صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

measures, much more to be deplored, though no less necessary? Gentlemen on the other side of the House admitted, that, after the Habeas Corpus Suspension act, the Sedition act, and every other act which the security of the government had rendered necessary, the situation of this country was a state of liberty compared with Ireland; and yet it was now said, that, in participating the blessings of this country, the Irish would have something to regret and envy in their own. It was not meant to be contended, that the House could not come to a determination upon the subject without the Irish members; but the question was, whether it was proper that measures should be taken to prevent the danger of suffering the Suspension act to expire, until the parliament of the united kingdoms should have an opportunity of proceeding to a full discussion of the subject.

Mr. Grey rose for the purpose of making a few observations upon this most extraordinary measure, and the very extraordinary arguments by which it had been supported. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that the opinions of those who opposed this measure had changed; for that they now admitted that Jacobinism formerly existed, but contended that it was now extinguished. This charge appeared to him totally destitute of foundation. He, for one, never had stated, never had thought, that there were not to be found in this country some persons who were disaffected: he believed that such persons were to be found in every country, in every period. But the proposition he had always maintained was, that there never was such a spirit of discontent or disloyalty in this country as would justify ministers in depriving the people of the benefits of the constitution. In supporting this measure, at present, the gentlemen on the other side could not have recourse to the same grounds which they had urged on former occasions, because none of the reasons upon which it was formerly justified now existed. The right hon. gentleman had contended, that it was for want of precautionary measures similar to this, in other countries, that so many calamities had befallen them; but this assertion he had not attempted to prove; indeed, he would find it very difficult to do so. There appeared throughout the whole of the right hon. gentleman's conduct one very great error: formerly, the liberty of the subject, and

[ocr errors]

the blessings of the constitution, were the favourite topics in that House, and among the people of England; but now the theme was changed, and the right hon. gentleman only talked of preserving the security and quiet of the people; and these were the grounds on which, in absolute governments, every measure was justified. But he wished to inquire whe ther it was true, as the right hon. gentleman had stated, that the revolutions in other countries were to be attributed to want of severe measures on the part of their governments? He wished to ask, whether the revolution in France was to be attributed to the extreme mildness of the government; or whether the people had not been driven by oppression into resistance? It had been remarked by a very great man at the beginning of this war, that it was never from a desire of overturning the government, but from impatience at oppression, that the people revolted.—The right hon. gentleman had stated, that he was now prepared to discuss this question upon its general principles, and that the House had materials enough before them to decide upon it. He wished the right hon. gentleman would go into the question, and state to the House what these grounds were upon which he relied. The right hon. gentleman had, indeed, referred to the report of the committee before which he said evidence was given; but if the House wanted proof upon the subject, where were they to find it? Some persons had, indeed, been taken up; but after having been confined for a long time, the evidence against them had not been found sufficiently strong to justify their being brought to trial.-Some allusions had been made to the union with Ireland. He would not enter into that subject; he only begged leave to say, that it appeared to him particularly desirable, that we should settle all points relative to internal safety, rather than leave them to the members of the sister kingdom, before they could, by a residence in this country, be acquainted with our manners and habits. If, under the present circumstances, the minister should succeed in carrying this measure, he really could not imagine any situation in which the country could be, in which he might not make such assertions as were now made, and call for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus. With respect to the manner in which this power had been used by ministers, after

1794, which suspension was suffered to expire in 1795. The events that took place after were such as rendered it necessary again to have recourse to this measure, and, he believed, that many of the evils which ensued, would not have happened if the bill had not been suffered to expire. He admitted, with satisfaction, that Jacobinism had diminished; but it was not so far diminished, as to render precautionary measures unnecessary. Though no man could feel more sincerely the praise which was due to the people, for their exemplary conduct, yet, knowing that it was the nature of Jacobinism to watch with unwearied attention for moments which might be favourable to its designs; knowing that it would eagerly take advantage of the present unfortu nate pressure, he should think ministers had not done their duty, if they had acted otherwise than they had done.

