for a moment. Let gentlemen consult the history of the world, and they would see the impolicy of such rigorous restrictions on freedom. In governments which had recourse to such oppressive measures, the most violent convulsions had happened, and by the addition of such new constructions of treason, the same violences might be repeated. case, than to be regulated by the parti- | ter dropped out of the pocket, the malice cular class to which the crime belonged. of a servant, the repetition of a conversaThe question now was, what is the enor- tion at table, with a thousand other cirmity of the offence of conspiring to produce cumstances, frivolous and innocent in a hatred and contempt of his majesty's their natures, might be magnified to danperson and government? what is the dangerous portents. No man would be safe ger threatened to the state by it, and what ought to be the punishment? If it was possible for a gentleman of eloquence and talents at the bar, to persuade a jury that levying war against the king, or conspiring his deposition, was not comprehended in the law of treasons, it was high time to make an express declaration to that purpose. The law now proposed went to that extent, and to that only: it was absolutely necessary, from the circumstances of the times, nor, in his opinion, was it too severe in its punishment. The question being put, "That the Speaker do now leave the chair," the House divided: Dec. 10. On the order of the day for the third reading of the Treasonable Practices bill, Mr. Harrison said, that the most respectable lawyers were clear that the present laws were sufficiently strong to meet all possible circumstances. Would then, the House agree to an act that went to specify new crimes, and enforce new punishments? Ought not gentlemen first to inquire what sort of a guard the act would constitute for the sovereign? It would, he feared, tend to show his majesty in an odious light; as it was to die with him, and was thought unnecessary for the protection of future kings. It was a libel on his majesty's virtues: it was a libel on the loyalty of his people. The true safety of a king was centered in the affection of his people: and such affection his majesty enjoyed. He trusted the country would distinguish between an amiable monarch and a bad ministry, and that all the odium would be confined to ministers, who had reduced the nation to the most alarming situation. He said he looked with horror to the consequences of the passing of this bill. A private let Alderman Newnham said, that the best reason for supporting the bill was, the late outrage on his majesty. Was not such a measure necessary when a king, the most distinguished for amiable and mild virtues was attacked-a king, who "Hath borne his faculties so meek, hath been The deep damnation of his taking off." Sir W. Pulteney thought the laws of the country would not be in the least altered by the present bill, but that they would be better defined, and hence better enforced. The bill merely defined the law of Edward 3rd and all that could be called new, was making a conspiracy to levy war, treason. This regulation was necessary, to restrain the sedition afloat in the country. General Tarleton remarked, that when the laws had hitherto been found sufficient for the happiness, prosperity, and freedom of the people, it was their duty to inquire what were the grounds for the introduc tion of these bills. The reasons, in his mind, which induced ministers to bring in the bills, were the acquittals at the Old Bailey and the present ruinous war. The bill would prevent the people from canvassing the conduct of the minister with respect to the war, and other domestic circumstances of a distressing nature. The security of the monarch lay in the heart of his subjects; and no monarch was ever deeper rooted in the affections of his people than the prince who filled the throne at present; a sufficient evidence of this appeared when his majesty went to St. Paul's shortly after his recovery. We had, he contended, attacked France wantonly and unprovokedly, because we did. not chose that twenty-five millions of people should settle their internal govern ment without our interference. Mr. Western declared he felt indignant at the bill, and was fully satisfied, that the extension of the penal laws afforded not the least protection to the sovereign, government, and subject. The nearer a king approached to despotism, the more was his personal danger increased. The bill, he was convinced, was subversive of the fundamental principles of the constitution, and he hoped the king would give his negative to it. It had ever been his opinion, that the sovereign's best security was in the affections of his subjects. The bill would render the crime of high treason vague and indefinite, and the person of his majesty unsafe. He would read an extract from Dean Swift, who in his political creed, forcibly argues against the suspension of any of the liberties of the people, points out the consequences to which such suspension must lead, and the encouragement which it gives to spies and informers" the most accursed, and prostitute, and abandoned race, that God ever permitted to plague mankind."