Page images
PDF
EPUB

as we do, or else you shall lose all the benefits of a member of society, every thing that is dear and valuable to you." This was more unjust than even the practice of the ancient catholics, praying in an unknown tongue, and refusing to the professors of the christian religion a perusal of the book on which christianity was founded. The church of Rome directed us to obey the precepts of a mild religion, which tended to make us good citizens without reading. The church of England compelled us to read, but forbad us to judge. He should now move for the repeal of many of those statutes. Many more remained, he had no doubt, and would hereafter be repealed. The reason why he preferred this mode to that of bringing forward any particular enacting law, was, that in making a new law, we knew not what would be the effect, but in repealing a bad law, we knew we did nothing more than justice. He then moved, first, "That the different statutes of the 9th and 10th of King William, entitled An act for the more effectual suppressing of blasphemy and profaneness, the 1st of Edward VI. chap. 1.; the 1st of Queen Mary, chap. 3.; the 14th and 15th of Elizabeth, &c. &c. be read;" which being done, he then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal and alter sundry provisions of the said acts.'

[ocr errors]

The motion was strongly opposed by Mr. Burke and Mr. Pitt ; and supported by Lord North, Mr. W. Smith, and others.

Mr. Fox rose to reply. He said, he never was so happy as in having that day an opportunity to avail himself of the indulgence which the House generally gave to the mover of a question; at the same time, he had been very uneasy during the greater part of the debate, and particularly towards the close of it. He had, indeed, heard, before he came in, that his motion was likely to be opposed, but what the grounds of opposition were to be, he had not the least idea of. Now, however, all was out: for the right honourable gentleman on the bench with him (Mr. Burke) had, circuitously, and the right honourable gentleman opposite, directly, opposed every principle and system of toleration, in a manner that he never could have expected from either of them in that House. It was not his intention to follow the first right honourable gentleman through all the extraneous matter he had introduced; for, certainly, his motion had nothing to do with France, which it was the fashion with some gentlemen to cram into every debate. His opinions of the French revolution were precisely the same now that they ever had been. He considered that event as highly important and advantageous to

this country, and to the world in general; and that right honourable gentleman knew his disposition too well, to suppose that any temporary or accidental defeat that the French might suffer in their struggle for liberty, would stagger his mind with regard to their success in the result. Such accidental defeats were to be expected at the commencement of such wars, and when attacks were made by raw and undisciplined troops; but those defeats would not be decisive; and such had been, as the right honourable gentleman well knew, their mutual opinions during the American war. He had heard of treachery, perfidy, and unprovoked rebellion, and the demolition of one of the king's fortresses, in high terms; and though he had been told that no two-legged animal could be found, who would credit the old women's stories about the Bastile, he would acknowledge himself to be that animal. He knew the right honourable gentleman's taste for poetry, and when the Bastile was mentioned, a description of it came to his mind, as given by one of the first of our modern poets, the amiable Cowper, in his poem of The Task :

"Ye horrid towers, th' abode of broken hearts,
Ye dungeons, and ye cages of despair,
That monarchs have supplied, from age to age,
With music such as suits their sovereign ears,
The sighs and groans of miserable men!
There's not an English heart that would not leap
To hear that ye were fallen at last; to know
That even our enemies, so oft' employ'd
In forging chains for us, themselves were free.
'Tis the cause of man.

There dwell the most forlorn of human kind,
Immur'd though unaccus'd, condemn'd untry'd,
Cruelly spared, and hopeless of escape.
Oh, comfortless existence! hemm'd around

With woes which who that suffers would not kneel

And beg for exile, or the pangs of death?

[ocr errors]

That man should thus encroach on fellow man,
Abridge him of his just and native rights,
Eradicate him, tear him from his hold
Upon th' endearments of domestic life
And social, nip his fruitfulness, and use
And doom him, for perhaps an heedless word,
To barrenness, and solitude, and tears,
Moves indignation.".

After having repeated these lines, he added, in the language of the poet, that there was not an English heart which would not leap to hear that this monument of arbitrary power, this abode of wretchedness and despair, had now fallen. With

[ocr errors]

