Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

bravery might have been ineffectual, if they had not secured their object by legislative provisions. It was in this manner, more than by personal valour, that they preserved the constitution. What was the bill of rights itself, but a measure adopted by our ancestors in consequence of their finding themselves under new circumstances? They declared it to be high treason to dispute the queen's authority, to deny that the parliament was competent to confine and limit the succession and, finally, to render attempts to introduce a system, different from that which they had established by the laws, feloniously penal. Upon examining the present bill it would be found, that their example was rigidly adhered to, and preventive measures resorted to, on motives of policy and prudence, in order to guard against that extreme which would make it necessary for many to risk their lives in a contest, and be involved in all the miseries that attend a civil war. One great recommendation of this temporary measure was, that it strictly adhered to the examples of former times; and while it added to the general security, made no innovation on the constitution, nor, in the smallest degree, weakened the spirit of the laws. Our ancestors in times of danger, and even during that interval which took place between the deposition and the restoration of the monarchy, adhered as much as so peculiar a situation would admit, to ancient forms, and conducted the public business by means of both Houses of Parliament, if that assembly could properly be called a parliament, when it was actually deprived of one of its component parts.

ticularly as most part of what had been
already said that day had little connexion
with the question. Under this descrip-
tion he did not include the comparison
which the right hon. gentleman had
thought proper to draw between a revo-
lution in this country in favour of the
House of Stuart, and a revolution in fa-
vour of that kind of government which
French principles would recommend and
inculcate. No man could be more sen-
sible than he was of the dreadful calami-
ties that the nation would sustain by the
re-establishment of a popish pretender,
who would, no doubt, endeavour to sub-
vert our liberties, our religion, and ourously penal.
laws, and possibly he might succeed in
his object.
He had no hesitation, how-
ever, in declaring, that were he to choose
between two such horrible alternatives,
he would chearfully prefer the restoration
of the pretender to that cruel and deso-
lating system of anarchy, which would
radically destroy all those principles by
which social order was maintained. He
scrupled not to agree with the right hon.
gentleman in declaring, that were we
under the same circumstances that pressed
on our ancestors, we should be equally
ready to make the same sacrifices that
they had done in so necessary a resis-
tance; and he farther admitted, that
when we expressed ourselves equally
willing to risk our lives in an opposition
to either Jacobitical or Jacobinical prin-
ciples, we had no more to offer, nor were
we any longer to seek for any practical
difference. It happened conveniently for
his purpose, that the arguments and illus-
trations employed by the right hon. gen-
tleman furnished him with materials which
would serve for an answer to most of his
arguments, as far as he had urged any
thing closely connected with the subject.
Of this comparison between the two kinds
of revolutions alluded to in particular,
without attempting to reason on which
side the choice ought to preponderate, it
was sufficient to say, that we were ready
with our lives to resist the introduction
of either.

Here, then, he wished to pause, and beseech the right hon. gentleman to adopt the sage counsels of his ancestors, with the same ardour which he expressed when he declared his desire to imitate the valour of their arms. Our ancestors expelled the family of the Stuarts, and established the glorious and immortal revolution, in the first instance by the sword; but their

Were there no precedents, no landmarks, to guide their proceedings on the present emergency? In days of difficulty and danger, which had threatened one branch of the legislature, and when doubts had arisen respecting the competency of parliament to legislate in one particular case-limiting the succession of the crown, our ancestors made a law suitable to the occasion. But at this time what was the enemy that we had to con tend with, and what the danger to be repelled? Not an attack upon one branch of the legislature, not a doubt about the right to legislate in a particular case; the right to legislate at all was questioned, and the legality of monarchy itself in any shape was denied. Was that, he begged to ask, a proper time to sit still, and re

frain from taking vigorous and effectual | framing alterations in the constitution almeasures, merely because they might de- ways devolved. viate in some degree from established practice? The parallel that had been attempted to be drawn between the measures of the executive government at this time, and those of the House of Stuart, in no degree applied. In the days of the Charles's, the people were above all taught to look up to parliament for safety and protection: they might undoubtedly look elsewhere for assistance, but parliament was the centre in which all their hopes and dependence rested, and in which alone they were led to expect redress for their grievances: such had been the example of their ancestors at the revolution, and as it was before their eyes, it ought to regulate their proceedings.

