صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

4

property by will. From all these cases it high treason in certain cases, and for the was clear, that this was a right which had safe custody of insane persons charged been constantly exercised. It had been with offences. My object is, to confine said that this bill would enable his majesty the bill to the point of making high treato dispose of money in the exchequer, son, in a certain denomination of it, like &c.; but it should be recollected that the the case of murder, by which I mean a king had only the disposal of his privy direct attempt against the person of his purse. His majesty had made some pur- majesty. The only objection which can chases, very small in their extent, but he be offered to this bill, is that of a suppohad occasion, from his professional situa sition that there may be a difficulty in tion, to know that there were many little defining the case to which the bill would vexatious circumstances which his majes- refer. I apprehend there will be no such ty had to encounter, merely from the dif. difficulty. In the case of maliciously ficulties existing upon this subject. An shooting at any person, there is no diffiinstance occurred at the decease of the culty in defining cases that come within princess Amelia, who had acquired some the meaning of the law. The same rule property after she had made her will, and I would apply to an attempt on the person though his majesty was disposed to let that of the king. With regard to that part of part of the property pass under the will, he the bill, which relates to the safe custody was not able to do it. It was extremely of insane persons who are charged with hard that his majesty should be prevented offences, something is necessary to be >from making a provision for an affectionate done on that subject. I do not allude child, or remunerating a faithful servant: particularly to what has recently hapa right which the meanest of his subjects pened; but all those whose duty calls possessed. them to attend to the proceedings of Mr. Rose said, that Mr. Nichols was in-courts of justice, must think it important correct in supposing that it was necessary that some provisions should be made to appear upon the parliament roll, that the upon this subject, because it has been assent of the three branches of the legisla- found that persons who have done the ture had been given to a bill.. most shocking acts, and who have been acquitted on the ground of being deranged in their intellects, having been allowed to go at large, have afterwards committed similar acts again; there are several instances of his majesty's subjects having lost their lives for want of a due provision in this respect. By the common law, when a person of this kind is acquitted, the court before which he is tried have full power to direct the safe custody of such a person; but then the law has so little regulated that custody, and is so silent as to the rules to be observed with regard to it, that it may be said to be defective in that particular; and on reflection, I think it will be impossible to lay down any positive rule, with regard to the manner of that custody, and therefore much must be left to the discretion of the executive government; but when we consider the circumstances of these unhappy persons, that generally they are of low habits and connexions, and seldom have any friends to take care of them, it will ap pear to be humane to give to the executive government some discretion to dispose of them. Under these circumstances I move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for regulating Trials for High Treason, and Misprision of Treason in certain cases, and

The Bill was then read a second time; and went through the subsequent stages without opposition.

Debate in the Commons on the Treason Bill, and the Insane Offenders Bill.*] June 30. The Attorney General said:-I rise, Sir, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill for regulating trials for *On the 15th of May, a most alarming and extraordinary circumstance occurred at the Theatre Royal, Drury-lane. At the moment when his majesty entered the box, a man in the pit, near the orchestra, on the right-hand side, suddenly stood up and discharged a pistol at the royal person. The king had advanced about four steps from the door. On the report of a pistol, his majesty stopped, and stood firmly. The house was immediately in an uproar, and the cry of "Seize him!" burst from every part of the theatre. The king, apparently not the least disconcerted, came nearly to the front of the box. The man who committed the crime was seized, and conveyed from the pit. His name was Hadfield. Being examined by a magistrate, he exhibited symptoms of insanity; though some of his answers were rational. Hadfield was tried in the Court of King's-bench for high treason, and quitted, but not discharged. A report of the proceedings against him will be found in Howell's State Trials.

ac

[ocr errors]

for the safe custody of Insane persons charged with offences."

Mr. Nicholls had no objection to the second part of the motion; but with regard to the first, he thought it advisable to abide by the law which the wisdom of our ancestors had devised.

