at Paris in such a time? Why such a domicil? If they fought us with fraternity, would not the contagion of that good will to us be more likely to reach those with whom they lived in the habits of general society as friends? The return was therefore suspicious upon the face of it, after such a residence; but the suspicion could be defeated and repelled by a fair account of the individuals to the executive power, in whom the discretion was reposed. If that power was not well chosen for the purpose, and a better check upon the abuse of such a discretion could be suggested, he would accept the suggestion most gratefully. For these reasons he thought the bill had stated a correct principle, and that all its provisions were clearly, politically, and even mercifully applied. The question for postponing the preamble was then put and negatived. Mr. Fox observed, that the clause, making it treason in any of the king's subjects to supply the French with the enumerated articles, necessarily included the people of Ireland, and consequently it went to legislate for Ireland, by making that treason in an Irishman by an English act of parliament which was not treason by an Irish act. could understand the idea of one country legislating for another under its dominion, but he had never heard of two independent countries legislating by turns for each other. He put the case, that the Irish parliament should happen, for the purpose of encouraging tillage, to give a bounty on the exportation of corn gene rally to any part of the world, at a time when England made the exportation of it to France, or to her allies, treason by the present bill: he asked whether there could be common sense in saying that an Irishman, who, in his own country would in that case be entitled to a bounty for having exported corn, should, in case he ever landed be liable to be hanged for the very act for which he had received a bounty at home. He equally ridiculed the doctrine that an Englishman might be executed in Ireland, by virtue of a law there, for an act done in England, and not prohibited by any law of England. The clause, worded as it was at present, would make it a question whether Irish merchants, residing within foreign countries, ought to be considered as coming within the penalty of this clause. His own idea was, that a law should be extended to those only whose appearance in a court it was in the power of the legislature to compel, and therefore that the Mr. Pitt said, it was, no doubt, true operation of the clause should be confined that the people of Ireland were the king's to persons residing in Great Britain. Persubjects; it was true that they had an in-haps difficulties might be started also redependent legislature; but as they had a common interest with the people of England, so it might be presumed they would adopt such regulations as were calculated for the general good of both countries. When any such regulations were to be proposed, one of the two legislatures must take the lead, but it could not mean by that to act for the other. He felt that the subject was delicate, but he thought he might venture to go so far as to say, that if England was to make an act treason in all his majesty's subjects, which was such by any law of Ireland, if such act was done in Ireland by an Irishman who should afterwards come into England, he might be tried and executed for it. In like manner, if the parliament of Ireland was to make an act treason in all his majesty's subjects, which was no treason by any law of England, and should an Englishman do that act in England, and go afterwards to Ireland, he might be there arraigned and executed for it. Mr. Fox called this the most extravagant doctrine he had ever heard. He specting the colonies, whose legislatures might think that the British parliament ought not to legislate internally for them. The Master of the Rolls thought the question respecting Ireland deserved a grave and distinct discussion. He was of opinion that an act declaratory of the 25th Edw. 3d necessarily extended to all his majesty's subjects, and let the act of treason have been committed where it might, the person charged with the commission of it might be tried in England; and this doctrine was clearly laid down by a statute of Henry 8th. With respect to the colonies, he could not doubt the right of the British parliament to legislate for them; and when he heard that right questioned, he was disposed to think that Englishmen were going to dissolve the bonds of allegiance which held them together. Mr. Fox replied, that he had never questioned the right of the British parliament to legislate even internally for the colonies: all he meant to say was, that of late it had been a practice founded in dis cretion not to call forth that right into ac- | veral clauses, and agreed to after much tion without necessity. But this did not discussion. The first of them was to conapply to Ireland; for if ever the British fine the operation of the bill to Great parliament had a right to legislate inter- Britain, On the 4th of April, the clause nally for her, that right had been formally which went to prohibit the return into and solemnly renounced. this country of any of his majesty's subjects without his leave, being read for the purpose of negativing the clause, Mr. Anstruther put the extreme case, that the parliament of Ireland should repeal that part of the 25th Edw. 3d which Mr. Whitbread said, he thought the makes it treason to imagine the king's clause so detestable, that even in its death, and that several gentlemen in Ire- death he could not help taking notice of land were, in consequence of that repeal, its character; he could not allow it the to form plots for taking away his majesty's benefit of the old charitable sentence, life, he asked whether any man could" de mortuis nil nisi bonum;" on the conlay down so extravagant a proposition as to say, that should these gentlemen