Page images
PDF
EPUB

charm which wrought upon the populace to make them sign petitions against the bills; but, were not loyalty to the sovereign, and the support of the constitution as popular words as peace, and were they less frequently or less artfully used to procure signatures to petitions of a different nature? But, if gentlemen were willing to be deceived, in God's name let them be deceived. If they would shut their eyes, let them persist in their error. The opposers of the bills had also been accused of misrepresentation; but he would ask on whom the suspicion of misrepresentation was most likely to attach? The accusers would not admit a day's delay, in order to rectify these misrepresentations: whereas the accused wished for nothing so much as for a little delay, to compare their representations with the fact. With regard to what had been said upon the general opinion of the public upon this measure, he believed it to be, in the true sense of the phrase, as clearly against the general sense of the people of the country, and as entirely unpopular, as any measure that had ever been brought before parliament. That he was sure would be evident to every unprejudiced man in the kingdom. Upon looking at the petitions which had been presented, and stated to be in the nature of approbation of the bills, scarcely one would be found directly to approve of them. They prayed generally for such measures as the wisdom of parliament might adopt, and were founded chiefly on an idea on which there could scarcely be two opinions in the country, namely, that of congratulating his majesty on his fortunate escape from the late daring outrage upon his person.

With regard to the general topic, that the present were fit times for temporary restrictions upon popular rights, his opinion was directly the reverse. He thought that the people of the country were more enlightened at the present period than ever they had been, and that they could be more safely trusted with liberty than the inhabitants of any other part of the habitable globe; because, the better they understood the principles of liberty, the better use would they make of them, and consequently the more and more might and ought they to be trusted with liberty. When gentlemen, therefore, asked him what measure he would adopt to prevent confusion, he would answer, "meet the evil; reform those who are adverse to your constitution by reforming its abuses; reform — I do not say upon what system, that may be discussed hereafterbut reform the representation of the people in this House: keep your word with the public: tell them they may safely confide in your promise: proceed immediately to the abolition of that infernal traffic the slave trade: shew them the constitution of this country in its perfection: shew them that it

[ocr errors]

is favourable to the principles of liberty, and then your enemies will be so few that you indeed may despise them. These, Sir, are the points by which you will preserve the constitution of this country. I know that liberty is the greatest blessing that mankind can enjoy, and peace the next; but, from the experience I have had of the human character, and particularly of the people of England, persuaded I am that this bill will drive the people to this alternative: they will feel that peace and liberty cannot be enjoyed if the provisions of this bill be enforced. If the provisions of this bill be still obstinately endeavoured to be carried into effect, the attempt will disgrace our government. I know that some persons are of opinion, that, if this bill be not passed, government will be disgraced; and I believe that some of the promoters of it are of that opinion, and therefore wish to pass this bill; but that they do not intend to act upon it. I think that would be next to throwing out the bill. As for myself, said Mr. Fox, let gentlemen catechise me as much as they please; let them spread papers, stating me to be the enemy of my country; let them blacken me as much as they please; let them even be successful, if they can, in their endeavours to make me odious to my countrymen; still will I persist in doing my duty to the public, and never relinquish it but with my life. I am not vain enough to suppose, that any efforts of mine have contributed much to the spirit and the energy which has been manifested in this country; I should be proud to think they had; I should be glad to learn that any efforts of mine had contributed to awaken my countrymen to a sense of the value of their own freedom. A great orator, whose chief defect has frequently been stated to be vanity, has said, Nobile jusjurandum juravi, ne quid omitterem ut Respublica denique salva sit. That is far from being my opinion of myself: but ambitious I am to preserve the liberties of my country. I have therefore opposed these bills; and I trust the spirit of the country will resent them, especially as they are avowedly only a part of what is intended for them by those ministers, who have brought on the present distresses of the country. The House divided:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The motion for the third reading of the treason bill was this day strongly opposed by Mr. Harrison, General Tarleton, Mr.

Western, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Maurice Robinson, Mr. Jekyll, and Mr. Fox; and supported by Mr. Alderman Newnham, Sir W. Pulteney, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Mr. Jenkinson, the attorneygeneral, and Mr. Pitt.

