1779
exhibits a miserable period in the history of Ireland. Her manufactures
declined, and the people became, consequently, much dissatisfied; but
their distresses were, at first, not even _noticed_ by the English
parliament. At length, however, an alarm of _INVASION_ took place, and
ministers allowed twenty thousand Irish volunteers to _carry arms_. The
ministers, who before had been callous to their distresses, found men in
arms were not to be trifled with, and the Irish people obtained a
_promise_ of an extension of trade, which satisfied them for the time.
Large sums were again required to meet the expenses of the American war,
and, the minister being supported by the queen, every vote for supplies
was carried by great majorities; for the year's service alone _fifteen
millions_ were thus agreed to. As the family of the king increased,
extra sums were also deemed requisite for each of his children; and what
amounts could not be raised by taxation were procured by _loans_,--thus
insulting the country, by permitting its expenditure to exceed its means
of income to an enormous extent.
Many representations were made to Lord North, that public opinion was
opposed to the system pursued by ministers; but he was inflexible, and
the generous interpositions of some members of the Upper House proved
also unavailing. The independent members of the Commons remonstrated,
and Mr. Burke brought forward plans for the reduction of the national
expenditure and the diminution of the influence of the crown; but they
were finally rejected, though not until violent conflicts had taken
place, in which Lord North found himself more than once in the minority.
About this time, Mr. Dunning, a lawyer and an eminent speaker,
advocated, in a most sensible manner, the necessity of taking into
consideration the affairs of Ireland; but ministers defeated the
intended benefit, and substituted a plan of their own, which they had
previously promised to Ireland; namely, to permit a free exportation of
their woollen manufactures. The unassuming character of that oppressed
people never appeared to greater advantage than at this period, as even
this resolution was received by them with the warmest testimonies of joy
and gratitude.
There cannot be a doubt, that if the Irish had been honestly
represented, their honor and ardour would have been proverbial; but they
have almost always been neglected and insulted. The queen had taken Lord
North's advice, and acquainted herself with the native character of the
Irish, by which she became aware that, if that people generally
possessed information, they would prove a powerful balance against the
unjust system then in force. At this time, there was not an Irishman
acquainted with any _state secrets_; her majesty, therefore, did not
fear an explanation from that quarter, or she dare not have so oppressed
them.
To provide for the exigencies of state, twelve millions of money, in
addition to the former fifteen millions, were required this year; and
thus were the sorrows of a suffering people increased, and they
themselves forced to forge their own chains of oppression!
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!