Mr. Pitt said:-On a subject of this high importance, I should think, that although no proof existed of any actual inconveniences having arisen, yet, if we see, by looking at the law, as it now stands, that not only great inconvenience, but danger may arise from it, we shall have no difficulty in saying that there ought to be an amendment of the law in this particular. The general principle of the law to guard against constructive or political treason, is not proposed to be touched by this bill; but it is intended to apply to a simple act, capable of demonstration almost. Suppose the late attempt against the person of the sovereign had been successful, it would certainly have been a murder of a very aggravated and horrid nature. If it had been against any of his majesty's subjects, it would have been murder by the law of England; and one witness would have been enough to prove it. But in the case of the murder of the sovereign, on whose life the safety of the state depends, by the law of treason, a different form of prosecution must be observed; one witness would not be sufficient to prove it, nor could the trial, in many other respects, have the same facility, on the part of the prosecution, as it would have in the case of the murder of one of his majesty's subjects. Although the act should be plain murder, yet it cannot be stated but as treason, and that, by law, requires two witnesses. This is acondition in which the law ought not to stand. We are all of us happy that the barbarous attempts that have been made against his majesty's person are totally free from any combination or conspired design; but when we have had the warnings of individual designs, although the result of phrenzy, against his majesty's sacred person, we should take care that his majesty's sacred life should have, at least, as much protection as that of the meanest of his subjects.

July 11. The said bills were reported. On the motion, that the Insane Offenders bill be engrossed,

Mr. Windham said, he was sorry that the subject should come on when there was so thin a House: it was one of considerable importance. He could not but wish that some punishment might attach on any attempt upon the life of the sovereign, notwithstanding the plea of insanity. It was, no doubt, revolting to one's feelings, to think of punishing an insane person; but there was also something revolting in all punishments, particularly in capital punishments; they were inflicted, however, not from vindictive motives, nor from any notion that even in cases of the greatest atrocity they afforded any compensation to society for the offence committed, but with the view of preventing the repetition of it on the part of others. It was a well-known saying, that a man should be punished, not because he had stolen a horse, but that horses might not be stolen. If the subject were viewed in this light, the propriety of capitally punishing attempts on the part of a madman, against the life of any one, would perhaps be admitted; and much more would these considerations apply with respect to an attempt on the life of the sovereign, which, if successful, might have the effect of dissolving the whole fabric of society. There was something in the state of madness that, where such a design was conceived, generally led to make the attempt on the greatest objects, especially if that madness happened to be connected with any particular political bias. The only ground on which the measure he now suggested could fairly be opposed was, that madmen were not capable of being influenced by the fear of punishment; but he conceived that they were influenced by the fear of punishment more than by any other consideration, and to a degree much beyond the impression it made on other men. On lord Ferrers' trial a question was put to a witness, whether his lordship was in a state to distinguish moral right and wrong? He should have thought the proper ques tion would have been, whether he was in a state in which he could feel a dread of Leave was given, and the bill was brought punishment? He was persuaded that the in and read a first time. On the follow-House, reflecting on recent events, and ing day, it was read a second time, and the chance of the same dangers again the committee were empowered to turn occurring, would see the propriety of ma the said bill into two bills, if they turely considering the suggestions which thought fit; which was accordingly done. he had thrown out.

Mr. Nicholls entered his protest in the very outset against the measure now sug. gested. There never was a time when, by the law of England, a madman was regarded as a fit object of punishment. Formerly, indeed, a design to commit murder, if fully proved, incurred a capital punishment, according to the maxim, "voJuntas pro facto reputabitur." But never did the law of England sanction the punishing a madman. The will was necessary to constitute crime: " actio non est rea, nisi mens sit rea." The very word" demens" expressed a man who had not reasoning powers to judge of punishment. He admitted that the attention of madmen was most attracted by prominent objects; but as the punishment of a madman could not operate as a prevention, he hoped the sentiments then delivered would never be again brought forward.

The Solicitor General thought that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, was one which deserved very mature consideration, and it was one which certainly derived countenance from the law of England. By the ancient law, madness in certain cases was not allowed to be an exemption from punishment. The life of the king was considered to be of such importance as to stand in need of every kind of safeguard. Lord Coke stated an attempt of this nature as an exemption from the general rule, that madness was not punishable; and lord Hale likewise stated this to be a safe and a wise exception. It was not possible, in all cases, to discover whether the madness was real or feigned; and therefore the ancient law was, that killing the king was treason, from whatever quarter it proceeded. In case of a man's being capable of being influenced by the fear of punishment, he questioned whether the plea of madness, with 1 regard to any crime, could be admitted; and it was doubtful whether there were many persons so mad as not to be capable of being influenced by such a fear.

The bills passed without further debate.

