Whigs, a very innocent and useful work, was ordered by the House to be proceeded against.* Under the circum * See Vol. 6, p. 1260. |