Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

sistency. If they knew the increased and quences of this? It had shown that they increasing danger of seditious doctrines were as ignorant of the temper and disand assemblies, why did the speech from positions of Englishmen, as ministers the throne bear the language it contained? were in the regulations which they meant If ministers were acquainted with the evils to impose upon them. Might they not, they now magnified and insisted upon, in good earnest, have relinquished the exin what light was the declaration of travagant, and tempered the wild ideas the king, of the loyalty and good order of which they were in use to entertain? the country, to be considered? Or how The hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Pitt) were they entitled to argue on the ground had been the strenuous advocate of parthey assumed at the opening of the session liamentary reform, though he had not of the advantage which in this respect gone the length proposed by the duke of the war had produced? Mr. Sheridan Richmond. He did not believe that any said, he believed these principles and this one considered him as a better man than danger to be diminished. As a proof of when he maintained those principles. it, he would appeal to the attorney-general. The duke of Richmond, he was informed, When the Habeas Corpus act was sus- had been heard to say, that he was conpended, numerous prosecutions were vinced of the folly of the plans of reform going on, and the gaols every where were that he had prosecuted. But were those filled with this species of criminals. gentlemen to monopolise the privilege of Were any such heard of now? It was abandoning their professions and their said, that the different societies still pro- principles? Ought not the same candour fessed their former objects, and held their to be extended to the societies, and former language. He would nevertheless might not they be allowed to change their affirm, that their professions and conduct conduct? Even the example of France had been materially altered. Formerly might have contributed to withdraw them they had said, that that House was too from their attachment to the principles corrupt to be honoured with petitions, which had been introduced into that and that reformation was only to be country with so little success. He beeffected by the persevering exertions of lieved, on the whole, that the mischief the people. They had since found that was beyond calculation less.-The learned such pretensions were little fitted to gentleman had insisted on the advantage procure converts, and had retracted that would arise from notice being given them in form. They had disavowed their of meetings when they were held. former claims and their former language. Would any man for a moment contend, The bad success with which their that the meetings of the Corresponding schemes had been attended, while they and other societies were clandestine? maintained these extravagant objects, They had often been charged with an opwas a proof of the general attach- posite conduct, and the boldness of their ment of the country to the constitution. proceedings, had been urged as an aggraWhether they were sincere in their late vation of their guilt. He considered the professions it was impossible for any man first clause to amount to a prohibition of to decide. The learned gentleman had all public discussion. The notice was to said, that they had a right to hear what be given by seven persons, resident housewere the sentiments of the side of the holders, in the place where the meeting House on which he (Mr. Sheridan) sat, was required, in the newspaper usually upon this subject. He asserted that they circulated there. No meeting could take had acted jesuitically, and had declined place of persons not householders. Jour any explicit declaration. On the contra-neymen tradesmen might have occasion ry, he would maintain that they had acted with uniform fairness and consistency. He had never, for his own part, scrupled to affirm, that there might be some pains taken to circulate sedition through the country, for desperate individuals there were in every state. The practice of imitating the cant of the French, and all the mummery attending their procecdings, were certainly highly ridiculous. What, however, had been the conse

to assemble to complain of a grievance, or lodgers to take measures against the exorbitance of rents, without being exposed to the severity of the law. Would the editor of a country newspaper, he desired to ask, always insert the notice which was necessary to constitute a legal meeting? He was to judge whether the persons signing it were householders, and whether he would be satisfied with their responsibility. He might say that

the present bill. The former was intend. ed to enable the magistrate to act to prevent violence about to be committed, and where by a tardiness of the application,

Nothing of this nature, however, was called for by the present case, nor could there be any parallel between the circumstances. Resistance to the magistrate was felony, and if twelve men peaceably remained,

