Slike strani
PDF
ePub

for the security of his majesty's 'person. | meanors against which the present bill is Immediately after the Restoration this directed, are of the most serious descriptruly constitutional lawyer said, "That tion. They are those offences which are except for that event he had been on the productive of the worst consequences eve not only of surviving lawyers, but the which militate against the welfare of the laws."-[Mr. Pitt was reminded that these whole community, which are calculated to words were spoken not after the Restora- disturb the order, and interrupt the trantion, but after the Revolution]-I admit quillity of society. If we look to the-ormy error-these words were spoken after dinary operation of law, and compare the the Revolution; and is it likely that the species of misdemeanors described in this venerable person who during the course bill, with other offences which are at preof a long and honourable life, had present punishable with transportation, I apserved his attachment to the constitution,peal to the House whether those offences, should have so entirely have forgotten its spirit, or departed from its principles in framing that bill, so frequently referred to in the discussion? But I will ask the right hon. gentleman, does he attribute the plots in the time of Charles 2nd, to the adoption of new laws, and the unusual severity of punishments; or does he not rather attribute them to the repeated breaches of law committed by that monarch, and to the attempts which he made, at different periods of his reign, to govern without a parliament? Among his other allusions to history, the right hon. gentleman refers to the reign of Robespierre. He asks, whether that tyrant derived any security from the system of terror which he employed as the engine of his government, and which he supported by a large military force? I appeal to the House, how far this allusion can, with any propriety apply to the present discussion? I appeal to the House, how far the question, whether a lawless, wanton, and barbarous system of proseription and carnage, is calculated to afford security to the tyranny from which it originates, can possibly bear a comparison with the effect of those regulations which we are now employed in enacting for the security of his majesty's person, who is the object of the affections of his people, and for the preservation of that government, which is the best pledge for their happiness?

I shall now very shortly advert to that part of the bill which relates to misdemeanors. The first question is, whether, in any possible case of misdemeanor, transportation is a punishment which ought to be left to the discretion of the court? Misdemeanors are undoubtedly of very different sorts, and unless they can be marked out and graduated by some scale of legislative regulation, it is necessary, that, in adjusting the punishment, something should be left to discretion. The misde

either in point of moral guilt, or of public danger, are to be compared to the acts against which this bill is calculated to guard. The right hon. gentleman has descanted on the hardship of the sentence of transportation, and talked of the compassion due to individuals, who from having been placed in a better situation of life, have been doomed to experience its rigours. That it is a sentence at all times severe in its operation, I cannot but admit; and that it becomes more peculiarly so when the person who is its object, has beeen placed in a respectable and comfortable situation. But while we feel compassion for this individual, we must recollect, that, as legislators, there is a duty we owe to the public paramount to every other consideration. I have only to call upon the House, to consider what is the description of offence against which the punishment is directed. It is not to apply twice to the offence that may have previously been committed, but to the second instance of offence after conviction. An objection was started, that the crimes comprehended under the present bill, was of a description of the nature of which it was not within the province of a jury to judge. My learned friend (the attorneygeneral) has stated to the House what is his own practice. He had always left to the jury to decide, whether the innocent cause assigned was the real motive of the action. But in stating this, he stated not only that mode of practice which is conformable to the liberality of his own sentiments, but which is sanctioned by the liberal spirit of tha laws of England. There is no legal privilege which may not be made the pretext to cover the most illegal actions. I must particularly remark, in order to obviate misrepresentation, that nothing is made a crime by the present bill which was not before criminal, and subjected to a severe punishment by the common law of England.

527]

36 GEORGE III.

The question being put, " That the said bill be now read the third time." the House divided:

TELLERS.

Sir William Young

YEAS {Mr. John Smith
Mr. Jekyll
NOES {Mr. Whitbread

[ocr errors]

226

} 45

Debate in the Lords on the Seditious The order of Meetings Bill.] Dec. 9. the day being read, for the second reading of this bill,

