Слике страница
PDF
ePub

and no friend to that House would wish to see it again. However, he went no farther than to doubt upon the subject, and if any hon. member should point out how the House could regularly proceed to a safe point in vindication of its honour and in support of its managers, he should be ready to withdraw all his objections. But he confessed, as the whole case appeared to him, the best thing the House could do at present was to take no farther notice, and therefore he should move that the House do now adjourn. Perhaps the present discussion might have a good effect. He dared say the right reverend prelate heartily wished he had never uttered the words in question, and the right hon. manager gained satisfaction for the insult by contemplating on the advantage he had over his adversary in the great contrast of their behaviour. He then moved, "That the House do now adjourn."

Mr. Windham said, he felt as strongly as any man the extreme outrage that was committed by speaking the words alluded to, but he felt a doubt in his own mind whether the purpose to be wished would be gained by the present measure.

He concurred in trusting that the offensive words uttered had been followed up by a proper reflection in the mind of the speaker. He agreed also, that the contrast between the interference of the archbishop, and the calm, manly dignity of the right hon. manager, was highly to the advantage of the latter, particularly when it was considered by whom the words were uttered, to whom they were addressed, and the dignified mode in which they were received. Taken altogether, the matter must be a source of satisfaction to the feelings of his right hon. friend; and upon that view of the subject, he felt no difficulty in acquiescing in the motion for adjournment. With respect to the printer, he was of opinion that the comments contained in the paper alluded to were as scandalous as need be; but then the printer stood in a situation which although it did not lessen his criminality, yet made it perhaps unadviseable to pursue him, for he was much less criminal than the person who uttered the expressions; and it would appear awkward before the public, that the House should prosecute the lesser offender at a time when they were compelled to suffer the greater to remain unmofested; it would look like punishing an accessary, and forgiving the principal. These appeared to him to be difficulties, but they were not points upon which he had entirely

made up his mind; they appeared to him. to furnish an apology for an adjournment. However, he felt so strongly the necessity of supporting the managers that if the hon. gentleman who made the first motion should think fit to persist in it, he should vote with him, though he could wish for an adjournment.

Mr. Burke said, it was not his intention when he came into the House to take any part in the present question. The hon. mover would do him the justice to say, that it was not at his desire, but in obcdience to the impulse of his own feelings, that he had brought forward the business. He had two motives for rising at present; one was to say, that after what had passed in the court of King'sbench, on the trial of Stockdale, he never would consent to order another prosecution in that court for any libel upon the House of Commons. The House was constitutionally empowered to punish by attachment every breach of its own privileges, and ought never to suffer that power to be taken out of its own hands, nor delegate the exercise of it to any court whatever. The other was, to declare that the ends of justice must ne cessarily be defeated, if, whilst a public prosecution was depending in a court of law competent to decide upon it, another tribunal was suffered to be erected in a newspaper, to try the prosecutors, mis lead the judgment of the nation, and poison the public mind against those who were labouring to bring offenders to justice. He expressed the pleasure it gave him to find that the forbearance which marked his conduct when the words complained of were used, appeared to meet the approbation of the House. Forbearance, he said, was a virtue which he hoped he should always be able to practise, when he himself was alone concerned; but when the injuries which were to be avenged, had been sustained by others, when he had to plead the cause of oppressed millions against their oppressors, he trusted he never should show the smallest degree of forbearance; but that he should be found to give full scope to the passions and resentments which belong to the prosecutors of wrongs done to the public. Such passions and resentments were held in trust for great public purposes; and for these, but for no other, would he ever suffer them to sway. Against the right reverend prelate in question, he had not the least personal re

sentment, on the contrary he could find excuses for him in his age, and in the impatience generally attendant upon it. As to the advice given him by an hon. friend not to put his trust in princes or bishops, he would assure his hon. friend, that he never would put trust in princes or in people, in the high or in the low, but in Him alone, by whose authority he was desired to put no trust in either. He said he should not vote at all upon the subject, and came to the House chiefly for the purpose of repeating his protest against committing the privileges of that House to any tribunal under Heaven, except its own.

The Solicitor General entreated the House to be cautious in ordering prosecutions to be carried on by the attorneygeneral: it was scarcely possible for them to be aware of the difficulty and inconvenience which attended such prosecutions.