afterwards come to England, they could not equally be brought to trial and punishment here for that which was still treason in England, though it should have ceased to be so in Ireland. Mr. Fox said, that such conduct on the part of the parliament of Ireland, were it possible, would afford a better argument for separating the two kingdoms, than for bringing persons to trial in defiance of general principles. Mr. Sheridan said, he was so thoroughly persuaded that the two nations ought to act upon the same principle, that hostile as he was to the present bill, and wishing most sincerely that it might never pass into a law here, yet, should it become an act of the British parliament, it would give him very great concern indeed if it was not adopted by Ireland; because if it was not, England could not reap the benefit which she expected from it, if it should not be re-enacted by the parliament of Ireland. The good sense of the latter would always make her co-operate with England in the general cause, and there could not be good policy in forcing upon her, by a side wind a measure which he was convinced she would be forward enough to adopt of her own accord. The Attorney General said, he certainly had formed his own opinion on the subject of the important discussion that had just taken place, though perhaps it might not be sound policy to state that opinion at present: however, as it was a matter of great moment in itself, and as gentlemen wished to have further time for discussing it, he was willing to adjourn the further consideration of the bill till the 26th. On the 26th and 28th of March, the bill was further taken into consideration. Amendments were proposed to se[VOL. XXX.] trary, he should apply to it the lines written on a tombstone, "Lie still if you are wise, "You're damn'd if you rise." But this was not all: he had a question to ask the solicitor-general, and it arose out of this clause, although it was to be negatived. The reasons assigned by the gentlemen who brought in the bill for negativing this clause, made his question necessary. They had insinuated, that the clause was not strictly necessary to the purpose which it tended to support, as his majesty by proclamation could order what was necessary for the safety of the state. A proclamation had issued to that effect, forbidding, for a time, subjects of this country from returning into it, under certain restrictions. He wished to know, whether the king was empowered by law to issue any proclamation, forbidding the return into this country of any one of the subjects of it not convicted of a crime? Had the king of England the power, by law, to hinder the return of such a man to his native country? The question he thought necessary to be determined before the clause was negatived, because they should take care upon that negative not to give an oblique sanction to a principle of tyranny, much more dangerous even than the effect could be of passing the clause itself He had heard that a proclamation to this effect had passed with regard to certain persons lately arrived from France at Dover, but he had not read it; he wished to know whether the law officer of the crown would say, that such a proclamation was warranted by the law of England? The Solicitor General said, that with respect to the legal point to which the hon. gentleman had alluded, certainly his majesty had a right to make a regulation upon the general policy of this country. Mr. Fox reprobated these expressions, [28] and proceeded to refute the principles which they appeared to him to support. He said, that he had, ever since he thought upon the subject, wholly and entirely misunderstood the law, if the king had the power, which the answer of the hon. and learned gentleman insinuated. If the king had the right of preventing any person from returning to this country, under the specious mask of regulating its general policy, he had in fact the power of expelling from his native land for ever any person he might think proper. He knew, in fact, the king had no such power; and therefore it was that he rose to make these observations, and with them to defy any man in that House, or any man in this world, to prove, that the king of England had by law a right to say to any subject not convicted of an offence against the law" You shall not return to Great Britain without a passport from me." If the king had ever, if the king should ever, issue a proclamation to that effect, he would say and maintain, without the least fear of the colour of refutation by argument, that such a proclamation was and would be irregular, illegal, and highly unconstitutional. He believed, that if the transaction alluded to, and which happened at Dover, should ever be fairly canvassed, it would be found to be a shameful violation of the law of this country, and a revival of the principle of the clause which had just been read, a principle which would, to a certain degree, attach shame, scandal, and disgrace on that House, for having once given to it the colour of a sanction, by giving leave to bring in a bill which contained a clause to favour it. "The king had a right to regulate upon points of general policy in this country." Had he, indeed! Had he a right to say to an Englishman, "You shall not return to England without my passport?" If he had, then it was high time to examine into the expediency of suffering such a prerogative to continue-high time to inquire whether some means could not be devised to limit the extent, and regulate the exercise of that prerogative. But, said Mr. Fox, I am sure he has not, and never ought to have, and never will have, unless this House shall scandalously neglect its duty; but I wish the solicitor-general would have the goodness to explain what he meant by those ambiguous words which he gave in answer to so very plain a question, and that he would not leave us under so just a terror for the fate of the constitution of our