he had not leisure for these inquiries, and might refuse to insert it. Instances had already appeared how partial the conduct of such men might be. Country newspapers were greatly under the influ-the remedy would have come too late. ence of the crown. They might, even with the danger hanging over them by this bill, be justified in their refusal. The other alternative of applying to the clerk of the peace, five days before the meeting was to be held, might likewise be frustrat-military execution was to take place. The ed; and no legal means remain to constitute a meeting under the operation of the statute. It was a mockery to give to the people the privilege of holding a meeting, and to affix to that privilege such conditions as did not at all depend on their own will and choice. Why had not the old modes of giving notice been adopted, by means of the common cryer, or by an intimation at the church door? In fact no meeting could hereafter take place; all discussion would be annihilated. Notwithstanding the modification which had been attempted upon the bill, magistrates might still come and disperse a meeting which had entered upon discussions which they might disapprove. Any thing which, in their opinion tended to create dislike; any deliberation on the subject of parliamentary reform, or of existing grievances, would instantly authorize him to interpose. Nor could any responsibility attach to his conduct, where he acted in this manner. Even should they get the length of debating a question, must it be regarded as nothing to speak under the watchful ear of an attending justice? Where, it was said, was the harm of the magistrate being thus authorized? He was entitled to seize the person who was "wilfully and advisedly" exciting the people to the dislike of government. Be it remembered, however that as it was impossible for the magistrate to decide what words came under this description, he could only exercise his own judgment; consequently, however legally constituted a meeting might be, it depended upon the caprice of the magistrate whether any deliberation should take place. Nobody of character would accept the charge which this bill required to be performed. The lowest magistrate a petty constable might put a stop to an assembly, as soon as any words were uttered which he considered to be obnoxious. He reprobated the hardship of seizing a person in the arbitrary manner prescribed by the bill. The riot act had been intended for a different object from

Resist

riot act was only to be enforced when the
persons assembled acted riotously and tu-
multuously. It was also to be recollected
that the riot act was introduced upon the
eve of a rebellion, when the constitution
was assailed; not by popular meetings
and political debates, but by a great part
of the inhabitants of the country, support-
ed by men of the first fortune and influ-
ence. Compare that measure with the
present, and how feeble must it appear!
Yet Blackstone questions whether the re-
maining part of the act, after the neces-
sity which had occasioned it had ceased,
was not inconsistent with the spirit of the
constitution. Suppose, however, which
was no improbable case, that the persons
desirous to assemble could not procure
the insertion of their notice in a newspaper,
nor their intentions notified to the jus-
tices in sufficient time, what was to be
done, in order to effect the purpose for
which they meant to assemble?
ance, should they meet, would be useless.
He would recommend to them to exercise
only passive resistance. Should they, to
the number of fifty and upwards, meet, and
send for a magistrate, and remain above
the number of twelve above one hour after
being ordered to disperse, what course
would the magistrate follow? Would he
inflict military execution, or commit to
gaol the supposed culprits? If so, would a
jury find them guilty under the present
bill? could they be punished in thus
throwing themselves on the conscience of
their country? Of what avail, then, was
the law which could not be put in execu-
tion? He disclaimed intending any thing
personal to the magistrates for Westmin-
ster, he could not, however, but say, he
thought all the magistrates in the kingdom
must be assimilated to the Westminster
justices, in dependence on the crown, and
tutored in the new doctrine of lopping off
the branches of the Lords and Commons,
before they would be brought to contri-
bute their exertions to realize so sanguin.
ary a system. The learned gentleman

had argued most elaborately on the situation of the country if the bill was not passed. If you are to permit the existence of these societies, he exclaims, what are to be the consequences? He had then solved the question, by recurring in the usual high toned language, to the example of France. The learned gentleman had said, he had remarked, on a former occasion, the difference of character between the British and French nations. He must still maintain, Mr. Sheridan said, that scarce any argument could be formed upon premises so dissimilar. The operation of different governments roused and sublimated the characters of a people, animated every energy of human nature, elevated and enobled the temper, or extinguished the great affections, and degraded and distorted the human heart and the human intellect. He would not then, ascribe the horrors which had attended certain parts of the French revolution to the influence of Jacobin clubs. He was above the obloquy or misrepresentation which this opinion might produce. It was not the Jacobin clubs of Paris that had filled France with prisons, or deluged the country with blood. It was the infamous club of Pilnitz, the associated society of despots, that, in the unprovoked attack on the infant liberties of a people, had awakened terror, distrust and cruelty. The French trembled for their freedom, and they thought every moment that treachery was about to rob them of it. Nothing was so cowardly as fear and panic, nothing so humane as courage. When the French were under the influence of this terror, cruelty and oppression rose. To what other cause than this could the change be attributed? In the beginning of the revolution, a system, mild and lenient to a degree, perhaps of extravagant refinement, was embraced, but was quickly superseded by the fears which external danger and domestic distrust inspired. Terror was only to be allayed by spreading terror and suspicion by suspicion. The example of France, therefore, was altogether inapplicable, either in the particular circumstances or general character of the people, to the designs of any part of this country. The leading cause of the superior virtue, the superior glory, and superior happiness of this kingdom, was not the particular distribution of the parts of the constitution, but the possession of a general freedom of sentiment and of speech. It was not by solitary efforts that the na

