ページの画像
PDF
ePub

it was viewed as a most important method of preserving the national tranquillity.

Mr. Tierney rose, and was proceeding to move the adjournment of the second reading till Monday, when he was called to order by

Mr. Pitt, who submitted to the speaker, whether a member who had twice before given his sentiments on the question was again entitled to enter on the discussion.

The speaker, on this suggestion, wished that the house would resolve specifically on this matter, as he was rather at a loss how to direct his conduct. He doubted the propriety of allowing members to pretend making an amendment only to enter on a new line of argument. He was anxious that the house should come to such a determination as might guide him many circumstances which might occur in the course of business.

in

Mr. Baker spoke on the point of order, contending, that no member ought to speak more than once on the same subject, unless by special indulgence.

General Walpole then rose to move, that, instead of now, the word Monday be inserted in the motion, to prevent further discussion.

Mr. Tierney then rose, to explain the reasons for supporting his honourable friend's motion to delay the second reading of the bill. He wished for stronger evidence of the necessity of the measure. He recollected no single instance in the proceedings of parliament, where, on the general report of a secret committee, a measare was adopted so materially affecting the people's privileges. By delaying the second reading of

the bill till Monday, he hoped that the committee would produce such evidence as would fully justify the adoption of the present violent measure. If there were no further evidence of its necessity than had been brought, he saw no advantage that could result from the first report. To adopt the measure, and afterwards expect the statement of its necessity, would be to reverse the order of all legislative proceedings, and to act on blind credit. He then went to refute Mr. Wilberforce's arguments concerning the mode of appointing the committee, and the pretended popularity of the act in Yorkshire; and concluded by asserting, that the honourable member was for supporting the act, not for its popularity, but because, since it had expired, meetings had been holden where his votes and the instructions of his constituents appeared strangely contrary.

Mr. Wilberforce explained.

Mr. Johnston thought that issuing treasury lists in appointing ballots was wrong and unconstitutional, and that ministers were thereby wanting to their own interest; for, though he did not assert that the gentlemen on the opposition side were more respectable than on the other, yet he affirmed that the report would have had more weight, and become more publicly satisfactory, if the committee had been formed of members from both sides of the house.

The solicitor-general defended the mode of appointing the committee, saying that, if gentlemen on the opposite side had been members of it, the evidence might not have satisfied them, and thus the nation would be deprived of the proposed advantage, and that the

necessary

-necessary secrecy might have been also violated.

Mr. Sheridan replied, that he knew not what was meant by the evidence now before the committee being considered unsatisfactory, because the former evidences had been inadequate to ground the resolutions, or why they should be dissatisfied with present evidence, because they were not convinced by the former. On producing it, the question was, whether it was the same as before, or whether new proofs of conspiracy existed? He then vindicated the members on his side from the charge of intending any violation of secrecy, which were direct and inexcusable treason to the country's most important interests. He pointed out the advantages that might have been obtained by a fair appointment of the committee, arguing, that, in stead of the evidence appearing incomplete, probably in this case a different report would have been presented. They might have referred to the statements of former committees, now proved unfounded; and, while they attended to the fabrications of the late ministers, might have considered at least those persons from whom they had arisen.

Álluding to what Mr. Wilberforce had said, he added, he was surprised that a practice which, if existing formerly, had never been admitted, should be openly avowed by a first lord of the treasury, and defended by the representative of a populous and weighty county. If this plan were adopted, he hoped it would be reduced to a regular system; and no one was more fit to preside over it than the honourable gentleman: he might be appointed political ballot-master-general; and the members,

without even the form of indepen dence, might have their lists regu larly transmitted from the treasury.

He mentioned what had been said of his competency as a member of a committee on finance, while considered inadmissible on a committee like the present. The honourable gentleman seemed to think, that, though qualified to determine on facts and calculations, yet he had not enough of fancy, fiction, or knowledge in forging plots, to qualify himself for this committee.

Νο

The solicitor-general explained. The chancellor of the exchequer said, that the objections to balloting had been often urged and refuted. This system left the will most perfectly free; for, if names were recommended to their choice, it did not fetter their judgment. complaint was ever heard against the India directors, who had always presented to the electors a list of those thought eligible to fill the vacated places, because such a measure was never thought to restrain the will of the electors. With respect to precedent, he saw nothing in the established practice of the house against the present proceeding. The house was competent to proceed on any question whatever, without any previous committee of inquiry, as on the habeascorpus suspension; and this was perfectly justifiable when an universal conviction of the necessity of the measure prevailed; though it certainly was more regular to lay the evidence before the house on which the report was founded: and this was first intended; but the evidence was so implicated, and the facts so numerous, that it was nearly impossible to collect and arrange them within the time necessary for enacting the measure. He claimed credit for the unani

mous

[ocr errors]

mous declaration of the committee, that the bill was highly necessary; and he was persuaded that there was nothing in the manner of introducing it contrary to the rules and usages of the house.

Mr. Tierney maintained that there was no case on the records of parliament where such encroachment on the people's privileges was ever adopted on the report of a secret committee.

Lord Cole denied that the committee was formed from a party. He had the honour to belong to it, and disclaimed belonging to any party but such as would defend their king and country; and said, that none other than such should be suffered to sit in it.

Mr. Nichols supported the amendment, saying, that if ministers declined producing their evidence of the bill's necessity, the natural inference through the country would be, that the evidence - could not sustain their statements.

The amendment was rejected without a division; and the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed the next day.