Mr. Fox said, he entirely agreed with his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Jekyll) in thinking that there were no terms of reprobation and contempt too severe for the two important bills which ministers had brought, on the sudden, into parlia ment. After hearing several speeches of the learned attorneygeneral with all the attention of which he was capable, and after examining minutely the amendments which the present bill had undergone in the committee, he confessed that at that moment, as much as ever, he was disposed to object to every tittle and clause of it. He still retained the same objections against the clauses relative both to sedition and misdemeanor that he had ever entertained. He was prejudiced against the bill from its very preamble. An outrage had been committed upon the person of the sovereign, and a new enactment was made, not for the better security of the life of the king, for that was impossible, but to constitute an attempt to overawe the Houses of parliament into a substantive treason. He was told that the present bill was merely declaratory; and he was told, at the same time, that it was merely temporary: now, a temporary declaratory bill, he had no hesitation to pronounce an absurdity, and a contradiction in terms.

That the bill went to create new treasons had been confidently denied; he must, however, affirm the direct contrary, and assert that it did create new treasons, if it was admitted that there was any difference between an act being high treason, and an act being only evidence of high treason. At present, an overt act was an evidence of high treason; but by the provisions of this bill, those acts which were before only evidence of treason, became in themselves substantive treasons. And if new substantive treasons were created, new constructions would be made upon these treasons; so that not only all the constructions of the present statute would be constituted into substantive treasons, but new constructions would arise upon these new created treasons, which would perplex the statute to a degree that would render it impossible to be fairly understood. He had no objection to a declaratory bill, explanatory of the statute of Edward III., by which it might be reduced to its plain, simple, and original meaning. The present bill, however, he did not consider to be by any 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 con

1

tend, that it was not the natural effect of the extension of penal laws to confer security; and he appealed to the history of the world for the truth of his opinion. 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 comparison, he desired that they would judge of it upon the experience of more modern times. Was the overthrow of the primitive monarchy of France owing to lenient laws, or a lenient execution of those laws? And when the government of France was overturned, was the fall of Robespierre owing to the gentleness of his principles, or the mildness of those laws which he had framed for the pur.pose of protecting his person? If they looked to the assassination of the King of Sweden, would they attribute that event to the extension of liberty, or to an unusual licence of speaking and of writing? Or would they not rather ascribe it to the enraged fanaticism of the people, at seeing themselves deprived of those liberties in which they were born, and under which they thought they had a right to live? From what time were the regulations of the present bill borrowed? Were they not copied from the reign of Charles II., a prince against whom, certainly, not the fewest personal attacks had been directed.

As far, then, as the bill respected the law of treason, in his opinion, it created new substantive treasons, by constituting an attempt to overawe the parliament an overt act of treason. What was to be construed an attempt to overawe the parliament? Did the framers of the bill intend that an attempt to overawe the parliament, by the violence of prayer and of petition, should be considered as an overt act of treason? But, if they meant to affix the penalty to hostilities directed against parliament, the provision, he considered, as superfluous, as it would be impossible to wage hostilities against either house of 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 another clause. respecting treason, which had been somewhat altered in the committee, but which in some respects had not been altered for the better. The clause to which he referred was that in which " writing or overt act or deed" was mentioned. The word "other" was put 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, he demanded with what propriety, or upon what grounds it was declared, that the present bill was merely explanatory of the statute of Edward III.?

Having said this much upon the treason part of the bill, which he thought the least objectionable, he proceeded to remark upon the clause respecting misdemeanour. And here also it was contended, that the bill did not go to create any new misdemeanour, which he positively denied; because, the judge would have it in his power to say to the jury, "Do you find that these words and sentences were spoken with a design to excite the hatred and contempt of the people against the House of Commons as at present constituted ?" and if the jury should find such a design to be proved, the court would have nothing to do but to claim the right of explaining the law, and, under the legal construction of the act, to enforce its penalties. Upon this principle, a meeting could not be held for petitioning for a reform in parliament, without incurring the penalties denounced in the provisions of the act. With regard to the penalty of transportation for the second offence, he did not think that the arguments which he had adduced on a former night had ever been answered. He had then asserted, what he was not now disposed to retract, that the same offence ought never to be punished with different penalties, particularly when there were different shades and degrees in the offence.

Gentlemen on the other side had pleaded the power of his majesty to pardon, as an extenuation of the severities of the act. This privilege Mr. Fox considered as absolutely necessary in a goverment similar to that of England; but there. was a wide difference between this privilege when applied to general and to political crimes. It was notorious, that this privilege of the king was controuled in its exercise by his ministers. In cases of felony he would trust the compassion of any minister, but in state prosecutions he would be backward in trusting any minister, because these were connected with circumstance in which ministers were particularly interested. Far less would he trust the present ministers, who had sanctioned the iniquitous and cruel sentences of the court of justiciary in Scotland; sentences not less execrable than any which had been passed in the reigns of Queen Mary, or of Charles II.

It was said that sedition was the reigning crime of the day: if it was, it looked ill for administration; because popular

« PreviousContinue »