Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

his cenfure or approbation of it, toge. ther with the reasons that influence his opinion. This I fhall endeavour to do with fairness, truth, and fincerity; and by endeavouring to ftate facts and tranfactions as they really are, fhall undertake the only effectual defence of the Majority.

The defender of the Minority fets out with attacking the credit of the writer in the Gazetteer, for having mifftated the motion made in the House of Commons, and by way of proof tells us, that he has been at the pains of tranfcribing the motion from the votes. But what fhall we fay if we find upon examination, that the motion, as he has given it, is also mis-stated, and was by the House adjudged to be fo little formed upon the fingle cafe before them, that they found it neceffary (by common confent) to alter and amend it? The author has transcribed the motion as it was made upon the 14th of February; he will give me leave to transcribe it as it flood amended on the 17th. "That a General Warrant for apprehending and seizing the authors, printers and publishers of a feditious and treasonable libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law; although fuch warrant hath been iffued according to the ufage of office, and hath been frequently produced to, and fo far as appears to this House, the validity thereof hath never been debated in the court of King'sBench, but the parties thereupon have been frequently bailed by the faid court."

Thus ftood the question, as amended by the confent of those who moved it; the public then will judge how fairly it has been reprefented by the defender of the Minority.

Had the motion been general, as ftated by the Gazetteer, "Whether a General Warrant from a fecretary of ftate be warrantable by law or not? The Defender is of opinion, that it would have been fuch, as an honeft man might very fairly and confiftently have voted against, tho' he had voted for the motion limited only to the cafe of feditious libels." I moft readily agree with

him, that the two propofitions are highly different, that the one takes away from the executive power, an authority which may frequently be found effential to the very being of the ftate; the other is merely trifling with the public, by profeffing to give them a fecurity to their liberties, when in fact no fuch fe curity was intended.

It should feem as if feditious libels were confidered by the gentlemen of the Minority as a fort of harmless sport, a mere exercise of wit and talents, and an innocent exertion of the liberty of the prefs. Perhaps they may ftile this very libel, upon which their complaint is founded, an irreverent paper; that the unhappy man has gone rather into a blameable excefs; that they do not pretend to justify it.—Parliament, how ever, has given it another stile: and if it had been adjudged to have excited, instead of tending to excite, would have been no lefs a crime against the state than that of high-treason, without any palliation whatsoever.

Such, however, is the manner in which thefe true and temperate friends tò li berty disclaim the fentiments of that abominable paper: fuch their concern for the peace of government and the public fecurity.

Let us next examine, whether they were more truly zealous in fecuring the liberties of the individual, and "defending the undoubted and undifputed birthright of the fubject." The motion, take it as it was moved by Sir W. M- h, and feconded by Sir G. Slle, on the 14th, or as it stood amended on the adjourned debate on the 17th, contains what? A refolution of one house, That a General Warrant for feizing Authors, Printers and Publish ers of a feditious (and treasonable) libel, together with their papers, is not warranted by law. This refolution then would have been the exact and precife remedy to the evil complained of; which, without Itirring captiously fo delicate a queftion of government, as that which they are with fo little candour charged with, would have been fufficient to have

quieted

quieted the fears that had been so in duftriously infufed into the minds of man upon this illegal and arbitrary pro ceeding. Let us tee then what real fecurity this refolution would have given; fuppofe, as a poffible cafe, that a future fecretary of state should have granted a particular warrant, defcribing the perfon, for the feizing the papers, and a general warrant for apprehending the authors, printers, and publishers; would either of thefe warrants fall under this refolution; if the words treafonable practices were inferted, might not a General Warrant pafs uncenfured, including both the perfons and papers. If thefe evafions then could fruitrate that resolution, the refolution was offering a fecurity to liberty, which in effect was no fecurity at all.

