Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

argument against those of the prefent day; it was indeed not at all in the ftyle of accuracy and ingenuity of his Right Honourable Friend, that while he ftated the meatures in Queen Elizabeth's time as of a confiderably ftronger nature than thofe he now complained of, and admitted that they were taken in an epoch of unexampled glory to this country, he yet put it to the House as a matter of diftinction, that thofe measures were then well grounded: while there was fo little argument required to prove that, he believed the Houfe would anticipate him in averring that the neceffity of fuch a measure was greater, because the time was infinitely more alarming when the Bills were paffed, than it was in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, or at any other period of our hiftory: for fince the Revolution in France, our fituation had been daily growing more and more alarming, from the contagious example, and pernicious principles, which the Rulers of that unhappy country held out to the difaffected and feditious in all countries. His Right Honourable Friend had alfo alluded to the reign of Charles II. and quoted the law which punifhed perfons who fhould be proved to have called the King a Roman Catholic. His Right Honourable Friend had faid, that nobody would think of making this penal now, because no perfon in his fenfes would believe it to be true of his prefent Majefty. He, however, muft deny the inference which his Right Honourable Friend had drawn. He did not believe this law was paffed becaufe King Charles really was a Papift. In all his reading of the Hiftory of England, he could find nothing to induce him to adopt that opinion. Religion was then a topic about which men were particularly folicitous, and a falfe accufation of that kind might, in those days, have been attended with very different confequences from what it would be in the prefent. Could the Roman Catholic religion be made a topic of complaint against the Government in the prefent times, the difcontented would readily take advantage of it, and afcribe it to his Majefty. It did not follow, therefore, that the Government in the reign of Charles II. was vulnerable in this point, but that the popular opinions of the times were calculated to render any charge of that kind a matter of importance.

In one of his charges against one of the Bills, his Right Honourable Friend had effentially mistaken it; for there was no part of it which admitted of an additional penalty on a libel. If it did, he himself, he faid, would be among the foremost to concur in the Motion for the repeal of the Bill: but, inftead of that, it affixed the penalty to a particular offence, defining in fpecial terms the nature of that offence. A fingle glance at the Bill would fhew, that the penalty was annexed not to the crime of

libel in general, but were it even fo, that vice in it would be cured by the Act for enabling Juries to judge of the law as well as the fact--which his Right Honourable Friend had, greatly to his honour, brought into Parliament, and which would bring the whole of the matter within the province of a Jury. It was not poffible that the Houfe would allow its judgment to be confounded by the ingenuity and eloquence of any Gentleman, fo far as to agree, that that claufe enacted an additional penalty on libels, which provided that a writing, which, if followed up by an overt-aft, would amount to treaion, was punishable in the firft inftance as a libel, and in the fecond with transportation.

He faid he would not follow his Right Honourable Friend into the foreign matter he had introduced into his argument, from the Laws of Scotland, or enter into a difcuffion of the merits of thofe laws; but fome expreffions had fallen from him, which forbad him to remain entirely filent upon that point. His Right Honourable Friend had ftated that fome men of useful talents and acquirements had been fent into banishment, and died in a diftant country, merely on account of the excess of ther love for the British Conftitution; but this he could by no means admit. Had the Houfe forgotten that Mr. Skirving was the Secretary of the Scotch Convention? that Mr. Gerald and Mr. Margarot were Members of that Convention? Was it in their excess of love for the British Conftitution, that they had in their proceedings ufed the language and forms of that execrable body of men in France, who had buried the liberties of their country in the grave of their fovereign? Did their refiftance to the Acts of the Legiflature arife from the excess of their love for the British Conftitution? Did their appointment of Delegates to take the power out of the hands of the King, Lords, and Commons, arife from the excess of their love for the British Conftitution ?--"God forbid," faid he, " that the British Conftitution should have many fuch lovers."

As to the Meeting of Surrey, he had not information on the fubject fufficient to form a judgment on the conduct of the Sheriff; poffibly his decifion might have been right; but his Right Honourable Friend had faid, that the Sheriff could not have acted fo before the Bill was paffed, because another perfon might be got to prefide at the Meeting, and do juftice. He now called on his Right Honourable Friend to ftate in his reply what part of the Bill reftrained that Meeting from putting whom foever they pleafed in the Chair. His Right Honourable Friend had asked, "Would the Bills prevent men from communicating their thoughts to each other?" He would not only admit that they could not, but he would go much farther, and fay, that no pof fible provifion of the Legiflature could. But would any one

8 T 2

say,

fay, that for that reafon no law fhould be made---that no restraint fhould be laid on the communication of wicked men---that treafon was as dangerous when communicated in whispers in the clofet, as when openly preached and recommended abroad: or that popular acclamations were as little dangerous as the infidious propagations of private difaffection?