Debate in the Lords

[528

of these doctrines and attempts had lately the sovereign, which had excited universal been exhibited in the attack made upon horror and indignation. The necessity of remedying these evils was already recognized. What had already been done, was only affixing a severer degree of punishment to particular offences; it was next necessary to employ legislative measures The bill being read a third time, Mr. of prevention, and to strike at the root of Sheridan proposed a clause by way of the evil. These self-erected societies had rider, the purport of which was, to take spread themselves and their poison away the arbitrary power of the judges in throughout the country: they had sucScotland, and to declare that they should ceeded in availing themselves of the priCould their lordships fornot be able to transport persons for sedi-vileges of our free constitution to destroy Upon its existence. tion for more than seven years. milar societies in France, the sovereignty which the House divided: Yeas, 27; Noes get that, through the machinations of siwas reduced, the king hurried to prison, 184. The bill was then passed. and from that prison led to the scaffold? After all these enormities, the conduct of bation to the societies in this country; the French became the subject of approand addresses, in which the hopes were expressed of a speedy revolution in this It had been said, on a former country, announced their wishes and their designs. occasion, that the laws guarded against these principles; their lordships were, however, convinced that was not the case; he therefore found himself justified in saying, that new and adequate remedies must be used to destroy an evil of such magnitude. With such an evil it was perhaps impossible effectually to contend, without appearing to encroach upon the true in a considerable degree, it was worprivileges of the people. Even were this thy of the wisdom of the legislature, worthy of the generosity of a great nation, to sacrifice a part of the constitution to preserve the whole. He was very ready to admit, that many persons in various parts of the kingdom had sent up, both to this and the other House of parliament, their sentiments against this bill; but he verily believed, that the greatest part of them had been led so to do from a total misap. prehension of its tendency. One strong ground of objection was, that the bill went to prevent meetings to consider upon public measures, than which nothing could be more contrary to the fact. It was undoubtedly true, that the people had a right to meet for the purpose of discussing public measures; but then it was equally true that those meetings should be called by the lords lieutenant of counties, the mayors of corporations, or other official persons; and this right would not be infringed upon

Lord Grenville said, that he had, on a former day, introduced a bill for the better security of his majesty's person and government, which had met with their fordships approbation. On that occasion, he had thought it incumbent on him to state, that it was one of the measures which government intended to bring for ward to guard the constitution and protect the liberties of the country; but it would be imperfect if not followed up by another bill, which was more immediately calculated to meet the evils they were intended to remedy. That other measure was the present bill, which had been received from the other House, and was then brought forward for their lordships discussion. The present bill was therefore to provide for what the other bill did not contain. He considered the present bill as part of a system for suppressing an evil, that not only threatened the security of the subject, but menaced the very existence of the constitution. The system to overthrow all order had been gradually proceeding for three years. The fact was notorious. Their lordships, on a former occasion, had declared by their vote the existence of a conspiracy; the parties were brought to trial. But since that period had they abandoned their errors? On the contrary, no sooner were the temporary checks removed, than the former business was resumed, and new designs put in motion. Meetings had repeatedly been held; the same abominable principles were inculcated and diffused. An effect

by this bill. It only went to prevent seditious meetings similar to those which had taken place round the metropolis. Their lordships very well knew what were the principles of the societies which formed those meetings, and what were to be dreaded from them. They had now arrived at such a daring pitch that some new law was necessary, which might intrench, in some small degree, upon the Bill of Rights. All that was required under this bill was the presence of a magistrate, who, if he heard any one endeaYour to excite the people to sedition, was to be invested with power to arrest the person using such seditious language. This was the whole in fact, for he was not empowered to put an end to the meeting, unless his authority was disputed, and rescue attempted. If resistance was of fered, he was then to order the assembly to disperse. Should this endeavour fail, he was then to have recourse to such means as the act empowered him to make use of. The act made such resistance, after proclamation, death without benefit of clergy. Another part of the bill went to the regulation of political debates and lectures. He had not the smallest objection to a man of ability making advantage of his talents, in explaining to his countrymen the principles of our constitution; nay, he thought it praiseworthy so to do; but he could not see why that man should not be subject to a licence from a magistrate, any more than almost every other person who appeared before an audience. The stage, it had been thought requisite to put under severe restrictions; and he could not see what hardship there could be in putting places of this description under the cognizance of a magistrate.

Such was the whole effect this bill was to have, which had been misrepresented as calculated to sap the foundation of British liberty. In all periods of our history, instances were to be found of the evils arising from tumultuous assemblies; and experience must show, from the frequency with which they were now held, the absolute necessity for their suppression.

