Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

among the Jews, even in King David's time, is evident from the story of Mephibofheth and his fervant Ziba; for from thence we find, that the eftate of Saul had been forfeited, but was restored to Mephibofheth, for his father Jonathan's fake; and was again taken from him by a new forfeiture, on a false fuggeftion of Ziba's.

Having thus fhewn, Sir, that the forfeiture of a guilty father cannot be looked on as a punishment upon the innocent children, it can no way be faid to be inconsistent with religion, efpecially that precept delivered to the Jews, which forbids punishing the father for the fon's iniquity, or the fon for the father's. That law was certainly meant against subjecting either the one or the other, directly to any lofs, damage, or inconvenience, for the crime of the other, and not against that confequential damage which is brought upon the fon by the forfeiture of the father: and, as I have fhewn that forfeitures have been approved of by the most learned Lawyers, both ancient and modern, and were established in the Jewish, Grecian, and Roman Commonwealths, no Gentleman can, I think, have the confidence to aver, that they were, or are, inconfiftent with natural justice, or the liberties of a free People.

The next thing I am to fhew, Sir, is, that they are confonant to the laws of this kingdom, both ancient and modern. Here, indeed, I am at fome lofs what Gentlemen may mean by our ancient Laws; and therefore, that I may not be accused of any neglect, I shall go as far back as I can. I think I may be very fure, that no man can tell what our Laws were, or whether we had any, before the Romans came amongst us. If Gentlemen mean, by our ancient Laws, the Laws which prevailed amongst us whilst we were fubject to the Romans, then certainly the Law of Forfeiture for treafon was eftablifhed, because it was then a part of the Roman Law. If we come to the Laws of the Saxons, and fay, that these were the ancient Laws of the kingdom, I think the point may be as pofitively determined in favour of Forfeitures; for that the feudal customs prevailed

2

among ft

amongst the Saxons, as well as among their other northern neighbours, is, in my opinion, clear to a demonftration and it is certain, that by the Feudal Law, the forfeiture of the estate was the certain confequence of any breach of fealty in the tenant or vaffal. If we refer to the fragments ftill remaining of the Saxon Laws that were established in this kingdom, the point will be as clear in my favour. It is very true, that from thefe fragments it appears, that fines, or mulets, were the punishments inflicted upon moft crimes; but ftill there were fome that were punishable with death, or forfeiture of eftate, and fometimes with both. By a Law of King Ina's it is exprefsly enacted, that whoever fights in the King's palace fhall lose his inheritance: Hæreditatem perdat, are the words of the Law. And, by a Law of the famous King Alfred's, it is enacted in these words, Si quis vitæ Regis infidietur, per fe, vel per ultores mercede conductos, vel fervos fuos, vita privetur & omnibus quæ poffidit.

Thus, Sir, it is evident, that the forfeitures were in use amongst the Saxons, and that they have been conftantly in use fince the conqueft, not only in treafons, but in felonies, fo far as relates to goods and chattels, no man can deny; therefore they must be allowed to be confonant to our laws, both modern and ancient: and that they are not inconfiftent with the freedom of our Conftitution, experience itself must bear witness; for we have hitherto preserved our Conftitution entire, and I doubt much if we fhould be able to do the fame, fhould forfeitures of all kinds be abolished: for it is certain, that nothing can be of more dangerous confequences to the liberties of a free people, than frequent civil wars. The first civil war that happened among the Romans, was that which they called the Sociale Bellum, or the war begun by the feveral people and cities in Italy, whom the Romans, that is to fay, the citizens of Rome, would not admit to an equal fhare in the Government with. themselves. How long did they preferve their liberties after the commencement of the civil war? Not much above fixty years; for this war began about the year 660 after the build

ing

[ocr errors]

ing of their city, which was their æra; and Auguftus Cæsar, after the battle of Actium, was confirmed in the abfolute Government of that vaft empire in the year 725 of the fame æra. And even in this kingdom, a civil war has more than once put an end to the freedom of our Conftitution; for the civil war between the Houfes of York and Lancafter, eftablished what I may very properly call an abfolute Government in the perfon of Henry the VIIIth; and the civil war between Charles the Ift and his Parliament, eftablished an abfolute Government in the perfon of Oliver Cromwell. It is true, as our Conftitution is more perfect, and better contrived than that of the Roman ever was, it has hitherto always recovered itself; but confidering the change in the manners of our People, if it should hereafter be overturned by a civil war, I am afraid it will never recover therefore there is nothing we ought to guard more cautiously against than a civil war. The execution of a traitor is a fleeting example which is foon forgot; but the misfortunes of his pofterity is a permanent example, which many have continually before their eyes: and as this permanent example certainly contributes to the preventing of civil wars, it must, in my opinion, contribute to the fecurity of the happy Conftitution we now live under.