The right hon. gentleman had talked of risking his life in defence of the constitution: he was not asked now to risk his life, he was asked only to apply the laws to the present state of the country, in such a manner as to render the risking of lives, for the present at least, unnecessary; and he was asked to do this in time, before the evil which threatened us should have risen to such a height, as to bring on personal dangers. Gentlemen had Gentlemen had made much objection to this bill, as debarring the subject of the right to petition, as secured to them by the bill of rights. But did the bill of rights imply, that any other than parliament was to be the channel through which evils in the government or constitution were to be redressed? The revolution itself tended also to prove the point he was contending for; since it was a memorable example, that even when the throne was vacant, and when the forms of the constitution necessarily failed, yet, even then, so strong was the impression on the minds of men, of the maxims which they had before learnt, that no new constitution was formed in consequence, but the old constitution was still considered as subsisting. The two remaining Houses of parliament, and those two Houses alone, were then resorted to, and not the sovereignty of the people, as the means through which the other branch of the legislature was to be supplied, It was not to that sovereignty of the people which is now talked of, that recourse was had. Thus, therefore, the revolution itself conspired to show that it was to parliament, or to the people in parliament, and not to the people out of parliament, that the right of

The next point to be considered had been insisted upon much in the House, and, as he understood, made very industrious use of out of it; viz. that the present bill was calculated to create a difference, and cause a separation between the lower and the higher orders of the people. The effect of this bill he was ready to maintain would be diametrically the reverse. The system of dividing the orders of the community was that which formed the grand spring and power of Jacobinism which the present bill was evidently calculated to oppose, to check, and to suppress. It was by exciting the envy and hatred of the poor against those in higher stations, by holding out to them the hope of exchanging their conditions, and by representing property as the easy prey of the indigent, the idle, and the li centious, that the profligate principles of Jacobinism had succeeded in destroying all social order in France, and the same end had been aimed at, by the same means in all other parts of Europe. Under our happy constitution, he believed there was no man of rank or property, at this time, so negligent of his duty, and so unacquainted with his interest, as to draw a line of separation between himself and those that were below him, in rank, affluence, or degree. What nation in the world now existed, or had been known to exist, in which the great and the low were placed at so little distance, and so slightly separated? A continued and well cemented connexion, which could not easily be dis solved, was so visible, that it was impossible to fix upon any link in the general chain where the union of the parts did not immediately appear. The middle class derived supply, vigour, and support, from that below it; diffused it through all around; communicated and received reciprocal aid from that which was above it; and an animating spring gave that activity and general circulation of benefits to the whole, which composed the order of wellregulated society.

The manner by which the right hon. gentleman had attempted to prove that the tendency of this bill was to make such invidious distinctions, was most extraordinary. The bill had been held out as a bill which proscribed all meetings whatsoever from petitioning parliament, except such as were licensed. So far from this, the bill left all ́established meetings pre

|

unfair then was it to call the bill, as it had been called, "an extinction of the right to petition," when, in fact, that channel through which petitions usually came, was still left open! He declared he was as ready as any man to admit broadly, that supposed or real grievances might, as mat

all ranks of people. He must, however, at the same time remark, that he did not consider those to be the best friends of the constitution, or of the lower ranks of the people, who were always goading them to bring forward petitions, and encouraging the agitation and discussion of public affairs; among those, too, who, of all men, from their education, their habits of life, and their means of information, were indisputably the least capable of exercising sound judgment on such topics. The right of petitioning then remained as formerly, excepting in certain cases, to which he had alluded.

cisely as they were before. The requiring of a licence had been stated as, in all cases an intolerable evil: it was, nevertheless singular enough, that not to require a licence was now considered by the right hon. gentleman as a still worse evil, on account of the partiality of the principle. He would ask, what was the partiality?ter of right, be presented to parliament by Was it that all other meetings but those that were licensed were to be abolished? No such thing: they were merely to be put under some new restrictions, which should make them more resemble the regular meetings, which were not to be subjected to a licence. But to come to the main question-it was distinctly this. First, does the bill so abridge and limit the right of petitioning parliament, as to leave it in sufficient for the purpose of affording due constitutional security? Secondly, does the bill impose any ineffectual, superflu ous, and unnecessary restraints? In order to judge upon these questions, he would consider what were the limitations imposed by the bill on this right of petitioning. A previous notice of the intended meetings was, in certain cases to be required. The meetings of corporate bodies were not required to give any notice whatever; meetings called by a certain number of justices; meetings called by the lords lieutenants of counties, or by sheriffs, were all excepted from the obligation. It had been said, however, that these last were servants of the crown, and because servants, therefore, in the interest of the

crown.