Mr. Fox said, he felt himself in an unpleasant situation with respect to the subject now before the House, not agreeing exactly with any gentleman who had spoken. If the doubts expressed by the right hon. secretary could be proved to be well founded, he should feel no difficulty in assenting to the motion for adjournment; but he thought these doubts ought to be considered a good deal before the House determined that they were well founded. With respect to the short-hand notes, he doubted whether they could fairly be deemed evidence upon which any person should be convicted; upon a former occasion he had urged a variety of objections to that proceeding, but he was over-ruled by the House. But let the House consider how that matter stood. When a question came before that House for the censure of a right hon. manager (Mr. Burke) for what he had said against Mr. Hastings and sir Elijah Impey upon the trial and execution of Nundcomar, the short-hand writer was called to the bar of the House, and asked questions upon his notes of the speech of the right hon. manager in Westminster-hall in the prosecution against Mr. Hastings; upon the evidence of these notes that right hon. gentleman was censured by that House.* Now, a question arose upon this: were the notes of a short-hand writer good for the purpose of proceeding to censure a manager of the impeachment of Mr.

* See Vol. 27, p 1401.

Hastings, and not good for the purpose of protecting him from a gross insult? This was not all: there were other views in which this subject appeared to him, and they were more general than any he had yet heard upon it, and upon which he should be sorry the House would not take this business up in a serious manner. With respect to the conduct of the right hon. manager, it was what he highly applauded: whether he should have had temper enough to conduct himself in the same way, was what he exceedingly doubted; but he commended that right hon. gentleman for his conduct upon that occasion. Having said this, he must now observe, that he looked farther than this impeachment, and felt some apprehension, not only for the character of that House, but also for the opinion the world might be led to entertain of the constitution itself, if something like justice did not appear to be impartially administered in this country upon the subject of libels. This was an eventful year-a great many libels, some upon the constitution, some only supposed to be so, and some upon other points, had been brought forward, and their authors, printers, and publishers had been sentenced with a severity, with a degree of rigour, of inhumanity, that no danger that had threatened us could justify, no bad or false representation deserved, no calamity to be averted even called for. Now, if it should go abroad that there was in fact a principle which guided that House, such as had in his hearing often been, to his mind, foolishly and unconstitutionally asserted, that the House of Commons were ready to resent an insult from below, as they improperly termed it, by which they meant the people, and that they were ready to overlook an insult from above, by which was meant the other branches of the legislature-if, he said, such an impression was once felt, the result would be a conviction, that the House, in all its attachment to its privileges, proceeded to exercise them only against the people; and that with regard to the other branches of the legislature, it observed a servile complaisance. He had often had occasion to make these observations upon several contests with the crown; and he could not help thinking that they ought now to be renewed, and that the people should have as little reason as possible to feel the truth and force of them. Should the case be otherwise, he should tremble

for the fate of the constitution itself. He left the House to judge whether these observations applied at all at this time, when there was such a cry for supporting the constitution. The House would remember with what readiness some of the people were prosecuted for libels, and ask themselves whether the words here spoken were not of that nature, and that the only difference was, that in this case the insult came from a member of the House of Peers? With respect to the silence with which this matter had been treated by the right hon gentleman, he must say he approved of it; but then that silence was of no avail, for who could dissemble from himself, that by the medium of newspapers it was become a public thing, that the managers had been grossly insulted by the archbishop of York; not the managers merely, nor the House of Commons, but also the people of England, had been insulted? If the House were desirous to have it understood that the managers were not to speak on the trial of Mr. Hastings, but in such and such terms, and that if they spoke freely, the House would not support them when they were thus treated, he owned he thought they were hardly treated. When the House chose him as one of the managers, he was no stranger to them: they knew his way of thinking; they knew his manspeaking; if they expected him not to speak with warmth and with as much energy as he was able, that he was not to describe vice in the most odious colours, and that with an express view of exciting all the resentment and indignation of mankind against the guilty, they would be disappointed while he continued to be a manager: he therefore had no idea of being compelled to conform with the fastidious taste of any peer, who might think this or that expression ungentlemanly: he must judge for himself, and employ the words which appeared to him to suit the subject on which he was speaking, and if the House disapproved of him, they could remove or censure him. The question now remaining was, whether the House should, under all the circumstances, proceed to do themselves justice? If it could be proved that that was at this time impracticable, he should consent to let the business end here; and upon that subject, he owned, he did not feel himself entirely convinced by any thing that had been said; the inclination of his mind was, that they might very

