Slike strani
PDF
ePub

| strike out of all the records the word monarchy, and insert commonwealth. According to them our laws were absurd; and all indictments drawn up in the king's name were infamous libels, and insults on the people. When they come to state what they mean by reform, and bring forth their plans, they then tell us of universal suffrage; that is, the universal, indefeasible right of men, which cannot be bartered away. In order to reform, they say, you must put an end to boroughs and corporations, and divide the kingdon into factions. Does not all this tend to involve us in the miserable state of France? Experience had shown that the existing laws were not sufficient to put a stop to the evil; and thence arose the necessity for the present measures, which, he must contend, did not exceed that necessity.

sary might be made: at present, the principle of the bill was the sole object of their consideration. The learned lord had said, that the legislature of this country ought not to let what passed in France influence their proceedings. He, on the contrary, maintained the necessity of observing it as a general rule. The learned lord had also said, that the genius and character of the two nations were dissimilar, and that it was absurd to suppose that the subjects of both could be governed by the same laws. Upon that principle he had refused to take a salutary warning from what had passed in a neighbouring kingdom. Was man so different from ran on the different sides of the Channel, that similar associations in each, professing similar principles, assuming the same forms, and affecting the same style and terms, were not likely to be attended with similar effects? Would the Protestant divines of England declare that they apprehended nothing from the avowed Atheism and scandalous prophaneness practised in France? Would prudent politicians see no danger in the general confusion which would necessarily result from the propagation of doctrines and systems of government destructive of all order, all subordination, all property, all security, and all happiness? Would the learned lord venture to assert that they ought to remain supine in the midst of the tribunes of the London Corresponding Society-in the midst of seditious and inflammatory harangues, and libellous pamphlets and papers? The most vigilant government could not keep pace with the actions of that society in this country: heap prosecutions on prosecutions, there would be no use in it. It had ever been the practice of wise governments to anticipate and supersede, by preventive regulations, in order to render the evil impracticable. He was no enemy to the liberty of the press, so truly described by the learned lord; at the same time he must observe, that the libels that had issued from it went beyond all bounds, and that it was lenity to introduce preventive laws. The London Corresponding Society called for a reform, when it was clear a revolution was their object. What had been the atrocious nature of the hand-bills distributed by the society? They described the constitution and government as a monarchy, but not a monarchy limited and free. The House of Lords they pronounced useless, the Commons corrupt, the judges corrupt, and recommended to [VOL. XXXII.]

The Earl of Lauderdale said, he considered this measure as chiefly dangerous, because it was connected with a system of encroachment, of which every step ought to be watched. One encroachment was only intended to pave the way for another. It was said that this bill was meant only to last for three years. But did the House believe that ministers would stop there? At the expiration of the three years, it would be contended, that these measures had been attended with no danger to liberty; and some measure of a complexion still more arbitrary would be proposed. He considered the bill as not so formidable in itself; for its absurdity defeated its mischief. It was chiefly alarming, because it broke the grand line of demarcation, and paved the way for measures still more dangerous to the liberty of the subject. For what purpose could a stab be aimed at the vitals of the constitution, except with a view to its utter destruction? So much had the right of petitioning been respected in former times, that it had even been determined that petitions containing libellous matter, and libellous hand-bills distributed at the door of the House, should not be prosecuted. The learned lord, who seemed better acquainted with French history than with English law, seemed to have formed his notions of petitioning, from the maxims of Robespierre, who passed a decree against petitioning. The bill would tend to render the functions of the magistrate more odious, and his person more insecure. The true ground of the bills was, that ministers had plunged the country into a situation of unexampled calamity; and now, in order to screen [2 N]

themselves from the consequences of their misconduct, they had recourse to these measures in order to deprive the people of England of the right of remonstrance. The House divided: Contents, 63;Proxies, 46-109. Not-contents, 15: Proxies, 6-21.