* Mr. I. H. Browne thought the bill would define clearly what was treason, and give a legislative sanction to the suppression of it. No king, he was persuaded, ever had the affections of his people in a greater degree than his majesty; and he was equally certain, that so far from gaining affection by giving his negative to the bills it would contribute to his unpopularity. The hon. gentleman had quoted Swift as a person whose political principles sanctioned the opinion he supported. Swift certainly was a great man and a masterly writer, but he was a disappointed man, and a most factious, splenetic, and seditious person. He thought the bill calculated to calm the agitation of the public mind, by giving the magistrate a power to apprehend people for acting against the laws of the country. See Swift's celebrated letter to Mr. Pope dated January 10, 1720-1721. Swift's Works. Vol. 16, p. 231. Ed. 1803. Mr. M. Robinson hoped the negative of the sovereign might be gained, and blamed the hon. gentleman for endeavouring to degrade the character of the author of the Drapier's Letters. Such was his opinion of the two bills, that if the guillotine had been erected in this country, he thought it could not be more terrific. Mr. Sheridan animadverted very warmly on the reflections thrown out by Mr. Browne on Dean Swift. That hon. gen. tleman had confined his whole argument to reviling the character and memory of that great man. The House, he was sure, would pardon an hereditary respect for that illustrious divine and philosopher. But it was not merely from that motive, but from respect to truth, he now took up the point; for surely, every one would agree with him, that there never was a man who, with a more firm and manly spirit of attachment to the rights of mankind, maintained the cause of freedom, or merited the tribute of gratitude. He declared he never heard a passage more applicable to the present times, than that quoted by Mr. Western. That the Dean was no flatterer of great men, that he had sown the seeds of reform in the state, and that the whole body of court corruption had been the object of his attack, was much to his honour. He was not surprised that those who thought improvident loans and corrupt courts were useful to the constitution, should hold the memory of Swift in abhorrence. He recollected, though perhaps imperfectly, some lines of a poem, called the "Libel on the rev. Dr. Delany, and his excellency lord John Carteret," where Swift supposes in Ireland (for no such thing could happen here), that a minister comes with a budget full of rewards for those who support him, which (though of course not applicable now), might show what the corruption of loans and budgets were in Dean Swift's time. He says, after supposing that a gentleman who pays his court to a minister, must per form actions contrary to his disposition, like the avenging angel in Mr. Addison's admired simile, which he repeats, "I'll lend you an allusion fitter, Though flatt'ring knaves may call it bitter; Which, if you durst but give it place, Would show you many a statesman's face." *** So to effect his monarch's ends, From hell a viceroy devil ascends: His budget with corruptions cramm'd, The contributions of the damn'd; Which with unsparing hand he throws Through courts and senates as he goes; And then at Belzebub's black-hall, Complains his budget was too small." That a man who had so expressed his abhorrence of corruption should be detested by the abettors of that corruption, was, he repeated, not at all astonishing. suspected that there had been a similar strewing of favours here, and that the hon. gentleman opposite had come in for his share, though he certainly would not presume to say "From budgets with corruptions cramm'd, The contributions of the damn'd." He The attempt upon his majesty, was simply the pretext and stalking horse for the introduction of this bill, as there were certainly provisions enow for the protection of his person before; and except the clause which constitutes the overawing of parliament treason, there was no new treason. If this law had been enacted some time ago, the leading part of the administration might have been transported; and indeed he was sorry for the country's sake that it had not. Would any one deny, that when Mr. Pitt, in conjunction with the duke of Richmond and Mr. Horne Tooke, signed the resolutions at the Thatched-house for a parliamentary reform, wherein he represented the House of Commons to be corrupt, and not the real representation of the people, that such a proceeding might have a tendency to stir up the people to hatred and contempt of the government? The bills, if acted upon, would, he was apprehensive, tend rather to convulse than to pacify the country. It was, therefore, his opinion, that the king would do right to give them his negative. The excess of gratitude that must arise in the breast of a grateful people for such a magnanimous act, would render his majesty's crown doubly secure: then he might say, "Dismiss my guards, the affections of my subjects are my best defence." He wished to propose an amendment in the second clause, to take away the discretionary power of the judge in Scotland, in respect to the punishment for sedition, and to confine it to seven years, in like manner as the bill provided for this kingdom. Mr. Jenkinson said, he could not but regard the bills as salutary measures, and such as were urgently called for by the necessity of the times. That seditious doctrines were idustriously disseminated, every one must be convinced, who trusted to the testimony of his ears or eyes; and between the propagators of these doctrines and the nefarious outrage on his majesty, it was hard to say that no connexion existed; since all the circumstances which accompanied that foul attempt went evidently to prove that it was pre-concerted. That the measures under discussion threatened to be rigorous in their operations, he would not deny; but when crimes peculiar to the times arose, wisdom and policy suggested the necessity of enacting some severer laws than were in ordinary times resorted to. Sedition was unquestionably the reigning crime of these days; and to check it, some additional punishment should be held out in terrorem. He saw no reason why the provisions of the bill should be extended to Scotland. The penal code that existed in that country was not at present the subject before the House; it must occur to every gentleman, however, that the bill could not be introduced into Scotland without altering the whole principle of the Scotch law. Mr. Jekyll said, he would ask whether there was a crown lawyer in the House who would rise and say, that for the various crimes of treason, sedition, and conspiracy, there were not statutes enacting an appropriate punishment? Why, then, this bill? Was there any necessity to have recourse to the evidence taken by the Lords, to prove a conspiracy, in order that a jury might find the traitor guilty? Such a conspiracy was not necessary, by