country. Mr. Pitt did not think that the subject before the committee warranted the attack which the right hon. gentleman had made upon the proclamation. The question before the committee was, whether the clause should be agreed to or negatived? Upon which there was no difference of opi nion, and upon which, therefore, in point of regularity there ought to have been no debate. He justified the answer of the solicitor-general, and concluded with explaining the nature of the proclamation. Mr. Fox again maintained, that the words of the solicitor-general tended in effect to convey to the House the most odious and detestable principle, and such as he was sure did not belong to the constitution of this country. He would say they were material words, for the words of any high law authority in that House were always important, and would be dangerous, if not refuted when they were wrong, because they would form, as it were, a sort of precedent by acquiescence; they were words at which he was justly alarmed, when he compared them with the plain question to which they were aù answer. "I say," said Mr. Fox, "I am justly alarmed when I hear such sentiments from such a quarter, for it is not his own opinion merely that the learned gentleman is speaking. I say that I am justly alarmed for the liberties of the country, when such exploded doctrines upon the king's prerogatives are attempted to be revived; doctrines, to explode which, the best treasure of this country was expended, and the purest blood shed. The observations of the learned gentleman upon the king's prerogative is worse than the clause which he has given up. At these attempts it is high time to be alarmed." The clause was negatived. April 8. The report of the bill was brought up. The House having gone through all the amendments made in the bill by the committee, Mr. Adam said, that by the law of high treason in general, every person accused of treason is entitled to be heard by counsel on questions of fact as well as of law; to have a copy of the indictment, and a list of the witnesses ten days before trial; by the same law no person accused can be convicted unless the overt act of treason be proved by two witnesses. But parlia that those aids were allowed by law, merely because the corruption and forfeiture of estate were consequences of a conviction on a charge of high treason.—Mr. Adam argued to show that there was no analogy between the act of counterfeiting the king's coin, and, for instance, remitting money to France during the present war; it was true, that after the passing of this bill, these two acts would in law amount to high treason, yet the latter alone could be said to partake of the nature of treason, as it argued an adhering to the king's enemies; and the former was allowed by all able law authorities to be rather a species of fraud, and what was called the crimen falsi, than high treason; and to have been called treason, only because it was an act in which the public had a concern. As, therefore, these treasons differed widely in their nature, a distinction, he contended, might well be expected in the aids to be allowed to persons indicted, as to the means of their defence. On these grounds it was, that he moved for leave to bring up a clause, the object of which was, to extend to persons who should be tried under this act, the indulgence allowed by the 7th Will.3d and 7th Anne, to persons accused of high treason, under the 25th of Edward 3d. ment having made the counterfeiting of the king's coin, the great seal, &c. high treason, had made a distinction between treasons of that description, and treasons against the king's life, or making war upon him, or adhering to his enemies: for a person accused of counterfeiting the coin, for instance, though charged with high treason, is not entitled to a copy of the indictment or to a list of the witnesses, nor is it necessary that the fact should be proved by two witnesses; nor is counsel allowed to speak in behalf of the prisoner, except a question of law should arise. The ground for this distinction was, that the latter kind of treasons did not work a corruption of blood, or a forfeiture of the estate, of the party convicted; and as the punishment was the less severe, so the aids allowed to the accused for making his defence were also less. Mr. Adam laboured to show, that the distinction did not apply to the acts which were to be made treason by the present bill; for they were such as might be considered as coming within that branch of the statute of the 25th Edw.3drelative to "adhering to the king's enemies," and consequently a person brought to trial upon the present bill, was, in point of reason, entitled to all the aids which were allowed by law to persons making their defence against a charge of high treason. But these aids, it seemed, were to be denied under the present bill, for this reason, that it was not to work corruption of blood, or forfeiture of estate; but the reason did not appear to him to be a sound one, for the House must know, that by the 7th of queen Anne it was enacted, that corruption of blood and forfeiture of estate should no longer be the consequence of a conviction of high treason, after the death of the then Pretender to the crown. By the 17th Geo. 2d, the period when corruption of blood and forfeiture should no longer attach upon treason, was removed to a more distant time, and was to take place at the death of the two sons of that Pretender. One of these, it was well known, had died a few years ago; the other, who was the cardinal of York, was an aged person, and at his death, which could not, in the course of nature, be very distant, all corruption of blood and forfeiture for high treason were by law to cease in England. And yet, after that period, a person accused of high treason would be still entitled to all the aids which he had already mentioned; so that it could not be said The Attorney General opposed