But how did this observation apply? A sheriff of a county was under no influence either of dependance, or expectation, or gratitude. The office of sheriff was considered as an onerous and expensive office, which few persons liked, and from which many wished to be excused. Was it fair then to describe a meeting called by a sheriff, as a meeting called by one who was a mere tool of the crown? But, besides, what was the fact?-The fact was, that meetings were, according to the present custom, called by these very she riffs, and a great proportion of the complaints of the country actually found their way to parliament through this channel; a way which was still left open. This, he said was the best proof that meetings of this sort were not unavailing. He be lieved it had commonly happened, that much the greater proportion of petitions to parliament came through the she

, and those of another kind were ally thought more suspicious. How

With regard to the observations made by the right hon. gentleman in his interfer ence for procuring a more equal represen→ tation of the people in parliament he would do him the justice to say that he never had encouraged the wild, visionary, and mischievous plan of universal suffrage and annual parliaments. He had felt, what every man of sense and observation must feel, that the House of Commons, composed as it was, was the virtual representation of the people of England: the sole matter in doubt was, whether the members had such an identity of interest with those who had no voice in election of representatives, as would secure to the latter the consideration, to which, as Englishmen, they ought to be entitled? In the meetings held upon that subject formerly, though some of them had not been regularly convened by the sheriffs, he well re membered that their proceedings were looked to with more jealousy than the proceedings of those meetings which were assembled in a regular manner.- So little had been urged in opposition to the provisions of the bill, that it was unnecessary for him to argue much in their defence. The notice to be given of meetings held avowedly for the discussion of public mea sures, had been so modified as to retain little of that formidable appearance which gentlemen at first represented it to bear; indeed, the hon. gentleman himself had confessed, it was that part of the bill to which he saw the least objection. So necessary did public advertisements, in order

to convene large bodies of men on politi- | cal questions, strike him to be, that the clause would seem a superfluous precaution, if it were not for the peculiar construction of the corresponding societies, which, by their divisions and sub-divisions, had not only the means of secret communication, but also of prompt execution of their designs, however alarming, however dangerous.

It had been much insisted on, that a main objection to the bill was, that these meetings were hereafter to be held under the inspection of magistrates. The force of this objection would surely be done away, when it was considered that this provision only set all other meetings on the same footing with those which had always been authorized in their corporate capacities; for in regular meetings the sheriff was necessarily and of course always present. The next point complained of had been the mode of dispersing meetings. Was it possible for the House not to have felt the danger of some late meetings, and did they not feel the necessity of checking them? If they did not, he would only say, that this was not the time to trifle: if they did not seize the opportunity of applying a preventive, they might soon lose the power of exercising their own functions in that House. For this reason it was highly necessary to grant new discretionary power to magistrates-a degree of additional power, guarded by the degree of additional responsibility attached to them. He owned he felt some astonishment at one argument coming from a quarter from which he least expected it, a declaration that struck at the very foundation of the administration of public justice in this country. A learned gentleman of the first professional talents, reputation, and practice, had urged as an argument against the bill, and put it in a general and unqualified manner, that the magistracy of the country were necessarily corrupt; an invective against a body of persons, to whose exertions, in their situation, the country owed the most signal services. With equal surprise he had heard the same learned and honourable gentleman who, while he arraigned the discretion granted to the magistrates under this bill, acknowledged at the same time, that they were already authorised to exercise the same powers under the existing laws, namely, the riot act, and a statute of Henry 4th which had

