CLXXXI. A. D. 1795. In a very violent speech which he made against the Se- CHAP. ditious Meetings Bill, he resorted to an oath as in Lord George Gordon's case, but not with the same success: "If the Government resolve to rob the people of their rights, the people will be justified in resisting such glaring oppression. I will say again and again, that it is the right of the people to resist a Government which exercises tyranny. It is certainly bold to say that the people have a right to resist, and that they ought to rise; but there are some occasions which render the boldest language warrantable. If the King's servants,' said Lord Chatham, will not permit a constitutional question to be decided according to the forms and on the principles of the Constitution, it must then be decided in some other manner; and rather than it should be given uprather than that the nation should surrender their birthright to a despotic Minister, I hope, my Lords, old as I am, I shall see the question brought to issue, and fairly tried between the people and the Government!' Sanctioned by the sentiments Nov. 17. of that venerable and illustrious man, I maintain that the people of England should defend their rights, if necessary, by the last extremity to which freemen can resort. own part, I shall never cease to struggle in support of liberty. Commons. In no situation will I desert the cause. I was born a freeman, and, BY GOD, I will never die a slave ! " * For my One of the best speeches he ever delivered in Parliament was against the bill for making " a conspiracy to levy war" HIGH TREASON, without overt act which could be considered a any levying of war. He here gives a most admirable exposition of the statute of Edward III., showing the wisdom of the distinction between "a conspiracy to levy war" and "a conspiracy against the life of the Sovereign;" - illustrating from English history the evils produced by departing from that statute and tyrannically creating the new treasons which had all been repealed in better times. I would earnestly implore statesmen to read and to ponder his arguments before proposing to repress crimes against the state by severer 32 Parl. Hist. 310. 1795. cessful oath in the House of CLXXXI. - CHAP. penal laws. But happily, in the present generation, such admonitions are little wanted, and I am delighted to think A. D. 1795. that I can freely stand up for constitutional maxims without incurring any suspicion of reflecting on political opponents: whatever questions may still divide existing parties, I believe that, from the improved spirit of the age, we are all equally united in the conviction that the governors should respect the Constitution to make it be respected by the governed. Of the passionate declamation which Erskine mixed up with his reasoning the reader may form an opinion from the following specimen: "I have no right to ask a Royal audience, but I declare that I feel a strong inclination to rush into the closet of my Sovereign, forgetful of the usual forms of decorum, and to implore him upon my knees to withhold his assent from a bill which goes to destroy his throne in the hearts of his subjects, and to invest him with the insignia of a tyrant. I cannot believe that his Majesty, convinced as he must necessarily be of the loyalty and attachment of his people, will ever give his approbation to a law which, under the pretext of providing for his safety, contains a gross and unfounded libel on the character of his subjects. When it pleased God to remove from the Sovereign the hand of affliction, what demonstrations of loyalty and affection appeared in the metropolis, as his Majesty passed to St. Paul's to give thanks to Heaven for his deliverance! The nation appeared one great family rejoicing at the recovery of their common father. And notwithstanding all this tumult of congratulatory joy, notwithstanding that banquet of affection, on which it is the fortune of the present Monarch daily to regale, his Ministers would inspire him with jealousy and distrust. An alarm is sounded throughout the kingdom, and spies and informers echo back the cry. Whence the framers of the bill borrowed the enactment against 'expressing, publishing, uttering, or declaring any words or sentences to incite or stir up the people,' I cannot conceive. After this, a sigh or a groan may be construed into treason. I have in vain searched for it in the history of former tyrannies, and I can only suppose it to have been suggested by the description CHAP. of the poet : In the vaulted roof The tyrant sat, and through a secret channel Of sighs and groans, by cruelty extorted; Then on the victims wreak'd his murd'rous rage, "The annals of Britain do not furnish an instance in which the statute of Edward III., the statutum benedictum, as it is emphatically called, has not accomplished all that law can accomplish to protect the King and his Government; but the present bill wantonly creates new and undefined treasons, disorganises the system of our jurisprudence, and by sanctioning grievous and vexatious measures, will excite disaffection and engender discord."