tional character had been elevated so high; all that was good and great had been effected by numerous meetings. Put the existing laws in execution against those who may not have changed their sentiments, and reconciled themselves to the constitution; let not, however, the great principle on which the vigour of the whole system depends be destroyed.The bill was said to be improved, but it did not appear to him in that light, and he hoped the learned gentleman would not be offended if he again pronounced those obnoxious words" prove it." He said that his side of the House had already assigned the reason why they did not attend the committee on the bill. It was too incorrigible, too radically rotten, to be amended: its deformity was too hideous for the sight, its pollution too gross for the touch.-As to the outrage against his majesty, and the hand-bill inculcating the doctrine of king-killing, the only connexion which could be of any use to be proved was, to fix it upon the Corresponding Society. But no such connexion had been attempted; and it was much more probable that it issued from one of the go. vernment spies, who on every occasion displayed the utmost violence of sentiment to delude the unwary, and to bring discredit upon the pretensions of the whole body, The present alarming measures he believed were brought forward merely to screen ministers from the consequences of misconduct, from the odium of a war, the object of which was the subject of detestation, and the conduct of contempt. This as was said at its commencement, was the war of kings, and not for the interests of their subjects. In former contests there had generally been some view of national pride, or some acquisition of conquest, by which the people were reconciled to it. The present had none of these objects to sanction it, but stood exposed to the unmi tigated detestation which the miseries it had produced must excite. From this circumstance ministers thought the outrage offered to his majesty furnished a pretence for adding security to the person of the king, when they were fighting so strenuously the battles of royalty. They wished to shelter themselves from the storm which was impending, and to erect the royal sceptre, as a conductor, to catch the lightning of popular wrath, which threatened to destroy them to draw it away from themselves, and to protect them from its dangers. One slight cir

Mr. Powys said, that the only question to be considered was, whether the bill was adequate to the exigency of the occasion? The House had already decided on the principle of the bill. It was a distinguishing feature of the British constitution that it was capable of relaxation or contraction, as circumstances required. The monster to be contended with was such as no age had produced, and for the destruction of which no precedent could dictate rules of conduct. It was a monster which, if once allowed to taste the blood of the constitution, would devour its vitals. Those political meetings so much alluded to, were not, he thought, of so harmless a nature as had been represented. If once the principles of these societies prevailed there was an end to all which our ancestors had held sacred. What infatuation, then, had gone forth that, with the principles of these societies before their eyes, people should be so blinded as not to discern their interest in guarding against their machinations. Men of desperate fortunes and turbulent spirits might think it "Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven." There might be those who wished to make a shipwreck for the sake of plunder. What, however, most surprised him was, that there should be others found, of a different description, who could lend their assistance in aid of such proceedings. If, amongst the apologists of such meetings, there should

cumstance he would not have thought deserving of notice, had it not been involved with so many observations personal to himself. The learned gentleman had asked, why he, who was so anxious to reform abuses, did not think of procuring an alteration of the law which required theatres to be licensed, especially as he had a personal interest in the alteration? With regard to the learned gentleman's observations upon that act of parliament, and the celebrated speech of lord Chesterfield, he totally differed. He considered the speech as one of the most brilliant compositions of that elegant nobleman. The act, however, was intended more to repress moral licentiousness than to prevent political entertainments in the play-house, where there was not much danger of men becoming popular. He mentioned the following instance in which he himself was concerned, to show that the power which the lord chamberlain possessed, might, notwithstanding what the learned gentleman had said, be still abused. He once produced a piece called "the School for Scandal," in which he introduced the character of a jew who lived by supplying extravagant young men with money at exorbitant interest, and thereby bringing them to ruin. The night before the piece was to be performed, he was much surprised to hear from the prompter that a licence was refused. It happened that at that time there was a contest in the city between two gentlemen, Mr. Wilkes and Mr. Hop-be men of extensive talents, of amiable kins. In the warmth of a contested election a story went about that the character of the jew was meant for Mr. Hopkins and the piece was represented as a factious and seditious opposition to a court-candidate. He, however, went to lord Hertford, and explained the circumstance of the scene to be a matter of general satire, and not of personal obloquy or ridicule; lord Hertford laughed at the affair and gave the licence. The regulation, however, was merely confined to the theatres of Covent garden and Drury-lane; because, by an easy fiction, the performers were considered as his majesty's servants, and to act only such pieces as should be agreeable to him. The act extended to no other theatres in the kingdom. He concluded with solemnly declaring that if this bill passed into a law, the doom of British liberty was pronounced, and that in all probability it would lead to such scenes of misery and horror, as no friend to the happiness of his country could contemplate or outlive.