The Earl of Derby said, he felt himself bound to oppose the bill. He had been educated in whig principles, and the experience of maturer years had confirmed the impressions of youth. He had been accustomed to look back to the Revolution, as an event which established the principles of liberty in our constitution, and placed the foundation of the throne [VOL. XXXII.]

upon the right of the people. At that period, the privilege of petitioning was demanded and received as a right esse ntial to the people; and any attempt to take it away, Englishmen ought to withstand. As to the necessity for the bill, where was the proof of it? The notoriety of facts in common life might, perhaps, be safely trusted; but was it prudent to act upon it in affairs of such infinite importance? It was said, that the societies in the metropolis adhered to their original principles. He was not acquainted with any person belonging to these meetings, and he disapproved highly of many publications in circulation; but he judged them from their own declarations. They complained bitterly that their intentions were misrepresented. It was maintained, that they did not mean what they said; that when they mentioned reform they meant revolution: when they spoke of equal laws they were accused of wishing to effect equality of rank and of property. They desired to be judged by a comparison of their actions with their words, and challenged their enemies to point out an inconsistency. It was not his business to reconcile these contradictions. But were all the charges imputed to these societies, proved, his opinion of the bill would not be changed. He could not think of punishing the innocent many for the guilty few, nor give up the rights of the people because the general principle was abused. He disapproved of sedition. But were the laws for the suppression of it insufficient? Was sedition unknown to this country? Was there not sedition and discontent in the days of king William and queen Anne? Was not the principle of their government arraigned and their persons endangered? Were there not afterwards powerful factions and open rebellions. But did they ever, in the moment of real danger, think of such a measure as this? Did they ever attempt to impose a restraint upon public discussion? No. They placed the government on a firmer basis-upon the love, not upon the fear, of the subjects. They sought not to introduce any new law, but were contented by the prudent exercise of the power placed in their hands, to check the evil and remove the danger. If the laws, then, were sufficient, were not ministers chargeable with supineness in not employing them? Was he not entitled to conclude that they allowed sedition to increase, that they might find a pretence [2 M]

for new laws, by which they might shackle the liberties of the people. He would not jumble the two bills together, but he would say that their principle was the same. But still were there no laws? Was there not imprisonment? Were there not fines? Had not lord George Gordon perished in gaol, to the disgrace of the laws of this country. Was not the case of Mr. Walker of Manchester a sufficient proof of its severity? Would it, then, be said that no adequate punishment existed for sedition? If the punishment once exceeded the received opinion of the crime, magistrates would be averse to present for trial, and juries would be slow to convict. Of this the Statute book afforded a variety of instances. Did not the severity of the game laws defeat their own operations? Were not many of the acts against Catholics a disgrace to our code? Did not a great part of the riot act come under the same description? With regard to the principle and clauses of the bill, he was supported by great authorities when he gave them his pointed disapprobation. That the kingdom at large was averse to this bill, appeared from the numerous petitions against it. As to magistrates, he had himself been curious to learn their sentiments, and with this view had applied to some of the most respectable men, who sat upon the bench. Their uniform opinion was against the bill in general; but more particularly that part of it which assigned to them such a share in the execution of it. When this bill was first introduced by the chancellor of the exchequer in another place, the cloven foot had too soon appeared, and he had been forced to admit various qualifications. The change in the duration of the bill was no great subject of consolation. The people who would submit to be deprived of their rights for three years might be easily reconciled to the utter deprivation. He that would be a slave even for an hour, had lost the ardent principle of freedom. Was such a man capable of feeling the glorious energies of liberty, or of struggling for the preservation of it? Erit ille fortis, Qui lora restrictis lacertis Sensit iners, timuitque mortem. When chains were once imposed, might not the minister come with some affected pretences and artful colouring, to prolong the period of servitude till the principle became familiar to the mind? Were not all attacks upon liberty progressive?

[ocr errors]

Those who would submit now to give up part of their right, might be cajoled at some future period to a surrender of the remainder. The riot act, according to Blackstone, had first been introduced in the reign of Edward 6th, had been revived with limitations under the bloody reign of Mary, from which time it had slept to the reign of George 1st, when it was adopted for the security of the family on the throne, after receiving many additions and creating new crimes.* Upon the riot act he would state the opinion of Mr. Pulteney. He says, "That he repented of having given his voice for the passing of that law, but his zeal for that family, to which no one could doubt his attachment, had transported him beyond the bounds of propriety. Was passive obedience, he would ask, to be established by law in that government, which had been founded by resistance? Englishmen could no longer be called a free people, if a serjeant at the head of a number of hirelings, was entitled to disturb their assemblies, and expose them to military execution."+ Such was the opinion of Mr. Pulteney, which he had stated to show the danger of a precipitate zeal. What severe reflexions would it not produce, should a period arrive when many of their lordships, who acted with the best intentions, repented that they had given their voice for the present bill? God only knew what would be the event of the present measures! He ardently hoped that the present ferment in men's minds would subside without violence or disorder; but he should hardly think these greater evils than the sort of apathy, and disregard of all future attacks, which he feared would be the consequence of seeing their present remonstrances treated in the manner they had been. If this happened, we might indeed retain the forms of the constitution, but the essence of it would be lost for ever, and every spark of freedom would be extinguished. In opposing this bill he thought he did an act which was acz ceptable both to God and man.

