Part 4

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 publishing a libel on one of its _noble_ 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 lordship 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 lordship's own words:

"MY LORDS,--Although there is no noble 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 constitutionally 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 entitled to the action of _scandalum magnatum_,--a privilege peculiar to ourselves. For these reasons, then, my lords, when the noble 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by the author of the paper complained of giving up his name, I was in great hopes that the motion would have been withdrawn.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 noble 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 noble 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 constitution, 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 entitled. It is to give us a power, which even the executive power itself has not, which the prerogative of the crown dare not assume, 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 assume 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 lordships; 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 assist your lordships in having him forthcoming at your lordship'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 constitution; 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 lordships, '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 lordships, 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 constitutional which is, in itself, illegal and unconstitutional_. 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 noble 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 constitution 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 petitions 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 illustrious 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 noble 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 constitute 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.

During this year, the brave General Washington struck that decisive blow which afterwards gave liberty to his countrymen. He kept General Clinton at New York, in constant alarm; and then suddenly appeared before York Town in full force, and obtained a grand victory over Lord Cornwallis, who was there with his army. The American war consequently became more unpopular than ever, and shortly after the meeting of parliament, in March,

1782,

a resolution was moved, and _passed without a division_, declaring that the House of Commons would consider as enemies to his majesty and the country all who should advise the prosecution of offensive war in North America!

Shortly after, Lord North resigned, and the Marquis of Rockingham was placed at the head of the new administration. Amongst the promotions at this time, was _Mr. Dunning!_ who, at _her majesty's request_, was created Baron Ashburton, and also Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

A treaty of peace was now entered into with General Washington, and Sir Guy Carleton was deputed to conduct the happy affair.

In the beginning of July, the unexpected death of the Marquis of Rockingham threw the whole cabinet into extreme disorder; and another resignation of ministers took place, on which occasion Mr. Pitt was constituted "Chancellor of the Exchequer," _although only twenty-three years of age_! Lord Shelburne accepted the office of premier, at the request of the king, which gave great offence to Mr. Fox and the Duke of Portland, who resigned. The country was little benefitted by this change, as the money required for the service of the year was more than twenty-four millions, of which thirteen had to be raised by loans.

In November, the provisional articles of peace were signed at Paris between the Commissioners of England and those of the United States.

The Shelburne party were obliged to retire in

1783,

having, by their arbitrary measures, drawn upon themselves general displeasure throughout the country.

Much surprise was created at the unexpected coalition of Lord North and Mr. Fox, which was the natural result of the pressing case of the prince, to whom the queen had confidentially entrusted his father's breach of the law, in the solemnization of his marriage with herself. The queen, in fact, used the prince's influence to prevail upon Mr. Fox to join Lord North, as he was well informed upon all the circumstances of the king's first marriage. Although the political sentiments of these gentlemen were opposed, it was represented as a safe line of conduct, to ensure the tranquillity of the kingdom. Thus, again, was every portion of truth sacrificed to the WILL of the _queen_.

This year, the king agreed that the heir-apparent should receive fifty thousand pounds per annum, and sixty thousand pounds to equip him suitably to his dignity. In the mean time, it became a public fact, that the prince had so deeply involved himself in debt as to be mean enough to resort, through the medium of others, to borrow money (of various amounts) of his tradespeople!

Before the conclusion of the year, the _Whig and Tory_ ministry were ejected, to the entire satisfaction of nearly every individual in the nation, who despised such an unholy alliance of opposite principles.

Mr. Pitt was now made "First Lord of the Treasury," which was a change very satisfactory to her majesty, as, from the youth of the new "premier," she augured her likely influence over the political hemisphere to be increased. It was well known that her majesty did not like any of the prince's associates, more especially Messrs. Fox and Sheridan. Mr. Burke was not supposed to be so informed upon all subjects; and, though much in the necessary confidence of the prince, the queen presumed it was chiefly in procuring pecuniary accommodations. It was not until an after period, that the _whole truth_ was stated to her by the prince.

New taxes alone could furnish means for the immense additional annuities now imposed upon the country; and thus were sums for every succeeding year's demand increased.

