Volume I Part 3 (2/2)
To provide for the exigencies of state, twelve millions of money, in addition to the former fifteen millions, were required this year; and thus were the sorrows of a suffering people increased, and they themselves forced to forge their own chains of oppression!
Numerous were the prosecutions against the press this year; among the rest, Mr. Parker, printer of ”The General Advertiser,” was brought before the ”House of Hereditaries,” for publis.h.i.+ng a libel on one of its _n.o.ble_ members. That there were a _few_ intelligent and liberal-minded men in the House of Lords at this time, we do not wish to deny. The memorable speech of Lord Abingdon proved his lords.h.i.+p to be one of these, and, as this speech so admirably distinguishes _PRIVILEGE_ from _TYRANNY_, we hope to be excused for introducing it in our pages. We give it in his lords.h.i.+p's own words:
”MY LORDS,--Although there is no n.o.ble lord more zealously attached to the privileges of this House than I am, yet when I see those privileges interfering with, and destructive of, the rights of the people, there is no one among the people more ready to oppose those privileges than myself. And, my lords, my reason is this: that the privileges of neither house of parliament were ever const.i.tutionally given to either to combat with the rights of the people. They were given, my lords, that each branch of the legislature might defend itself against the encroachments of the other, and to preserve that balance entire, which is essential to the preservation of all.
”This was the designation, this is the use of privilege; and in this unquestionable shape let us apply it. Let us apply it against the encroachments of the crown, and not suffer any lord (if any such there be) who, having clambered up into the house upon the ladder of prerogative, might wish to yield up our privileges to that prerogative. Let us make use of our privileges against the other house of parliament, whenever occasion shall make it necessary, but not against the people.
This is the distinction and this the meaning of privilege. The people are under the law, and we are the legislators. If they offend, let them be punished according to law, where we have our remedy. If we are injured in our reputations, the law has provided us with a special remedy. We are ent.i.tled to the action of _scandalum magnatum_,--a privilege peculiar to ourselves. For these reasons, then, my lords, when the n.o.ble earl made his motion for the printer to be brought before this House, and when the end of that motion was answered by the author of the paper complained of giving up his name, I was in great hopes that the motion would have been withdrawn. I am sorry it was not; and yet, when I say this, I do not mean to wish that an inquiry into the merits of that paper should not be made. As it stands at present, the n.o.ble lord accused therein is the disgrace of this House, and the scandal of government. I therefore trust, for his own honor, for the honor of this House, that that n.o.ble lord will not object to, but will _himself_ insist upon, the most rigid inquiry into his conduct.
”But, my lords, to call for a printer, in the case of a libel, when he gives up his author (although a modern procedure) _is not founded in law_; for in the statute of Westminster, the 1st, chapter 34, it is said, 'None shall report any false and slanderous news or tales of _great men_, whereby any discord may arise betwixt the king and his people, on pain of imprisonment, _until they bring forth the author_.' The statutes of the 2d of Richard the Second, chapter 5, and the 14th of the same reign, are to the same effect. It is there enacted, that 'No person shall devise, or tell any _false_ news or lies of any lord, prelate, officer of the government, judge, &c., by which any slander shall happen to their persons, or mischief come to the kingdom, upon pain of being imprisoned; and where any one hath told false news or lies, and cannot produce the author, he shall suffer imprisonment, and be punished by the king's counsel.' Here, then, my lords, two things are clearly pointed out, to wit, the person to be punished, and what the mode of punishment is. The person to be punished is the author, when produced; the mode of punishment is by the king's counsel; so that, in the present case, the printer having given up the author, he is discharged from punishment: and if the privilege of punishment had been in this House, the right is barred by these statutes; for how is the punishment to be had? Not by this House, but by the king's counsel. And, my lords, it cannot be otherwise; for, if it were, the freedom of the press were at an end; and for this purpose was this modern doctrine, to answer modern views, invented,--_a doctrine which I should ever stand up in opposition to, if even the right of its exercise were in us_.
But the right is not in us: it is a jurisdiction too summary for the freedom of our const.i.tution, and incompatible with liberty. It takes away the trial by jury; which king, lords, and commons, _have not a right to do_. It is to make us accusers, judges, jury, and executioners too, if we please. It is to give us an executive power, to which, in our legislative capacities, we are not ent.i.tled. It is to give us a power, which even the executive power itself has not, which the prerogative of the crown dare not a.s.sume, which the king himself cannot exercise. My lords, _the king cannot touch the hair of any man's head in this country, though he be guilty of high treason, but by means of the law. It is the law that creates the offence; it is a jury that must determine the guilt; it is the law that affixes the punishment; and all other modes of proceeding are_ ILLEGAL. Why then, my lords, are we to a.s.sume to ourselves an executive power, with which even the executive power itself is not entrusted? I am aware, my lords, it will be said that this House, in its capacity of a court of justice, has a right to call for evidence at its bar, and to punish the witness who shall not attend. I admit it, my lords; and I admit it not only as a right belonging to this House, but as a right essential to every court of justice; for, without this right, justice could not be administered. But, my lords, was this House sitting as a court of justice (for we must distinguish between our judicial and our legislative capacities) when Mr. Parker was ordered to be taken into custody, and brought before this House? If so, at whose suit was Mr. Parker to be examined? Where are the records? Where are the papers of appeal? Who is the plaintiff, and who the defendant? There is nothing like it before your lords.h.i.+ps; for if there had, and Mr. Parker, in such case, had disobeyed the order of this House, he was not only punishable for his contumacy and contempt, but every magistrate in the kingdom was bound to a.s.sist your lords.h.i.+ps in having him forthcoming at your lords.h.i.+p's bar. _Whereas, as it is, every magistrate in the kingdom is bound, by the law of the land, to release Mr. Parker, if he be taken into custody by the present order of this House._ Nothing can be more true, than that in our judicial capacity, we have a right to call for evidence at our bar, and to punish the witness if he does not appear. The whole body of the law supports us in this right. But, under the pretext of privilege, to bring a man by force to the bar, when we _have our remedy at law; to accuse, condemn, and punish that man, at the mere arbitrary will and pleasure of this House, not sitting as a court of justice, is tyranny in the abstract. It is against law; it is subversive of the const.i.tution; it is incompetent to this House_; and, therefore, my lords, thinking as I do, that this House has no right forcibly to bring any man to its bar, but in the discharge of its proper functions, as a court of judicature, I shall now move your lords.h.i.+ps, 'that the body of W. Parker, printer of the General Advertiser, be released from the custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, and that the order for the said Parker, being brought to the bar of this House be now discharged.'
