was suspended until the death of the sons of the Pretender, one of whom only was now living, an aged man the last of the Stuart line. This suspending clause was declared by Mr. Fazakerley, an;eminent lawyer of that day to be subversive of the conditions of the union. If, then, a prolongation of the existence of these posthumous rigours beyond the period assigned by the statute of Anne were a breach of faith, what must be thought of this measure, which had for its object the perpetuation of them? Well, therefore, might the hon. baronet exclaim, "what a lesson do you here hold out to Ireland!" You declare, that an incorporative union between England and Ireland would be for the happiness of both countries. Ireland, enchanted with her independence, refuses to listen to you even for a moment. You persevere, and determine to record upon your journals the fair, liberal, and advantageous proposals upon which you are willing to ground your treaty. But what is the language of this bill? Incorporative union has no fundamental laws for its basis, from the instant it has taken place, the sovereignty is in the united parliament, which may enact whatever it deems for the public good, without any regard to previous conditions, without adherence to engagements, or observance of compacts. Must not this bill then excite in the Irish nation additional disgust against your favourite project of a union? In this light the bill is no less impolitic than unjust and inhuman. The hon. mover had observed, that if forfeiture and corruption of blood, in cases of high treason were suffered to expire, there would be an inconsistency in our laws, because those punishments were annexed to many kinds of felony; and that thus the man, who should take away the life of his sovereign, or excite rebellion and civil war in the country, would be less punishable than him who was guilty of an offence much inferior to the crimen les majestatis. This certainly was true; but there was an obvious remedy-by one general and undistinguishing statute sweep away forfeiture and corruption of blood, the principle of which admits of no justification or excuse, and the inconsistency is cured. And with respect to the life of the sovereign, that is sufficiently protected by the statute 25th Edw. 3, c.2, by which an intention to destroy the king is made equivalent to the actual murder of one of See vol. 13, p. 884... his subjets. Another argument in support of this bill was derived from the peculiar circumstances of the times. A neighbouring country we were told, had furnished an unhappy proof of the baneful tendency of Jacobinical principles-such principles, wherever they had been received, had carried destruction in their train. Were not secret societies formed, upon the French model, in this country, for the wicked purpose of undermining our constitution, our religion and our laws, and substituting, in the room of subordination and regular government, the horrors of anarchy and revolutionary tyranny? Was it not evident, by the report of the secret committee, that treason was prevalent at this moment, even in England? Taking for granted all the statements in that report, there was no treason among the lower orders of men, who were not likely to pay much regard to forfeitures and confiscations. But if it were supposed that the traitorous societies, said to abound in this country, had been joined by many persons of rank or property, then the rigorous penalties, now under consideration, had been proved to be ineffectual; and strange it was, in pleading for the continuance of laws, to appeal to their inefficacy. It would be more conformable to good sense to apply for the repeal of such useless laws, and to contend, either for the introduction of others of a severe complexion, better adapted to existing cir cumstances, or for the adoption of milder measures and a more lenient system. The latter was the conclusion which he inferred from the report of the secret committee. How different, then, were the impressions which that report had made upon his mind, from those which it had excited in the breast of the hon. gen tleman to whom the perusal of it had sug gested the propriety of bringing forward this measure-Would you, Sir, prevent the spread of treason and sedition? it is to be accomplished not by coercive laws, not by rigorous punishments; but by the correction of abuses, by the redress of grievances, by the mildness of your government. Thus you take away from the ambitious and the desperate every engine calculated to work upon the minds of the lower orders. There is no truth of which I am more strongly convinced than this-that no insurrection, on the part of a people, for the purpose of effecting a change in the form of government, can ever rise to a formidable height, if their freedom be not violated, if oppression be not suffered to exist. I wish I could flatter myself that the House was likely to concur in the sentiments I have expressed for I should then indulge the pleasing prospect that, upon the decease of the cardinal of York, men would be no longer liable to be tried, after their bones had been deposited in the sepulchre of their ancestors, that the sacred silence of the grave would be no longer profanely disturbed, and that innocent orphans and their posterity would be no longer devoted to infamy and ruin. Mr. Jones said, it had been observed, that the Jacobins in this country amounted to 80,000. He did not believe there were near that number; but he was very sure the present measure would tend to create them. It was hard to visit the sins of the father upon the children. The question being put, that Speaker do now leave the chair; House divided: Mr. the 57 8 Debate in the Lords on the Forfeiture for High Treason Bill.] July 4. On the order of the day