The Earl of Westmoreland said, he was willing to share in all the opprobrium which had been cast on the framers of these bills. The relation between the governors and governed was such, that what

See 1. Blackstone's Commentaries, 142. + See Mr. Pulteney's speech on Mr. Bromley's motion for the repeal of the Septennial Act, Vol. 9, p. 470.

"Ut jugulent homines surgunt de nocte

latrones."

the latter gave in allegiance, the former | be entirely a fiction, and to arise wholly repaid in protection, and that protection from the corrupt state of the parliamenwas best insured by the preventive mea- tary representation. He asked, whether sures included in the present bills. the highest criminality would not attach There were ambitious men holding upon any government which should negnightly meetings to inculcate invidious lect to put an effectual stop to proceedings distinctions between the rich and the poor, of so dangerous a nature? Was there for no other purpose than to gratify their such a thing heard of in the world as a own rapacity, government tolerating the idea of any association whatever assembling one or two hundred thousand persons whenever they pleased, and telling them that all government was tyranny and usurpation? Did noble lords think the societies entitled to the care and tender regard of government and the public? Such could not be their opinion. The opinion of all thinking men must be, that these clubs had uniformly displayed industry as indefatigable, art as refined, and ends as abhorrent from every principle of real liberty, as ever combined to rear their heads against state or country, since the establishment of civil society in Europe. That the danger was less, because the societies had existed two or three years, was a proposition which no noble lord could seriously maintain. He fervently prayed that the measure might prove efficacious.

Against such men restrictive measures were necessary. Many were taught to clamour for peace, as the only mode of lowering the price of provisions. But the high price of corn was certainly not owing to the war. The best way of having plenty would be for merchants and farmers to mind their business, instead of attending schools of sedition. It would be better to compel the people to attend to the loom and the anvil, than to suffer them to waste their time and money at seditious meetings. His lordship entered into a history of precedents, all tending to justify the present measures, and concluded with observing, that the opposition which had been made to the bills, was the greatest proof of their necessity.

The Duke of Norfolk was of opinion that the bill would destroy the power of petitioning. It went to forbid all popular meetings, unless convened by certain magistrates. How little reliance was to be placed on the assent of those magistrates appeared in the conduct of the sheriffs of York and Northumberland. The remedy, in his opinion, was worse than the disease: the real object of the bill was to establish a state inquisition in the country.

Lord Boringdon observed, that the evil which was likely to result from the societies had been much called in question. He did not wish to criminate any set of men by unjust inferences, or by vague and unwarranted assertions. He would, with their lordships permission, read to them, not extracts from anonymous pamphlets, or scraps from the speeches of individuals, but distinct resolutions proposed and passed within the last six weeks by the London Corresponding Society in the open air, and with the acclamation (as they industriously asserted) of one or two hundred thousand persons. He then read several of the resolutions lately passed by the London Corresponding Society: the last on which he commented stated the late harvest to have been very abundant, and the scarcity to

The Marquis of Lansdown admitted the existence of a system which struck at all civil society, and was upon principle the enemy to every legitimate government. He alluded to the Jacobin Society in France; and when such a society had received the applause and the affiliation of certain assemblies in this country, it was a debt of candour against prejudice, so far to do justice to any minister, as to admit a strong and rational ground of alarm for the safety of the state. He had put himself in the place of the ministers, and thus situated he should say, that these popular societies were undoubtedly an invention very formidable in its nature. Their mode of proceeding, by association and affiliation, was a discovery of as much moment in politics, as any that the present century had produced in any other science. It was not a mere puff of wind to be passed by in silence. It was a serious matter to see, that an obscure individual by these means could obtain a wide scope of power, and even possibly avail himself of the physical force of a great mass of the people. He was of opinion that some precaution was necessary, and these admissions, he trusted, would at least be sufficient to exempt him from the charge of Jacobinism.-But the present bills ap.

[ocr errors]
« PrejšnjaNaprej »