the crown of Spain, or any of its officers, against any part of his Majesty's dominions, expressing the time and times at which such intelligence was received." He spoke as usual, with a great deal of knowledge, clearness, and good sense; shewed his motion was regular as to general practice, and necessary in the present moment. objected, but to the Papists of the House. | tember 1770, touching any hostilities comIn the moments of our warmest indigna-menced, or designed to be commenced, by tion against the bigot James the second, we loved his family, we placed his daughter on the throne, and, as I before observed, it was our love for the Protestant part of his family, that led us to apply to the electress Sophia in the settlement of the regal succession. The noble lord wishes, he tells us, to abolish all party distinctions, yet he is greatly offended that the distinction of Whig and Tory is not inflexibly kept up; Mr. Cornwall seconded the motion with the King must govern by a faction to please great force, and endeavoured to shew that his lordship, he must not be the common the minister's violence and folly had dis father of his people, but only the monarch gusted the people, which greatly encouof the Whigs; at a time that these destruc- raged the enemy to offer the most daring tive distinctions are happily hastening to insults. He had little hopes of union oblivion, they must be revived by a judi- among ourselves, or peace with the enemy, cious sovereign, and to conciliate the affec- while our present ministers continued in tions of all to the government of a Bruns- office. wick prince, the unoffending posterity of the Tories must be held in a state of eternal proscription! What weight, what regard, my lords, is due to the reasonings of such wretched politicians; these mountebanks in government, who prescribe the revival of parties as the means of restoring domestic peace, and when they paint us on the brink of ruin, declaim on the necessity of our commencing an immediate war! To your lordships I submit the debate, and desire the previous question may now decide the force of our respective arguments. Debate in the Commons on a 'Motion for Papers relating to the Seizure of Falkland's Island.*] November 22. Mr. Dowdeswell moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before this House, copies or extracts of all letters, or other papers, containing any intelligence received by either of his Majesty's principal secretaries of state, or by the commissioners for executing the office of lord high admiral of Great Britain, or by any other of his Majesty's ministers, between the 12th of September 1769, and the 12th of Sep *From the London Museum. Lord Clare raised his loud voice, and frequent loud laughs from the House. He talked of taking example from futurity, and was very vehement for good humour, and above all, for unanimity; asserting, that they ought to be all of his mind, for that he and his friends would not change a jot from their former conduct. Mr. Henry Cavendish answered, in a short, spirited manner, that while such ministers continued in employment, insulting, and robbing the people, there was nothing worth fighting for, and, if the French were to land an army this moment upon our coast, he would not budge an inch to oppose them, till the public grievances were redressed. Mr. William Burke shewed not only the folly, but the falsity, of saying that the taking of Falkland's island, was the act of the governor of Buenos Ayres. It being notorious that he acted by the orders of the court of Spain. Governor Pownall entered into the whole argument at large, with full knowledge of his subject. He shewed the little utility a settlement upon Falkland's Island was to us, but having been once made, it could not be given up. Mr. Calcraft said, he was an independent gentleman, a follower of no man, or set of men. He thought we ought to begin with amending what was amiss at home, and was for the production of the papers. Mr. George Onslow defended the minister, and the rest of the King's servants. Sir Joseph Mawbey replied to him, but he did not meet with all the attention that his good sense and good intention deserved. Mr. Charles For then rose in defence of the ministry. He shewed some ingenuity, in endeavouring to confound the reasonings of his opponents, and concluded by moving the previous question. Lord Bellasyse spoke next. This young lord acted a very strange part. He first spoke for the papers; talked of his being an independent gentleman, without bias, who came to do his duty, but how could he do it, if some information was not given him? therefore, he thought, the having the papers, quite a right thing, and declared, he would vote for having them. As soon as he had sat down, his brotherin-law, the new-made lord Melbourne, came to him, and took him home to dinner. After dinner, he returned to the House, and, in a second speech said, he had changed his mind, that having the papers he thought would be very improper; that he had a very good opinion of his Majesty's servants, and promised to vote against having the papers. He voted with the ministry. Lord Catherlough, in answer to Mr. Cavendish, said, that although that gentleman would not oppose the French, if they landed upon our coast, yet a majority of that House would. Sir Gilbert Elliot, seeing the ministers hard run, stood up, and gave the best grace he could to young Fox's arguments, and then to lord Clare's. He spoke dexterously, and endeavoured