Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

an unmanly part, by frequenting those public meetings. He must again say, that if there was any glory in putting an end to the American war, he should be proud to hear that he had, in common with others, a share in that glory. When the right hon. secretary talked of invectives thrown out at those public meetings, against persons who were not present, he would recommend to him to reflect on what had happened the day before at the meeting at Palace-yard. He knew, and it necessary, he could prove, that there had been manifested a good deal of zeal : in fact, an active canvass had taken place on the part of ministers, in order that their friends might attend that meeting. Messages were sent about, stating that it would be agreeable to government if their friends took care to be present. The consequence was, an attendance was procured, and many friends to government, persons of authority, were there, among whom was his noble colleague, lord Hood, and two hon. gentlemen in his eye (Messrs. Canning and Jenkinson); he hoped, therefore, the right hon. gentleman would not complain that any attacks had been made on ministers in the absence of their friends that day.

The right hon. gentleman had also accused him of having altered his course for some years with regard to public meetings; that he had been fond of attending them in the earlier part of his parliamentary life, but that he had of late declined them. He admitted the observation to be founded in truth; the reason was, that for some time past he did not see that his attendance at public meetings could be of any use to the public: whenever he thought it might become so, he was ready to attend; and this he thought a part of his public duty, whatever opinions other persons might entertain upon that subject. If ever such attendance had been necessary, it was so at this time; when the constitution was attacked, it was the duty of every man to exert himself in its defence: he should therefore give all the authority he could pretend to, to such meetings, for the purpose of supporting the rights and liberties of the people. Avowing that for his motive, he was ready to meet any ministerial censure that might be cast upon him. The right hon. gentleman had asked him, if he thought that any efforts of his could be heard with attention? and whether he imagined his eloquence could make any

impression on such a multitude as thirty thousand? He had no such idea; he had nevertheless used all his endeavours to explain to them the nature of the subject which they had to consider. The right hon. gentleman had also asked, whether he thought they applauded him? His answer was, that he was not so vain as to expect it; he attended not for the pur pose of receiving applause, or commanding assent; he went for the purpose of learning the sense of his constituents on the most important political topic which could be presented for their deliberation. It was, he confessed, somewhat unpleasant, particularly at his time of life, to attend popular meetings; the labour and fatigue, however, he considered as the merest trifles, when compared with the fate of the question which had yesterday been submitted to the inhabitants of Westminster, whose applause at the meeting arose from the feeling which those present had of the propriety of the measure they were met to adopt. This arose out of the detestation they felt for the bill before the House. In that view he saw the utility of such meetings, and it was on that ground that he attended them. At that meeting the bill met what it ought to meet, and what, if the public had any regard for their liberties, it would meet all over the kingdom-general execration and abhorrence. Execration that would be increased in consequence of certain opinions that had been lately delivered in that House. The more the public had that feeling (which, thank God, they began to manifest), the more he thought it his duty to give such meetings his countenance; meetings on which, perhaps depended at this moment, the very essence of our constitution. That was his firm and sincere opinion; and that he believed to be the opinion of the public; for very plain and very decided language must at this moment be spoken to save the country from absolute ruin.

The right hon. gentleman had been pleased to pay him compliments on his talents, and had intimated a wish that they should never be exercised any where but in that House. To this he would an, swer, that he attended that House not for pleasure, but for duty; and he trusted that his attendance there might be more or less useful to the public; of how much use it was, it did not become him to determine. The right hon. gentleman had then asked, if he expected to convin

that great multitude by his eloquence? Most certainly he did not; as little did he expect to convince that House. It had been said, that the majority of that multitude came pre-determined; perhaps they did. Did the majority of that House come wholly undetermined? Was there no resemblance between the House and that meeting in that respect? He had some experience of the House; and whenever he wholly despaired of persuading the majority of the House on points where the constitution was at stake, he thought attending such meetings as those alluded to useful, because it tended to enable him to arrive at the opinion of the public. Let this be stated to the House; and if this had no effect upon it, his attendance there would be useless, and even burthensome.