”Before I sit down, I will just observe to your lords.h.i.+ps, that I know that precedents may be adduced in contradiction to the doctrine I have laid down. But, my lords, _precedents cannot make that legal and const.i.tutional which is, in itself, illegal and unconst.i.tutional_. IF THE PRECEDENTS OF THIS REIGN ARE TO BE RECEIVED AS PRECEDENTS IN THE NEXT, THE LORD HAVE MERCY ON THOSE WHO ARE TO COME AFTER US!!!
”There is one observation more I would make, and it is this: _I would wish n.o.ble lords to consider, how much it lessens the dignity of this House, to agitate privileges which you have not power to enforce. It hurts the const.i.tution of parliament, and, instead of being respected, makes us contemptible. That privilege which you cannot exercise, and of right too, disdain to keep._”
If the country had been blessed with a majority of such patriots as Lord Abingdon, what misery had been prevented! what lives had been saved!
Early in the year
1780,
meetings of the populace took place in various parts of the kingdom, and ministers were boldly accused of having prodigally and wastefully spent the public money; while pet.i.tions were presented, praying ”for a correction of abuses in the public expenditure.” Riots in many parts of England were the consequences of unjustly continuing wars and taxation, and several hundred people were killed and wounded by the military; while many others forfeited their lives on the scaffold for daring to raise their arms against tyranny. Lord George Gordon was also committed to the Tower on a charge of high treason; but no jury of his countrymen could be found to consider his undaunted attempt to _redress the people's grievances as treasonable_, and he was, consequently, _honorably acquitted_! The influence of her majesty, however, kept a minister in office, though contrary to the sense of the wisest and best part of the community; and a ruinous war was still permitted to drain the blood and money of the many.
War might probably be considered by those in power a _legal trade_; but was it not continued for the untenable purpose of avarice? We think it was. There did not appear to be any rational hope for reform or retrenchment, while men versed in corruption were so enriched, and had an almost unlimited sway over the councils of the reigning authority.
Popular commotion was dreaded; yet the ministers could not be prevailed upon to dispel the cause of anxiety by conciliatory measures,--by a timely redress of grievances, by concession of rights, and by reformation of abuses. If they had done so, they would have given satisfactory evidence that government had no other object in view than faithfully to discharge their duty, by adopting such plans as would really benefit mankind, and furnish means to secure the comfort and happiness of all men.
In the mean time, much distress was imposed upon the unfortunate king, by the increasing and uncontroulable prodigality of some of his children, especially of GEORGE. The queen would not hear of any thing to his discredit, and thus what little of family enjoyment remained was ultimately destroyed.
The unrestrained predilection of this youthful prince now became habitual pursuits, and excesses of the most detestable description were not unknown to him. Within the circle of his less nominally ill.u.s.trious acquaintance, every father dreaded the seduction of his child, if she possessed any personal charms, while the mother feared to lose sight of her daughter, even for a moment. It is not in our power to give an adequate idea of the number of those families whose happiness he ruined; but we well, too well, know the number was infamously great. The country gave him credit for being liberal in political principles, and generously disposed for reform. But little of his _real_ character was then known; his faults, indeed, were named as virtues, and his vices considered as _gentlemanly exploits_, so that his dissembled appearance was received, by those unacquainted with him, as the sure and incontestable mark of a great and n.o.ble soul. But, before our pages are concluded, we fear we must, in duty, prove him a widely-different character! It is true, his acquaintance with political characters was chiefly amongst ”the Whigs;” it may also be added that those ”Whigs,”
so particularly intimate with this prince, did not gain much by their connexion with him, but finally became as supine and venal as himself.
They determined that, as the heir-apparent, he should not be allowed to suffer any deterioration of greatness, and the principles and practices of so mighty an individual were considered by them to const.i.tute a sufficient patent for continual imitation.
At this period, Mr. Dunning moved his famous resolution to the House, with unbending firmness and uncompromising fidelity. He said, ”The influence of the crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” It was carried by a majority of 233 against 215; but a second resolution, which was to give effect to the first, was lost by a majority of fifty-one votes.
In the year
1781,
William Pitt, the second son of the late Lord Chatham, delivered his first speech in the Commons, in favour of the bill introduced by Mr.
Burke, on the subject of reform.
Lord North brought forward the budget on the 7th of March, containing the various items needful for the service of the year. The amount so calculated was _twenty-one millions of money_!--twelve of which were to be raised by loans, the terms being very high. From this bold imposition upon the public purse and credit, the ministry were much lowered in public opinion.
<script>