CLXI. CHAP. All were to be punished who attempted to create a dislike to the established constitution; and of the established constitution this renowned rotten borough is a part. He was decidedly of opinion that the old constitutional laws of the country were quite sufficient to put down offences against the state. New statutes and severe penalties he thought little calculated to attain the object proposed. A jury would be inclined to acquit a mischievous libeller rather than expose him to be transported seven years to Botany Bay. Cruel laws never conduced to the safety of a Prince or the preservation of an established government."* On another occasion he said, "he would have the existing law improved against libellous and seditious meetings, which he had no doubt might thus be put an end to. The speeches quoted were insolent and impertinent, but were they so dangerous as to call for the proposed enactments? It was the glory of the English constitution that it imposed no previous restraint on the people in the exercise of the important privilege of meeting to discuss grievances and petition parliament for their redress. That privilege stood precisely on the same ground with the freedom of the press. Its use was free and unrestrained, but its abuse was open to punishment. Montesquieu, in his Spirit of Laws,' said that the existence of political freedom in England depends on the unrestrained right of printing.' If the people feel the pressure of grievances, and may not complain of them, we are slaves indeed. To declare, therefore, that the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them,' was as fallacious as it was odious. There was no ground for saying, that if people met to discuss public questions, they meant to overcome the legislature; they might wish to awaken in the people a due attention to a subject involving their dearest and most invaluable rights. During the fervour of the Middlesex elec 32 Parl. Hist. 255. † Sentiment of the Bishop of Rochester, which we are told Thurlow violently reprobated when it was uttered, although this does not appear from the Parliamentary History. The Bishop was now allowed to explain the expression so as to render it unexceptionable. tion, some had gone so far as to declare that no resolution or act of the House of Commons was of any validity while Mr. Wilkes was excluded. Subsequently other doctrines had been broached equally extravagant and alarming, but he had never heard that bills, such as the present, were necessary to restrain them. This bill about public meetings was likewise liable to the gravest objection from the wording of its clauses, and either betrayed great negligence in those who framed it, or afforded suspicion of its originating in an awkward motive. The bill gave magistrates the power of taking all persons into custody who should hold any discourse for the purpose of inciting or stirring up the people to hatred and contempt of the person of his Majesty, or the government and constitution of this realm as by law established.' If these words were allowed to stand in the bill, there was at once an end of all discussion with a view to parliamentary reform. The inequality between Yorkshire and Old Sarum — each returning its two members - could not be mentioned without derision and ridicule, — which an ignorant magistrate would construe into an incitement of the people to hatred and contempt of our representative system, and consequently of the government and constitution as by law established.' The worthy magistrate would dissolve the meeting, and take all present into custody. A prosecution might be brought for excess of authority, but the prosecutor would come into court with a rope about his neck. To such an extent did the bill go as to enact by one clause that if an assembly met for public discussion, should continue together peaceably to the number of twelve one hour after proclamation to depart, all present were guilty of felony,' and the magistrate was ordered to put them to death, or at least was saved harmless, if they lost their lives in resisting him. The bill was founded on what was called the growth of French principles in this kingdom. To produce such outrages as had disgraced France, nothing could more directly tend than violent measures like the present. He could not give his assent to a bill wantonly circumscribing that liberty which England had so long enjoyed, and under the auspicious in CHAP. CLXI. CHAP. Thurlow example of fluence of which she had so long flourished." Upon a division, the minority mustered 18 against 107.* Having failed in these endeavours, the Ex-chancellor folfollows the lowed the example of the Whig leaders, without forming the Whigs, any express coalition with them,-in seceding from parand secedes liament, -and during the two following sessions his name does not once occur in the parliamentary debates. from parliament. 1796 and 1797. Projected new administration, with Thurlow as Chancellor. Dec. 10. 1795. The plan proves abortive. However, in the autumn of 1797 there was suddenly a prospect (which, while it lasted, gave him great delight) of his being restored to his old office of Lord Chancellor. Mr. Pitt's administration had fallen into very considerable discredit from the conquests of the French Republic on the Continent, from the disturbed state of Ireland, from the mutiny in the fleet, and from the unexampled commercial embarrassment which had led to the suspension of cash payments at the Bank. But Mr. Fox, hated by the King, was at present by no means popular with the nation. In these circumstances, a project was set on foot under the auspices of the Prince of Wales, to form a new administration, from which Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox should both be excluded, and of which the Earl of Moira was to be the head, with Thurlow as his Lord Chancellor, and Sir William Pulteney as his Chancellor of the Exchequer. The King, although never