tickets, he would next propose, tute. These were- ist , compásling that the numbers drawn thould or imagining the death of the king; only be taken down, and printed a phrase which, as undoubtedly it under the authority of the commis- was of great latitude, the judges fioners, and that they should be had always been ofopinion, that in publifhed in a numerical arrange- order to constitute ihis degree of seeds ment, so as to render it impoflible treason, it was necessary that there to ascertain the order in which they should be some overt act. 2d, it were drawn. Another regulation was declared treasonable, if a man he meant to propose, was, to pre- Thould levy war against the king; vent insurances at licensed offices, or adhere to his majesty's enemies, liet unless where the tickets insured and aid, comfort, or abet them. were actually produced, and more The third act declared treasonable effe&tually to suppress all unlicenfed was counterfeiting the king's mooffices. These reasons did not in- ney. The authors of this statute duce either Mr. Sheridan or Mr. had undoubtedly deemed it necesTaylor to alter their unfavourable fary to reduce the law of treason, opinion of the measure. The refo- as far as laid in their power, to a lution however was carried, and a degree of certainty; but had left bill on the principle of it was, on it expressed in these general terms, the 24th of May, brought into par- as they could not foresee the cirliament and paffed. cumstances which might arise in Mr Pite moved also, that there after times, to which the descrip but . be issued to his majesty, for the tion of treason might apply. Ace service of the year 1793; the sum of cordingly the legitlature had found 255,000 l. out of the furplus arifing it requifite, at diferent periods, to from the consolidated fund, froin declare what particular circumthe 5th of January 1793, to the 5th stances conitituted overt acts of January 1794. This motion was treafon. From the time that this agreed to. itatute paffed, down to the reign of The next subject of parliamentary Queen Mary, different explanatory discuslion, and in every stage of its acts had from time to time been progress it was ably and amply ex- made. During her reign, all these amined, was a bill for the more ef- acts were repealed, and the law fectually preventing, during the restored to the original footing un. war, all traitorous correspondence on which it ftood by the statute of with the king's enemies. On Fri- King Edward. In this detail, he day, the 15th of March, the at- bad only followed the account torney-general preceded his mo- given by my lord Hale, whom he tion for such a bill, by explaining had taken for his guide upon this the nature and object of it. The occasion, and if he did not read law of treason, he said, was founded this account in his own words, upon a statute of the 25th of Ed- which were much better than any ward III. which had been the sub- expressions that he could use, it was ject of legislative exposition in dif- only that he might not occupy too ferent acis palled since that period. much of the time of the House, He thould mention what were the An act had passed in the reign of acts prade trcafonable in that ita- Queen Anne, to prevent all traje torous torous correspondence, which pro- country into France, without a lihibited any persons from supplying cence, under bis majesty's great the enemies with arms, naval or feal, and that their neglect in obmilitary stores, or from going out taining that licence should be of the kingdom to the enemy's deemed a misdemeanour. But he country without licence. A fimi- confidered it to be a measure of very lor act, which had passed in the great importance, that no persons, reign of William and Mary, carried though subjects of this country, the regulation farther : it not only coming from France, should be alprohibited all fupplies of arms, &c. lowed to enter this kingdom, withbce of goods and merchandize of out a passport or licence, or subevery fort. The bill which he mitting to tuch regulations as are mant now to propose, was founded stated in the bill. The last clause nearly upon the principle of these was intended to prevent the insurats. It was his intention to pro ance of vessels, either coming from bibit any person from selling or de France, or going to it. He convt levering , or causing to be deliver- cluded with moving, that leave be ed for the use of persons who com given to bring in a bill for the more steel pole the French government, or effectually preventing, during the the French armies, any of the arti- war, all traitorous correspondence Hoe te des specified, such as arms, mili- with the king's enemies, &c. tary fores, provisions, bullion, or Mr. Fox, after some previous obhe woollen cloths, under penalty of servations on the law of trealon, high treason. But, in order to exprefled his astonishment at the laiteen the rigour of this penalty, he provisions contained in this bill. or proposed that it should be under- Mr Erikine also oppofed it with his fired, as in the case of persons usual energy; but as the debates it counterfeiting