Slike strani
PDF
ePub

Lord Grenville said, he had heard that from the noble marquis, which, as often as he heard, he would rise to contradict, namely, that we were the aggressors in the war. He would ever maintain, that the conduct of our enemies was such as left not peace or war a matter of choice; but of necessity they were compelled to adopt the latter. The noble marquis had expressed his doubts of the sincerity of ministers. Why he should doubt their sincerity, he knew not: the best answer he could give him should be, in the very words of the address, that the first moment of pacification would be taken, when terms could be had, consistent with the safety, honour, and dignity of the nation.

was that diamond, and if ministers would when that arrived he should not only deem restore it, he would receive it with thank-it a happy but a good peace. As to infulness, though his opinion of them might demnity, he had no hesitation in saying be the same as of the servant. In the that a few years of industry would be far present instance, he was at a loss to beyond all the indemnification we could know what confidence to give ministers, derive from our acquisitions. from the equivocal terms of the message, and the sentiments contained in the address. When he recollected the equivocal language of lord North in 1778, to which the present case bore a close analogy, and considered the circumstances that followed, he was not sure but the message might be a temporary artifice to delude the nation. The supposition might seem uncandid, but similar tricks he had seen employed. So far he believed in the transmigration of souls, as to think that ministers were actuated by the views and principles of their predecessors. He would be inexcusable were he to place implicit confidence in the professions of any ministers, when he had seen so many proofs of their insincerity. They might wish to get quietly over a session, or to prepare for a general election. With respect to the late successes of the Austrians, on which they laid so much stress, it proved nothing, for he had early laid down as a proposition, that whenever the French crossed the Rhine on the one hand, or the Austrians crossed it on the other, not much good could be expected to arise from the future operations of the invading party; for as an army got remote from home, it became timid in the same proportion as it was irresistible and energetic in its own country. And hence it was that the bounty of Providence seemed to have marked out the boundaries of every nation, to protect it from the ambition of men. The alarming condition of the country, and the exhausted state of its finances, should induce ministers unequivocally to show a disposition for peace. If they asked what sort of a peace, he would say a good peace, without mentioning the word glorious. If they required indemnity and security, had they not indemnity in the Cape of Good Hope, Demerary, and Ceylon? But if even these were to be surrendered, if such a measure procured peace, so far from his embarrassing ministers, they should not want his support. For if Holland was restored by the French, he did not see that it would be repugnant to the interests or the honour of the nation to give up the Cape of Good Hope. The object of the country was tranquillity, and

The Earl of Lauderdale was happy that at length ministers had come to that point to which he and his friends had laboured to bring them. He was not sure that this concession was not made to evade the propositions which his friends had meant to press upon them. If the right hon. gentleman at the head of the finances had the smallest knowledge that the order of things mentioned in the message was arrived, or that such was the opinion of the cabinet, he deserved to be impeached.

Lord Mulgrave said, that in his mind there never had yet been a time which held out such a prospect of approaching peace, both from the situation of this country, and the embarrassments of the enemy, as the present. The war had always appeared to him a just, necessary, and purely defensive war. The conduct of it, or the terms upon which peace could be made, he would abstain from entering upon. He wished that other noble lords had so acted, and had not made allusions to points that could not tend to promote the unanimity so much desired. If he could judge from appearances, the noble lords in opposition seemed not to entertain the same avidity for peace, now that it seemed to be at hand, which they did, when the prospect of it was much more remote.

The Duke of Leeds said, it was agreed on all hands that peace was a most desirable object, and any thing that could impede its arrival, he conceived to be highly

injudicious. He always thought the war was a war of aggression on the part of France, and that it was absolutely impossible for this country to keep out of it. He was fully convinced of the necessity of peace, upon such terms as were consistent with the interests and honour of the country, and would therefore vote for the address.

The Address was agreed to.