what he had heard respecting the situation | of prisoners in Coldbath-fields and other prisons, there appeared so much ground for suspicion as ought to make the House pause before they renewed this bill. It had been asked, whether it would be right, under the present unfortunate pressure, to give up the security which the bill afforded? It appeared to him, if there was one argument more strong than another against the passing of this bill, it was that very argument. The people deserved that parliament should repose confidence in them: but what could they think when they saw their liberties sacrificed upon the mere assertion of the minister? What appearance would it have, when the people saw their representatives put their liberty at the mercy of ministers? The peculiar circumstances of the times called for very different conduct from that which it was now proposed to adopt: they ought to be treated with confidence, but certainly recourse ought not to be had to measures of terror; and he was convinced that such a system would create that dissatisfaction and jealousy which had

produced such fatal effects in other coun

=tries.

Lord Hawkesbury said, it was impossible not to recollect the predictions which, on former occasions, the hon. gentleman and his friends had hazarded; it was impossible not to call to mind the arguments by which they had pressed the House not to adopt a measure, to the adoption of which was to be ascribed the existence of the constitution. He recollected, that these gentlemen had strenuously contended, that there was no Jacobinism, no spirit of disaffection existing in the country, or even if there was, that the measures which government were adopting would only aggravate the evil. It was said, that, by adopting severe measures, we should irritate the people, and destroy their love of the constitution; but on this night, the language of gentlemen was wholly changed: now it was said, that there never was a moment when the people were so loyal, when their attachment to the constitution was so sincere, notwithstanding the adoption of measures, with respect to which, gentlemen predicted such fatal consequences. The inference was, that ministers had acted wisely in adopting such measures, and that they had a direct contrary effect to that which had been predicted. The Habeas Corpus act was suspended in

The question being put, That the bill be read a second time, the House divided:

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

Dec. 15. On the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, Mr. Grey presented a Petition from Paul Thomas Le Maitre. It stated, "that he had been arrested in September 1794, when he was only 18 years of age, on suspicion of having been concerned in treasonable practices; that he was detained till the May following, and then discharged. That he was afterwards informed that a bill had been found against him by the grand jury; and that, eager to show his respect to the laws, he surrendered him. self, was arraigned, and for want of evidence discharged. That he was again taken up, in consequence of Jealous, the Bow-street officer, declaring, that the instrument supposed to have been intended against his majesty's life had been found in his house. That the officer told the petitioner's mother, she would never see him out of prison again till he went to the gallows; the effect of which declaration was, that she took to her bed, and died in two months; that the petitioner was himself taken ill, seized with convulsions,

and in that condition confined to a damp room in the Cold-bath-fields prison, where his rest was disturbed night and day, by watchmen, at stated periods, demanding whether he was secure, and insisting upon his answering them. The petition then entered into a justification of the petitioner's motives for becoming one of the London Corresponding Society ;-then proceeded to impeach the character of Upton, the informer against him, and spoke in disrespectful terms of the conduct of the privy council towards him: it also stated, that he had been confined for three years in Reading gaol; and concluded by praying that his case might be inquired into by the House."

Mr. Pitt said, that some part of the petition was so far from being connected with the petitioner's complaint, that it was nothing more than a political essay, in the course of which he had thought proper to censure the conduct of government. The subject of the petition had no application to the general principle on which was founded the propriety of suspending the Habeas Corpus act. As to the declaration of his innocence, it could not be taken for granted. If, during his confinement, he had not been properly treated, that would very properly be the subject of inquiry; but the propriety of a general law for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, could not be affected by the grievance of any individual. He thought the petition ought not to lie on

the table.

Mr. Grey said, he did not think it consistent with his duty to decline presenting the petition, especially as there was nothing informal in it. No occasion could be more opportune, since it complained, that, on account of the continued suspension of the Habeas Corpus, the petitioner had lingered nearly three years in prison, without the hope of being brought to trial.

Sir W. Pulteney thought it would be for the honour of the House to make inquiry into the matters stated in the petition. This inquiry might be made in a secret committee; and if it should appear that this man had stated falsehoods, they would be exposed, and a stop thereby put to calumnies.