It was matter worthy of observation, that the debates on the bill had afforded the first occasion, since the accession of the House of Brunswick to the throne, of an open and parliamentary espousal of the cause of the House of Stuart. On the preceding night it had been said by an hon. baronet (sir F. Basset), and the idea had been borrowed that evening by the solicitor-general, that even if there had been a revolution in the reigns of George the 1st and 2nd, it would not have been accompanied with the same dangers which would flow from a similar event taking place at the present crisis; as in the former case, the descendants of the House of Stuart might have been reinstated on the throne; whereas, at the present moment, anarchy, and a general dissolution of all the principles of civilized society, would follow any dispute about the constitutional rights of the sovereign. This was Jacobitism in perfection, and he was not at all surprised at hearing Jacobites come forward with such reasonings. What would the House of Stuart have done, had they been established on the throne? They would have introduced the Catholic instead of the Protestant religion. They would, perhaps, have put an end to parliaments, resumed the rights of juries, and subverted the liberty of the press. They would not, it was said, have invaded the rights of property, nor invented the detestable name of French equality, the inroads of which our British heroes swear by their lives and fortunes to resist. But if in the choice of dangers, a man must forfeit his life and property, in order to avoid a greater evil (for the

[ocr errors]

blessings of the constitution were out of the question, under the government of the Stuarts,) whatever may be the theoretical distinction, there was very little practical difference between the one or other alternative.

The right hon. gentleman had deprecated the idea of the legislature adopting the doctrine of resistance as a practical principle, though, at the same time, he allowed, that resistance must inevitably follow from a system of oppression long pursued. A most worthy and enlightened man (general La Fayette), in a neighbouring kingdom, which it was the fashion to refer to for instances of atrocious criminality, had affirmed resistance to be the most holy of duties, which the people of England were called to exercise; and perhaps the difference between him and the right hon. secretary would, on a second thought, appear but trifling. No man ever supposed that the legislature should adopt the doctrine of resistance, as a direct and practical maxim, though every man was convinced, and even the speech of the right hon. secretary himself strengthened the conviction, that resistance, in certain circumstances, was impossible to be avoided. With respect to the right which parliament possessed, of altering the Bill of Rights, he agreed with the right hon. secretary. He never could consent to the proposition that there were some fundamental laws of the constitution which parliament was incompetent to alter. They certainly were competent to make any alterations in the code either of civil or criminal law, so far as their acts would necessarily be recognized in the decisions of all the various courts of judicature in the kingdom. But though they might be competent in point of power, it would not be prudential or expedient in many cases to use that power. There were many laws of the constitution which never ought to be repealed, and many privileges of the people which never ought to be invaded. Parliament had been represented as the only source of redress, and infallible object of public confidence. But who did not know, that if our ancestors had trusted every thing to parliament, their posterity would not have inherited that constitution which it has been their happiness to enjoy; and that the provision for petitioning the legislature would never have found admittance into the Bill of Rights. Even in the reign of king William, the marquis of Hartington moved, in

the House of Commons, for a power to be vested in the people of petitioning his majesty to hold or dissolve the parliament, and to remove the grievances to which it might be their fate to be subjected. Perhaps he might be laughed at for the superstitious veneration in which he held the names of some great and ancient families in the kingdom. There was no one for which he had a more profound respect than that of Cavendish; and sorry was he to see, that in a question of such great constitutional importance, not one of that illustrious family, who had so many seats in parliament, was to be found either in the minority or the adverse ranks.

were not equally and individually represented, the aggregate body was to all intents and purposes, virtually represented; and that, for instance, the member for Westminster was equally zealous in promoting the general interest of the country, as he was in consulting the more immediate interests of his constituents. From this reasoning, the inference which naturally occurred was this, that they who had not an equal influence in choosing representatives in parliament, and who, in fact, had none, should by the exercise of petition have an opportunity of making their grievances known to those who were the virtual representatives of the nation. Whereas, in the present bill the privileges of petition, as well as the powers of election, were confined to boroughs and corporations who actually had representatives whom they had it in their power to entrust with the exercise of their functions. Would it not be much more suitable and becoming to extend this privilege to the poor householders, and the millions of unrepresented people in the country who have no other medium through which to make known their grievances, and to pour in their complaints? Deprive them of this right of petitioning, and you take from them all that is valuable in their political existence. In this view, then, the bill went to institute a fatal distinction between the constituents and non-constituents in the kingdom; a distinction which was sufficient to destroy the harmony and peace of the country; to confute the only argument which could be adduced in opposition to parliamentary reform, and to convert the government of the country into an aristocracy, or an oligarchy.

