Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

fore, viz. "The government of England how abominable the conclusion he has is a monarchy: the monarch is the an- drawn! If such, indeed, be a just accient stock from which have sprung those count of the state of things, I would ragoodly branches of the legislature, the ther agree with Mr. Reeves, that the corLords and Commons, that at the same rupt branches ought to be lopped off, time give ornament to the tree, and af- than subscribe to that infamous proposiford shelter to those who seek protection tion, that to this very source of corrupunder it. But these are still only tion we are to trace all our blessings. branches, and derive their origin and Speaking of a parliamentary reform, he their nutriment from their common pa- says, "I know well the result; corruprent; they may be lopped off, and the tion would be banished from the constitutree is a tree still; shorn indeed of its ho- tion. In comparing the constitution to a nours, but not, like them, cast into the machine that has gone well for a hundred fire. The kingly government may go on years, perhaps, it is indifferent whether in all its functions without Lords or Com- influence (which these reformers call cormons." How was this to be understood? ruption) be termed the dust or the oil of If the king made all the peers, and the the machine; if it has gone well for a cenminister pensioned all the commons, then tury, and seems, while certain wheels are indeed the king would be the common half covered with dust, to go better than nutriment of both, Mr. Young, who is formerly, I would no more allow the dust so partial to the crown, does not neglect to be brushed away, than I would allow also to give a boon to another branch of the oil to be removed. Influence, how the legislature. He exempts the mem- ever, is not the dust, but the oil of the bers of the House of Commons from all machine; the constitution never went for responsibility with respect to the people, a moment without influence, and to reand thus frees their shoulders from a most move it would be taking away the oil uneasy burden. Other passages in Mr. which has given a century of smoothness." Young's book were however still greater Mr. Young, who a few years ago was a libels on the British constitution. He violent reformer, and even an advocate says, "to call the House of Commons for what is called French principles, genthe representatives of the people is a very tlemen should understand had obtained a inaccurate mode of expression; they salary or pension of 400l. per annum from ought never to be called by any other government, and having greased his pen name than the House of Commons, to with the oil of corruption, which he calls distinguish them from the House of influence, he has discovered that it is esLords. If they were really the represen-sentially necessary to the welfare of the tatives of the people, they might in the ory be good, or better; but they would be something else than what they are. But reformers say, they are corrupted and bribed. If they are bribed in order to act wisely, it is an argument against you. If the nature of such an assembly demands to be corrupted, in order to pursue the public good, who but a visionary can wish to remove corruption? Government certainly would have been carried on cheaper, if honesty alone had prompted the House of Commons to act as corruption has induced them. An unequal representation, rotten boroughs, long parliaments, extravagant courts, selfish ministers, and corrupt majorities, are so intimately interwoven with our practical freedom, that it would require better political anatomists than our modern reformers, to show, in fact, that we did not

Owe

our liberty to the identical evils which they want to expunge." What a shocking recital, said Mr. Sheridan, and

constitution.

Doctrines such as these, absurd and detestable as they were, would have merited little attention from that House, if it could not be proved that the authors were in the pay of government, and that the doctrines had been recommended by the associations formed under the auspices of government; and this could be proved. It could be proved that pamphlets containing such principles had been printed at the king's press, and circulated through the kingdom by societies patronized by government. The fact was, that endeavours were made to establish corruption as a principle. Calamitous, indeed, was the effect that had been produced by such doctrines; public spirit and public principle were annihilated, and Great Britain presented the strange spectacle of a nation full of private worth, and yet totally destitute of public principle or spirit. This effect was wholly attributed to that execrable principle of corruption upon

which the government was carried on, and which would at last involve it in destruction. The decay would be rapid; but the fall would have no resemblance to the fall of any other nation. The poison would have penetrated to the vitals, would have cankered and corroded the heart; and the body would fall, internally corrupted and destroyed, though the trunk was, in its outward appearance, still vigorous and blooming. With regard to his motion, it might be a doubt how far the question might be considered a question of privilege; it was nevertheless his intention, in imitation of the mode adopted in the case of Dr. Sacheverell, to move an amendment to the motion which he had made on a former day. That motion had consisted of the following words:

as

"That the said pamphlet is a malicious, scandalous, and seditious libel, containing matter tending to create jealousies and divisions among his majesty's loyal subjects; to alienate their affections from our present happy form of government, as established in King, Lords, and Commons, and to subvert the true principles of our free constitution; and that the said pamphlet is a high breach of the privileges of this House." He would move the insertion, after the word "libel," of the following words, "highly reflecting on the glorious Revolution."