The Attorney General said, that the petition contained strong reflections on his majesty's privy council, and stated a variety of matter extraneous to the petition itself. If it had been confined to

personal hardships, he should have had no objection to its being laid on the table; but the reflection which it contained was indecent in itself, and unfounded. He therefore thought that, to prevent petitions of this nature from being presented, it would be better to reject the present one.

Mr. Jolliffe said, that the petition contained nothing that was in itself indecent or improper. If it was rejected, no ag grieved person could ever expect relief. He would divide the House on the subject.

Mr. Simeon said, that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the House to suffer the petitioner to state, that the person who gave information against him was a perjured wretch. This was the grossest libel on an individual that he had ever heard. As the petition was worded, he should vote for its rejection.

Mr. Tierney admitted, that if any resolution had been moved upon the petition, it might have been objectionable; but all that was asked was, that it should lie on the table. No man complaining of such hardships, could use any other than strong language. Every allowance ought to be made for a man who had been imprisoned three years, and who felt himself innocent. It was not parliamentary to say that a petition ought to be rejected, because it reflected on the privy council, or on his majesty's ministers. It would, he conceived, be unprecedented to reject the petition.

Lord Hawkesbury said, that the objection to the petition was, that it was disrespectful towards the privy council, and slandered an individual. No doubt, if such a petition were published otherwise than as a parliamentary document, the author might be indicted for a libel against Upton. Besides, the objectionable passages were wholly unnecessary to the prayer of the petition. The right of petitioning was not to be made the vehicle of calumny.

Mr. Jekyll said, there might be irrelevant matter in the petition, but that was not a reason for rejecting it altogether. Was it not the greatest act of injustice to keep a man confined three years without a trial? In that period, he might be deprived of the exculpatory evidence which he could have brought forward, if tried in the first instance. Could any thing be more cruel than to suffer a man, for such a length of time, to languish

in Cold-bath-fields prison, a victim of such a man as Aris? He trusted the House would receive the petition.

The Solicitor General said, that although a single sentiment in a petition might be clearly relative, it did not follow that the petitioner should take the opportunity of introducing into the other parts of it libels against the government of the country. Was the House obliged to receive such a petition? The petitioner had displayed considerable art in the manner in which he had drawn it up.

Mr. Bragge said, that the petition was not only irrelevant, but its reflections were mischievous and libellous; they appeared to be the effect, not of ignorance, but of design. The consequence of suffering such a petition to lie on the table would be, that it would get into print, and have a pernicious effect.

Mr. Grey said, that a petition coming from a man who was under circumstances so pressing, ought not to be scrutinized with so scrupulous a nicety, especially when it was treating of those whom he thought his persecutors. If he had libelled the constituted authorities designedly, his petition ought not to be received; but that did not seem to him to be the real character of the petition.

Mr. Perceval observed, that the petition contained two distinct heads of allegation; the one related to what happened to the petitioner on a subject which had been disposed of by due course of law, and of which the House could not regularly take cognizance; the other, that he might obtain relief from what he was now suffer. ing in this also, it did not appear that the petition ought to be received in its present form. If Mr. Upton had acted. injuriously towards the petitioner, the law would afford him redress. If he had to complain of hardships, and thought the privy council were the cause of them, the House would not examine too nicely the words he might use; but the complaint of the petitioner against the privy council had no application to the subject matter of the petition, nor was there a word of it in the prayer; for which reason it ought not to be received.

Sir. F. Burdett said, that if there was any libellous matter in the petition, the parties libelled had their remedy in due course of law; for his part, he never wished to be nice in canvassing the words of a petition, especially if it came from a man who had been confined in gaol for three years. Many of the expressions were natural enough from a man in that situation As to libels on individuals, he did not think the House ought to be very nice, since many libels on individuals were published in the proceedings of the House, and for which such individuals had no redress whatever. The only question was, whether this application of an unfortunate man was reasonable or not? He thought it was; and would receive the petition.