The next thing the Defender lays before the public, is the proceeding of the court of Common Pleas, which he complains has been as grossly nifrepresent ed in the Gazetteer, as the motion had been mifftated. He afferts, with a very peremptory decifion," that the queftion of the legality of the warrants is not now fub judice, nor has been in a courfe of legal determination." To prove this affertion, he has given extracts in his notes out of the feveral bills of exceptions, and endeavours to prove from them," that the only queftion now in legal issue, or that can be brought before the court, is, whether a secretary of state be a juftice of peace, &c. “Now in the several caufes brought before the Court, it is neceffary to observe there are two different complaints.

The one is for having acted under an illegal warrant, as in the action by Wilkes against Wood, where the legality of the warrant is the fole thing in iffue; in barr of which action, Mr. Wood is advited by his council to plead that Lord Hallifax was not made a party, according to 7 Jac. I. and 24 G. II. This plea however is over-ruled; the court proceed to determine the caufe, and actually give damages to the plaintiff; by which the warrant ftands condemned. The bill of exceptions is onVOL. III.

ly in the nature of an appeal from this decifion.

The other ground of complaint, as in the action brought by William Huckel, against one of the meffengers, is twofold; for having acted under an illegal wairant, and for having miftaken the object of that warrant. In this latter inftance it is evident, that the pleading the legality of the warrants would he of no effect; nor the other plea, that Lord Hallifax had not been made a party, fince it was evident they had not acted in obedience to his warrant. It was therefore determined, hat upon the whole cafe, the feveral matters fo produced and proved were not sufficient to barr the faid William Huckel of his action. In this caufe therefore there were alfo damages given; to which a bill of exceptions was taken. The difference between these two cafes should be carefully distinguished ter cafe, the legality of the warrant was not properly in issue before the court: In the other cafe, the legality of the warrant was the only object of it! What elfe can the author conceive was in iffue before the court when damages were given, if the legality of the warrant was not before them?

In the lat

After what has appeared, I flatter myself the reader will think there was fome reafon to enlarge upon "the impropriety of deciding in parliament a queftion then depending in a court of judicature."

What then, fays the Defender, has parliament never proceeded to examine into abuses by a motion, &c. Have they forgot the cafe of Lord Chief Justice Keeling, &c. No: The Defender may be affured thofe cafes are not forgotten; 'tis remembered that two of them regard the fupreme judges of a court of judicature; one wantonly abufing his authority, and perverting the law to the purposes of vexation and oppreffion; the other pleading ufage indeed for a practice, which was dangerous to the fafety of the fubject, but which was by no means justified by the neceífities of the late both fo far from being in a course

LII

of

of trial, that they were amenable to no court or tribunal, but to the high court of parliament aflembled. The two other cafes, the one is a cafe of high trea fon in Lord Marlborough, fufpected of holding correspondence with rebels actually in arms; a case which the author does not himself wish to except from the power of General Warrants: the other is the cafe of Lord Danby, a member of the House of Commons, who at the request of his father was apprehended without any crime, merely from private family confiderations. How any, or all of thefe inftances, which, taken feparately, are nothing to the purpose, can, when bundled together, become appofite to the prefent queftion, I am at a lofs to imagine.

The defender of the Minority upon the ftrength of thefe precedents however, and upon his reprefentation of the proceedings in Court triumphs not a little; and imagining this to be the fort of his argument, boldly afferts, "that the whole defence of that day confifted in arguing upon the impropriety of deciding in Parliament a question then depending in a court of judicature." Had there indeed been no other argument against so hafty a refolution, that alone might have been fufficient. But the whole defence of that day did not turn upon that point alone. Some of the principal arguments which determined the Majority upon that queftion, were to the following effect. First, the little neceffity there appeared at that time of examining into a power, which could not be decided but with the utmoft gravity and deliberation, which had the fanction of uninterrupted ufage, - and which did not appear in the prefent inftance to have been abufed. 2. The in fufficiency and futility of the propofition, which might ferve to alarm the jealoufies, but could not fecure the liberties of the fubject; whilst a refolution upon the journals, confined to the cafe of feditious libels only, left the warrants, in all other cafes, ftill more confirmed and authorised by that tacit approbation, 3. That the cafe of fe