well proceed against the printer, and also against the right reverend prelate; and as to the mode of proceeding in general, he confessed that when the privileges of that House were invaded, he thought that the House alone were competent to decide the question: he was sure they would never be safe, or of permanent existence, if any other mode of procedure was adopted. With respect to the printer of the paper in question, the punishment of him was not his object in this business, nor severity to the right reverend prelate, whose character in many respects was highly honourable, whose venerable age entitled him to respect, and whose late domestic affliction made him an object of condolence. It was not the feeling of a personal resentment against him that oc. casioned these observations: it was a consideration paramount to all others for a member of that House-a regard for the honour of that House, and for the wellbeing and continuance of the best principles of the constitution. Were these words applicable to him personally, he should have known how to forgive them long ago, if asked to do so. But he must have it understood, that if any person spoke disrespectfully of the managers upon such a trial, he spoke disrespectfully of the people of England, and the House of Commons were obliged to stop such language, and, if, they think fit, to censure the author of it. He believed that no judge, in any of the inferior courts of this kingdom, would have suffered such words from one party to another, and the Lords ought to have censured the noble prelate after he uttered the expression. If the House saw any difficulty in proceeding, they might suffer the matter to rest as it stood: he had given his opinion

he had done his duty-the subject he now left for the judgment of the House.

The Master of the Rolls thought it was impossible that any proceeding, so far as regarded the right reverend prelate, could now be carried on in any regular or parliamentary form. In this view, and as he understood that it was not intended to press any motion against the printer, he would vote for the adjournment; though had any separate motion against the printer, been insisted on, he must have given it his support. If the adjournment took place, the matter would be forgotten.

Mr. Francis observed, that as all the proceedings in the trial were taken down in short-hand, the speech of the right rev.

prelate would be handed down to posterity.

The Master of the Rolls conceived this speech to form no part of the proceedings, and did not therefore see how it could go down to posterity as forming any part of these proceedings.

Mr. Sergeant Watson thought the House would act with little regard to its own dignity if it took any step in a matter of this kind, where there was any doubt as to the success.

Mr. Sheridan said, that nothing could lead him to agree to any compromise upon the subject, except the argument of feeling; but he trusted the motion of adjournment would be withdrawn ; for otherwise how would the matter appear upon the journals? His hon. friend had made a motion, that the passages alluded to were a scandalous libel upon the House; and if this motion was got rid of by an adjournment, they would in fact, stand branded by their own journals. If the first motion of his hon. friend should be agreed to, it might be understood that no farther proceedings were to be founded on it.

Mr. Whitbread said, he considered the matter as an insult offered by the House of Lords to that House. If he had had the support of the right hon. gentleman opposite, he would certainly have followed up the matter to the full extent; he had no doubt he should have been able to prove that the words were spoken, and by whom; and he saw no difficulty in the way of adopting such measures as might vindicate the honour and dignity of the House of Commons. He could not agree to withdraw his motion.

Mr. Dundas said, that every thing he had heard had confirmed him the more in his opinion as to the impropriety of proceeding farther in the business; but he would have no objection to withdraw his motion, "that the House do now adjourn," in order to move," that the debate be adjourned for a fortnight."

The Speaker said, that no amendment could be made to the question of adjourn ment, which must be first disposed of.

The question being put, that the House do now adjourn, the House divided. Tellers.

[blocks in formation]

So it was resolved in the affirmative.

Debate on Mr. Fox's Motion for the Reestablishment of Peace with France.] June 17. Mr. Fox rose to call the attention of the House to the motion respecting the war with France of which he had given notice. He said he should not have presumed to offer his sentiments upon the subject, if circumstances had not required of him that he should do so. He arose, therefore, to state the reasons which induced him to think it was the duty of that House to take such steps as might testify a change of opinion with regard to the continuation of the war, as applied to their former votes upon that subject. He hoped no person would be so uncandid as to suppose that if upon that day he waived the consideration of those points which he had urged upon former occa sions, as to the justice and policy of the war, that therefore it was to be taken for a proof that he had changed his opinion upon the measures which brought about this unhappy war. Such a conclusion would be unjust, and he trusted no gentleman would draw it. He trusted the House would feel that if he waived all these topics, it was because he did not consider them as necessary to the illustration of the arguments he had to submit on the present occasion. He should, therefore, for the sake of argument and for the sake of argument only; grant that the present war was a just, prudent, and necessary war, a war entered into for the interest of this country, and for the general safety of Europe. This was the broadest way in which he could lay a foundation for argument; and upon principles so laid down, he should state why he thought it necessary at the present time, and under the present circumstances, for that House to interfere and to give its opinion to the throne, in such an address as he should have the honour of moving. If there were any who thought that this might have a bad effect upon the public mind, all he could say was, that on his part it would not be intentional, as he was of a different opinion.