Lord Loughborough, on Monday, April 27, presented to the house of lords the report of the secret com-mittee, to whom the sealed bags of treasonable papers from the other house were referred; which being read, and containing strong proofs of seditious and treasonable proceedings, in the institution of committees for general purposes, conductors, superintendants, &c.,

The earl of Suffolk desired that the names of the lords chosen by ballot on the secret committee be read. Which being done,

The duke of Bedford said, that noble lords were not competent to debate a bill immediately of such great importance, without an op

portunity of maturely considering the facts in the report just then laid on the table.

Lord Loughborough perfectly agreed with the noble duke, that deliberation on the subject would be more satisfactory to the house; but assured him, that from the information a day ought not to be lost in passing the bill; and he had just then received intelligence, that an open meeting of the disaffected had lately been held, for taking measures before the bill could pass, to effect treasonable purposes; and that papers bidding defiance to government, and threatening its overturn, were pasted up against trees on the common where the meeting was. He did not however wish any stage of the bill to pass at present, only that they might go into the committee that evening, and debate it on the third reading the next day.

[ocr errors]

Earl Moira said, that all the credit ought to be given to the exigency of the occasion, which was consistent with their duty as peers of parliament; and therefore he should not resist the bill's going into a committee.

The earl of Suffolk said, the reason he had moved for the reading of the committee's names was, that he did not really know what they were. He complained that they were all lords of the same sentiments, and was surprised that none had been selected from his side of the house.

The duke of Bedford rose, saying, that they would have two bills, in fact, to debate ;--the former and the present seditious meeting bill. He could not agree to such violent measures without full proof of extreme necessity: the evidence of the report was not strong enough to satisfy him; and, if he

had

had been present, he would not have consented to its passing a single stage. The noble and learn ed lord had stated two points: one, that the committee had stronger information than the report stated. If so, they were censurable for not having made it part of their report. The other was, that he had received news that day of an open meeting being held, where treasonable declarations were posted up. Such a fact required the fullest proof. He said, he should reserve himself to speak to the merits of the bill on the third reading; but he should now certainly negative its going into the

committec.

Lord Hobart explained, that the committee was not stated to have stronger proof than that in the report; but from the general tendency of the information in the sealed bags it was plain that not an hour should be lost in passing the bill.

The duke of Bedford said a few words in explanation; and the bill, with the duke's not-content alone, passed the committee without amendment, and was ordered to be read a third time the next day.

On Tuesday, April 28, the bill was read a third time; and on the question being put "that the bill do pass,"

The duke of Bedford rose, and reminded the house that he had warned their lordships the day be-fore against proceeding with the bill until an opportunity of reading the report of the committee should be given. Both this and the original report when the bill was first passed ought to be read: he had done so, and had no scruple to say, that, from the insufficient evidence there, he was convinced that the bill ought to be instantly

.

rejected. Before the house could he warranted to pass a bill violating the compact between the king and the people, they were bound to demand clear proof of the necessity which called for it. In proportion as the bill trenched on the people's rights, it weakened their allegiance to the crown; for the one depended on the other. The nature and extent of the evidence before the committee ought. to be known. Noble lords should not forget, that it was not only composed of peers who were either ministers, or their supporters, but the witnesses examined were chosen by ministers, and therefore to be suspected. He had no confidence in ministers, whom he saw pursuing the same system as their predecessors; and those had grossly abused the confidence reposed in them. As to the bill itself, he thought so violent an innovation on the rights of the subject as unnecessary as dangerous and unconstitutional. The common law was fully adequate to avert all the mischief apprehended, and in a much safer way. By the bill of rights, the people might assemble to petition against grievances whenever they thought proper; to prevent this was a direct violation of the bill of rights; nor could he think that there was any ground sufficient to induce the house to so extraordinary a step. His grace therefore gave the bill his negative.

The earl of Westmoreland said, that it must alarm every man to attempt the support of a bill roundly asserted to be a breach of the compact between the king and people at the revolution. The reverence with which all was treated by the house that passed at that important period of our history

would

would naturally restrain any step leading to so fatal a consequence; and those who made such an assertion should state the words of the bill of rights to support them. He said, if such a measure as this had been deemed an invasion of the people's rights, the 13th of Charles II. would not have been on the statute book. When the bill pass ed three years ago, many petitions were presented against it now it had been tried, and its effects witnessed, not a single petition was on the table. The consequences were so salutary, that he rather expected ministers to be censured for not having sooner revived it. The origin of the present bill was this-his majesty had ordered the chancellor of the exchequer to notify to the other house that ample proof had reached him and his council of seditious and treasonable meetings; and that a system was organising, big with the utmost danger to the state. Two large bags full of papers, proving the existence and increase of the conspiracy, were presented to the house of commons. The committee of the house reported on their contents: the report was laid before their lordships, who appointed a committee of their own, and

made two reports, proving the absolute necessity of passing the bill. Rebellious organisation had begun in Ireland, had been surmounted and quieted by loyalty and energy in the government, and by bills of this nature; but, from the evidence, it was plain that the Irish system had been improved in the present instance. Committees had been formed, secret signs of information between the members agreed on, the means of procuring arms provided, subscriptions opened, conductors appointed, superintendants and messengers selected, and plans of assassination and murder of those at the head of government reduced to a systematic regularity. There was, therefore, every reason for endeavouring to avert the fatal consequences which had followed in a neighbouring nation. He said he should vote for the bill, because it was recommended by the crown, by the king's ministers, by the committees of both houses, and (what was in.. finitely more weighty) by the joy shown by the seditious when the last bill ceased to exist, and the alarm they felt on hearing of its intended revival, and their efforts to anticipate it by their treasonable machinations.-The bill passed.

CHAP. VI.

Continuance of Martial Law in Ireland-Debates on that Subject in the House of Commons—in the House of Lords. Further Debates respecting the Continuance of that Bill-in the House of Commons in the House of Lords.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
« 前へ次へ »