the law of England, to prove the overt act of treason; and this overt act being proved, it was impossible not to find the author guilty of high treason. But as to the existence of a conspiracy, ora connexion between the outrage offered to his majesty, and the societies so much reprobated, no proof whatever appeared. Still, however, new laws were required, though no new crimes could be proved. To show the severity of the laws already in force, he would only advert to the trial of Mr. Winterbotham, at which he had been present. There the defendant was charged with sedition, and it was even a question of doubt with the jury whether they should find him guilty. He asked, if the cumulative sentence of Mr. Winterbotham for the two offences, was not adequate, without superadding the horror of transportation? Yet now a general law was thought necessary on the subject. His sentence was for the two 511] 36 GEORGE III. The Attorney General said, he had heard * See Howell's State Trials, Vol. 22, p. 907. Debate in the Commons ever. (512 them, especially those on which their Mr. Fox said, he entirely agreed that there were no terms of reprobation and bills which ministers had brought, on the contempt too severe for the two important sudden, into parliament. After giving to several speeches of the learned attorney-comparison, he desired that they would general all the attention of which he was judge of it upon the experience of more capable, and after examining minutely modern times. Was the overthrow of the the amendments which the present bill primitive monarchy of France owing to had undergone, he confessed that he was lenient laws, or a lenient execution of as much as ever disposed to object to those laws? And when the government every tittle of it. An outrage had been of France was overturned, was the fall of committed on the person of the sovereign, Robespierre owing to the gentleness of and a new enactment was made, not for his principles, or the mildness of those the better security of the life of the king, laws which he had framed for the purpose for that, was impossible, but to constitute of protecting his person? If they looked an attempt to overawe the Houses of to the assassination of the king of Sweden, Parliament into a substantive treason. would they attribute that event to the He was told that the bill was merely extension of liberty, or to an unusual declaratory; and, also, that it was merely licence of speaking and of writing? Or temporary now, a temporary declaratory would they not rather ascribe it to the bill was an absurdity, and a contradiction enraged fanaticism of the people, at seeing in terms. That the bill went to create themselves deprived of those liberties in new treasons had been confidently denied. which they were born, and under which He must, however, affirm the direct con- they thought they had a right to live? trary, and assert that it did create new From what time were the regulations of treasons, if it was admitted that there the present bill borrowed? Were they was any difference between an act being net copied from the reign of Charles 2nd, high treason, and an act being only evi- a prince against whom, certainly, not the dence of high treason. At present, an fewest personal attacks had been directed, overt act was an evidence of high treason; As far, then, as the bill respected the but by the provisions of this bill, those law of treason, in his opinion, it created acts which were before only evidence of new substantive treasons by constituting treason, became in themselves substantive an attempt to overawe the parliament an treasons. And if new substantive trea- overt act of treason. What was to be sons were created, new constructions construed an attempt to overawe the parwould be made upon these treasons; so liament? Did the framers of the bill that not only all the constructions of the intend that an attempt to overawe the present statute would be constituted into parliament, by the violence of prayer and substantive treasons, but new construc- of petition, should be considered as an tions would arise upon these new created overt act of treason? But, if they meant treasons, which would perplex the statute to affix the penalty to hostilities directed to a degree that would render it impos- against parliament, the provision was sible to be fairly understood. He had no superfluous, as it would be impossible to objection to a declaratory bill, expla-wage hostilities against either House of natory of the statute of Edward 3rd, by which it might be reduced to its plain, simple, and original meaning. The present bill, however, was by no means calculated for that purpose. It was, indeed, the fashion to say, that it was necessary to give some additional security to the person of the sovereign. He would nevertheless contend, that it was not the natural effect of the extension of penal laws to confer security. He asked, if ever there was an instance in any country in which the sovereign, whether he was individual, or whether that power was deputed to an assembly, was indebted for security to the severity of a penal code? He called upon the House to look into the history of the bad times of the world, and to compare his observation with facts; and, if they were not satisfied with that [VOL. XXXII.] Parliament, without, in the first place, making an attack upon the person of the sovereign. It had been stated, that a convention had met for the express purpose of overawing the legislature; but of this he had never heard any proof. He had some material objections to the clause in which "writing or any overt act or deed" was mentioned. The word "other was left out, but he could not understand what was meant by the words which were suffered to remain, for if there was either sense or grammar in the expression, something else than an overt act was meant, And if writing was, contra-distinguished from an overt act, to be considered as a substantive treason, with what propriety or upon what grounds was it declared, that the present bill was merely explana tory of the statute of Edward 3rd? [2 L] |