He had always understood that the grounds of the present war on the part of Great Britain were principally these: first, the particular alliance we had with the Dutch, attacked as they were by the French: secondly, not only this alliance, which in point of good faith called upon us to act from a regard to our own honour, [3 S]

but also on account of the interest we ourselves had in the issue. There was another ground stated, and that might be divided into parts, as, indeed, on former occasions it had been; he meant that which was stated upon the general footing of the aggrandizement of France, and the effect and operation of the spirit of their councils. These were the grounds upon which we undertook the present war. His object was now to show, that upon none of these grounds could the war be continued. He knew he might, and perhaps he should be told, that we had been at considerable expense in this war already, and that we had met with considerable success in the prosecution of it hitherto; therefore gentlemen inclined to insist upon these points, would urge, that under such circumstances it was fair for us to say, that we were entitled to indemnity for the expenses we had sustained, and security against future danger, or that if we had not these, the war should be followed up with vigour. That principle, as far as it regarded the situation of our allies, he did by no means deny; but the continuance of the present war for indemnity to ourselves and indemnity only, after the real object of the war was gained, could be maintained only upon prudential considerations. Now, taking it as a matter of prudence, he should wish to ask, what could we promise to ourselves from the continuance of the present war? What was it that we proposed to gain? These were all the grounds he should have to submit to the House.

In the first place, therefore, he should apprehend from these premises, that what ever sentiments of indignation the people of this country might feel with regard to some of the proceedings on the part of France (pretty generally the indignation was felt, and by none more than by himself), yet he believed it was not in the contemplation of the people of this country, at the commencement of the war, to insist on giving France its old absolute monarchy, or, indeed, to insist on giving it any form of government whatever, or to interfere with any form of government that might be found in that country. He thought he was stating nothing more than the general wish of the people of this country, and what they felt at the commencement of the war, that the object of it was not that of giving, or insisting on, any form of government to France. He stated this point negatively, because it

would tend to make the positive part which he should afterwards submit the more intelligible. We were not to revenge the death of the king of France, at least we were not to go to war for that purpose. Although he felt as much as any person in this country upon that melancholy occasion, and he believed, that in this country at least, it was an event unanimously lamented; yet it was not for this that we went to war. How far the indignation of the people had been roused upon that topic, it was unnecessary for him to repeat; it was sufficient in the present instance for his purpose to say, it was not the ground of our going to war, either insisted on by the most sanguine advocates for the measure, or by the still higher authority of the communication from the throne.

The object of the war avowedly was, to preserve Holland as our ally, and to prevent the aggrandizement of France, which was said to be formidable on account of the sentiments which appeared to actuate their councils. There was, indeed, another ground, which was, that the French had declared war against us. That being admitted to its full extent, would go only to the establishment of one principlethat of making the war a defensive war; by a defensive war he did not mean to describe the mode of carrying it on, for it must be carried on, as all mankind knew, by force of arms; but it was on that account merely a defensive war in principle, which ceased with the occasion that gave it birth. And if he were asked, when was the time he would put an end to such a war? He would answer, when we could make our enemies desist from carrying on their operations against us; subject to the consideration of an indemnity, if indemnity could be obtained; always keeping in view, that indemnity was also a point to be governed by considerations of prudence and discretion. If, therefore, we had no ground for suspecting that France had any farther means of acting hostilely against us, or any of our allies, we could not justify to ourselves the continuance of the war solely upon the ground that France had declared war against us. When we had put an end to the aggression, then was the time to put an end to the war so commenced. With respect to Holland, our ally, he must observe, that the question, whether Holland was now safe from any attack from France, was easily answered; and he believed that every man in that House, and every man

« ПретходнаНастави »