Dec. 14. Earl Fitzwilliam said, that he ought to apologise to the House for not having been present, when the subject to which he was now desirous of calling their attention, had come regularly before them. He was then at a distance in the country, but immediately on hearing its contents he had come to fulfil what he felt to be an urgent and indispensable call of duty, in delivering his sentiments on the message. The present war was of a nature different from all common wars. It was commenced, not from any of the ordinary motives of policy and ambition. It was expressly undertaken, to restore order to France, and to effect the destruction of the abominable system that prevailed in that country. Upon this understanding it was, that he had separated from some of those with whom he had long acted in politics, and with other noble friends, had lent aid to his majesty's ministers. Upon this understanding he had filled that situation, which he some time since held in the cabinet. Knowing, then, on such authority, the object of the war to have been to restore order in France, he was somewhat surprised at the declaration in the message, that his majesty was now ready to treat with France. When he looked to the actual situation of France, he saw no change of circumstances, which could justify such a declaration consistently with that object for which the war was undertaken. He could regard it in no other light, than as an entire departure from the principle on which the war had been commenced. His lordship then proceeded to examine what other motives might be assigned for the war, besides that which he had mentioned. If it had been a war for any common object, it could not have been protracted to such length, and even at an earlier period might have been concluded upon terms much more advantageous than at present. If it had been a war merely for the protection of our allies, all interest in carrying it on must have ceased, when +

Flanders and Holland had fallen into the hands of the enemy, and the latter had concluded a treaty of alliance with France. If it had been a war for aggrandisement, or extension of territory, we might have treated with much more advantage at the period when the Austrians had made such progress in the French territories, or when we ourselves had got such large acquisitions in the West Indies. We might then have made much more brilliant terms than we could pos sibly expect in the present moment. But it was alleged, that the present. government in France, was the only one which had sufficient power to make a negociation. Of the present government ministers as yet had had but a short experience: and former governments, while they lasted, had not shown any want of the necessary authority for the objects of executive administration. Was the present government in France so materially altered in its nature and construction, as all at once to produce that crisis which the message described? In its principle, he affirmed it to be precisely the same as those which had preceded it. It was still a pure unqualified democracy, containing the seeds of dissention and anarchy, and affording no security for religion, property, or order. What was the character of the men of whom that government was composed? Were they not the very men who had been instrumental in producing those scenes of anarchy and blood, which originally had occasioned the war? Would his friends so entirely divest themselves of those feelings which induced them to lend their support to the war, as to be ready to go into an alliance with the men, against whose power they had united to make a stand? Would that noble lord (Grenville), who had made so pathetic and forcible an address to the House on the murder of the French monarch, now join hands with his assassins, when they had aggravated their guilt by embruing their hands in the blood of his unhappy queen, and his innocent sister? Upon these grounds, he disapproved of the message and the address.

Proceedings in the Commons respecting Mr. Reeves's Libel on the British Constitution.] November 23. Mr. Sturt, in this day presenting to the House a petition signed by 12,113 persons, purporting to be the petition of the London Corres

plaint, and then move that the passage complained of be read by the clerk.

ponding Society against the treason and sedition bills, justified that society from the aspersions thrown out against them and their writings; and to prove that things at least as exceptionable had appeared from the partisans of the ministry, he read to the House several passages from a pamphlet, intituled, "Thoughts on the English Government," said to be written by Mr. Reeves, the framer and president of the Association against Republicans and Levellers, and among others the following:

Mr. Pitt said, he would not say a word upon the merits or demerits of the pamphlet, but he called upon the House to decide whether they ought to sacrifice the important subject of discussion, which was expected to occupy the attention of the House a great part of the evening, to a subject of inferior moment, which had accidentally occurred. He therefore moved, " That the Orders of the day be now read."

judges, to bring the author to condign punishment. The question was not, whe ther the House of Commons ought to be calumniated, but whether it ought to be lopped off as an excrescence. He spoke on the ground of privilege, and therefore the question which he spoke to was entitled to the priority of every other discussion. He appealed to the highest authority of the House if he was not perfectly in order.

The Speaker said, that questions of privilege certainly claimed a precedence in discussion, and all that was necessary to be done at present, was for the House to consider whether it was a question of privilege.

"With the exception of the advice and Mr. Jekyll hoped there was still enough consent of the two Houses of Parliament, of honour and independence in a British and the interposition of juries, the go-jury, and virtue sufficient in English vernment, and the administration of it in all its parts, may be said to rest wholly and solely on the king, and those appointed by him. Those two adjuncts of parliament and juries are subsidiary and occasional: but the king's power is a substantive one, always visible and active. By his officers, and in his name, every thing is transacted that relates to the peace of the realm and the protection of the subject. The subject feels this, and acknowledges with thankfulness a superintending sovereignty, which alone is congenial to the sentiments and temper of Englishmen. In fine, the government of England is a monarchy; the monarchy is the ancient stock from which have sprung those goodly branches of the legislature, the Lords and Commons, that at the same time give ornament to the tree, and afford shelter to those who seek protection under it. But these are still only branches, and derive their origin and their nutriment from their common parent; they may be lopped off, and the tree is a tree still; shorn, indeed, of its honours, but not like them, cast into the fire. The kingly government may go on in all its functions, without Lords or Commons, it has heretofore done so for years together, and in our times it does so during every recess of parliament; but without the king, his parliament is no more. The king, therefore, alone it is who necessarily subsists without change or diminution; and from him alone we unceasingly derive the protection of law and government."