At this period, the Prince of Wales and his next brother were associated in dissipation of every kind. Their love of gaming was proverbial, and their excess of indulgence in voluptuousness soon exhausted the income allowed them by the country. Their caprices were various, but those of the prince was most strikingly evinced in his abruptly declining his engagements with the celebrated Mrs. Robinson. His usual plan was, when fascinated by the appearance of a new object, to exert every nerve to possess it. Presents, accompanied by the highest eulogiums, and protestations of eternal love and constancy, were always pressed upon the acceptance of the intended victim; and thus, by apparent devotion and unconquerable passion, many were the delusions he practised, and the outrages he committed, upon the unsuspecting virtue of woman.

Had a plebeian committed but _one_ act similar to those in which the prince was so frequently the principal character, his _life_ must have atoned for his fault, and a destitute family, in consequence, been plunged into distraction. But, because the prince was of such high-reputed family, he must, forsooth, be accounted a _noble-minded gentleman_; and, instead of exposition and punishment, the venal and hired press of the day launched out into the most fulsome eulogiums of his _graceful, all-attracting elegance of style and manners_, without even speaking of the _infamy_ of his amours, intrigues, and debaucheries! Some writers, alas! are so fearful of speaking the truth, lest they should offend the _side they have espoused_, or the inclinations and political principles of those by whom they are likely to be read, that they almost persuade themselves there is a sort of _impropriety_ in presenting facts in their proper colours! But is it not beneath the dignity of the press to act in so cowardly a manner?

In the year

1784,

(notwithstanding the dreadfully enormous weight of the "national debt," borrowed by the ministers upon nominal annuities, for which large interest was given) the king was again solicited to assist the prince, in order that his debts might be discharged. This request was refused, and Messrs. Fox and Sheridan advocated the subject to no purpose.

During this year, much public display of talent was made in the House. Mr. Pitt was now fully and entirely in her majesty's "confidence," and he well knew if "the system" were to be continued, war must be carried on, and oppression would increase rather than decrease. While engaged in a private interview with the queen, upon various state subjects, Mr. Pitt submitted his opinion upon the extravagance and improper pursuits of the prince, adding, "I much fear, your majesty, in his delirium of debauchery, _some expressions may escape him, to the injury of the crown_!" "No," answered the queen, "he is too well aware of the _consequences to himself_, if that transpired; so on that point I can rely upon him." "Is your majesty aware," said Mr. Pitt, "that at this time the prince is engrossed by a fair beauty? and I believe, from good authority I may say, intends to marry her! He is now so much embarrassed, that, at the suggestion of his trusty friend, Sheridan, he borrows large amounts from a Jew, who resides in town, and gives his bonds for much larger amounts than he receives; by this means, he is actually involved in debt to the amount of above a million of money; and the interest and principal must, some day, be _honourably_ discharged, or else he must never ascend the throne; as the dishonour would cause him eternal disgrace, if not an abdication." Truly, this was a fine picture of England's future monarch!

In the year

1785,

Mr. Pitt caused prosecutions to be issued and enforced to check the rising spirit of the Irish, as they appeared determined to press hard until they received reform in the representation; and, in order to divert the exasperated feelings of the people of England, as he stood deeply pledged to the reformers, "_as a man and a minister_," to bring in "a bill to amend the representation of the people," he moved, April 18th, for leave to bring it forward for the consideration of the House. His plan was to transfer the right of election from thirty-six rotten boroughs to the counties and principle unrepresented towns, _allowing a pecuniary compensation to the owners of the disfranchised boroughs_, and to extend the right of voting for knights of the shires to copyholders. This minister suffered his motion to be negatived by 248 against 194! Had there been honesty on the part of the minister towards the people, unfettered by any _state secrets_, he would have been prepared to meet the numerous opposers; but he found himself unable to serve the cause of liberty and slavery at the same time, and so, to save his word of promise, he did bring in "the bill," when he well knew it was impossible to carry it under the then existing corruptions!

In the farce here played, under the management of that youthful renegade,--PITT, we have a fair specimen of the way in which the English have been treated. But there is a time rapidly approaching when the supporters of despotism cannot thus delude their countrymen. The whole nest of court sycophants, however, seem determined rather to see England reduced to a state of the most grievous bondage than imagine one of their own ill-gotten acres endangered, or the least of their absurd and exclusive privileges called in question. But are such creatures, their _imagined_ interests, and affected opinions, to triumph over the views of the most virtuous patriots and wisest men of the present age? Forbid it, Justice!

The year

1786