manners in private life, of an ingenious
mind, and commanding public esteem,
the danger would be infinitely increased.
He was afraid that the converse of that
sentiment, " that the people had nothing
to do with the laws, but to obey them,"
would be adopted, and that the people
would be led to think that they had every
thing to do with the laws but to obey
them. He lamented that the industry of
the working classes among the people had
been checked through the progress of
these societies, and arrested by an atten.
tion to matters of wild speculation.
"passive resistance" to the law was now
recommended. For his own part, he
could see no practical hardship imposed
on the people by the measure. He thought
the bill likely to be attended with much
more benefit to the people than injury,
though he owned that it was an infringe-
ment of a great and valuable privilege,
which should not be attempted except in
urgent cases, such as the present. Some

A

said, where will you stop? To which he would answer, where the evil stops. They were told, "If an eye offend thee, pluck it out." He perceived a cancerous tumour in the body politic spreading corruption through the whole mass, if it was not cut off, it would grow. They should take care that no vital part should be affected; the wound would then heal, and the constitution recover its pristine health. It was surely wiser to submit to a gentle operation than hazard a mortification. The question was, whether the constitution would be better secured by the temporary restraints of this law, than it would be under the uncontrolled operations of those who would overturn all law and government established in the land.

Mr. W. Smith said, he felt an apprehension that, unless the effect of one clause could be done away, a very important branch of liberal education would be cut off in every seminary, except our two universities. If they referred to page 8 of the bill, they would see that every house in which lectures were given upon the laws, the constitution, or the policy of the government, upon the payment of money, was liable to the operation of this clause. [He was told, that on the report from the committee, this was done away.] The provision as it stood made no other change than this; it left it in the breast of certain magistrates to determine upon the fitness of such studies. This appeared to him to be a point which required explanation.

Mr. Abbot said, that as the House was called upon this night to express its final agreement or disagreement to the bill he should beg leave to state, in a very short compass, his reasons for the vote which he was about to give. In deliberating upon this and every other important measure of legislation-and all men will allow the importance of the present measure there are two distinct grounds of consideration. The first, as to the law itself, with regard to its principle and form; the second, as to the circumstances attendant upon the projected law, as well with regard to the aspect of the times, as to the temper of the people for whose benefit the law is brought forward and unless both these considerations lead us to the same conclusion, we * In February 1802, Mr. Abbot was chosen Speaker of the House of Commons, and in June 1817 he was called up to the House of Peers by the title of Baron Colchester.

ought always to break off from our work; the purpose of all legislation being, that of producing, not merely the best possible, but the best practicable laws for the public good. If, therefore, the theoretical advantage of any projected law is outweighed by the practical mischief of its application, such a law ought most undoubtedly to be laid aside: but if the law be in itself wise and salutary, and we see upon full contemplation of the dangers opposed to its execution, that they are unreal and unsubstantial; it then becomes our sacred and indispensable duty to persist in achieving the purpose which is beneficial, and to disregard all imaginary fears, whatever forms they may assume; anxious only the more, at such a time, to have our measures and our motives the more fully understood by the country, to be what they truly are; and convinced, that when they shall be suffered to be so understood, no circumstances of alarm or aversion will any longer exist, to check or counterbalance the beneficial effects of such measures in their operation.

As to the law at present in debate, looking at that alone in the first place, fairly and dispassionately; the principle of it is incontrovertibly good; the necessity of it is confessed; and the provisions, by which it is proposed to be enforced, as now amended, are substantially proper and unobjectionable. The principle is expressed in the very front and title of the bill; it is to prevent all such meetings and assemblies as are seditious: this no man will condemn. Then, as to the necessity of the times, and whether such a principle ought now to be carried into execution by a new law, let us look at the facts before us, and the necessity arising out of those facts, and meet that necessity by treading the parliamentary course of our ancestors. The facts expressed in the preamble of this bill, have been already assumed, in the judgment of a large majority of this House, to be notoriously true: and what is more, their existence seems also to be confessed even by the very gentlemen who affect to deny it; for in all those arguments, by which they daily labour to depreciate the dangers of the country, it cannot be supposed that they are labouring to calculate the value and amount of a non-entity: but more than this, in the present stage of our proceedings, the same facts are testified to us by the whole country at large; for all the various and numerous petitions

« ZurückWeiter »