ditious and treasonable libels was fo far from deferving to be a particular exception, that there are few inftances that more ftrongly juttify the neceflity of the practice. 4. That if the Houfe of Commons fhould be prevailed upon to pass their cenfure upon fuch warrants, by their refolution, and if afterwards the Lords, when appealed to in their judicial capacity from the decifion of the courts below, fhould think fit to confirm the practice, and to declare the legality of them, one of thefe two things muft happen; either the courts of law must be divided and confounded in their opinions, or the dignity of the House of Commons must fuffer in the neglect and contempt of their refolution. 5. That if the House thought proper to take cognizance of general warrants at all, and to difcufs the legality of them, it imported them to go further, to prohe the evil to the bottom, to examine it with all the folemnity fo great a question demanded, to form the whole into a law, which should hence forward be an effectual fecurity to our freedom, and an unerring guide to all future miniiters in the exercife of a very dangeous difcretionary powder. That in order to this, it would be neceffary that it should be brought before the Houfe, in the form of a bill for regulating the conduct of the fecretaries of state in all cafes; that in this form it might be duly weighed; the parts of it, and poffible cafes, theroughly confidered; and that when it was perfected, it might be determined not by the hafty, and ineffectual refolution of one House, but by the folemn fanction of the legislature, and pafs into a law.

Thefe were among the principal arguments that were urged against the mo tion, and which occafioned the vote by which the confideration of it was postponed for four months.

With regard to the bill brought in by Sir John Philips, it did occafion fome furprife, that it was received by the gentlemen of the Minority with the ftrongest degree of prejudice and difguft. Their realons for it they beft

know;

[ocr errors]

know; certain it is, they did not then affign the reafon given by the defender. But it feems, they "could not regulate what they did not allow to exist." What wretched quibbling upon words! They could endeavour to regulate the conduct of ftate, by an ineffectual refolution of one House; but when it was offered them to regulate the practice effectually, they could not confent to regulate what they did not allow to exist!

The defender of the Minority hás had recourse to a method of gaining the public on his fide, which he will permit me to fay is neither fair nor judicious. He has fuppofed an inftance, which he had no caufe to fuppofe, of grievance and oppreffion; he has drawn a character in the most flattering colours, to engage the affection of his reader: he applies that character to a writing which, give me leave to fay, Tuits as little with it as falfehood and mifreprefentation do with candour and integrity; and he then fuppo es that which has never yet been called a feditious or treasonable libel, to be treated as a feditious or treasonable libel; he heightens his picture with every circumftance of allufion, of facks, and papers, and meffengers, and then fets himself to argue upon what upon the phantom of his own imagination. What is this but trying to alarm our paffions, when he tears he has not yet convinced our reafon. A fecretary of state, as any private subject may do, may vio late the laws of his country; but if he does, he does it at his peril; on the other hand, when the author of the Budget, be whom he will, chufes to amufe himself with writing treasonable and feditious libels against the flate, the ftate will take cognizance of him, I make no doubt, as of any other offender.

The public perhaps, expected to hear from the defender à regular and alarming fyftem laid open to them, by which an arbitrary administration had endeavoured to overthrow the bulwark of their liberties: that the Privileges of Parliament had been daringly violated; that fome dangerous Innovations

[ocr errors]