for the second readding of this bill, Lord Holland rose to oppose it. He stated the nature of the punishment, proposed by the bill to be rendered perpetual from Blackstone, where it is described not only as the deprivation of every species of property, but as destroying the inheritable quality of the blood, by forbidding any title to be derived, through the person convicted, to his posterity. Having dwelt upon the great extent of this punishment, he argued on the inefficacy of it, resulting from its overstrained severity. In two ways, severe laws defeated their own object-by increasing the difficulty of detection, and by diminishing the respect for the laws. Where punishment exceeded the bounds of necessity, all the good passions of mankind were excited, not against the crime and the criminal, but against the punishment and the laws. Men of kind and generous natures were not disposed to see them inflicted; and even in cases where they were put in execution, the criminal, instead of exciting indignation, became an object of pity. But if this was the case with the offending party himself, how much more strongly must the best passions be armed on his side, if the eye, turning from his execution, should see the punishment entailed on his innocent posterity! The injustice of this law, the appeal which its victims made to the feelings of mankind, was not transitory but permanent: the unhappy descendants were continual objects of pity and commiserration, and lived generation after generation libels and satires on the justice of their government. A law thus operating on the guiltless was founded in injustice, and contrary to the fundamental principle of right and equity. His lordship then took a view of the arguments on which it had been from time to time attempted to be supported. One of these was to be found in the late Mr. Yorke's pamphlet ; a book, the reputation of which was more owing to the celebrity of the author than its intrinsic merit-a composition of such erudition, but tedious without parallel; heavily written, and miserable in point of reasoning. In it Mr. Yorke stated, that the objection grew out of the nature of society, in which it would be found impossible to punish the guilty in any instance without affecting the innocent. This argument was founded in fallacy; it was taking up that as a principle which was merely incidental; it was saying-because, from the nature of society, his innocent connexions must be involved in the fate of the guilty, we should therefore act upon it as a principle, and totally disregard them in apportioning the punishment-because, says this notable argument, we cannot punish the guilty without affecting the innocent; we will therefore begin by punishing the innocent, in order to affect the guilty. Cicero was another authority adduced by the advo cates for forfeiture and corruption of blood. That great orator had laid it down, that the state had a right to avail itself of the best feelings of men for its security, and the prevention of crime. In the passage, however, where this sentiment was expressed, the author was defending an imputed act of injustice, and therefore it had not all the weight of a pure, ingenuous opinion. But, even admitting that it had, it was liable to objection; as upon the same ground he might justify torture, and every other act of tyranny and injustice that arbitrary power had ever resorted to. If this principle were true, where could we stop? Why are we to condemn those laws which, in Persia and other Eastern countries, murdered, for the crime of treason, the children, the parents, the relations, the friends of the offender? His lordship next adverted to the arguments drawn from the nature of property and inheritable succession, as the creature of society, and a favour from government. This, he said, was the very Jacobinical doctrine so much abused. Admitting, however, property to be such a creature, and the right of transmitting it to his posterity to be a favour from government to the subject, it did not follow that they should be withdrawn at pleasure. But here, too, the principle of injustice recurred in an increased degree; for if the power of transmitting property were a favour, the power of inheriting it was surely a greater favour; and therefore he that enjoyed the less favour by his actions, drew on the innocent the loss of the more important favour. To interrupt its descent, was to punish the guilty a little, but the innocent to an enormous extent. Then we were told, he said, of a conspiracy in the country to overthrow the government, and divide the property of the nation among the desperate and necessitous: it was described as a system of treason, in which the poor were armed against the rich; and therefore this law was to be introduced as a remedy. Now, if this statement were true, to perpetuate the law of forfeiture and attainder was most needless; for how the disability of transmitting his property, should operate upon men who had none, he was at a loss to discover. Considering, then, the moderation of our ancestors in that in which they were the least moderate; considering that even they, to punish and restrain treason and rebellion in the case of men whose rank and fortune brought them particularly within the terrors of such a law, had only made it temporary, he could not consent to see it, on so much weaker grounds, rendered perpetual. He would leave, however, all abstract and speculative doctrines, and proceed to what carried ten times more conviction to his mind than all the writings of Grotius, Puffendorf, and Cicero, even supposing the opinions of the former to be as clear and explicit as they were dark and intricate, or of the latter to be as positive and uniform as vague and variable. He meant that which was preferable