His Right Honourable Friend had gone into a comparison between the state of Ireland and this country. He had faid, that no Committees of Correfpondence with France had existed previous to the year 1791; but that fince ftrong measures had been adopted by the Government of Ireland thefe treafonable correfpondences had taken place. Though this propofition were true, the argument ufed by his Right Honourable Friend would not be logical. It was obvicus, however, that fuch correfpondences might have exifted before, though they had not been difcovered by the Government. But the true answer to his Right Honourable Friend's argument was this, that the cafe was exactly the contrary in this country, and his reafoning did not apply at all to the prefent ftate of Great Britain. If fubfequent events were permitted to explain paft caufes, he would maintain that the paffing of the laws which the Right Honourable Gentleman propofed to repeal, had been the means of preventing this country from being now in the fituation of Ireland. Every one who had read the proceedings of Parliament, every one who had paid attention to the various trials which had taken place in this country, must be convinced that a traitorous correfpondence had been carried on between perfons in this country and the French Government, previous to the paffing of the Bills. So that thofe circumftances which his Right Honourable Friend had argued the measures for ftrengthening Government in Ireland had produced, he had a right to argue were prevented in this country, by the laws which the Right Honourable Gentleman fought to fet afide. That thofe laws had fecured the peace and tranquillity of the country, was a propo fition which he thought could not be denied. He believed that confternation was felt by all orders of men at the proceedings of thofe Societies, which had fo long diftracted the country. Meetings were held for little lefs than deftroying the Government, and overthrowing the Conftitution; and it furely was not yet forgotten, that the immediate effect of one of thofe meetings was an attempt upon the life of the Sovereign. Whether thefe Bills had removed the difcontents which exifted before they were paffed he would not take upon himself pofitively to determine; difcontent might indeed ftill rankle in the bo foms of a few, but could neither be propagated, nor produce effects of any consequence to the fafety of the State. He faid that

it could not be denied the Bills for a fhort time had been an additional caufe of difcontent; but why? because at the time they were paffed, much mifreprefentation had been used to make the people averfe to them. If the Bills had indeed been fuch as they were reprefented to be, he could not be furprised at the difcontent they produced; but it was not from the measures themfelves the clamour against them arofe, but from the grofs deception practifed upon the public in reprefenting them as repealing the Bill of Rights, and taking away the right of the people to petition the Throne. For himself he could confcientiously fay, that if they were fo, he would be glad the difcontents were greater. But why had the difcontents fubfided? Because the people, instead of judging as before from mifreprefentation, had read the Bills, and judged and felt for themfelves. The proceedings of a number of public meetings, for these four weeks paft, fhewed that the people enjoyed the full exercise of their conftitutional liberty, and afforded further proofs of the mifreprefentations which had been made upon this fubject.

That thofe Bills had a very great effect in fuppreffing feditious meetings, no one could deny; but that they had the effect, or warranted the preventing a fingle meeting, for the proper conftitutional purposes of petitioning Parliament, or prevented the reprefentation of one grievance, real or imaginary, could not be proved; in fhort, it was his conviction, that if Minifters were willing to abuse their power, there was nothing in the Bills to enable them, and if there was, they would not attempt it.

He declared, that he was confcientioufly perfuaded much mifchief would arife from a repeal of thofe Bills. When he looked to the state of the country---to the progrefs of the French arms, and the general propagation of French principles; to the fituation of Ireland, and to a recent event at Portsmouth; he was free to confefs that there was the most serious cause for alarm; he thanked God, however, there was none for defpondence: to say the times were not critical would be idle, and he was convinced the nation could only be faved by Parliament, unbiassed by popular clamour, and uninfluenced by Government. At fuch a moment to repeal Acts made neceffary by public danger in much less dangerous times, and which had produced fuch falutary effects, would be impolicy---would be madness. At all events it could not be attended with any injurious effects to leave it to the natural period of its extinction, as little of their time remained, being paffed in December 1795, for three years only-at the expiration of that time, Parliament would be called upon to decide upon the propriety of their continuance; and he hoped in God it would not be then found neceffary to keep

them

[ocr errors]

PARLIAMENTARY CHRONICLE. [COMMONS. them in force for even though the objections which his Right Honourable Friend had made to them were utterly unfounded, he would defire their repeal, for he thought it was not enough to fay of a measure in order to its adoption that it was not actually mischievous to the British Conftitution; it fhould be abfolutely founded in neceffity; and the moment that neceffity cealed, that moment the law fhould end.

That thefe Bills were, to a certain degree, reftraints, he admitted; and every reftraint, however innocent, fhould be avoided; but that they affected the facred right (for facred he would call it) of the fubject to petition, that he abfolutely denied. If the exception to the reftraints were read, it would be found that there was not a conftitutional mode of meeting which was not provided for. Every county meeting---every corporation--every meeting convened by a magiftrate, or by grand juries, were exprefsly excepted from, and did not come within the operation of the Bill at all. And that it fhould not be faid any defcription of men were reftrained from bringing forward political opinions, a right was given which authorised every meeting called at the request of feven householders; and fuch meeting might be held in defiance of all the powers in the kingdom. But it is faid, that when they have met, the people are restrained from difcuffing thofe topics with freedom, which intereft them moft. How were they reftrained? They were indeed reftrained from bringing forward any propofition for altering the form of Government of this country, as it is vefted in Kings, Lords, and Commons. This reftraint then only prevented them from deftroying the Conftitution. Was it an unreasonable reftraint to say that men fo affembled, fhould not be allowed to come forward with propofitions tending to annihilate the Government of the country? The object of the Bill which proposed to prevent any act of contempt to his Majefty's perfon or Government, had not in view, as it had been mifreprefented to have, the strengthening the hands of his Majefty's Ministers, and fheltering them from the candid inquiries of their fellow-fubjects. He believed that every man who read thefe Bills, would be perfectly convinced how much and how grofsly they had been mifreprefented. He begged it, however, to be understood, that in all he had faid he had not offered any argument tending to fhew that they should remain in force for one moment longer than they were abfolutely necessary for the peace and the happinefs of the country.

His Right Honourable Friend had uttered one opinion, which he declared he himself had felt as warmly as any one, namely, that Liberty was the moft fecure guard of Order---for permanent and fecure order never could exift where there was not ra

« ZurückWeiter »