the king's money, were of considerable length, in e she and not convey any attaint in the every stage of this bill, we Mall beter biood, or debar the next heirs from contine ourselves to that which took place on the third reading of 1 tor for its third reading; when Mr. was not done, it would be imposFox rose to give his last opposition fible for any man to know, by the to the bill. perusal of the bill, what was declaHe declared it to be a bill the ratory and what was enacting; and most unjust in its principle, inade as by part of this bill cloth was not quate in its provision and tyrannical prohibited now, although it was so in its effect, thatever passed through when the bill came in, what would the House of Commons; for which be the result of this? Why, that as there was nothing like a precedent, nothing was said of cloth in it, and either in policy, juftice, or hu- as the declaratory was not distinmanity. Its principle, it was said, guished from the enađing part, no was to prevent aid and comfort be man could know whether, in sending given to his majesty's enemies. ing cloth, he would or would not But it had no such principle; it had be liable to the penalties of the 25th that, indeed, for its pretext, but of Edward III. In what a fituathere was a material difference be- tion were the people of this countween principle and pretext. Here try to be in, to have a law of treaMr. Fox took notice of the nature son without having a poslibility of of the bill as originally brought in knowing the operation. If the bill by the attorney general, and the did not operate to prohibit the sale almost total difference between that of cloth by the subjects of this counand the one now about to pass that try, and some should fear it did, House; the one now in question, they suffered great hardfhip. If, however, was, after all, in the on the other hand, fome persons point of policy alone, such as this thought, that as this bill specified country would gain less, and our certain articles, the sale of which enemies lote leis, than if no such it probibited, they might fafely fell measure had been adopted. But those that were not 1pecified at all, lub it was not upon policy only that and afterwards it thould turn out this bill ought to be considered; that this bill did not repeal the 25th *** IRIDE great as that consideration ought of Edward III. here then they to be, there were other confidera- would be enfrared by this bill into wa Fr tions that were still of a higher na the penalties of treason. With reture--he meant juflice and huma- fpect to theclauses of the bill, there nity-there were of more import. were many of them to which no ance, because they regarded the man, who had the least feeling for Of character of the country in its most his fellow creatures, could agree; 31 , 2016 valuable fente. The very question one, in particular, which turned put by his honourable friend ref- upon the meaning of the words! pecting the cloth, he said, proved agree, or rather the construction de that this measure could not be re- put upon it. This was against all set duced to the fiandard of reafon, or the analogies of the law of Engof justice; for, as the bill now land, and unjust in its principle. stood, part of it was said to be de- Here Mr. Fox took notice of le- , claratory, and part enacting. veral acts of parliament, as they These tvio points he had, on le tended to illutirate his argument veral occafions, called on the friends upon the injustice of the clause to my of the bill to explain; but, as that which he alluded; one, in parti *cular and 15, cular, for the prevention of frauds fact was not so. Was it of no ad upon verbal agreements, provided vantage to a person, thus accused, that no man thould be bound by to have a list of his jury before his they evidence given of his having trial ? Was it of no advantage to a hirmered into a verbal agreement, if perfon, fo accused, to have a copy has the sum amounted to more than of his indictment several days pre 12l , and the principle of that bill vious to his appearance on his trial? tas, that, upon all conversation Was it not an advantage to have a and rerbal communication, there list of the witnesses to be examined 10 was a facility for the commission of against him ? Moft unquestionably 1, i pay. Any person might swear it was. All these were given by he beard two persons agree to any the former law of treason, and by of this thing, and it might be difficult, this bill they were all denied. As perhaps impossible, to refute that to the statute of Edward III. rethis resimny , although false; there- specting the evidence to be given 29 d fire, en former occasions, the wif- against the accuted, two points ca of the legislature had said, that arose from this confideration : first, If 4. noman should be bound, by such evi- the jury must be satisfied upon the bizi dence , beyond the sum of 1ol. but evidence of two witnesses, of an this by this bill , all ideas of justice and overt act being committed by the ar id bananity were abandoned; and prisoner; secondly, they must be evidence, which, in a civil case, satisfųed, that