power; and it involved a question of particular terms of pacification, which it was obvious must depend upon contingencies and events, which no man could with any degree of certainty foretell. He considered it as impolitic in the extreme, thus prematurely to declare, that in no case war shall terminate, until a specific form of government is established in France. Lord Holland could not agree to the amendment, as it would be pledging the House and the country to carry on a war of extermination against the French republic. There was no doubt but that the ambition of France had shown itself on some recent occasions in a manner which could not but excite alarm; but much as he might wish to see its power reduced, it was quite another proposition to wage war definitively for the purpose of imposing a monarchy on that people. Nothing could be more idle than to imagine that France would accept from any foreign power a government not of its own choice. The people might be divided in opinion, and the government oppressive, but a foe at the gates would unite the people, and give means of defence and triumph to the government. With regard to the granting a subsidy, if such policy could at any time be wise, it was probably so at present; but before he could cordially vote for the address, he must first know what was really meant by ministers when they spoke of the deliverance of Europe. To have the benefit of general and hearty co-operation among the people, government ought to declare the specific object of the war. Had they changed their sentiments since the period of the two negotiations at Paris and Lisle? If that was so, the public had a right to be informed of it. At those periods two different declarations were published of the sentiments of his majesty concerning the issue of the negotiations themselves, and stating his readiness to treat for peace whenever the enemy should show a disposition to meet him on just and equitable terms. Now, it was his intention to propose an amendment to the address, embracing in substance these declarations of his majesty, He was persuaded the people of this country, every sober thinking people in Europe, and France herself, would regard such sentiments at least with complacency; but what would not be the consternation and dismay, when, upon the authority of a vote of that House, Europe would be told that I we persevere in the war without any known object but to destroy the princi ples of the revolutionists of France? Was the war carried on for the purpose expressly of reducing the power of that nation? If it was, it should have his sup port. Was it carried on againt opinion? That was madness. Was it a war that ministers were determined to carry on until they had chastised the Directory of France for its ambition dm fine, was th to punish ambition? Perhaps some noble lords thought the latter a good ground of war; but if it was, what would be the si tuation of the members of the coalition If Russia should go to Poland to recruito its armies for the deliverances of Europe, might not the people of that sacked, die vided, and plundered country, say, # Deliver us." The same of the emperor of Germany in Venice and other parts; 360 that this war to chastise France for her! ambition might end with inflicting stripes on the allies, Again, to consider the war as a war of policy and prudence, how stood the question? Was the House quite sure that Russia sincerely wished only to check France and reduce her power?! Had Russia no views of aggrandizement -no no comprehensive scheme of exclusite. dominion? He would suppose that Russia was in earnest, and not at all actuated by that kind of motives. But who could for one moment suppose Austria free from ambitious projects, and sentiments of ex clusive advantage? From the past it was quite fair to argue, that the cabinet of Vienna would turn aside from the cops test the moment the measure of its ambi tion was filled. If, on the other handy. Russia should be found to have entered into the war also from motives of aggrand dizement, how manifold the dangers to this country and to Europe from lengthened war! It was fair to tassume that all this was possible, and would the House lightly regard such serious mat ters? Under the interpretation of the language of the address, it was obvious that we were henceforward to pursue, not i a war of ordinary character not a com mon war-but a crusade against the nat tion and people of France. The amend ment he had to propose would sgorton counteract what was dangerous for impos litic in the Address, by inserting, after the word Republic, "by prosecuting værk vigorous war, till the republic of France shall be disposed to enter on the work of general pacification, in a spirit of conci liation and equity, agreeable to his ma- vernment. vernment. Much had been said of a Lord Grenville observed, that no man would deny that the existence of the present government of France was incompatible with the security of the other governments of Europe. It was against this government, acting on its present principles, that he would wage war. Yet if ever the government changed in such a manner as to make it safe to treat with it, he would enter upon the work of peace without any regard to the name of its go- The Marquis of Lansdown observed, 4 vernment. The censure so freely dealt that with respect to the present war, from out on the