The question being put, "That the said petition do lie upon the table," the House divided:

Tellers.
YEAS Mr. Jekyll
Mr. Grey

NOES {Mr. Perceval

The Lord Hawkesbury

} 8 59

[blocks in formation]

Dec. 18. On the order of the day, for the third reading of the bill,

Mr. Jekyll said, that on former occasions, when it was judged necessary to suspend, for a short period, the great palladium of English liberty, it had been reckoned decent to present some pretext for so alarming a measure. The attorneygeneral for the time had thought it his duty to lay before the House something in the shape of facts and circumstances, to induce a compliance with the proposal. The next step was, to refer to former reports, and to bespeak favour to the bill, Mr. Martin should be sorry to give a by asserting the continuance of the same vote which tended to encroach on the dangers which those reports had disclosed. right of petitioning; but as this petition At length, even these forms were laid contained much matter which ought not aside, and without one new ground being to have appeared in it, and as the peti-brought forward, without even the show tioner might present another, he thought it better that it should not be received.

of averment that the former dangers existed, the measure was justified by mere

general assertions. A mere assertion that Jacobinism was still unextinguished, was held out as a motive to induce the House to renounce the noblest right of themselves, and their constituents. He was convinced, that in this country, Jacobinism had long since died a natural death. There indeed existed discontents, from the malversation of ministers; but these discontents could not justify the House in continuing to withhold from the people the best guardian of their rights. But the measure had been farther defended, from the lenity of ministers, in the exercise of the power entrusted to them. Now twenty-five men had languished in prison for nearly three years, on charges which had never been preferred against them in a regular manner. This was a practice similar to the lettres de cachet of the French monarchy, and altogether subversive of our ancient statutes. He called on the House to resist the measure even in this stage.

Sir Francis Burdett said, that the present measure was part of a system commencing with the present reign, and now finally completed. It was impossible to cast an eye over its several administrations, without seeing this same spirit pervade them, however different they might be in other respects. What was the state then, he would ask, to which the country was reduced by this system? Constructive treasons revived-liberty of speech taken away-the liberty of the press invaded-the administration of justice violated by making judges dependent of the crown [Hear, hear!]; yes, dependent of the crown, by the power it possessed of granting them salaries-the trial by jury violated, and the arbitrary decisions of justices of peace substituted in its room men's private concerns subjected to shameful inquiry-a prison, to which a grand jury was refused admittance and pensioned magistrates to manage it. In his opinion, the grand jury, had they been duly sensible of their power and rights, ought to have presented, as well the magistrates who refused their application, as the prison itself, as a public nuisance.-There was no ground whatever laid for the present motion; on the contrary, ministers disdained all colour of pretence; for if they wished for any, it would have been easy for them to have trumped up a plot or a conspiracy. There were certain gentlemen in that House, who took every occasion to make

loud and strong professions of vital christianity and religion. If those gentlemen really believed what they professed; if they sincerely believed in the interposition of Divine Providence to punish nations for the delinquency of their conduct, he would call their attention to the tremendous curse denounced by the sublimest of the prophetical writers against the Babylonian tyrant, because he had reduced cities to ashes-because he had deluged the earth with blood-but, what was more heinous than all the rest-because he opened not the door of the prison-house! It required no prophetic spirit to tell, that similar causes produced similar effects; and therefore ministers might well dread the consequence of their system. He contended, that ministers did not dare to bring the victims of their oppression to trial, and that they preserved their heads and their offices by enslaving the country. As an honest man, therefore, he must enter his protest against the motion.

Mr. Ellison said, he knew of no resem. blance there was between lettres de cachet and the bill now before the House. An hon. gentleman had said, that there were now in prison 25 persons who were unknown, and unpitied because unknown. He took the fact to be the reverse. These men were known, and, because they were known, they were not pitied. As to the fact of their being so few, he thought that a proof of the moderate use ministers had made of the power which the law gave them. If it had not been for the measure now before the House, and others of a similar kind, he did not believe there would at this hour have been left one stone upon the other, of that beautiful pile, the British constitution.

The question being put, "That the said bill be now read the third time," the House divided:

YEAS

Tellers.
Mr. Ellison
Mr. Richard Ryder

Sir Francis Burdett

NOES {Mr. Jekyll -

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

The bill was then read a third time, and passed. It was to continue in force until six weeks after the commencement of the next session.

Debate in the Lords on the Habeas Corpus Suspension Bill.] Dec. 19. On

« السابقةمتابعة »