the admission of the clause. He said it went to open a very wide discussion, indeed, namely, whether all those aids which the learned gentleman had enumerated, as granted by law to persons accused of high treason, should also be allowed in cases of felony; for though counterfeiting the king's coin, for instance, was in name high treason, it was, as to its effects upon the blood and property of the convict, no more than felony. He said, he had not expected that, when the present bill reduced the penalty of high treason, with respect to persons offending against it, to that which was enacted merely against felons, a charge would be brought, that it subjected them to hardships from which they ought to be relieved. If the proposed relief was proper in this case, he saw no reason why it ought not to be extended also to those who should hereafter be accused of felony. Mr. For expressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should have confounded two things, which in their nature were widely different. A copy of the indictment, a list of the witnesses, and the aid of counsel in matters of fact as well as law, were allowed to persons accused of high treason, but not to persons accused of felony, the reason of the difference was obvious; prosecutions for felonies were usually brought by private individuals, who could not be supposed to have any extraordinary influence with either judge or jury; but prosecutions for high treason were always brought by the crown; the aids, therefore, which the law allowed to a person accused of treason, were so many shields given to him to defend himself, and prevent him from being overborne by the weight, or influence, or passions of the chief magistrate or his ministers. These shields must, of course, on this principle, be as necessary in a prosecution on the present bill, as in one on the 25th Edw. 3d, as in both cases it would be carried only by the public accuser at the command of the crown. It was allowed that at the death of cardinal York all treasons would be precisely on a level, as far as they affected the inheritable quality of the blood, and the property of the person convicted; what a miserable thing, then, must it be to say, that in a prosecution for an act done against the present bill, a man should be refused a copy of his indictment, and the other aids allowed by law in cases of high treason, merely because the aged cardinal had not yet paid the debt of nature! He was glad, he said, that the penalty under this bill was not to be greater than that to which persons were subjected who were convicted of counterfeiting the great seal; but, on the other hand, he feared that this seeming lenity was not what it appeared to be, the child of mercy; he apprehended that its object was, to facilitate the conviction of the accused, by taking from him the means of defence, which he might claim as his right, if the bill left the enumerated acts within the statute of the 25th Edw. 3d. These acts might be considered as proofs of an adherence to the king's enemies, and consequently came within the species of treason on which corruption of blood attached; but, by classing them under the head of treasons which did not operate a corruption of blood, the framers of the bill had contrived to take from the accused the means of defence, under the appearance of lenity. Of all the characters of cruelty, he considered that as the most odious which assumed the garb of mercy; such was the case here; under the pretence of mercy to the accused, in not charging him with corruption of blood, | he was to be deprived of the means of making his defence. That he might not stand a chance in the contest, his shield was to be taken from him. The list of the jury, to give him the benefit of the challenge-the list of witnesses, to enable him to detect conspiracies and to prevent perjury-the copy of the charge ten days before the trial,to enable him to prepare himself for the awful day-the assistance of a learned gentleman to speak for an unlearned man-all the arms and means of protection with which the humanity of the law of England had fortified an individual, when accused by the crown, were to be taken away. Harshness and severity were to be substituted for tenderness and compassion; and then he was to be insulted by being told he was spared the corruption of blood! But, really, it seemed to him as if some gentlemen thought there ought to be a law for the facility of conviction of high treason; and if so, why did they not speak out boldly, and alter the preamble of the bill, and word it to this effect-" Whereas by allowing prisoners lists of evidence and juries, copies of indictments, and other means of defence, it has been difficult to convict them, be it therefore enacted, &c.' He should, on the third reading of the bill, have another opportunity of opposing its principle, a principle which would appear somewhat less tyrannical if the proposed clause was admitted, but which must be still more odious if it was rejected. Mr. Pitt said, that, harsh as was the epithet which the right hon. gentleman had bestowed upon the bill, it would not make a very deep impression upon those who would recollect that the right hon. gentleman had admitted that some of the acts enumerated in the bill might be said to come within that branch of high treason described by the 25th Edw. 3d, under the head of adhering to the king's enemies. The principle of the present bill went to punish such persons as should adhere to his majesty's enemies, and therefore could not, on that head, be called tyrannical. The reason why a copy of the indictment was allowed in cases of high treason, and not in those of felony, was this, that without it the person accused of treason could not possibly know how to defend himself; for the warrant of commitment stated no more than that the party had imagined the king's death, or had adhered to his enemies, or had levied war upon |