Dec. 14. The bill was read a third time. On the question, that the bill do

pass,

would not trust the man whom I most loved. To such a man I might trust my own life, liberty, and property; but not those of my countrymen. I feel that though I am not delegated from them, I am delegated for them.-With respect to the outrage on his majesty, what did the evidence brought forward go to prove? That the persons any way implicated in that outrage were very few in number. It seemed to be the wish of ministers to prove that the outrage was entirely the act of a band of ruffians. Supposing that to be the fact, was it fitting to enslave the whole people of England for the offence of a few desperate individuals? Was their guilt a justification of those new and cruel punishments which were enacted by this bill? The bill is defended as a measure of prevention. This argument for increasing the penal code, in

magistrate?-And to disperse the meeting, to enforce military execution; and remark how many kinds of obstruction may take place in a large assembly short of actual violence; for it is not to be expected that Englishmen will, on the first mandate of a corrupt and worthless magistrate, disperse like a troop of slaves. Yet, in every such instance, you put it in the power of a magistrate of this description to enforce the most severe penalThe Duke of Bedford rose and said :- ties, wherever the British spirit shall The bill, my lords, now stands before either undauntedly step forward in the you exactly as it is to pass into a law. arduous task of asserting its outraged In the course of the discussion which it rights, or tempering its energies with has undergone, it has been divested of se- prudence, shall calmly remain on the deveral obnoxious clauses. The exception-fensive, and assume the inflexible, but able principle, however, still remains. No unoffending attitude of opposition to ca one denies that it imposes some restric-price or tyranny. With such a power I tions on the right of petitioning. The bill gives a power, which is liable to abuse; it is in vain to tell me that it will not be abused. I never will confide such a power while I am ignorant for what purposes it may be applied. The ground urged for adopting this bill has been the outrage against his majesty's person. It has been boldly asserted, that, previous to that event, the propagation of sedition was notorious, and that it may be immediately traced to doctrines which were openly preached. I as boldly contradict the assertion. Upon that point we are therefore at issue. How, then, is it to be established? By proof; by investigation. These have been refused; and ministers did well to refuse them: for they were aware that their measures were not calculated to stand such a test. Had they been in possession of those proofs which we required, would they have re-order to prevent crimes is founded on a fused them? If the circumstances of the times imposed upon them the necessity of bringing forward new acts of restriction, and of making fresh additions to the penal code of the country, would they not, if possible, have endeavoured to secure our concurrence? The present measure is liable to be grossly abused, and, I am afraid, with impunity. I do not wish to enter into any invectives against the characters of magistrates; it is not, however, to be concealed, that many of those to whom so large a power is to be given by the present bill, are known to be corrupt and interested men. And to persons of this description, you give the power to arrest an Englishman while he is speaking. And in case of any resistance or obstruction, what is the power you give to the

most despotic principle, and is an innovation of the most dangerous nature. It is contrary to that spirit which guided the legislative proceedings of our ancestors, contrary to the whole tenour of our laws. It is to be recollected, that laws, in order to be just, ought to fall equally upon all ranks of the community. The present bill is chiefly calculated to restrain the lower orders; and it will become the House to recollect the relative situation in which they stand to that class of society. We may be well said to fatten by the sweat of their brows. To them we are indebted, not immediately indeed for the situation we hold here, but for all those appendages which render that situation desirable; riches, honours, and power. They can do without us; wę

cannot do without them. Wherever an | by some valued friends of mine, that if apology has been wanted for the bills, it the bill. should be carried into a law, and has been said, "look to the example of executed to its extent, resistance would France." The case of the French and of then be declined from motives of pruthe English is materially different. The dence, and not of duty. I oppose this French have for centuries been doomed bill from principle; I oppose it from the to bend beneath the yoke of oppression; precedent which it affords for future innothey have been accustomed to witness the vation; from the example which it estaprofligacy and extravagancy of their court, blishes, that parliament have a right to and to consider depravity of morals as a violate those laws which were settled at necessary qualification for honours and the Revolution, and on which the parlia preferment. Englishmen, on the con- ment then declared that they did demand trary, have, at different periods, struggled and insist. In support of those principles, boldly and gallantly for liberty; and if my ancestors shed their blood; and raoccasionally they have been forced to sub- ther than desert or betray them, I will mit, they have again burst their chains, submit to perish. and loaded them upon their oppressors. The Duke of Leeds said, that ministers Such has been, such, I trust, ever will complained of the pains taken to misreprebe the independence of the English spi- sent the bills; but he was certain that the rit, and the energy of the English charac-industry used to raise opposition to the ter. What has the example of France bills, had deterred many, who disapproved held out, but a solemn warning of the fatal of them, from testifying their dislike, consequences that a revolution, brought from a fear of inflaming the public mind on by tyranny and oppression, was cer- to a dangerous degree. The present bill tain to produce. The French, under would tend to increase and organize their revolution, have committed every meetings of fifty, which, from their obscuspecies of horror and excess; what does rity, would be more dangerous to governthis prove? only that in proportion as the ment than meetings of a larger number. people are the enslaved and oppressed, It would give also too great a discretion the less will they be qualified to enjoy, to the magistrates who would be called and the more strongly will they be tempted on to execute it. At the same time, to abuse, the advantages of newly reco- meetings of the largest numbers might vered freedom. What, on the other hand, assemble for the purpose of considering has been the treatment of the people of any bill pending in parliament. It there this country? They have submitted to a fore appeared that the measure would calamitous war with patience and resigna- fail in its direct object, which was with tion. How were they induced to submit him a reason quite sufficient to oppose in patience, and bear its evils without re-it. In its present state the bill ought pining? They were told that it was a war not to pass, though he thought some steps carried on for the sake of liberty-for the should be taken to check the effects of preservation of their free constitution. sedition. That one thing most dear to them, for which they had made so many sacrifices, you are now about to assassinate. The present measure I most decidedly regard as a violation of the rights of the constitution, established at the Revolution.There is one other topic, on which I wish to say a few words, namely, the right to resistance. No one now stands up to defend the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance. It is universally admitted that there is a certain degree of oppression which men may justifiably resist, and when to submit is no longer a question of moral duty. If it had fallen to my share to have debated this bill at the commencement, and as it was originally brought forward, I should not have hesitated to have declared, as was done