conduct of the court of St. its commencement to that hour he had Petersburgh and of Vienna, it had, per- never entertained any opinion but one haps, been full as decent to have spared. that it was a war of kings, entered into But as it seemed to be the principal by a confederacy of kings, and carried object of the noble baron to hear on with a view of supporting their power. what ministers would say of the con- He had also constantly maintained, that duct of those powers in the case of the British cabinet wanted to destroy the Poland, no consideration of policy would republic of France, and restore the anprevent him from declaring, that for the cient monarchy; and that they had never partition of Poland those powers were been sincere in their desire of concluding * very blameable, and sooner than sign the a peace. It was perfectly relevant for deed of partition he would have cut off the noble lord near him to make the obhis hand. There was, however, one re-servations he had done on some of the mark which it might not be improper to add on this subject. The partition of Poland, a theme trite and old in itself, was that evening brought forward as an accusation against the emperor of Russia. Now surely it would have been more consistent with justice and truth, had the noble lord recollected that that transaction was among the events of another reign: and who would say that it would have been politic-that it would have added to the happiness of his old subjects on his new had the emperor Paul restored his portion of Poland, at his accession to its former masters and to its government? If the noble lord must un dertakes to be the general censor of the kings Lofo Europe, he ought to recollect that probably many, indeed all of them, hold possessions by very doubtful titles. Even the right of the crown of Great Bri 3 tain to Jamaica might be disputed. Those who considered the subsidy necessary for 4 the general purpose of checking France, and taming the spirit of its government, must see the necessity of not coming to any specific declaration. For one, he would ayow his object. He wanted security not a security to which the present government of France would be a party, but a security resting on the tried good faith and justice of a well tempered go monarchs who were engaged in the coalition. For his own part, he could never speak otherwise than respectfully of persons in that high situation. He knew: the veneration he felt for his own king. Next to the religion of any country, he considered them as things the most sacred, and consequently most entitled to respect. But it was impossible for any man not to express his indignation at the conduct that had been pursued by some of the crowned heads who were engaged in the present war. Would any noble lord suppose that a sincere wish to guard the regular governments of Europe against an ambitious republic, was the motive that actuated those powers to join the confederacy against France, when those very powers availed themselves of that coalition to seize on Poland? They knew that that was the time to do an act which destroyed the balance of power" in Europe, because England, on account of the war in which she was engaged in common with them, could not prevent it. In his opinion, there was no solid ground for the expectations held out by ministers of the general deliverance i ofo Europe, and it was highly impolitic in them to declare an opinion with respect to the species of government they wished to have established in France. It was car rying on war with king Reubel, king | appeared to me to become the indispen Barras, &c. Would any of the people of sable duty of parliament at this juncture France, after bearing the declarations of to interpose its authority, and not to suf the British ministers, forward their views fer the laws to be relaxed by any accidental in this contest? For his part, were he a event, at a time when the dangers arising Frenchman, and did he ever so much de- from these crimes are the most alarming. test the tyranny of his government, he would, notwithstanding, resist any foreign power that should attempt to impose a constitution upon him. It was the duty of ministers to act with decision: they never had done so they ought to have declared their specific object in prosecuting the war; instead of that, they varied their tone with every change of circumstances; and at last, in the most impolitic manner, gave the enemy to understand what their real objects were. He did not think a secure peace incompatible with any form of go-conceive to be its true footing, and for vernment in France, and therefore he would support the amendment of the noble lord near him. The amendments were negatived, and the Address agreed to. Debate in the Commons on the Forfeiture for High Treason Bill.] May 9. The House having resolved itself into a committee to consider further of the Report of the Secret Committee relative to a Treasonable Conspiracy, Sir, the more I have since reflected upon this question, and the more I have conversed upon it with persons both in and out of this House of various descrip tions, whose sentiments are entitled to the greatest respect, either for their learning in this branch of constitutional jurispru dence, or for their general knowledge of the state of opinions in this country, the more I have been confirmed in thinking it right to propose to this