He defended the sentiments of his learned friend (Mr. Erskine), which had been misunderstood or misrepresented by the right hon. secretary. His learned friend did not mean, and no man who pretended to the character of a statesman, he was convinced, would presume to say that property ought not to have great political weight. But even the right hon. gentleman himself would not contend, that property had an exclusive right of thinking and speaking upon subjects of constitutional importance. This would be to rob man of his natural and indefeasible rights. and to reduce society to its original elements. In another place, report declared that a person of high authority, considerable talents, and great learning (the bishop of Rochester), had said, that the mass of the people had nothing to do with the laws, but to obey them. And this strange assertion had been made by a member of that order, who beyond all others were taught in their religion to recognize the natural equality of man. But he trusted that the people of England would not tamely surrender their indisputable and hereditary right, whatever inclination an arbitrary minister or a supercilious prelate might betray, to wrest them out of their possession. How absurd was it that because a man had not the good fortune to have a freehold qualification of forty shillings valued rent, he must not be allowed to speak his sentiments on subjects which involve his dearest and most important concerns! At present he would not enter into the argu-petition the crown? Suppose, for inments for and against parliamentary reform. The sum of the argument on the one side was, that the people of the country were not equally represented; and the only answer bearing the smallest semblance of speciousness, which had been made, was, that though the people

He then proceeded to inquire how far the bill actually went in its provisions, to limit the right of petitioning. The sheriff must call the meeting. But what was to be done, if he refuse to call a meeting upon a subject of pressing importance? Can a meeting be held without his permission or not? But was not the sheriff an officer nominated by the crown; and what a mockery was it, to solicit permission from the crown, to meet in order to

stance, that the object of the petition were to be a dissolution of parliament, would the crown countenance a petition for any such purpose, as long as the king found it for his interest to retain the parliament then in being? On the supposi tion that redress of public grievances was

تو

the object, how could the people expect the countenance of those men to such an object, from whom all their grievances proceeded, and who afforded the real cause of complaint? The first clause, however, was not the least exceptionable; after the meeting had been convened, a justice of peace might under various pretences, dissolve it so that its proceedings were to be entirely subject to his caprice. Suppose, for example, that a petition for a reform in parliament was to be the subject which occupied the attention of the meeting; the magistrate might take it into his head, that the very idea conveyed an implied contempt of the present organization of the House of Commons, and under this impression, might order it immediately to disperse under pain of military execution, before any of the purposes of the meeting were answered. All is referred to a discretionary power, which can be amenable to no earthly tribunal, as no man is accountable for the errors of his understanding.

thought that a judicious selection of the most glaring and dangerous ought to be made by the attorney-general.

He then adverted to the general principle of the bill in the most animated and pointed terms. It was not he said, a blow at the outworks of the constitution

Its

it was a daring attempt to subvert its very foundation. Upon the liberty of the press and freedom of discussion, the basis of the constitution was known to rest. Take away these, and the whole fabric must fall. No man would deny that there were many abuses and defects in the practice of the constitution. chief value consisted in the excellence of the foundation; and when that was des troyed, the rest would not be worth preserving. For almost any other shock which it could have received, a remedy might have been found. Had parliament thought proper to alter the succession to the crown from the present family on the throne, dreadful convulsions would no doubt have ensued, but the investiture of He applied this reasoning to the meet- a new prince with the sovereign power ing at Copenhagen House, the object of might have quieted the commotion. Had which he contended to be strictly legal, parliament made a bold and open attack whatever were the forms of the petitions upon the trial by jury, a speedy remedy which were then drawn up, but an object would have been found in the deluge of which would have been resisted à princi- argument and declamation which would pio, had the bill now pending been pre- immediately have issued from the press. viously in force. There was another Petitions would have been poured in, reclause which was almost too ridiculous to monstrating against the assault on public mention, namely, that which prohibited liberty; and the voice of the people all public lectures delivered for money. raised with unanimity and firmness, would What would become of the professors of have awed the proudest minister into subthe different sciences in the universities? mission. But when the power of speakWould they not be clearly involved in the ing was taken away, what was there left operation of this clause? But even in its but the patience of implicit submission? most qualified construction, he could not What hopes could be entertained that conceive by what principle of policy a grievances would be removed when those man was to be prohibited from acquiring who felt them dared not complain? In his subsistence by instructing the people in such a case, it would give him but little the principles of the constitution. Of Mr. anxiety that a spirit of resistance was Thelwall and his lectures, he was en- found impossible to be suppressed. At tirely ignorant. If, however, they were present he believed a spirit of discontent innocent, why should he be disturbed? to be pretty general in the country, and If they were seditious and treasonable, he had no hesitation in saying, that it oriwhy was he not prosecuted under the ex-ginated in a bad government, in wicked isting statutes? The same observations and ruinous measures, and in the blind applied to the papers which had been and unmeaning confidence which the peoread by the noble lord (Mornington): if ple had reposed in an unfortunate and they were treasonable, the authors of desperate administration. The discon them were amenable to the treason laws. tent might, perhaps, exist in some degree He would not be understood as deliver-previous to the war, but he affirmed that ing an opinion whether they were or not, it had spread since to a much more nor even whether every seditious paper alarming extent. If the discontent origi which was circulated ought to be sub-nated in French principles, it was indebtmitted to the course of law. He rather ed for its currency to the measures of