disheartened in the midst of difficulties, began to look at his minister with some distrust, and was not unfriendly to the change. But no confidence was placed in the sufficiency of the proposed new chief,- Mr. Sheridan absolutely refused to belong to an administration excluding Mr. Fox, — and the plan, without making more progress, proved abortive. † 32 Parl. Hist. 505-556. The Earl of Malmesbury gives the following account of this debate in a letter to the Duke of York: "The debate in the House of Lords began at five, and did not end till a quarter past three. The speakers against the bill (and usually in opposition) were those your Royal Highness mentioned in your last letter. Lord Thurlow was artfully and cautiously factious; Lord Moira (I am very sorry to say) loudly and violently so; and I think I never heard a speech with so much unfair and unprovoked invective against ministers. It was evident to me, from the manner of these new partisans of the opposition, and from the part they had allotted to themselves on this occasion, that they have it in their expectations that the present ministry will not last; that Fox and his party will not be chosen to succeed them; and that they shall be the persons to fill their offices."— Correspondence of Lord Malmesbury, iii. 256. A rumour being spread that Mr. Sheridan had agreed to accept office CLXJ. Thurlow seeing the man whom he so much disliked again CHAP. in the possession of undisputed power, not only abstained from taking part in the debates of the House of Lords, but ceased Thurlow to feel any interest whatever in politics, and declared that abandons public life. he had finally abandoned parliamentary strife. He never went to the King's court, but he kept up an intercourse of civility with Carlton House. On rare occasions he showed himself among the Peers, and expressed an opinion on subjects not connected with faction. In the year 1798, he delivered a very sensible and dispassionate speech against a bill for increasing the assessed taxes,― not, in his old style, declaring "its principle to be iniquitous, and its clauses nonsensical and contradictory," but calmly examining the different ways and proportions in which individuals should be made to contribute to the necessities of the Stateso as to lead to the conclusion that he had been devoting a portion of his leisure to the study of finance and political economy.* 1799. all Peers. The following year he interposed with great effect to sup- July 5. port the equality and dignity of the peerage advantage- He mainously reminding those who heard him of his lofty stand tains the against the Duke of Richmond, soon after his first entrance equality of into the House. The Duke of Clarence (afterwards William IV.) having delivered a long speech against the abolition of the Slave trade, Lord Grenville rising after him, said, "between him and his Royal Highness there could be no personal debate, because between them there was no equality." Lord Romney having spoken to order, and Lord Grenville having repeated his words, Lord Thurlow rolled out these sentences with all his ancient energy, graced with a suavity which was new to him: "I wish it to be clearly understood whether it is the constitution of this House that we are unequal in our right to speak here?' I am one of the lowest in point of rank. I contend not for superiority of talent or for any pretension whatever above any of your under this projected administration, Lord Moira wrote a letter, which was published in the newspapers, to contradict it. See Moore's Life of Sheridan, ii. 273. 302. * 33 Parl. Hist. 1290. CLXI. CHAP. Lordships. But, my Lords, I claim to be exactly equal not only to the illustrious personage who has just spoken, but to the Prince of Wales himself, if he were present in this House, as a Peer of parliament. I know of no difference between Peers of Parliament, considered in their parliamentary character, and I maintain that the lowest, in point of precedence, while we are debating here, is equal to the highest. If rank or talent created an inequality in our right to speak in this House, the illustrious Prince who has lately addressed you, would have a far higher right to be heard than I pretend to; but in speaking my sentiments to your Lordships, I claim for my humble self a perfect equality with every Prince of the blood, and with those of the highest intellectual position in this assembly." He afterwards closed the debate by a violent attack on the bill, unnecessarily ridiculing what a Bishop had said, who had tried to prove the morality of the Africans, by "their women wearing petticoats," an article of dress which another Right Reverend Prelate asserted had been laid aside by the opera dancers. His defence Thurlow then went on boldly to maintain "that there was no prohibition against slavery in the Christian religion, and that as we did not pretend to destroy the status, there was no propriety in putting down the ancient commerce by which slaves were to be supplied where they were wanted. The bill was altogether miserable, and contemptible. A Society had sprung up to civilise the Africans; that is to say, they would send a missionary to preach in a barn at Sierra Leone to a set of negroes who did not understand one word of his language."- However, we ought never to despair of truth gradually and finally prevailing among any set of men, however prejudiced: the Lords were improving, and there being now an equality of votes on each side (36 to 36), the bill was only lost by the maxim of this House, " semper presumitur pro negante" - which sometimes makes their decisions depend upon the manner in which the question is worded. * of slavery. * 34 Parl. Hist. 1092-1141. As every Peer votes upon a division, and no one has a casting vote, some rule becomes necessary to govern the decision in case of an equality of voters. The one adopted is supposed to stop any proceeding not sanctioned by a majority. |