to draw the attention of the House from the question. Sir Edward Astley, bart. spoke next. He was short, manly, spirited, and as became an independent knight of the shire. He asked why the ministers had brought him from his affairs in the country, if they had nothing to say, and would tell him nothing. Mr. Thomas Townshend spoke with great indignation, and begged that the vile scene of stock jobbing, whether by the Jews of the Alley, or the Jews of St. James's, might be put a stop to. Nothing could be better imagined, or better expressed. Lord John Cavendish, with all the spirit of manly confidence, founded in deserved rank and importance, exposed the idle pretence of refusing the papers upon the plea of their divulging secrets of a subsisting negociation. He shewed, that the motion did not aim at any thing that ever was in negociation, but was simply confined to intelligence, exclusive of all negociation. He insisted strenuously on the papers, [VOL. XVI. ] and shewed the necessity of beginning with satisfying the people. Mr. Mackworth said he was independent, and would vote for the papers, if any body would give him a reason for so doing. He voted with the ministry. Lord George Germaine spoke next, with great knowledge of all the points he spoke to, and with that masterly quickness that characterises his lordship's speeches, he shewed that the ministers had been guilty of more neglect and inattention than one would think men, who had any regard for their heads, not to say their own or their country's honour, could be capable of; but these men have, in fact, no attention to their own characters. It was now near seven o'clock, and the ministers were anxious to put the question. But Mr. Dunning stood up, and shewed it to be an insult on the House, that none of the ministers, who knew how the matter stood, would condescend to say a word about it. His good sense and manly spirit provoked them into a reply. General Conway and lord North were both up; but lord North sat down for a while; and the general made the best defence he could for the ministers; but he went out of his way to abuse the opposition. He was up three or four times in reply to lord George Germaine, sir W. Meredith, Mr. Burke, and colonel Barré. He had a dispute with colonel Barré about the Rochfort affair; but sir W. Meredith first, then Mr. Burke, and lastly, and most severely, lord George Cavendish, in sad and weighty words, have perhaps taught him to avoid hard terms of the opposition for the future; and neither of them used one angry word, but they spoke daggers to an honest mind. Sir William drew a beautiful description of the general, when that general led an opposition; but re minded him, that the General Warrants, and the ground of opposition at that day, was nothing of the consequences of the present grievances, which he chuses to support. Mr. Burke reminded the general how disgraceful it was to sit patiently, and hear lord North vilify that very act, the repeal of the Stamp Act, on which the general's character was founded. He then, in the highest strains of oratory, gave an account of the Rockingham party; said it was an opposition founded on principle, formed of the wealthiest, wisest, and the honestest men in the kingdom; that neither the frowns of the court, nor [4 C] exert his usual powers of eloquence, he was extremely sensible and just, and exposed the facility of the little pretence to reason and argument that sir Gilbert Eliot had supplied. the clamours of the people, should drive | entirely argumentive, and if he did not them from their honest purposes; that when they were in, they looked for no profits; that the repeal was carried, by the most uncorrupt majority, against the joint endeavours of placemen and pensioners; though that majority is now vilified by those very persons, who are jealous of every word that looks like disrespect to the majorities, that do all the strange things that are now done; and that the party went out of office, leaving reversions and places to be scrambled for by those who now hold them. All he said seemed to be the pride of virtue, and the just confidence of a great mind in the exertion of a duty. General Conway, in his reply, did justice to that party, to whom he gave all Mr. Burke's epithets; and complimented Mr. Burke too, as meaning honourably, but claimed to himself the same meaning, and complained that he should be so mistaken and misrepresented; and that the little, contemptible opposition he had alluded to, was Wilkes's party. Lord North now rose, but lost his usual triumphing and overbearing manner. He was all civility and condescension, and it must be owned that in his humility he found words apt and fit for his condition. In some turns he did not want wit, especially in playing on a line that had been used at the beginning of the debate; but he paid severely for it in Mr. Burke's reply; and when lord North came to the reasoning part, he made indeed a sad hand of it. He is not very remarkable as a good reasoner, and this night he was very poor. Colonel Barré followed him, in a very severe, and fine strain of eloquence. Sir Gilbert Elliot seemed not a little vexed at a ridiculous account of a friendship he had professed for lord Chatham; with infinite wit and humour the colonel called it a little snug, pocket friendship; that the baronet had kept in his side pocket, all the time it was his duty to support lord Chatham as a minister. Lord North, he made ridiculous beyond measure. In a word, it