Whether we should ever allow the punishments which produce these permanent examples to be abolished, is a question, Sir, that I shall not take upon me to determine, nor is there any neceffity for my giving my opinion upon it at prefent; but this I am very fure of, that we should not allow these punishments to be abolished, during the life of either of the Pretender's fons; because while they live, there will always be too many amongst us infected with an itch of rebellion; and all Politicians, as well as Lawyers agree, that the greater likelihood there is that a crime of any particular fort will be committed, the more fevere ought the punishment to be; for the terror of the punishment ought, if poffible, to be made fuperior to the itch of committing the crime; and as that itch,

or

or inclination, will be stronger and more general during the lives of the Pretender's two fons, than we can fuppose it to be afterwards, we must have, during that period, more severe punishments upon treason, than may be afterwards neceffary to be continued. I am therefore ftrongly in favour of the Bill, for preventing all correfpondence between his Majesty's subjects and the Pretender's fons.

Sir Dudley Ryder, Attorney-General, May 3, 1744•

THE Honourable Gentleman (Sir Dudley Ryder) who spoke first in the debate, and distinguished himself so greatly by his long and laboured fpeech, has laid down these two propofitions, upon which he has built his whole argument, That this claufe is confiftent with natural justice; and, that it is confiftent with our ancient and modern conflitution. Yet, notwithstanding all that he has faid, I must take the liberty to maintain the contrary.

As to natural juftice, no one principle can strike the mind of man more ftrongly, at the very first view, than that the innocent ought not to fuffer for the guilty; and that every man should suffer only for his own fault. Can there be a man fo abfurd in this, or any other affembly in the world, as to deny this propofition? -To deny this, is to violate the fundamental laws of all fociety, to be ignorant of the true nature of punishments, and of the only title men have to inflict any severities upon each other. The rights of mankind, in a state of nature, still subfift in a fociety; they ought to fubfift; they ought to be abridged in none, farther than is abfolutely neceffary for the preservation of society. It is in vain, it is nonfenfe to say, that the fafety of fociety can fubfift in, can be advanced or preserved only by the ruin of the innocent widow, of the harmless infant, and of thousands yet unborn.

How then does the learned Gentleman attempt to palliate the force of this principle? He owns the principle, and he says, if any man will convince him that this claufe can deprive any one innocent perfon, either of his natural or legal rights, he will be VOL. I.

R

against

against it himself. But, fays he, no man has a right to any preperty, but by the laws of the fociety under which he lives; and the laws of his country give no right to the child till the death of the parent. Sir, the Gentleman has made but two mistakes in this argument; but they are unluckily fuch as overturn the whole. For first, every man may learn from his own breast, that by the laws of nature, all mankind ought to fucceed to their ancestors; they are entitled to expect it by the order of all things, and as a kind of retribution from their parents, for their being the authors of their existence, which, without any inheritance, is a ftate of the utmost wretchednefs.-And as to the laws of this country, the very law which we are now about to repeal, has created this property in the child, and the child is actually vested in this right, by the very laws of the fociety in which we live. The fine reasonings of Puffendorff, or Grotius, have therefore nothing. to do in this question. The Gentleman fupports his argument by authorities, which, putting the cafe as it really ftands, all rather make againft him: he applies the reafonings of Puffendorff and Grotius upon any other cafe to this cafe, which totally and fundamentally differs from that upon which they argued.

Cicero too is brought in to support this cruel opinion: a letter of his to Brutus is quoted upon us, in which he justifies the feverities used to Lepidus and his pofterity. But I dare venture to fay, there is not one Gentleman in this Houfe, who knows any thing of Cicero, or of his writings, who does not know, that this very letter, which is to be put upon us as an irresistible authority, is no authority at all; for it is generally, if not univerfally allowed to be a spurious lettter, not wrote by Cicero, but wrote for Cicero, many hundred years after Cicero was departed out of this world. And, in truth, had he wrote this letter, it would have had very little weight with me. Cicera was, indeed, à great orator; he made long and fine speeches, he is thought to have been greatly learned in the laws of his country; but he was a notorious time-ferver, a thorough man

2

« AnteriorContinuar »