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

[[68]]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

[[69]]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

[[70]]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,

[[71]]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

[[72]]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