Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

CLVI.

CHAP. fore, left an open question. "Lord North himself spoke for the inquiry, but faintly and reluctantly," while the Solicitor General was required to oppose it, and the Attorney General to support it. The latter, who had no notion of ever fighting with muffled gloves, fell foul of his colleague, and of Thurlow's Indian conquest, and Indian peculation. "The evils comspeech against plained of," said he, "have been slurred over, or ingeniously Lord Clive. palliated by my honourable and learned friend. How can

we better begin the work of Indian reform, which all admit to be necessary, than by resolving that the acquisitions here described are illegal? and how unjust, nugatory, and ridiculous would it be to come to such a determination without taking a retrospective view, and enforcing future regulations by present vigour? I admit that what is done in the heat and hurry of conquest, in the moment of revolution, is not to be examined too critically by the rules of school philosophy, and the morality of the closet. But, sir, these misdeeds are of a very different complexion-cool deliberate transactions-treaties-negotiations wars or no wars- the event the same in all one general scene of rapine and plunder — nabobs dethroned- nabobs elected - pretended conventions with these children of power-these ephemeral sovereigns - not for the advantage of the Company, but for the profit of individuals. Did John Duke of Marlborough make treaties with foreign powers, stipulating that himself, Prince Eugene, and the Grand Pensionary should be paid so and so? To what purpose produce cases, if they are not cases in point? The oppressions of Bengal have been as severe in time of peace as in time of war? Can this be right? And if wrong, why not inquire into it? And why inquire into it, if, when your inquiry is finished, it is to produce nothing? No mode of conduct can be so weak as that which only points out crimes but takes no measures to punish them." Thus ran on for a long time the powerful but turbid stream of his eloquence, and notwithstanding a touching address from Lord Clive himself, to the great embarrassment of the

* Gibbon to Mr. Holroyd, 11th May, 1773. Miscell. Works, i. 469.

Government, the resolutions were all carried by a large majority.

CHAP.

CLVI.

1774.

His first

Tooke he

In the beginning of 1774, Thurlow had his first encounter Feb. 17. with Horne Tooke-in which he was foiled. The parson was brought to the bar of the House on a charge of being encounter the author of a libellous letter in the "Morning Advertiser," with Horne addressed to Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker; but he did is defeated. not choose to plead guilty, and there being no evidence to prove the authorship, Mr. Attorney boisterously supported an inquisitorial motion, that certain journeymen printers from the Morning Advertiser office should be examined to know from whom they received the manuscript. He thus concluded, "With respect to any cruel intention against Mr. Horne, I disclaim, for one, so foul an idea. It is well known that in my official character, I want no author. The printer of a libel is enough for me, and I ever think it injudicious to look beyond the printer. I am not Mr. Horne's prosecutor, and, personally, I am not his enemy. Further than the cause of justice is concerned, his acquittal or conviction is to me a matter of utter indifference. If he be innocent, I shall be glad to see him discharged; but if he be guilty, I should be sorry to see a man escape with impunity who has daringly libelled the British Commons legally assembled in parliament." Although Mr. Burke declared that "the motion begot by folly, and nursed by despotism - was without a precedent in the annals of infamy," it was carried by a large majority † but the printers being called in, professed the most profound ignorance on the subject, and this time the parson walked off triumphantly. ‡

-

1774. Thurlow

opposes the

Grenville

As the Grenville Act was passing, Thurlow opposed it, Feb. 25. and truly foretold that the time would come when the decisions of the Committees under it would be deemed as corrupt as those of the House in a body- the distinction in practice being only that the ballot gave a petitioner or sitting member belonging to the opposition the chance of having

Act.

[blocks in formation]

СНАР.
CLVI.

His attack on authors

and booksellers.

His violent hatred of

cans.

in the committee a majority of his own partisans *; whereas when the whole House sat as judges, he was almost sure to be "cast," and a decision against the ministerial candidate indicated an approaching change in the administration.

Soon afterwards Thurlow attacked and threw out the bill for the extension of copyright, then confined to the brief period of fourteen years. He denounced the booksellers as "a set of impudent monopolising men, who had raised a fund of 3000l. to file bills in Chancery against any person who should endeavour to get a livelihood as well as themselves, and pretending to have an exclusive right to publish all works from Homer's Iliad to Hawkesworth's voyages - a mere composition of trash for which they had the audacity to demand three guineas!"t

But the grand subject of parliamentary discussion now was the Ameri- the dispute with America. As may be supposed, Thurlow took a most zealous part, and uttered very violent language against the colonists. He scorned the very notion of concession or conciliation; he considered "sedition" and "treason" (like tobacco and potatoes) the peculiar growth of the American soil. The natives of those regions he thought were born to be taxed, and when his friend Johnson's pamphlet, Taxation no Tyranny," was published, he lamented that the passage was struck out which had been originally introduced as an answer to the objection that we had not previously taxed them:- "We do not put a calf into the plough- we wait till he is an ox."