had been attempted to annihilate Magna Charta, the Habeas Corpus, or fome other pillar of the conftitution: in short, that fome innocent man had been oppreffed by arbitrary violence, tyranny, and perfecution. This indeed might justify the language that has been held, and the spirit which has bcen endeavoured to be infused into the nation.-What will they find as the object of fo much alarm and jealousy? An adminiftration vindicating the dignity of the Crown, the authority of Parliament, and the public peace. Not innovating, not proceeding with hafte or violence, but fubmitting their judgments to the practice of their predeceffors in office; exerting fuch powers only as had been established by repeated ufage, which had frequently appeared before Cours of Judicature, had never been questioned in them, but by the practice of thofe courts had been adknowledged and confirmed. Powers which the best friends to liberty had néver fcrupled to exercife, and which the moft violent affertors of regal authority had never dared to abufe: they will find the object of complaint fuch as even party is become ambitious of dif claiming; and the offence of fo public and fo heinous a nature, that parliament has paffed upon it unanimoufly the fevereft cenfure. Where then is the grie vance, where then the foundation of fo much clamour? Have the officers in the execution of these warrants undelignedly mistaken the objects of them? Will the parties aggrieved deny that they have had ample fatisfaction? Have they ignorantly exceeded the powers of the warrant in a figle circumftance? If they have, the law is open; no Minifter defires to fcreen, and the law knows how to punish and redrefs. What then does the whole charge amount to? It amounts at laft to this single propofition; that they did not fulfer themfelves to be the dupes of a party, in acquief ing in a refolution that they thought neither conducive to private liberty, or confiftent with public fecurity.

[ocr errors]

From

From the LONDON MAGAZINE.

Henry the Fourth of France, blessed with a mind nobly difpofed, full of virtuous thoughts, and tender inclinations towards his people, reconciled two par ties, which had filled his kingdom with

Conciliating Arguments for the Out's and confufion and civil war for almoft forty

W

In's. Hatever tends to inflame, and to divide, is dangerous. It is in vain to imagine that our religion, civil liberties, trade, colonies, and domi nion of the feas, can be fecured by the terror of our arms, unless we apply a remedy to cure our inteftine mifchiefs. Innumerable inftances convince, that a country is to be ruined by dividing among themselves, upon which no foreign force could make any impreffion. Extremities, mutual affronts, and perfonal injuries, beget fuch a hatred at laft, as is never to be reconciled: and muft either quite fubvert the state, or produce a total change of the conftitution.

Therefore it has been, and ever muft be acknowledged, a laudable attempt to moderate, to appeafe, to reconcile, when there appears a tendency towards irreconcileable factions or oppofitions; when parties run high; and when the public good feems to be in danger by private animofities.

years. In whom was realized the obfervation made of princes by Machiavel." It is an infallible rule, fays that grand mafter in politicks, that a prince who has no wifdom of his own, can ne ver be well advised; and that good counfels proceed rather from the wif dom of the prince, than the prince's wif dom from the goodness of his councils." And Dr. Davenant is pofitive, that this obfervation holds truer in England than perhaps in other countries.-For, "not one inftance can be given, that things have been well administered in the realm, when the fovereign was defective in those abilities of the mind, which are requite for empire."

The reafon whereof is obvious, from the nature of our government and its people. A free country, and a people jealous of their liberties, can never be fatisfied, if any one subject should engrofs the prince. A minister, without affociate in authority, has always been unfortunate. Wolfey, perhaps, the ableft man that ever had fuch a station, funk at laft under the weight of being a single minister.

But as many muft here participate, by way of council, in the derivative power, it requires the greater penetra tion and wisdom in the prince, to judge amidst these numbers. For though ali have the fame right intentions towards their country, and the fame zeal for the fervice of their royal mafter, there will be a variety of opinions; and it requires a good understanding to form the best judgment upon their different advice; and much more so, when councils fhall be fuggefted by ambition, intemperate zeal, and corrupt views, cloath. ed with artful profeffions of fidelity and flowing eloquence.

To reftore order in a state, where all has been in confufion; vigilance in the public, where their intereft has been, neglected, and fuffers: integrity and probity among thofe, who have been long accustomed to corruption; or to lead fuch into the plain ways of honefty and truth, who have fhewn their dexterity and abilities in the planning and enforcing of wrong and bad meatures; to fupprefs faction in a country, where most of the great men, for many years, have known no other road to honour and preferments; and to reconcile parties, when both perhaps think it their intereft to remain divided, is difficult, but not out of the reach of human wifdom; nor without example: in which we find, that as much and more than For princes to be ferved by a fet of all this has been brought about by a men without faults is impoffible: for wife and virtuous prince, affiftéd with a man will be bad, unless he be compelled good and faithful council.

to

« AnteriorContinuar »