The Solicitor General said, he should risk no opinion on the case before him, because motives of delicacy restrained him. If any resolution was entered into respecting it by that House, the consequence would be a prosecution: therefore it would be improper for the attorney-general or himself to declare any opinion on the subject. If the imputation was such as was stated by the hon. gentleman, he hoped there would be only one voice about it in the country, and that a jury would find a verdict conformably to the case. Should the House come to any resolution on it, it would be impossible for him or his learned friend to oppose their own discretion to the wisdom of the House. It was obviously his duty and that of his learned friend to examine many pamphlets of this nature, and a more unpleasant task could not fall upon persons in his situation. He only wished to caution the House against adopting any hasty steps. If a prosecution was ordered without proper grounds, the House would be reduced to an awkward

situation;, and he and his learned friend would be brought into circumstances of considerable difficulty. For if the House were to direct the attorney-general to commence a prosecution against the author of the pamphlet, and his learned friend should not see that there was evidence sufficient to bring home the charge, his address to the jury, instead of sanctioning, would destroy the effect of the resolution of the House of Commons.

The Attorney General said, that in what he had to offer, he should consider himself solely in the capacity of a member of parliament. In every case in which he had been called upon to prosecute persons for libels, he had invariably requested the jury to take the whole of the work under their consideration, in order to see if they could, from the whole, impute that intention to the author which would be charged in the indictment; because it was not the thing itself, or the effect produced by it, but the mind of the party which constituted the crime. If the jury should be of that opinion, he should think him a proper object of punishment. Indeed, if the construction which gentlemen had put upon this passage, was that which the author meant to convey, then most unquestionably it was a gross libel; but upon that point he would not give his opinion. He wished, at the same time, to call the attention of the House to one point, which was, that he always conceived it an unfortunate circumstance, when a jury felt themselves obliged to pronounce a different opinion from that of the House of Commons. However, they were to decide upon the question; and if he was or dered to prosecute, he would discharge his duty faithfully.

Mr. Erskine said, that if the writer had expressed himself with the same obscurity that the solicitor-general had spoken, there would no longer exist a necessity for prosecuting any pamphlet whatever. He agreed in opinion with the attorneygeneral, that the House ought to be well convinced of the criminality of the libe! before they directed a prosecution; and that prosecutions by order of the House should never be taken up, except upon important occasions; as the authority of the Commons of Great Britain might form too great a weight to be easily resisted by an individual. For the same reason, and to preserve that importance and weight in the eye of the world, they ought to be extremely cautious how they

instituted a prosecution, without the what defence the accused might set up: strongest assurance that it would prove what plea of ignorance, what proof of successful. Neither should they come to mistake. The present motion did not a vote of that nature, without being comprehend the whole of the pamphlet ; fully convinced, that they were really pro- it embraced only a single passage of it, in secuting the person guilty of the libel. which it was asserted that "the kingly For many years there had not been a government may go on, in all its funcprosecution for a libel, in which he had tions, without Lords or Commons ;" that not been employed as counsel for the de- a kingly government might go on in fendant; he was therefore able to confirm this country was true, but it was the assertion of the attorney-general re- not the monarchy of Great Britain which specting the perfect fairness of his pro- could so go on: and were he the advoceedings. There had not occurred a single cate for the defendant, that was not instance in which, in laying down the law the ground which he should take in his to the jury, his learned friend did not defence, as that also implied the total detruly and honourably state wherein it fa- struction of our constitution. It would voured the accused, as well as the cause be a better defence to allege, that the of the prosecution; and in bearing this passage was written on a supposition that testimony, he wished to be understood the authority of the monarch might be that he meant to include the conduct of exercised in regard to all the laws that the solicitor-general. He considered it, had previously been enacted during the however, as little material to the present dissolution, or during the suspension of question, whether the attorney-general the sittings of the other branches of the proceeded by information, or by preferring legislature. Would any man, however, a bill to a grand jury; since the late alter- who meant to convey this sentiment, ation which had taken place in the law of have used the term "lopped off," which libel, the jury was allowed such a latitude could not, on any construction, be consiof discretion, that they would only be dered as a supposition? As well might decided by the evidence which was before it be supposed, that, after two large them, in the sentence either of innocence branches were lopped off from a tree and or guilt. From the tenor of the motion thrown into the fire, they should again before the House non constat, that they arise, and unite themselves to the parent should proceed by ordering the attorney- stock.-If this had been a case similar to general to prosecute; they might order that of the King against Stockdale, he the book to be burnt; they might pass a confessed, he would have been more scruvote of censure on the libeller; or they pulous in giving his consent that the might order him into the custody of their House should award a prosecution. If a serjeant. It should, however, be remem- libel was written, not against the House bered, that the House was not sitting, nor as a part of the constitution, but as comcould it intend to sit, on the trial of the posed of individual members, the House person who was author of this libel. He would stand in a delicate situation. had no hesitation in anticipating what Smarting under the lash of calumny, and the verdict of a jury would be upon this feeling with acuteness the personal indigcase, when before them; but after all, nity offered to their character, he was that verdict must depend on the evidence afraid they might point their vengeance produced on the trial. Were he not with too much heat, and that such a mass fully convinced of the criminality of that of influence might overpower a solitary libel, he would not at any time, and par- individual. In the present instance, the ticularly in the midst of term, be attend-attack was made, not upon the House as ing in his place, to recommend a prosecution for a libellous publication: to Mr. Reeves personally he had no enmity whatever. It would not become him to do so in his capacity of a member of parliament; and in his professional character, it would become him still less; on the present occasion, he acted solely from the impulse of his duty. The House could not but see the attack that was made upon its authority; they did not however yet know