Mr. Sturt then moved, that the House do order the attorney-general to prosecute the author of the said pamphlet.

The Speaker said, that the motion could not be made in that form. The hon. member must first make his com[VOL. XXXII. ]

Mr. Erskine, taking for granted that the passage quoted from Mr. Reeves's pamphlet was a libel, argued either that it was a question of privilege, or that it was not. If it was not, he contended that it was prejudging the case to direct the king's attorney-general to file any information he had received against the libeller. But if it was a libel (and if it was not, he knew not what was, for not only the constitution, but the very existence of the House of Commons was represented as a matter of little or no concern), the only point to be settled was, whether a libel upon the House of Commons was or was not a question of privilege. Here Mr. Erskine referred to the instance of the king against Stockdale, in which the attorney-general was directed to prosecute Stockdale for a breach of privilege of the House, not very dissimilar from the present. The Speaker had

See Vol. 27. p. 11. And for the Trial of Stockdale, for the said Libel on the House of Commons, see Howell's State Trials, vol. 22, p. 237.

[? R]

given a decided opinion on the point, that a question of privilege claimed a priority of discussion. The chancellor of the exchequer, on the other hand, had pressed the importance of the bill about to be discussed, as if the people of England were more anxious to have their liberties taken away than to preserve the very existence of the right of representation; a position which that right hon. gentlemen might endeavour to palm upon the House, but which would require much more ingenuity of argument than he could command to render it palatable.

Mr. Pitt said, he did not mean to ar gue upon any of the sentiments contained in the pamphlet; the leading consideration was, whether it was a breach of privilege or not? And, if it was, he thought, instead of recommending the attorney general to prosecute, the House should vindicate its privileges by acts of its own. However, he was at present for passing to the order of the day.

Mr. Fox considered the objection which had been started by the chancellor of the exchequer as the strangest he had ever heard. A member of parliament had complained of a breach of privilege; and because an informal remedy had been proposed by a single individual, was this to alter the fact in limine? But the great object was to get forward to the order of the day. How differently did ministers feel on the code of liberty, and on the code of despotism! The Corresponding Societies came forward with spirit in the cause of parliamentary reform, and a few paltry libels were published; the Habeas Corpus act was immediately suspended, indictments for high treason were drawn up, new treasons enacted, and the bill of rights repealed. A more atrocious libel than any that had been published had appeared from the pen of a ministerial hireling against the House of Commons, and the motion which was made was the orders of the day! Though he was no friend to prosecutions for opinion, yet, in the present instance, he called upon the House to come forward in vindication of their privilege, their dignity, and their existence.

Mr. Serjeant Adair said, that, although the present discussion was rather untimely, he could not vote for the order of the day, when a subject came before the House which no one could doubt was a breach of privilege of the grossest nature. He could not tamely hear it asserted,

that the House of Commons could be lop ped off, and that government might go on with its wonted vigour. So different was his opinion, that he was convinced the monarchy of the country could not go on an hour without the House of Commons, without the existence and practical exercise of those doctrines which placed the monarch of the country on the throne. The publication in question was clearly a breach of privilege; and the best way of coming to the order of the day, would be to have the pamphlet first read, that the House might determine upon it.

Mr. Pitt said, that no complaint of a breach of privilege had been made. There could be no doubt of the order which the rules of the House authorized where such a complaint was formally stated; but as the customary mode of introducing the subject had been neglected, it ought not to be taken up in preference to the order of the day.

Mr. Sheridan said, it was easy to get rid of the dilemma which the right hon. gentleman had made out. In order, therefore, to remove the punctilio devised by the political special pleader, he would move that the particular passage be taken down; which being done, he urged the propriety of an immediate discussion.