committee an express resolution for the purpose of preserving the law of forfeiture upon what I establishing it permanently in the same extent to which it was carried after the union, when the same uniform law of for feiture was extended throughout Great Britain. The general policy of such a measure appears to me to be justified by the fundamental principles of all govern ment, and to have been sanctioned by the universal concurrence of the most enlight ened nations in all ages. Certain it is, that we find it interwoven with the whole frame and texture of our own constitution, and I trust that it will be deemed, at this crisis, a measure of absolute necessity to assert its justice, and perpetuate its con sequences. I am always inclined to think, that whenever we find the practical experience of all ages to be in favour of any measure of policy, we shall find upon examination that it rests upon prin ciples which are sound. Of the forfeiture for state offences, it has been long ago said, and truly said, "Id et antiquum est et omnium civitatum." And if we examine the principles on which this practice ist founded, surely they will appear to be as conclusive as they are obvious; when we recollect, that all property is the creature of civil society, that its tenure, conditions," and duration, must be modelled by positive law, and that the dominion over prose perty which is allowed to each individual and enables him to alienate it at his pleasure, being allowed only because it operates to c the general interest and prosperity of the state, the resumption of it is also strictly consistent with the true ends of civil so that upon confronting the actual state ciety, when the individual to whom it is of this branch of the law with the e exist-imparted aims at ence of these treasonable practices, it state to which he destruction of the Mr. Abbot rose to make his promised motion respecting the Law of Forfeiture, and desired that the acts of the 7th queen Anne, c. 31, and 17th Geo. 2nd, c. 9, should be read; which being done accordingly, he spoke as follows:-When the Report from the Committee of Secrecy first came onder our consideration, I took occasion to call the attention of the House to those passages in it which state to us, not only that treasons and seditions of the most dangerous tendency are now plotting in this country by persons of mean note and desperate fortunes, but also that they have received, in some degree, the countenance and pecuniary aid of persons in higher situations of life." At the same time, I also took the liberty of calling the attention of the House to the present state of the law respecting the forfeiture of inheritances upon attain der of high treason, as a matter intimately connected with the means of repressing traitors of this rank and description; and I presumed to rept is indebted for protec 300F tion. Every wise government will, for its own preservation, employ of course, the strongest means; and one of the most powerful checks for the repression of this specific crime is to be found in the infliction of forfeiture; for treason being in its formation slow, progressive, and deliberate, the individual, who is brooding upon his plans of guilt, when he looks round upon those who are connected with him by the nearest ties of existence and affection, must (according to the probable influences of every principle implanted in human nature) feel his ambition damped and his resolution unnerved, if not by the dread of his own hazard, at least by the prospect of involving those in his own ruin whom by his very machinations he is seeking to aggrandize, I know that it is sometimes objected to this policy, that it overlooks the considerations of compassion which are due to the heirs of the offenders. To this, however, there are many answers. In the first place, that the same event which has happened to them by the guilt of their ancestor might equally have happened, if he had dissipated the same inheritance by his folly; and that, in either case, it is not an injury, but a misfortune. But a more conclusive refutation of such an erroneous reasoning is to be found by pointing out, that such a view of this subject is partial and false and false, because it is partial; and that upon the same ground, if a more extended view be taken of the same sub. jeet, the just commiseration will appear to be due to the numberless individuals who would become the sufferers in those scenes of blood and confusion, if they were not protected by the terror of these punishments. And it is always to be kept 4in mind, that in every wise and well framed government the very power of resumption is placed in the hands of the sovereign, who may either remit the forfeiture wholly, or may apply it for the indemnification of others, at least equally innocent, who may have suffered more, or may hold the forfeiture as a pledge to be redeemed by the future loyalty of those very persons whose expectations have been frustrated by the disloyalty and guilt of their ancestors. That these general principles upon which the question rests are satisfactory, I think most men will agree; but to us who have the happiness to enjoy the blessings of the British constitution (not the production of any abstract theory or untried speculation, but the practical result -39o7g colony!! fullb pdf of apol Nor does the matter rest here. We have also to remark, that