to all theory and visionary systems, the wisdom resulting from practice and experience, and the consequences to which the measure, so far as it was hitherto acted upon, had led. For this he would not refer their lordships to the history of England, but to what was passing in the sister kingdom. It was well known that the population of that country was divided into papists and protestants, the latter of whom possessed the confiscated property that once belonged to the ancestors of the former. Now, what was the alleged object of those charged with treason and rebellion? Why, to dispossess the Protestants, and recover that property of which the papists were deprived by the laws of forfeiture, beneath which they had fallen. He meant not here to examine whether these charges were true-the Protestants af fected to suspect the Catholics of such designs: whether they really entertained such monstrous intentions, or whether the Protestants wickedly imputed that intention to them to furnish them with a pretext for oppressing, still in either case the laws of forfeiture were the fountain from which such designs or such oppression had their source: to them the distracted state of Ireland was to be attributed. Here, then, we had before our eyes growth of this law, its progress its fruits; a law which engraved on the heart and mind of the subject his inju jury and his wrongs: which entailed them from generation to generation: which rendered it impossible for him to forget the injustice he had suffered; which armed one part of society against the other; which made a man's neighbour his despoiler, preventing him from becoming a useful member of society, because at his birth it deprived him of the means, as a zealous supporter of the state, which had interdicted him from its benefits. Such were the consequences of the law as experienced in Ireland; a law which had spread hatred and dissension through the land, and rendered jealousy and dislike perpetual; a law which, at the moment dissentions were on the point of being healed, stepped in between the parties, and said, No; there shall be no reconci liation, no tranquillity, no amnesty: the feuds which have existed, shall exist for ever; the wounds which are inflicted shall never be healed, and dissention shall be your portion; suspicion on one side, and vengeance on the other, shall be your the and was apt to speak rather whimsically, the late lord Egmont, chose to argue the clause which he had mentioned, as a clause intended to operate as a toleration for treason. The learned lord stated why in the present bill, that clause was omitted; and took notice of the Considerations on the Law of Treason, written by the late Mr. Yorke. He said, it was a work to which it was usual to look up as the composition of a man well acquainted with his subject. nheritance." Pungent ipsique, nepotesque." Regarding, then, the doctrine of forfeiture as the great source of the troubles which distracted that kingdom, he must deprecate the idea of rendering it perpetual in this. The punishment of confiscation was the favourite and dreadful engine of arbitrary power, because, at the same time that it glutted its revenge and cruelty, it gratified its avarice. It had been the tyrant's resort in all times and in all countries, even in our own. He did not allude to the present day; but as it had been formerly resorted to for the worst of purposes, such times might come again. This objection had the more weight with him, as he saw ministers embarked in schemes of enormous expense, how, then, could he be certain, but this law, if rendered perpetual, might not hereafter be used to furnish a supply for the wants such expense must unavoidably create? It had been used as an engine for such purposes once: what security had we that it might not be so used again? The recent history of France furnished a case of such application. He must also consider it as a breach of contract with Scotland. It was an implied condition of the union, that this law should be suffered to die away; and it had been afterwards relaxed in favour of individuals; but now this promised indulgence was to be withdrawn, and it was proposed, contrary to the merciful indulgence so long held out, to render it perpetual. The Earl of Radnor said, that the expediency of the law of forfeiture was very much doubted by many great lawyers in former times, and he thought its tendency at any period to prevent treason extremely questionable. The treasons abroad in the present day, however, were not of a species which this bill would be very likely to affect. Since they had been afloat, there was but a solitary instance of the application of the law in the case of a younger branch of a noble family in the sister kingdom. With respect to that case, indeed he much doubted whether forfeiture had been properly applied. He did not mean to give any opinion as to the guilt of the individual, but he thought that the proceeding was very doubtful, because the party had no opportunity to defend himself, and there was a possibility, that he might have been innocent, since he did not fall in battle against the crown and government; a case that could leave no doubt as to guilt. He begged leave also to remind their lordships of the maxim of the divine law, that a son was not to suffer for the iniquity of the father. He was decidedly against the bill. But The Lord Chancellor said it was a mistake in the noble lord to state the present bill as a new law, and a law foreign to the constitution. It had made a part of Lord Grenville admitted, that if the the law of England from the earliest present description of treason was a contimes, and had suggested itself to the spiracy of the poor against the rich, forwisdom of our ancestors, as a law actu- feiture could have little