such overt act was could not affe& a man's purse to done with a treasonable intention, the amount of iol. was here to In this case, the evidence might be take away his life! This would put given of the act; but the jury were in any man in the power of malice, not called upon by their oath to ined and lead to perjury, subornation of find the prisoner guilty merely updua perjury, and all the most infamous on that evidence; they were not practices . With respect to the neceisarily bound to infer the treaclause which prohibits the pur- sonable intention. But, by the evichafing of lands in France, Mr. dence of this bill, one witness was In ailigned several reasons for sufficient to convict, and the jury bil, thaking it against justice and hu were not called upon by their oaths bizity, and an insult on the dig- to infer any intention,so that a man city of parliament. Of all the acts might be convicted on proof of the of emelty, tyranny, and absurdity, fact merely. This was a desperate that ever disgraced an act of parlia- inlet to perjury and nalice. ment in England, this he thought Mr. Fox faid, that those who the the worst. And here he could not could conceive luch clauses as were andre hep taking notice of the severity introduced into that bill, mufi eiof the bill, in submitting all per- ther be in their hearts hostile to, kas to be tried without the allilt- or have heads ignorant ot, the con rate of a gentleman, learned in the ftitution of this country; nor was ize win , to address the jury for them. their practice, on the whole probe ud, indeed, been said, that this ceeding, to be accounted for. The til was founded upon the general thifisto which the authors of the bill praciple of the laws of treaton, were driven, in commitments, and k toe asth of Edward III. but we recuinmitments, all indicaicda con da Prince Iciones Europe. sciousness of the impropriety of the whether it infringed on liberty? measure altogether, and the whole He would say, Yes, it did. It was wasbecome a mais, that would injure a law; and laws always infringed in the character of the country, and tome refpect on natural liberty, as particularly of that House. It commanding something to be would be a bad compliment to the avoided. Every law that was made age in which we lived. He con- took away something from the porcluded with giving the motion his tion of liberty. It was then to be decided negative. considered, whether the present Mr. Burke, in reply, said, there measure was such as took away were but two points on which the more than was neceflary of that libill could be considered; one, whe- berty? If so, he thought it ought ther it was conformable to law; not to pais: and, next, whether it the other, whether it was confift- took away luch a liberty as, if it \ent with policy; and, in confi- remained, could do no mischief? dering the matter, the House must In a constitutional view, all acts throughout take along with them, done by that House were to be as the grounds of their reasoning, considered as either peace or war and the very foundation of the bill, acts. There must be a peace pothat we were at war with France, lice, and a war police; the latter upon its present bottom and system, of which was to secure the blefas it related to the other powers of sings enjoyed in the former, and each different from the other, the Our constitution was a provident neceflities of war calling for an insystem, formed of several bodies, crease of the prerogative of the for securing the rights, the liber- crown, in progreflive proportion to ties, the persons, and the proper- the diificulties that occurred in it; ties of the people. The confiitu- and this made a part of the body of tion was composed of the king, the common law. If this, then, lords, and commons; and in the was the case, the first thing to be judicial power, the king was repre- considered was, whether the gelented by the judges, the lords by neral matter of the bill harmonized the writ of error, and the com- with the general principles of the mons of England by the juries. conftitution, and were justified by “ Now let us," laid he, “ get out the example of our ancestors? Conof the torrent of declamation, and venience, he said, was the ground see what part of this constitution is of all law; and hence the present touched or affected by the prefent bill was consistent with the general bill. Is the king's prerogative principles of jurisprudence. The touched? Are the lords touched by juridical power of punishing as it in their legislative or judicial ca- traitors those who aided and compacity? Are the commons touched forted the king's enemies, could by it? Are the judges or juries be traced to Edward III, and, if touched by it? No; none of these: necessary, even farther, Aiding, the constitution remains sacred and in strict legal sense of the word, inviolate. The question, then, was, was assisting and comforting; was did the bill touch those things for making itronger; and the present the protection of which the confii- act went exactly to that object, folution existed ? Was it asked, "lowing the principle of the law of |