the circumstances of trial for treason have also varied, but without any variation in the law of forfei ture. The act of king William, which gave to the prisoner the benefit of a defence by counsel, and provided him with a compulsory process for his wit nesses, was, in my judgment, a great and necessary improvement; but it must be is recollected, that the very same act recog nises the penalties of forfeiture, and in degree curtails them. A farther alteration, indeed, was introduced in the reign of queen Anne, which required lists of the jurors and of the witnesses for the crown t to be delivered to the prisoner ten days o before his trial. But this, Sir, was a Boob extinction of forfeitures until after the death of the Pretender's sons. And the law of forfeiture now depends upon the life of the cardinal of York, the last des cendant of the house of Stuart, an unfor change, in my opinion, much to be regretted; and I speak not this lightly; I have for this opinion the authority of sir Michael Foster, a great authority upon these subjects, who plainly condemns it as detrimental to the interests of the pub-tunate fugitive, who has lived through lic, which (he says, and truly says) are three-fourths of the present century, and deeply concerned in every prosecution of whose existence (if he be yet living) this kind, which is well founded and I cannot, by the course of nature, be of have also a still greater authority, that of any long duration. This is the circum. parliament itself, which has since found it stance which obliges parliament now to necessary to rescind this provision in all decide this question: and we are called the inferior sorts of treason; and I have no upon, as I contend, by every motive of hesitation to declare, that if ever it shall reason and experience, to pursue the be rescinded totally, and if the mode of course which lord Somers and lord Hardtrial for treason shall be restored to the wicke pointed out to be the best for the footing upon which it stood by the act of country, and to re-establish the law of king William, it will be a great improve- forfeiture for ever. Unless we do so esment in the administration of criminal tablish it, it is clear that we shall violate justice. But be these matters as they one of the fundamental principles of our may, thus much appears incontestably, whole criminal code; for forfeiture (or that whatever changes have taken place escheat, which is of the same nature) runs in the law of treason, the principle of for- through every branch of it: it is a confeiture has been preserved throughout, sequence annexed to high treason, petty and confirmed in the best times; at a time treason, felony, flight, and outlawry. In when the transactions of the Revolution felonies, the day and year to the king, were fresh in every man's mind, this prin- and the escheat to the lord, will still reciple was acknowledged as fit to prevail; main in force, even if we suffer these forand at the union it was also carried in its feitures to cease in treason; and if we do fullest extent into Scotland. so, we shall invert the whole scale and With this view of the question before proportion of crimes and punishments, so us, it may be thought somewhat extraor- that henceforth it will be less penal to dinary that we should now be called upon commit treason than to commit a common to decide whether we shall any longer felony; and the life of the sovereign and retain this safeguard of the constitution, the liberties of the country will be less proor relinquish it for ever; but the circum-tected than the life and property of the stances which oblige us to decide are also meanest individual. extraordinary. It so happened, that in the same parliament which passed the law for improving the union in 1708, and in the same bill which established the law of forfeiture in Scotland, an attempt was made in this House to restrain forfeiture in all cases to the life of the offender, or, in other words, to abolish it; but the wisdom and firmness of lord Somers prevailed on the Lords to stop so rash a measure, by suspending the effect of the proposed alteration until after the death of the Pretender; hoping (as contemporary historians have said) that the prudence of succeeding parliaments would go farther. When the rebellion of 1745 was approaching, and a bill was brought in to prevent treasonable intercourse with the Pretender's family, lord Hardwicke (following the example of lord Somers) proposed a clause for again deferring this * See Vol. 6, p. 797. If motives like these could want additional weight, it is to be found abundantly in the events of the present times. It is but too manifest that treason will not die, nor sleep in the same tomb with the car. dinal of York; and at such a time as this, to throw down the fences and safeguards which defend the throne and our own liberties, is to act in defiance of the warning voice of all Europe. Add to this, that the treasons of our days surpass those of former times, as their aim is wider, and their character more malignant. Their aim is not even masked under the pretext of seeking the redress of any specific grievance, it is not to obtain any partial change in the state, it is not for any distinct reform in our religious establishments, nor for any modification of See the Extract from the MS. Parlia mentary Journal of the Hon. Philip Yorke. Vol. 13, p. 704. |