The Attorney General said, that before he could decide upon the passage in question, he should think it became him, as a jury would do, to read the whole book, in order to see whether the context qualified the argument complained of as a breach of privilege.

Mr. Windham (secretary at war) said, that after hearing the passage read, he was not prepared to deliver his mind upon it; but it was not conformable to the interpretation given it by gentlemen. As far as he was then prepared to decide on it, it might be perfectly innocent. It was, he thought, merely the opinion or declaration of an antiquarian or historian, speaking his sentiments of the British constitution. It merely meant, that monarchy was antecedent to the other parts of the constitution, and might possibly survive or subsist without them. It was merely such an opinion as an historian might give of any form of polity: possibly it was wrong; but, however, he imagined, that there was not in the context any thing to justify gentlemen in so severely attacking it. He was persuaded, that if it were tried before that tribunal which gentlemen sentenced it to, there was not

sufficient to condemn it.

With respect to the person who was said to be the author, very indecent language had been used, but the gentlemen who so traduced his character had good reason: he had incurred their displeasure, in proportion as he had gained the good will of the country. He hoped neither the House nor the country would forget his exertions in 1792. If they did, they were ungrateful. Mr. Reves was a man holding a respectable place under government, and receiving the rewards of honourable services: his conduct was approved by the greater, and, he was sure, the better part of the nation. The gentlemen opposite charged ministers with being slow in calling libellers to justice; they argued as if the constitution was overturned by a single libel; but they felt no apprehension from all the libels of the societies, though their professed object was the ruin of the constitution. These were the errors of liberty to be sure. But though their avowed intention was the subversion of all order and government, there were none of these alarms felt by gentlemen opposite. Except the single libel of Paine, there was not one acknowledged by the opposition to be unconstitutional. Gentlemen affected to feel sore, that Lords and Commons were arraigned in the publication alluded to, though they never before evinced the smallest sensibility about all the calumny which the societies had heaped upon parliament. Even in the speeches of many of the gentlemen opposite, he and his friends had been distinctly arraigned; but he wished the country to judge, whether there was more despotism in the ministry, or anarchy in the opposition. He knew well their motive for traducing Mr. Reeves, and other active magistrates, and especially those of Westminster. Their designs were clearly developed, and their zeal after their former supineness well understood. If the charge amounted to a breach of privilege, it might be tried; but, as far as he could judge, the sentiment was innocent, and by no means justified the commentaries bestowed upon it. General Smith said, he believed the right hon. gentleman was the only man in the House who would venture to declare sentiments so derogatory to the constitution and the privileges of that House. Having heard the right hon. gentleman on other occasions, when the liberties of his country hung on his tongue with honied elo

quence; when he heard him now maintain the utter subversion of it, he could not help exclaiming,

"Who would not laugh if such a man there be; "Who would not weep if Atticus were he!" Mr. Hardinge said, that he was equally astonished and shocked, at the doubt which had been entertained by his right hon. friend upon the sense of these words detached from their context and standing by themselves. That he would protest against the doubt, though he loved and revered the man. That in his view, a libel more gross upon the House of Commons, could not be imagined. That he thought no context would, or could, explain it away so as to make the words less criminal; but that upon general principles, it was a debt of justice to read and examine the whole book. This would be the duty of those who were to sit upon it in judgment, if it should be accused in a legal form; and he hoped the juries of England would ever exercise the right of judging for themselves, upon the seditious tendency of all published words, instead of assuming the sedition because the accuser imputed it. That he should protest equally against another topic in his right hon. friend's argument, which he thought injurious to the public spirit of the House, namely, a panegyric upon the man, when the act was to be considered. This he had reprobated in the case of Mr. Hastings, and would never see it again attempted without resisting it.

Mr. Grey said, that he had heard shocking things from the secretary at war, though when compared with his conduct they ceased to be surprising. That furious reprobation of his old friends corresponded with the new principles he had adopted. The conduct of the right hon. secretary clearly showed that with him the monarchy was every thing. From such sentiments avowed in the cabinet, the country might judge where the treason existed. The right hon. gentleman complains of the indecency of attacking absent characters. Yet this tenderness for absent characters was with the right hon. gentleman a novelty. The author of this libel was entitled to candour and to indulgence.-It was only an historical fact for the discussion of antiquaries. Had citizen Lee, however, stated that democracy was the root, and monarchy only an excrescence, what would the right hon. gentleman have said?

« PrejšnjaNaprej »