individually composed, but upon the House collectively, as a branch of the legislature. In that view of the subject, every petty jury in the kingdom had an equal interest in vindicating that institution by which they hold their right to freedom with any member of the House of Commons. These considerations had induced him to travel through one of the most dull, despicable, and miserable performances that ever he had been doomed

to read. Exclusive of the paragraphs that had been read by his hon. friend, it said, that the Whigs have been uniformly in a conspiracy to introduce republicanism. If he could have believed it bonâ fide to be nothing more than a set of speculative opinions, he never would have regarded it with any other feeling than that of contempt; but, the object of the writer too olearly was to calumniate the Revolution of 1688, and to decry and degrade those glorious privileges which our ancestors obtained, as the hard-earned fruits of many a lengthened struggle. He had no hesitation, for his own part, however, in calling it a foul and scandalous libel, and in his opinion were the House to decline ordering a prosecution, they would be equally wanting in their duty to themselves and to their constituents. And even supposing the author to be acquitted, the acquittal would not at all reflect discredit upon the House, as they were quainted with the modes of defence which the party prosecuted might adopt. When a jury was impanelled to try this case, and saw the attack upon the constitution stated in the indictment, they must, he was convinced, feel themselves involved as parties in the libel, as well as the House of Commons which ordered the prosecution.

unac

Mr. Windham (secretary at war) said, that in rising to offer his sentiments to the House, he was aware that he exposed himself to great danger of having his arguments misrepresented, nay, of having words and sentiments attributed to him which he never had an idea of uttering; and he knew also, that no explanation, however clear and explicit, would save him from such misrepresentation. It was of no use for him to refute these misrepresentations, to deny them, to explain them; there was a sort of vitality in them, for they always revived: if he trod them to the earth it was useless, for they constantly grew up again (though at some distance), and recovered their former strength; he need only remind the House of the words, "perish commerce," and acquitted felons," to prove the truth of his assertions. He thought that the explanation which he gave at the moment, with respect to the pamphlet in question, was such as must have satisfied every mind not determined to misunderstand; yet this night the subject was revived, as if he had not said one word in explanation of the subject. But notwithstanding

[ocr errors]