*

Lord Hawkesbury said, that the bill certainly contained restrictions upon the liberty of the people, upon certain points: but those restrictions were necessary in order to preserve the rest of the constitution entire. It was, and ever had been, the custom to frame laws to meet the evil of the times. For the facts on which the bill was founded, he referred to the report of their secret committee last year, to the public notoriety of the conduct and objects of the societies in question, and also to legal convictions that had taken place in one or two instances. When the regulations of the bill were examined, they would be found the mildest that could be adopted to meet the evil. If such a law had existed in the year 1780, it would have prevented much of

the mischief then committed, and pre- | cluded the necessity of having recourse to a military force.

The Earl of Abingdon opposed the bill, as being subversive of the constitution, and denied the facts on which it was founded; but supposing them to exist, he thought the existing laws sufficiently strong to counteract them.

The Marquis of Lansdown said, he had thought it his duty to attend in every stage of the bill, to give it his decided opposition. The noble secretary of state had said that the two bills were part of a system. The first bill related to the protection of his majesty's person; the other was supported by arguments deduced from the situation of affairs at home and abroad. Their lordships had heard strong, and in his mind invincible arguments against the unconstitutionality of the system; and for his part, such was the apprehension he himself entertained on that subject, that he considered the existence of the constitution as implicated in their fate. He would not say any thing of resistance, but this he would not hesitate to say, that if the bills were carried into execution in their utmost extent, it was high time for those who prized civil liberty to consider of transferring themselves and their property to some country of freefrom, from one that had once been free. The bill not only struck at the foundation of civil liberty, but involved in its opeperation, the right of trial by jury. According to the practice of the law in cases of misdemeanor the crown had the power of challenging the jury, while that power was denied to the prisoner. This was a privilege that partook so much of injustice and abuse, that it was too gross and inhuman to require farther observation. But he trusted, that a right granted to a felon, would not be denied to persons tried for a misdemeanor under the operation of this bill. In cases of a political nature, every indulgence should be granted to the prisoner. If ministers were wrong in this particular, they should acknowlege their error; if such an abuse had crept into the bill, they should expunge the poison. What could induce ministers to restrict the bill to the natural life of the sovereign? During the reign of Anne, a similar bill for the protection of her majesty had been passed during the life of the pretender. But what affinity was there between the present case and that of a pretender to the crown? It was an act of

injustice towards the king; for a king should be beloved, and not be rendered an object of jealousy to those against. whom the bill was levelled. With regard to the bill, it was necessary to examine how far it was competent to meet the present occasion. When ministers enlarged on the necessity of the measure, they should have stated whence proceeded the cause of the events that had induced them to bring it forward. The full cause of the disaffection had not been properly considered, and the remedy was not accommodated to the source from which the evil arose. The meetings so reprobated owed their weight to the discontent which the calamitous state of the country produced. It was a circular chain of dependent causes which begun and ended with ministers. It would only increase the evil, and by increasing the effect afford the pretences for going on to increase the application. The people still possessed the feelings of Englishmen, and would not tamely be deluded into a base surrender of their rights.