Debate on Mr. Sheridan's motion for a Call of the House in the present awful Conjuncture.] June 27. Mr. Sheridan said:

I rise, Sir, in order to state the grounds on which I rest my proposition, for a call of the House on this day fortnight. When I first mentioned my intention of bringing forward such a motion, it was observed that the intelligence recently arrived

from France was mere rumour; but, I now understand government has received authentic accounts of that disastrous intelligence. It is not my intention to go much at large into general topics, but to bring before the House the simple question, whether the present circumstances of the country, and the relative situation in which it stands with regard to its allies, are not materially altered since we last discussed the subject of peace and war, and also to inquire, whether it is proper to separate, without once more endeavouring to counsel his majesty on this all-important subject? When last this question was discussed, we were instructed by the prophetic and warning voice of that great man, whose absence the House, in common with myself, must regret upon this occasion, as to the utter impracticability of subduing the French republic by force of arms. At that period, it was admitted, that we were continuing the war for the purpose of restoring the House of Bourbon. Such was confessedly the object of ministers. In order to persuade the House to coincide with them, six reasons were adduced. Now, every one of those six grounds or reasons for refusing to negotiate have wholly and completely failed? The first reason was, that we ought to wait for a better acquaintance with the character of Buonaparté, and for some proof of the stability of the government of which he was the head. Have we not been enabled to form a sufficient estimate of his character, and need we require any further proofs of the stability of his power? The second reason was, the extensive support that we should receive from our magnanimous ally, the emperor of Russia; and, even should his ardour in the cause relax, the assistance we were to expect from the elector of Bavaria and the princes of the empire. The hopes of assistance from those powers have altogether failed. The third reason was, a treaty with the emperor of Germany, by which it was to be stipulated that neither Austria nor England were to lay down their arms but by mutual consent. Has any one heard of such a treaty having taken place? The fourth and principal reason was the repossession of Italy by the Emperor. The recent failure of his arms in that quarter shows how premature were the hopes founded on that circumstance. The fifth

* Mr. Fox. See vol. 34, p.

1355.

that he is an hypocrite, that he is a man devoid of principle, that he is not only divested of morality but religion, profess ing whatever mode of faith best answers his purpose; his enemies have not been content with these topics of censure, but his military skill and reputation have been the subject of their attack. It has been said, that the sailors on board our vessels before Acre, laughed at his want of skill

reason was, the increased spirit of the possess any, whether, since the period royalists in France. It was said they were when they refused to negotiate with him, certain of finding allies in the discontents every action by which he has distinof the Jacobins; that they were to perse- guished himself has not been eminently vere till the family of Bourbon was re- calculated to raise him in the good opinion seated on the throne of France; and that of every man who judges without preju the divided state of that country furnished dice? That Buonaparté may justly be a ground of hope, that we should see the denominated an usurper, I admit; that object for which the war was commenced he is a self-appointed dictator in France, and carried on completely accomplished. I admit; but it must not be fogotten, that Has not experience shown how fallacious the situation of the country required the such hopes were? The sixth and last vigorous hand of such a dictator as he is. ground was, the reduced and disorganized That Buonaparté possesses more power state of the French army. It was stated than is compatible with the liberties of that such was the situation of the military France, I admit; but that he possesses power of France, that it was physically more power than is necessary to protect impossible for them to bring such a strength the republic, and to enable it to resist into the field as could produce success. those enemies that seek to destroy it, is How just such a conclusion was, the what I will not admit.. What has been House, after the events of the present the species of abuse with which his cha campaign, are enabled to determine.-racter has been attacked? Not merely Thus, Sir, I have stated the six grounds that induced the House, when the subject was last before it, to support ministers in refusing the moderate, respectful, and apparently sincere overture of Buonaparte. Finding that every one of these grounds has failed, surely, I shall not be deemed unreasonable if I urge the House, before it consents to continue the war, to require at least six new reasons. I can fancy but one reason that can possibly induce mi-in war. But, Sir, we have seen religion nisters to continue the war with France. After having so unadvisedly committed themselves, they would naturally feel themselves in an awkward situation, if obliged to treat with the man who has been the object of their virulent abuse. But shall their feelings be a ground for deferring the day of negotiation? Their wounded pride may make them wish to continue a war, though they are forced to abandon the grounds and principles on which they have hitherto carried it on. Were I a political friend of theirs, I should say to them-" It is of much more consequence to stop the effusion of human blood, and heal the wounds of afflicted mankind, than to continue a war which desolates the earth, merely because your feelings would be hurt by entering upon a treaty for peace." But, Sir, ought the representatives of Great Britain to regard the feelings of ministers, when, they cannot be gratified without dooming to misery and death thousands of our own fellow-subjects? As to the character of Buonaparté, which forms so prominent an ingredient in the present argument, I would put it to the candour of ministers themselves, if they