was a performance of prodigious merit. Lord Barrington rose next, but the Speaker called him to order. It was. in reply to his lordship, that general Howard said a few words sensible and proper. He stiled the Secretary's words on the 13th, wanton, idle, and unprovoked. The debate seemed once more at an end, when Mr. Wedderburn rose; he was 1 Mr. Rigby affected to answer Mr. Wedderburn, but he knew nothing, he pretended to know nothing, and he said nothing; except expressing the sovereign contempt which he and the Bloomsbury gang have of the city of London. It was now late, Mr. Burke rose, we have already mentioned this gentleman in the course of general Conway's speech: it is not within the compass of one man's memory, to give a particular account, or an exact criticism of every gentleman's speech; all we attempt is, a kind of general character of each performance. Whenever the repeal of the Stamp Act is objected to, or his own or his party's intentions traduced, it seems to rouse his whole soul. All this was undoubtedly done this night, and it seemed to give double spirit, fire or force, to his faculties: life, wit, railing and argument all combined to confound his opponents. Lord George Cavendish, late as it was, rose to accept his proportion of that description general Conway had given of a little, contemptible, mean, worthless faction, that would continue their opposition in the case of war. The House then divided. The Noes went forth. YEAS NOES Tellers. Sir Joseph Mawbey - Sir Charles Whitworth - So it passed in the negative. Motion in the Commons for a Committee on so much of the Criminal Laws as relate to Capital Offences.*] November 27. Sir William Meredith, bart. made a motion for an enquiry into the state of the Criminal Laws of the kingdom, which he introduced in the following speech. Sir; in a well-regulated state, nothing is more requisite than to proportion the punishment to the crime, and to satisfy the minds of the people that equal justice is administered to every delinquent. Thus will the laws be cordially reverenced: there will be no murmurs, no discontents, * From the London Museum. from the idea of their gentleness to one and tyranny to another. None will complain that he is as severely punished for picking, in extreme necessity, a man's pocket of a handkerchief worth thirteen pence, as another person is for murdering a whole family of benefactors. Is this the case in England, which boasts of the wisdom of its laws and constitutions? The reverse is notorious. Our criminal laws seem to have been formed on the principles of the Stoics, who deemed all sins equal; or rather they breathe the spirit of Draco, whose laws were all written in blood. In all, the penalty is hanging; in larcenies and petty thefts, as well as in treason and murder. Is this the way to bestow weight and authority, and reverence on the laws? No. But it is the way to render the people ferocious and sanguinary. For what in the punishment for murder is tender mercy, is comparatively enormous cruelty in the punishment of petty thefts; and cruelty in punishing produces in the people a barbarous and bloody disposition. Turn your eyes, Sir, to the Japanese. Nothing can be more horrible than their executions. Their dispositions are conformable; they are savagely cruel. The state of other nations justifies the same remark; and the maxim is now so well understood, that it would be idle to prove it by more examples. The Athenians soon felt its force, and accordingly exchanged the sanguinary laws of Draco for the gentle institutions of Solon. That acute and ingenious people saw that they had a bad effect on their morals, and tended only to throw them back into that state of barbarity out of which they had emerged. May not the present condition of our laws have a similar influence? Foreigners pretend that this is already the case; that we are ferocious, brutal, and cruel. I cannot subscribe to their opiI think our distinguishing characteristics are generosity, humanity, and beneficence; virtues incompatible with the vices charged upon us. But while I thus do justice to our national character, I do not think that we owe it to the spirit of our criminal law. That having an evident tendency to multiply rather than to diminish crimes, can never be supposed to improve the morals or the manners of any people. These virtues, therefore, we derive from other parts of our constitution, that are more benign and favourable. Sir; every one must own that these considerations are of themselves weighty enough to incline wise senators to this inquiry. If some gentlemen should not see the matter in this light, I hope that the argument which I am now going to advance will have better success. The strength of any country depends, in a great measure, on the number of its industrious inhabitants. Nothing, therefore, can be an object of greater attention to a statesman than population. He will be cautious of depriving the community of any member, that can by any expedient be rendered useful. He will never amputate a limb from the body, but when it is infected with an incurable gangrene, that threatens destruction to the uncorrupted part. Sir, has this been the policy of Great Britain? I answer, No. If it had, such numbers would not annually fall victims to the arm of unrelenting law. It may appear extraordinary, and yet the fact is certain, that in the sanguinary reign of Henry 8, 72,000 persons perished by the axe or gibbet. The cruel spirit of that bloody