effect on those ally necessary to be in force for the safety who had no property to forfeit. of the state, from periods of the remotest while the great mass of traitors were, perantiquity. The bill which this bill went haps, of that description, there were men to repeal, was an act of the 7th of queen of rank and property in the back ground, Anne, in which some persons were ena- by whom they were instigated, and withbled to obtain the insertion of a clause, out whose influence their efforts would be the apparent object of which was some-of little avail. In support of this asserwhat extraordinary, as its tendency was to insinuate that treason, instead of being a crime of greater magnitude, was of less import and weight than other felonies. Some years back a debate occurred in one of the Houses of Parliament upon the subject, in which a near friend of the noble lord eminently distinguished himself; and on that occasion, a person who [VOL. XXXIV.] tion, he referred to the late duke of Orleans, who had taken so active a part in the French revolution; and also to the case of lord E. Fitzgerald. It was there. fore necessary to take care, that every obstacle should be thrown in the way of men of rank and fortune, who should be willing to delude the multitude into acts of treason and rebellion. [4 A] Earl Fitzwilliam said, that if ever there was a time when we should revert to the sure practice of wisdom and moderation, it was the present. The principle of confiscation was the principle acted upon by the revolutionary tyrants of France. If plunder of property was looked forward to by domestic traitors, we should be cautious of setting the example. They could not be more gratified than by having the doctrine of confiscation acknowledged and established; from thence they would endeavour to draw a justification of their own views. Seeing it in this light, he could not assent to the present bill. Besides, he conceived it incapable of remedying the evil it was expected to cure. If the duke of Orleans was not to be deterred by such considerations, what weight could they be expected to have with sons of little comparative interest? The House divided: Contents, 8; Notcontents, 4. Protest against the Forfeiture for High Treason Bill.] The following Protest was entered on the Journals: "Dissentient, Slave Trade Limiting Bill.] July 5. On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Bill" to prohibit the trading for Slaves on the Coast of Africa, within certain Limits," The Duke of Clarence said:- My lords; When contemplating the vast im portance of the present question, I feel concerned and perplexed that it should fall to my lot to open a discussion of such magnitude. The noble secretary of state has frequently thrown out the idea, that the delay originated with those peers who had taken a decided part against the bill If professional knowledge and local exper-perience have extended the examination at the bar to a length that may, in the opinion of some noble lords, have been much more than what was satisfactory, I, for one, plead guilty. h was my wish, by the most minute research, to produce such a body of evidence as would convince your lordships of the rectitude and policy of those with whom I have the happiness to act. To persons so well acquainted with the history of this country as your lordships, it would be great presumption on my part to engage your attention, by a detailed account of the African trade carried on by the Eu ropean nations; suffice it to say, that in 1442, the Portuguese began it. In 1471, the Portuguese built the first forts on the Gold Coast, and had 37 vessels in the trade. In 1502, the Spaniards commenced the same trade; and in 1517, Charles V allowed the Portuguese to furnish Hispaniola, Cuba, Jamaica, and Porto Rico, with 4,000 slaves annually. That able navigator, Hawkins, in 1562, first sailed to Sierra Leone; and at that time the Afri2. "Because it does not appear that can trade was considered of such impor any urgent necessity calls for the imme- tance in this country, that queen Eliza diate adoption of this law at this late pe- beth, the ensuing year, sent Hawkins to riod of the session, when it cannot re- trade there. He gives an account of their ceive the due consideration which a ques-barbarity, and states, that the people tion of this sort deserves, and when the attendance is so thin in this House. 1. "Because this statute, which it is by this bill proposed to make perpetual, appears to us to be unjust and impolitic, and contrary to the mild spirit of the laws of England-unjust, because it reduces to poverty and ruin children for the crimes of their ancestors; impolitic, because, instead of healing the divisions and animosity occasioned by civil war, it tends to make them continue.-It appears to us to be contrary to the express declaration of Magna Charta, which says, that no person shall be disinherited or deprived of his franchises unless he be heard in his defence; for in, this case we disinherit persons who cannot be heard, and who have committed no crime. 3. Because we have the satisfaction of thinking it is not necessary for the preservation of his majesty, whose throne cannot be more secure by severe penal statutes: we therefore will not agree to destroy the hope which sir William Blackstone exultingly says our posterity may entertain, that corruption of blood were at that time mere slaves. He also mentions, that he found the French trading in that quarter of the world; so that even so early as the latter part of the sixteenth century, the different nations of Europe that had possessions in the West Indies, considered the slave trade as absolutely necessary for the existence of these colonies. It is said that queen Elizabeth gave the first charter, and I believe L |