He

Lord Grenville said, it was rather severe to attack the bill on the principle, that it was a departure from the existing laws. If no challenge was allowed in the case of misdemeanor, it did not originate in the present bill, but was consonant to the laws as they existed at present. denied that the bill went to alienate the affections of the people from the sovereign. The limiting it to the life of the sovereign was justified by the example of our ancestors. He contended, that there were no restraints in the bill inconsistent with the rights of Englishmen, or any new felony created, unless when forcible obstruction. was given to magistrates in the exercise of their legal functions. In situations such as magistrates might be placed, much must be left to their discretion: at the same time, it ought to be remembered, that they were responsible for what they did, and liable to punishment when they acted wrong.

Lord Thurlow said, that when the House considered the importance of the bill they were about to pass, it became them to be well grounded in the opinion, that there did exist a necessity that justi fied so strong a remedy. No man who had read the Bill of Rights could dispute the undoubted right of the people to petition the king or either house of parliament, upon any real or supposed grievance; and it was a liberty which he trusted

which had befallen that devoted nation. As to the idea, that meetings for the discussion of any particular defect in the representation, Old Sarum, for instance, would be impeded by the bill, he asserted that they would be left perfectly free and undisturbed. He defended the bill upon every principle of policy, safety, and necessity.

The House then divided on the question, "That this bill do pass :" Contents, 57, Proxies, 50-107. Not-contents, 14, Proxies, 4-18. Majority 89. List of the Minority.

Bedford
Leeds

Marquis of Lansdown
Earl of Derby

Lauderdale
Albemarle
Suffolk
Abingdon

Lord Thurlow

Lord Chedworth
St. John
Say and Sele
Ponsonby

PROXIES.
Duke of Grafton
Earl of Guilford

Thanet
Lord Teynham

would remain entire and unshaken by any restraint whatever. On the other hand, if any excesses, under the sanction of liberty, was attempted, the government might meet such excesses by strong and suitable laws, but they ought to take especial care not to go a single step farther than was absolutely necessary. With regard to the bill, it was to be considered whether it restrained any rights or liberties of the subject? to what extent those rights and liberties were restrained? and why that restraint was necessary? why every Englishman should be deprived of his right to discuss public questions relative to church and state? The bill was Duke of Norfolk founded on what was called the growth of French principles in this kingdom. He knew that certain causes had led to certain events in that country. He knew of no such causes to produce similar events in this. To produce a similarity, nothing could more directly tend than such violent measures as the present. He could not give his assent to a bill, the operation of of which went to curb and circumscribe that liberty which England had so long enjoyed, and under the auspicious inAuence of which she had so long flourished without hearing more distinctly defined. "Because, to present petitions to the the extent of the evil, to counteract and throne and the two Houses of Parliament remedy which so large a portion of that has at all times been the undoubted right invaluable blessing was to be sacrificed. of the subjects of this realm; the free and Much had been said of the poisoned part unlimited enjoyment of which was one of of the people, but the numbers, strength, the many blessings restored by the Revoluor importance of that poisoned part had tion, and invariably continued in its fulnever been ascertained. In his mind, lest extent, as well during times of interthey were insignificant and few, and might nal commotion, as of external danger: we be easily checked without adopting mea- therefore cannot consent to a bill which sures, which stigmatized the loyalty of thus fetters the rights of the people, and the great mass of the English people. If imposes restraints on that freedom of danger was apprehended from the adop- speech, to the existence of which the pretion of French principles, he would ever servation of all our liberties may be ascontend, that the English character was cribed, and from the full, free and contiessentially different from that of French-nued exercise of which is derived the men; and that whatever abuses might have hurried that nation into excesses of the most extravagant kind, it would be absurd to suppose that their example could produce the same effects on the minds of Englishmen.

The Lord Chancellor said, that all reverence for law and for religion, had been for the last five years extinguished in France. The spirit of imitation was abroad, and it was the duty of the British legislature to resist it. The same principles which had laid waste France, were now operating by the same means in England, and the bill was necessary to avert the calamities

Protests against the Seditious Meetings Bill.] The following Protests were entered on the Journals:

"Dissentient,

manly character that distinguishes a free
people.(Signed)-Norfolk, Suffolk,

Lansdowne, Derby, Chedworth,
Albemarle, Lauderdale, Ponsonby,
Bedford."

"Dissentient,

1. "Because, though we cordially agree in the above ground of protest, yet we think it farther necessary to state, that although the bill industriously displays the acknowledged right of Englishmen, a right essential to a free constitution of deliberating on grievances in church or state, and of preferring to the king and each House of Parliament, petitions, com

« PrejšnjaNaprej »