* CLXXXI. A. D. 1795. Foolish breach of the privileges of the "House of Commons. While this bill was pending, a controversy arose in which, Dec. 1795. I am sorry to say, Erskine and the Whig Opposition appeared prosecuto little advantage, nay, to speak the whole truth, most tion insti gated by inconsistently, grossly and flagrantly violated the principles of Erskine free discussion which they had been so loudly contending for. and the Whigs, for Mr. John Reeves, president of the "Society against Repub- a supposed licans and Levellers," gentleman of some literary distinction, — had published a somewhat silly, but a very harmless book, entitled, "Thoughts on the English Government,' in which was to be found this passage: "The government of England is a monarchy; the monarchy is the ancient stock from which have sprung those goodly branches of the legislature, the Lords and Commons, that at the same time give ornament to the tree, and afford shelter to those who seek protection under it. But these are still branches, and derive their origin and their nutriment from their common parent; they may be lopped off, and the tree is a tree still;-shorn indeed of its honours, but not, like them, cast into the fire. The kingly government may go on in all its functions, without Lords or Commons; it has heretofore done so for years to * 32 Parl. Hist. 470. A. D. 1796. CHAP. gether, and in our times it does so during every recess of CLXXXI. Parliament; but without the King his Parliament is no more." I blush while I relate that the defender of Stockdale, of Hardy, and of Horne Tooke, while still meditating his purpose of rushing into the King's presence, to implore, upon his bended knees, that the royal assent should be withheld from a bill to fetter free inquiry into political subjects, zealously and effectually supported a resolution, that this book was "a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons, and that the Attorney General should be directed to prosecute the author for a libel," — saying, "What a glorious representative of the people of England would that House appear to be, if they passed by the pamphlet which had been read to them that night, in which they were represented as a mere council for the Crown, and that in this consisted their greatest utility, that all the vigour they were supposed to have, as an emanation from the people, was a mere chimera. If they voted that this was no libel, the public would see that they did so because it was in favour of the Crown against the rights of the people; and he was quite sure, that if the Attorney General called for the verdict of a jury upon it, they will not require that time to deliberate upon it, which members opposite seemed to desire." Mr. Pitt and his colleagues very sensibly and laudably tried to keep the House out of the scrape into which they were rushing, and succeeded so far as to have the matter referred to a Committee of Privileges: but after two reports from the Committee, the motion for a prosecution, being supported by Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr. Grey, was carried, without a division. Accordingly, a criminal information was filed by the Attorney General, and brought to trial before Lord Kenyon — when the jury, taking a much juster view of the subject than had been anticipated by the champion of the liberty of the press, after an hour's deliberation returned this verdict: - "My Lord, we are of opinion that the pamphlet, which has been proved to have been written by John Reeves, Esq., is a very improper publication, but we think his motives not such as are alleged in the information, and therefore we find him May 20. 1796. CHAP. CLXXXI. A. D. 1796. down" in attempting to answer Pitt. NOT GUILTY."* So end all such House of Commons' prosecutions!!! I hope that, as a punishment for this hallucination, Erskine was present when Plumer, who was counsel for the defence, spoke with much applause, and that he heard the shouts of rejoicing with which the verdict was received. † Whether ashamed to show himself in the House of Com- Dec. 30. mons, the fact is, that the next time Erskine rose to take 1796. a Erskine part in debate, notwithstanding all his experience and all "breaks his success, he "broke down" soon after he began to address the House. The occasion was rather a formidable one. After the rupture of the negotiation for peace with the French republic, Pitt, in one of the most splendid orations he ever delivered, took a comprehensive and masterly view of our foreign affairs, and moved an address to the King recommending a vigorous prosecution of the war. The defeated prosecutor for libel immediately followed, with the intention of answering him, and moving an amendment; but when he was observing that "France had formerly offered terms, the obtaining of which now would make the right honourable gentleman be worshipped as a God," — he became confused, and after a pause sat down. Fox instantly rushed in to the rescue, thus beginning: "Sorry, indeed, am I on account of my honourable and learned friend, whose indisposition has suddenly compelled him to resume his seat; sorry for the sake of the House, whose information, from the train of argument he had adopted, has been thus unpleasantly interrupted, and sorry for the cause which would have had such an advocate-sorry for the sake of England, which Ministers, by their imprudent councils and infatuated policy, seem determined to push to the last verge of ruin, ---that I am thus so unexpectedly called upon to address the House. I feel it, however, incumbent on me to step forward, knowing that my opinion on the subject entirely coincides with that of my honourable and learned friend *32 Parl. Hist. 610. 620. 634. 680. † Quivedo, the Spanish poet, says that the punishment of fiddlers in hell will be to stand by and listen while other fiddlers play. |