MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
The king opened parliament on the 13th of November. The prominent part of his speech related to the Falkland Islands, a question that was still in abeyance. His majesty informed the lords and commons, that by an act of the governor of Buenos Ayres, in seizing one of his possessions by force, the honour of the crown and the rights of the people were deeply affected; and he called on them for advice and assistance. The addresses of both houses approved of the steps taken by his majesty, and assured him of their effectual support: to this end, supplies for the augmentation of the army and navy were cheerfully voted,—and in order to defray any extraordinary expenses, the land-tax was increased from three to four shillings in the pound.
DEBATE CONCERNING THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.
In the debate on the address, Lord North had said, that as the Spanish ambassador had thrown the responsibility upon the Governor of Buenos Ayres, it was proper that his Spanish majesty should be allowed time to disavow these proceedings. He had also endeavoured to show that the Falkland Islands were of little value to anybody, and not of sufficient importance to justify a war if it could be avoided. These sentiments ill accorded with the views of some in the lower house, in which they were uttered, and several, as Dowdeswell, Barré, Burke, Sir William Meredith, and Sir Charles Saunders, blamed the minister for putting forward the Governor of Buenos Ayres, instead of complaining of his master, the King of Spain; who must, they contended, have previously authorised his expedition against Port Egmont. Similar opinions appear to have been entertained in the house of lords, although the address passed there without any show of dissatisfaction. On the 20th of November, however, the Duke of Richmond gave notice that he would make a motion on the 22nd, on which day, therefore, the house was summoned. That day arrived, Richmond moved for an address, praying that the king would order that all papers received by the ministry between the 12th of September, 1769, and the 12th of September, 1770, touching hostilities commenced, or designed to be commenced, by the crown of Spain, or any of his officers, should be laid before parliament. In urging this demand, the duke said, that the affairs of the Falkland Islands was only one among many acts of aggression, and he asserted that while we were in want of seamen, three thousand, captured in trading ships by the Guarda-Costas, under pretence of smuggling, were rotting in Spanish prisons, or pining away in hopeless slavery in South America. The motion was opposed by Lords Weymouth and Hillsborough, who contended that the production of the papers called for, would embarrass a negociations now in good train that the Spanish government was entitled to respect and delicate management; and that the ministers were not wanting either in vigilance or vigour. The Duke of Richmond was supported by the Earl of Chatham, who, in a long and eloquent speech, showed the necessity of firmness on the part of the British cabinet;—accused the Spaniards of want of faith, and of being as mean and crafty as they are proud and insolent; and predicted that if ministers patched up an accommodation for the present, they would still have a Spanish war in six months. He concluded by charging the ministers with having destroyed all content and unanimity at home by a series of oppressive and unconstitutional measures; and with having delivered up the nation, defenceless, to a foreign enemy. He added this warning:—“Let me warn them of their danger. If they are forced into a war, they stand it at the hazard of their heads; if, by an ignominious compromise, they should stain the honour of the crown, or sacrifice the rights of the people, let them look to the consequences, and consider whether they will be able to walk the streets in safety.”—The Duke of Manchester, the Marquess of Rockingham, the Earl of Shelburne, and Lord Lyttleton also supported the Duke of Richmond’s motion, but it was nevertheless negatived by a large majority. On the same day, also, a similar motion was made and negatived in the house of commons; moreover, a few days later the Earl of Chatham moved that Captain Hunt, who had driven off a Spanish schooner from Port Egmont, before the armament arrived, should be ordered to attend the house; and when this was negatived, he moved an address to his majesty, praying that the house might be acquainted at what time reparation was first demanded from Spain, which likewise received a negation.
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEEDINGS OF THE LAW OF LIBEL.
The sentiments promulgated by Lord Mansfield on the law of libel, in the case of Woodfall, had created much discussion among the legal profession, and had met with much obloquy among the people. They were represented as an attempt to infringe the rights and powers of juries, and to reduce their verdicts to a mere echo of the opinions of judges, inasmuch as they were merely to inquire into the fact of printing and publishing, and not allowed to judge whether the matter in question was a libel or not On the 28th of November, Lord Chatham denounced this mode of directing juries from the bench, but Lord Mansfield justified it, and laid it down as an axiom, “that a libel, or not a libel, was a matter of law to be decided by the bench, and the question to be left to the jury was only the fact of printing and publishing.” Mansfield demanded a call of the house for the 10th of December, and when that day arrived, he laid on the table a paper, drawn up with great care and precision, containing the unanimous opinion of the court of king’s bench in Woodfall’s case, in order that their lordships might, read or copy it as they pleased. Lord Camden inquired whether this paper was intended to be entered on the journals, and submitted to debate. Mansfield replied it was merely intended for the information of members, and he then suddenly moved an adjournment and quitted the house. On the next day, Camden considering the paper as a challenge to himself, endeavoured to provoke a discussion, by addressing six queries to the chief-justice, but Lord Mansfield declared that he would not answer interrogations, and the matter dropped.
In the house of commons, the power of filing ex-officio informations by the attorney-general in cases like Almon’s, elicited the praises of Burke, on Junius as a writer, in these terms:—“How comes this Junius to have broken through the cobwebs of the law, and to have ranged uncontrolled, unpunished through the land? The myrmidons of the court have been long, and are still, pursuing him in vain. They will not spend their time upon me, or upon you, when the mighty boar of the forest, that has broke through all their toils, is before them. But what will all their efforts avail? No sooner has he wounded one than he strikes down another dead at his feet. For my own part, when I saw his attack upon the king, I own my blood ran cold. Not that he has not asserted many bold truths: yes, sir, there are in that composition many bold truths, by which a wise prince might profit. It was the rancour and venom with which I was struck. But while I expected from this daring flight his final ruin and fall, behold him rising still higher, and coming down souse upon both houses of parliament;—not content with carrying away our royal eagle in his pounces, and dashing him against a rock, he has laid you prostrate, and kings, lords, and commons, thus become but the sport of his fury.” Soon after this Sergeant Glynn moved for a committee to inquire “into the constitutional power and duty of juries.” His motion was opposed by Fox, and supported by Dunning, Wedderbume, Burke, and others. Fox opposed it because it was said that “the people complained of the perversion of law,” and he laid himself open to the following severe remarks from the lips of Burke:—“That there should be found, he said, gentlemen who would annihilate the people, and acknowledge no other voice than that of this house, is to me, not at all surprising, because the conduct of the most violent sticklers for this doctrine has not deserved much applause or favour from them; but that they should have renounced reason and common sense so far as to maintain that the majority of this assembly is the only organ by which their sentiments can be expressed, is, to me, truly surprising. For where, in the name of wonder, should the house acquire the necessary knowledge or intelligence? Is it by turning these musty old volumes, or by rummaging these gaudy boxes which lie on your table? No! they contain none of these mysteries. How then are they to be explored? Is there any virtue or inspiration in these benches or cushions, by which they are to be communicated, or does the echo of these walls whisper the secret in your ears? No! but the echo of every other wall, the murmur of every stream, aye! the hoots and hisses of every street in the nation, ring it in your ears, and deafen you with their din. The people have a voice of their own, and it must, it will be, sooner or later heard: and I, as in duty bound, will always exert every nerve and every power of which I am master, to hasten the completion of so desirable an event.” The motion was negatived.