tyrant, accounts in some degree for that enormous carnage, for I cannot give it a better name; but it will not fully solve the difficulty. We must call in to its aid the genius of our criminal law. The same observation is applicable to queen Elizabeth, in whose reign 17,600 persons shared the same fate. That portion of her father's arbitrary spirit which she inherited, could not alone have produced this effect. I cannot pretend to ascertain what waste of people we have sustained in modern reigns. Some idea may be formed of the affair by considering that in the reign of George the second the criminal laws were extended to 62 new articles. What a fertile source of depopulation! In the reign of that merciful prince, who gave back many lives which had been forfeited to the law, it swept away nearly 3,000 persons, reckoning only 30 executions in Middlesex and Surry, including London, and only one annually in each of the other fifty counties: such a number, especially as the far greater part of them are very young people, must be a considerable loss to society, as well with respect to population, as to the labou which they might themselves have been made to perform. Other European states have the policy to punish crimes, and yet render the criminals useful to the community. Ought not we to imitate their prudence? Their example should at least incite us to make inquiry. When the proper lights are once acquired, more may perhaps be done than any of us now expects. At any rate, we shall have the satisfaction of exerting our best endeavours for preserving the lives of his Majesty's subjects, at a time that he can very ill spare them. I move, Sir, "That a Committee be appointed, to consider of so much of the Criminal Laws as relate to Capital Offences; and to report the same, with their opinion thereupon, to the House." A Committee was appointed accordingly. "On the 6th of May, 1771, sir Charles Bunbury reported to the House, that the said Committee had came to the following Resolutions: 1. "That it is the opinion of this Committee, That so much of an Act made in the 7th of Henry 7, intituled, The penalty of a captain or soldier retained to serve the king in his intended wars not doing their duty,' as subjects offenders to death, be repealed. 2. "That so much of an Act, made in the 1st and 2nd of Philip and Mary, intituled, An Act against certain persons calling themselves Egyptians,' as subjects offenders to death, be repealed. 6 3. "That so much of an Act, made in the 5th of queen Elizabeth, intituled, An Act for further punishment of vagabonds calling themselves Egyptians,' as subjects offenders to death, be repealed. 4. "That so much of an Act, made in the 5th of queen Elizabeth, intituled, An Act to retain her majesty's subjects in their due obedience,' as subjects offenders to death, be repealed." The Report was ordered to be taken into consideration on May 20, but before that day parliament was prorogued. Debate in the HOUSE OF COMMONS ON THE POWER OF THE ATTORNEY GE NERAL TO FILE INFORMATIONS Ex-OFFICIO.*] November 27. cise of the power lodged in the hands of the Attorney General to file informations ex-officio. The country, from one extremity to the other, rings with outcries for its extirpation. And no wonder, Sir, for it is but a cousin-german of the Star-chamber. Its very nature and constitution is arbitrary, and incompatible with the spirit of a free government. The Attorney General is an officer removeable at pleasure, As a minister's breath creates, so a minister's breath annihilates him. A mere drudge of the day, he is tossed, and buffeted, and kicked about by the ministry, like a shuttlecock or foot-ball. They give flies upon their errand with the dexterity the magical word, and presto pass; he and legerdemain of a juggler's cups and balls. When they have stamped any measure with their almighty fiat, he must not They would immediately hurl him down say nay. His negative would be impiety. from his airy height, like a fallen angel. Farewel to all hopes of three thousand a year in pension! farewel to the office of Chief Justice in Eyre! adieu to the King'sbench! adieu to the Chancellorship! such hopes and such fears, that unbiassed Sir, can we expect from men, agitated by integrity, that stubborn, that unshaken virtue, which could alone do justice to the public in so slippery a situation? Experience forbids us to entertain such extragentlemen of the long robe, destitute of vagant notions of human perfection. The passions and other failings as they are, will not pretend to such high strains of sanctity. If they should, I fear the pubwill ever be suspicious of those whom they lic will not give them much credit. Men see putting their fellow-subjects to enorleast chance of avoiding it by a previous mous expences, without giving them the exculpation. The Attorney General, of of a Secretary of State, christens any pahis own mere motion, or by the mandate per by what name he pleases. He calls it an infamous, a seditious, or treasonable libel. After this arbitrary construction, this discretionary name, he files an inforwithout hearing any evidence, without mation, and commences a prosecution, examining a single witness, without receiving any other affidavit, without making the least previous enquiry. Sir, can any thing savour more of tyranny and despotism? If the culprit should, in the course of the trial, be able to justify his conduct, or if the Attorney General, despairing of success, should enter a noli pro• |