British ministers. He wished to bring them to issue upon this point. They said the people of England were loyal; so said he, They asserted that there were malcontents in the country; in this also he agreed. But he would ask, whether the danger to be apprehended from French principles, was greater now or two years ago? Let them say either the one or the other; but he intreated them, for God's sake, not to say both. For his own part, he thought it was greater. If it was, he demanded if the increase of danger was not owing to the calamitous war which was unjustly commenced, and had been unfortunately prosecuted? If the danger was diminished, why would they apply a more hazardous remedy than when the disease was described as raging with its utmost fury? Whatever was the degree of danger in which the country now stood, he was firmly of opinion, that it would be increased rather than lessened by the remedy proposed. The danger had principally arisen from a system of terror, which ministers had adopted; and the most effectual mode of protracting the danger was by continuing this system, of which the present bill seemed to form a most prominent part.

must take place. Mr. Fox here exposed the fallacy of the assertion, that universal suffrage was the cause of the downfall of the ancient despotism of France, and of the overthrow of the first constitution. He urged upon the serious consideration of ministers the situation into which they had reduced the country, and implored them to give up a system which was pregnant with ruin, and to employ every lenient and conciliatory means for gaining the affection of the people, and attaching them to the constitution. He said, he knew there was a spirit in the country to ward off the ravages of anarchy: he hoped, also, there was a spirit to resist the strides of oppression. Before he sat down, he would say a few words with respect to the general scarcity of provisions that prevailed, though not connected with the subject before the House. If the war was not the principal cause of the scarcity, that it was an integral part could not be disputed. Though the harvest was in general abundant, yet wheat was not so productive as had been expected. Other articles of consumption which were more plentiful were equally dear; so dear, that the poor could not, for the price of labour (which was in no proportion to the dearHe next adverted to what had been ness of provisions) buy enough of bread. said of the danger of universal suffrage There were many other mischiefs that and annual parliaments. They had been followed in the train of a destructive war, represented as the cause of the subversion the expenses of which had lowered the of the old French government, and they value of money, as it had increased the were described as the instrument employ- price of necessaries. Though the blessed by the Corresponding Society, to de-ings of returning peace could not in a molish the British constitution. He pro- month, or a year, restore plenty, and refessed himself no friend to either; but he pair the hardships of the war, still they quoted the high authority of the duke of afforded the only cure for famine and poRichmond, by whom they had been sup- verty. Thus he might in some degree ported, and drew this inference, that the say-Sublata causa, tollitur effectus. The opinions of those in the higher and lower war ended, peace would, if not immedistations of society were treated in a very ately, at least in time, bring back the different style of respect. When the mem- country to its former state of prosperity bers of corresponding societies think now, Mr. Fox concluded a masterly speech by as the duke of Richmond thought some saying, that he should consider it an unyears ago, there is a general outcry, Will pardonable omission to conceal from the you presume to touch the sacred ark of the people, that they had to reproach themconstitution with unhallowed hands? But selves for a great part of their calamities nothing was said when a daring minister by their supineness, in not bringing micomes forward -not, indeed, with unhal-nisters to an account for their destructive lowed hands, for a minister's hands are like those of the high priest of old, which it would be sacrilege even to look atnot to touch it only, but to tear it in pieces.

The sole reason assigned for this outrage against the constitution, was, that when new occasions happen, new changes [VOL. XXXII.]

measures, and with calling on the House to be aware of what they were doing, and not to continue a blind confidence in government to the ruin of the country.

Mr. Pitt said, that as he had repeatedly delivered his sentiments upon the bill, he felt but little inclined unnecessarily to take up the attention of the House, par[2 A]

« ZurückWeiter »