respect to Paine's book, Mr. Fox observed, that he had called it a libel, but not an infamous one; it was a libel on the constitution of Great Britain the right honourable gentleman's book was a libel on every free constitution in the world. The French revolution he had particularly avoided touching on. He knew not why Dr. Priestley, because he approved of the French revolution, should be liable to punishment from the circumstance of his being an unitarian, and that he (Mr. Fox) should be exempted from punishment who was of the same opinion, but was a trinitarian. He had never before heard the Birmingham riot defended. He did not think that the merits of any question ought to be decided by the conduct of an individual. Some of Dr. Priestley's works he had read; in his religious writings he had found nothing of politics, and his political works seemed free from religion. Mr. Fox noticed the circumstance of Mr. Burke's having, he believed, last session, on the catholic bill, declared a wish, that all the sanguinary laws inflicting death in matters of religion were repealed. The right honourable gentleman, indeed, might have altered his opinion, as he had lately done, very suddenly, on various topics. The idea that repealing the statutes would give scandal to the people, as rendering them liable to the imputation of indifference to the religion of the country, Mr. Fox considered as weak and unfounded. The pagans, he observed, might have said the same with respect to the christians. No measure of toleration was ever known to have originated with the bishops, and on the subject before the House they were the last persons to be consulted. Mr. Fox adduced some strong facts in support of this observation. He had within the last three years paid particular attention to the subject, and had read considerably upon it, and he was, from the completest conviction, a firm friend to religious establishments. With regard to the times, he did not think that popular prejudice should deter the House from giving their opinion on the subject; the House, he observed, of late seemed inclined to become the slave of popularity. When he considered the various books that had been published, and reflected on the manner in which the Birmingham rioters had been punished, he thought there appeared to be a violent high-church spirit in the country. If gentlemen saw danger abroad, he thought they ought to step forward and endeavour to crush it; for his part he feared none. Mr. Fox concluded with declaring, that he hoped and trusted, that the subject of toleration would be renewed as often as could be, convinced

as he was, that the more it was discussed the more its justice

would be perceived and acknowledged.

[blocks in formation]

ON

MIDDLESEX JUSTICES' BILL.

April 17.

N the 16th of March a bill had been brought in by Mr. Burton, "for the more effectual administration of the office of a justice of peace in such parts of the county of Middlesex as lie in and near the metropolis." The plan of this bill was, to open five different offices in the metropolis, at a convenient distance from each other, for the prompt administration of those parts of justice within the cognizance of justices of the peace. Three justices were to sit in each of these offices, with a salary of 300l. a-year to each of them. They were to be prohibited from the taking of fees individually; and the money from the fees, paid into all the offices, was to be collected and applied to the payment of their salaries and official expences. In order, at the same time, wholly to suppress the name and business of a trading justice, no fees were henceforward to be taken by any one in the commission of the peace within the London district. On the second reading of the bill upon the 17th of April,

[ocr errors]

Mr. Fox said, he did not object to the bill now, understanding that it was to be discussed on a future occasion. He had not had all the instruction he wished and hoped to have from his constituents on this subject. But as the bill appeared, there seemed to him to be two objections to it; one, that it would do no good whatever; the other, that it was likely to do some mischief. He did not know whether the objections taken to this bill were unanswerable or not, but he was sure they had not been answered, and therefore he should be glad that another discussion should take place, in order that the promoters of the bill might have an opportunity to improve their arguments. With regard to the patronage which this bill was supposed to create, it would certainly be thrown into that scale, and add weight to that which, in his opinion, was already much too heavy, and which he never wished, and now he would not be suspected to wish, to be the heaviest. The magistrates who were to act under this bill were to be appointed by the king; they were to receive offices of profit, for salaries were to be given. Now this was patronage,

1

and patronage of great consequence too; for although the king had the appointment, the whole management of it was under the immediate direction and controul of the minister, who had also the appointment of these trading justices. Now, he wished to know what the security was which the public had, that any benefit whatever would result from this bill? What security was there, that he who appointed these trading justices, who were now said to be unworthy of their station, would appoint men of better character or capacity to succeed them? There was the same person to appoint both, with the same motives to influence his appointment, namely, patronage. He did not think it in the least degree likely that these persons would be better appointed than their predecessors. However, he should not make any opposition now, but reserve what he had to say for the next discussion.

May 18.

On the order of the day for the further consideration of the report of the committee on the bill,

Mr. Fox rose briefly to state his objections to the bill. It contained, he said, a dangerous innovation in principle. The police of this country was well administered in the ordinary mode by gentlemen who undertook to discharge the duty without deriving any emolument from it, and in the safest way to the freedom of the subject, because those gentlemen being under no particular obligation to the executive power, could have no particular interest in perverting the law to oppression. To appoint a set of justices with salaries from government, and consequently to a certain degree, under influence, was to change the long-established practice, and to introduce a new principle, which might be indefinitely extended under various pretexts, and the effects of which no man could foresee. A sufficient case had not been made out to warrant such a change. It was not even shewn that the bill would remedy the abuses alledged as the ground for bringing it in. It contained a clause, enabling these new magistrates to bring persons before them to inquire into their characters and intentions, and commit them to prison on such an enquiry. This was a power pregnant with abuse; and as those who were likely to be the objects of it, the lower classes of the people, had seldom the means of applying for redress against abuse of power, they were entitled to the peculiar protection of the legislature in every law, by which they could be affected. On these grounds, that a sufficient case had not been made

« PreviousContinue »