May, 1774.

His offen

sive asser

tion of the right to tax

Americans.

His first explosion was in the debate upon the Coercion Bill for regulating the government of Massachusets' Bay, Charles Fox having severely attacked it, saying that there was not an American but who must reject or resist the right of taxing them, and that the bill was a clear viola

* 17 Parl. Hist. 1072. I much fear that Sir R. Peel's act on this subject will be found equally inoperative; for though there is an attempt made by it to exclude chance, and deliberately to trim the balance, — unequal weight is always thrown into one scale, and the degree to which the equipoise is destroyed becomes immaterial.

† 17 Parl. Hist. 1086. 1104. Johnson. 66 They struck it out either critically as too ludicrous, or politically as too exasperating."— Boswell, ii. 327.

tion of charters, Mr. Attorney answered: "Sir, this Bill is adopted to give magistracy the requisite authority for the execution of the laws; being a measure of precaution, it carries with it no severity, unless the pleasure of disobeying is cheaply purchased by punishment. To say that we have a right to tax America and never to exercise that right, is ridiculous; and a man must abuse his own understanding very much to whom that right can appear doubtful. We are told that we should ask them to tax themselves; but to procure a tax by requisition is a most ridiculous absurdity, the sovereignty being admitted to remain in this country. Their charter is subject to our legislative power; and whoever looks into it will see that no privileges were meant to be given them inconsistent with our right to legislate for them, and to tax them when we think they ought to be taxed." Burke took him severely to task for these expressions; but so low was the Whig minority at this time, that, on the division, they could only muster 64 to 239.*

CHAP.

CLVI.

1774.

lation of

the Ameri

In the debate which took place on the address to the Feb. 2. Crown shortly before hostilities commenced, Dunning having He justifies strongly objected to the term "Rebels," applied by Lord the appelNorth to the Americans, Thurlow thundered out a dreadful «Rebels,” denunciation against them, enumerating their alleged applied to breaches of allegiance, and exclaiming, "Now, sir, if this cans. is not rebellion, I desire the honourable and learned gentleman to tell us what is rebellion." He maintained that they were "rebels;" that they ought to be treated as such; and that vigorous measures of coercion, before they had marshalled their armies, could alone save us from the ruin which would overtake us if their plan of independence were carried into effect. This controversy was renewed in the debate upon the bill for cutting off the trade of the New England colo

17 Parl. Hist. 1813.

† 18 Parl. Hist. 225. Lord North soon afterwards, at a city dinner, having announced the receipt of intelligence of an advantage gained over the "Rebels," and being taken to task by Charles Fox and Colonel Barrè, who were present, for applying such language to "our fellow-subjects in America," exclaimed, with the inimitable talent for good-humoured raillery which distinguished him, "Well, then, to please you, I will call them the gentlemen in opposition on the other side of the water." This has been told me as a traditionary anecdote not

hitherto in print.

CLVI.

CHAP. nies, when Dunning contending that the Americans were only defending their just rights, Thurlow declared "he had deliberately given a written opinion upon papers laid before him, that there was a rebellion in Massachusets' Bay;" but, the House being in Committee, Sir Fletcher Norton, the Speaker, properly observed that "rebellion" was not a term known to the law, and that the only legal question was, whether there had been a "levying of war," amounting to high treason? *

Feb. 10.

1775. His assertion that "he left the lawyer in Westminster Hall."

He maintains the

right to re

peal all the

charters

granted to

America.

Of all the orators on the Government side in the debates which ushered in the fatal strife, the language of Thurlow was always the most violent and exasperating, and he seems to have been actuated by the belief that it was desirable to goad the colonists into open resistance, as they might then be effectually crushed. It is amusing to find him declaring that he did not speak, on such occasions, as a lawyer; "that he always did, and always would, leave the lawyer in Westminster Hall, and be in that House only a member of Parliament†;" by which, judging from his practice, he seemed to consider that he had the privilege, which has been practised by other Attorney Generals, and by Chancellors too, in debate, to lay down for law what best suited his purpose at the moment. Of this he soon after gave a practical example, by declaring that there was no illegality in sending Hanoverian troops, without the authority of Parliament, to garrison Gibraltar and Minorca, these places being no part of "this kingdom," so that the King might lawfully assemble a large army of foreigners in Guernsey, or Jersey, or the Isle of Man; whereas it seems quite clear, that by "this kingdom," in the Bill of Rights, must be understood "the British dominions." +

When the American Prohibitory Bill was discussed, he animadverted with scorn upon Mr. Burke's plan of conciliation. He added that, as Attorney General, he had a right, by scire facius, to set aside every charter in America as for

18 Parl. Hist. 300.

† Ib. 609.

18 Parl. Hist. 772. 776. 1332. He at last seems to have been ashamed of his bad law-saying, "it was idle to insist on the legality or illegality of the

measure."

« ПредишнаНапред »