obtain a tolerant exemption in her favour under the government of this atheist; we have seen the faith of treaties observed under the government of this perfidious adventurer: the arts and sciences find protection under the government of this plunderer; the sufferings of humanity have been alleviated under this ferocious usurper; the arms of France have been led to victory by this tyro in the art and practice of war! Sir, I look back with astonishment to the period when that great general was so vilely libelled. I was wont to expect more candour, more elevation of sentiment, in an English gentleman. But the war in which we are engaged has deadened every heroic feeling which once gave the tone to the martial spirit of this abused country. Unfortunately for us, the French general has fully proved his title to heroic honours. Never since the days of Hannibal have such splendid events opened on the world with such decisive consequences. Cujus adolescentia ad scientiam rei militaris, non alienis præceptis, sed suis imperiis; non offensionibus belli, sed victoriis; non stipendiis, sed triumphis, est traducta." Such is the

man who, even in his military character, we had been taught to consider with contempt! Such is the portrait of the man with whom ministers have refused to treat. Sir, I should not have mentioned this, if government had not made his character a main question as to the continuance of the war, and if ministers had not shown us that our hopes of peace must depend upon their ideas concerning it. I do say, that, considering the manner in which he has been treated by those ministers, he has acted with singular moderation, humanity, and magnanimity; and therefore we have the evidence of facts as to his principles, and that evidence removes the main ground of objection to treating with him. There are moments in which it may be necessary to do justice to the merits of an enemy, but it never can be necessary to speak of an enemy with rancour. I have stated, Sir, that Buonaparté possesses much more power than is compatible with the liberty of France; but having always held the opinion that France ought to enjoy her liberty, and being persuaded that the death of that liberty would be effected by the combined powers forcing a government upon the people, I cannot but hope the time will arrive when France will not only possess that portion of true liberty she ought to have, but that the government of this country will not consider its own security and the liberty of France inconsistent with each other. Sir, I may be censured for applying such a term as taste to a subject of such importance; but it does appear to me that the changes produced in the feelings of men with respect to their admiration of exalted or distinguished characters, in a great measure are to be attributed to the taste and fashion that prevail. These are not times in which kings have any reason to be proud of their wealth or superior power. The admiration of mankind is not confined to the characters of kings alone; the world has had a lesson of the effects of their ambition. Buonaparté has shown his country, that his object is to maintain the power he has attained by the moderation of his government; and I must hope, that when he has achieved the liberty of France, and his enemies have afforded him the opportunity of turning his attention to its internal regulations, he will, in giving it liberty, impart to it all the blessings and happiness of civilized peace. It must be in the recollection of the House, how

much stress was laid on the conduct of this man with regard to the success of any negotiations for terminating the war. Has he not sufficiently developed his character, and given proofs of the security and permanence with which our government might conclude a treaty with him? I believe it will not be denied, that the general voice is for immediate peace, if possible; the necessity of peace is felt throughout the country. But I am sorry to say a degree of indolence and supineness pervades all ranks of the people, which is the worst symptom of the declining liberty of a country. There is scarcely a man whom you meet, who has known the extent of the calamities of the present war, yet in proportion to those calamities has been a supporter of government in carrying it on, who has not received the news of the victories over the Austrians, our allies, with a smile; they observe, that the victories of Buonaparté will lead to peace. Look to the universal sentiment those victories have produced in the city; the funds have risen in consequence of them; the people feel that it is to the defeat of our allies alone that they can look for an alleviation of their calamities. If the people have suffered by the continuation of the war, it is to themselves they must look as the cause of their sufferings. They feel the distresses of the war; they will not say, "We will have peace," but are content to receive it as a boon from the enemy, through the disgrace of our allies. I know the people have only to meet in a constitutional way, and express their determination to have peace, in order to obtain it: but no; they wait till they receive it by the defeat and loss of honour of those with whom we are allied in the prosecution of the war. It is this supineness that I consider as a symptom of the decay of the spirit which once charac terised the country. There never was a period when there appeared so little public virtue, so little independence of mind, as at present; it is to rescue it from such apathy that I now move, "That this House be called over upon this day fortnight."

Mr. Pitt said:-Sir; having attentively listened to the observations made by the hon. gentleman, I think myself warranted in maintaining that the whole of his argument applies to one or two propositions. His chief object is calculated to lead to an immediate peace with the French republic, or to induce the House to

« السابقةمتابعة »