all this, he never would be deterred from giving his opinion upon any constitutional or judicial question; only it would be necessary that he should guard himself as much as possible from that species of misrepresentation: he knew that all his precaution would be of no avail; but he would sell his reputation as dearly as possible. The first expression that he made use of when this subject was brought for. ward on a former night, was one which did not, in his opinion, lay him deservedly open to the sort of observation which followed. He only said, that he was not prepared, from the slight consideration he had then given the book, to decide with precision upon a particular passage: but that he was not inclined to agree with the interpretation which other gentlemen had put upon it. But in saying that, he by no means precluded himself from giving any other opinion upon the book, after a more mature consideration; he considered his judgment as completely unfettered; he conceived his mind still more at liberty, from a circumstance of which he had been informed, namely, that Mr. Reeves was not the author of this pamphlet; not that the name of the author would really have any effect upon his mind, but he knew that gentlemen on the other side would throw out insinuations to that ef fect.-Having premised thus much, he would now proceed to state to the House his opinion upon this subject, which, after a most full and mature investigation, was only a repetition of what he had advanced upon a former night, viz. that he did not think that there was any thing in the book which would justify the interpretation which had been put upon it. He by no means meant to say, that he approved of the doctrine imputed to this passage; but he meant to say, that there was no such doctrine in it; because no man could for a moment hesitate to say, that if there was any such intention in this passage as that attributed to it, it was a most gross and infamous libel. Gentlemen on the other side might think him wrong, but that remained to be argued.-He wished to make one or two observations upon the nature of libels in general, as far as they respected that House. He thought that one of the first conditions that House would require in the case of a motion against any particular book or pamphlet was, that the allegations contained in the book were false. He did not mean to say he was an advocate for that popular opi

:

nion, that nothing could be a libel but what was false; but merely as to those which respected this House. But this was not sufficient; it was not only necessary that the allegations should be false, but there must be a fair presumption that the author himself was convinced of their falsehood. He also thought it was necessary that the error imputed to the author should not be one of a trivial nature; and that it should not be merely a theoretical one, but one that tended plainly to practical consequences. These were grounds which he should expect to be laid in every case where a charge of a libel was made in that House for it was absurd to say, because a man differed in opinion from others upon an abstract question, that therefore he was culpable. It was no very easy matter to find two men of learning and sense, who would agree upon the same definition of the constitution of this country it was well known that many people differed from Mr. Hume, and that Mr. Hume and Mrs. Macaulay differed from each other, yet it never was in contemplation to prosecute either of them for their different definitions. But these were not the only points he wished to be convinced of, before he gave his assent to a motion of this kind; there was another he thought it should appear that the author was aware of the consequence of what he wrote and published. Upon this point, he understood the learned gentleman opposite went even farther than he did; however, if there was any failure in the proof of these particulars, he should conceive it to be a good reason for rejecting this motion. He had stated, that he did not agree with gentlemen on the other side, in the interpretation they had put upon this passage; but in saying that, he did not mean merely that the words were capable of another construction; but that, upon a fair and impartial consideration of the passage, no such intention could be attributed to it. Gentlemen had said, and with what fairness he would leave it to the House to judge, that in discussing this point, he had been guilty of quibbling. It was no uncommon thing for those who were fond of refining upon arguments, when they found those very arguments carried on to a degree of refinement which turned against themselves, to call it quibbling; but with respect to the propriety of carrying on an argument with any very great degree of nicety, it depended much upon the nature of the

subject to be discussed. Upon any great constitutional question, no man could reprobate such a practice more than he did; for instance, when they were discussing any question which related to the constitution or policy of the country, then he did think it a mean and contemptible species of quibbling for gentlemen to be calling for proof, upon every subject that was advanced, as they were in the habit of doing; they seemed unable to withdraw their ideas from a criminal prosecution at the Old Bailey, and with all the nicety of special pleaders, demanded technical proof upon points that were matters of general notoriety. In disquisitions upon questions of science, or of law, that degree of refinement was not only excuseable but necessary; for if a man professed to consider any nice question of mathematics in a loose popular way of reasoning, it would not be attended to.-He was ready to admit, that if it required a great degree of acute investigation to be able to put an innocent construction upon this book, and that the first and obvious effect of it was such as had been attributed to it, it was then a criminal production; but was that the fact? What was the object of the author of this book? It was to write a careful, and from the work it appeared a skilful analysis of that complex machine, the British constitution-A subject that required great acuteness of mind, and laborious investigation, and one in which, above all others, a particular expression should not be taken up without a reference to the difficulty of the subject, and to the train of the argument. He was of opinion that the writer of this book had in view this object; namely, to make a curious and nice speculation upon the nature and component parts of the British constitution; and in the course of it he inquired, if certain parts of this complicated machine were taken away, what would be the effect and operation of the remainder? Just as a man might take a watch, or any machine, and withdraw some one of its wheels, to see how the other parts would go on, without any idea of recommending such a change, but merely upon a principle of abstract spe culation. And if, in discussing a question of so abstruse a nature, a mere abstract opinion was to be considered as so extremely culpable, he should like every one of the gentlemen opposite to write down their ideas of the constitution, and then he should be glad to see how far they

« ZurückWeiter »