been alluded to by the judge (the late lord Mansfield) on the trial of lord George Gordon. Without insisting, for the present, on the illiberality of the suggestion, its inconsistency was glaring, and it might be proper to consider, in another point of view, how a meeting convened by a sheriff could be esteemed a meeting held only by permission of his majesty's ministers. That sheriffs were appointed by his majesty, from lists made out by the judges of assize, of the persons most capable of serving that office, was certainly true. Although the office of sheriff was an office of dignity and honour, were he to ask, whether his majesty, in conferring it, bestowed a favour which called for any great gratitude on the part of the receiver, he believed that in most instances he should be answered in the negative. Added to this, when the appointment was once conferred, the king had no power to remove the person appointed sheriff; and upon the whole, there was scarcely any office which was attended with a greater degree of independence. Other magistrates who exercised offices for which, as all our law writers declared the nation was indebted to them, and who, in the service of their country, every day exposed themselves to insults and dangers, he could not but lament that any professional gentleman should be found to speak of them with such undeserved indignity. It well merited the close examination of gentlemen, to what extent, and to what extent only, the powers of magistrates under the present bill went to prevent meetings, if their designs seemed calculated to obtain redress through any other medium than the legislature, and to disperse them, if the magistrates were of opinion, that the proceedings held, or the speeches delivered at any meeting had an illegal tendency. In fine, the sole object of the bill was, that the people should look to parliament, and to parliament alone, for the redress of such grievances as they might have to complain of, with a confident reliance of relief being afforded them, if their complaints should be well founded and practically remediable. That it should be understood that the condition of no man was so abject, but he could find a legal means of bringing his griev ances before his representatives in parliament, and subject them to their consideration; but that he would not leave a door open, through which a torrent might rush in, and overwhelm the constitution. It

behoved them to take care that menaces were not conveyed to parliament under the pretext of petitions, and that they were not made the vehicles of indirect libels, fabricated at meetings convened under the pretence of very different objects, by men whose real purpose it was to undermine and subvert the constitution.

Mr. Pitt concluded by saying, that, upon the whole, a just comparison ought to be made between the evils that might follow from this bill, and the dangers that might arise, were the House to reject it. The balance being struck on this alternative, the next question was, whether it was not necessary that the people should know it was to parliament alone that they must look for any alteration of the law, and that, when their grievances were known and stated, they would not look to parliament in vain for redress. The House and the public were equally interested in this bill, and so was every class of the people, as fair and constitutional petitioners; it therefore only remained for gentlemen to decide whether they did their duty best for the interest of their constituents or not, by entertaining or rejecting a bill founded on such principles.

Mr. Mainwaring approved of the principle of the bill, and had long seen the necessity of some such measure. But he objected to the clause which gave such an extensive power to magistrates to dissolve any meeting, according to what might be their idea of its propriety. He wished their powers should be more clearly defined, or rather that they should have no such powers. He also disapproved of the clause which prohibits all discourses and lectures, unless licensed by a justice of the peace. Some places of public entertainment, which were of the most moral and instructive tendency, came under this head, and he thought it a severe hardship that they should be subjected to the control of a magistrate.

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

Mr. Christian Curwen Mr. Lambton The Bill was then ordered to be read a second time on the 19th. When strangers were admitted to the gallery,

Mr. Sheridan was speaking. He asked, whether such a necessity did exist as justified the bill in question? If it did exist, proof should be given. Before the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, ministers had moved for a Committee of Inquiry, upon the report of which committee they afterwards proceeded. If the report was necessary then, it was more indispensable at present, for upon what possible principle could they call upon members to assent to the strong measures which were then offered them, unless they established their absolute necessity. What authority, then, was there for the introduction of this bill? Did any man think that the evidence taken in the House of Lords, and the address which followed, were sufficient to give sanction to two bills of such magnitude and importance? He was confirmed in his opinion by subsequent events, that the present alarm had been created solely by ministers, for the corrupt purpose of libelling the country. In 1792, for similar purposes, similar reports of plots and conspiracies had been industriously circulated. In the course of the trials which followed, he had witnessed the most complete proof that the whole of these atrocious acts originated with the informers, reporters, and spies employed on that occasion. At those trials he found the Debate in the Commons on the Treason- whole idea of a revolution to be forged;

The question being put, "That the Bill be now read a second time," the House divided:

Tellers.

Mr. Solicitor General

YEAS

Mr. Neville

Mr. Erskine

NOES Mr. St. John

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

213

43

« ZurückWeiter »