« ПредишнаНапред »
SECTION " the word build instead of the word rais made the
--“ crime according to the Jewish Law. By which,
“ t'was plain that everie speech not fitted to the capa"! citie of the hearers, might easilie be subject to a "! criminall construction, that private conversation would “ become suspected, and therefore that the law did ". wiselie provide, that there should be an overt act " to make a treason, which is the highest punishment
in the law. Att last, becaus they would not totallie o reject a matter, that had but the pretence of securing “ the King's person, they referred it to a comittee to “ draw up some provisoes to the bill, that might ses “ cure the subject as much as could be. I was one • of that comittee, and there were two provisoes agreed “ upon. The one was, that no preaching or teaching “ against the errours of Rome, in defence of the pro“ testant religion, should be construed to be within that “ act. The second was, that all informations within " that statute should be made within forty eight howers. “ With these two provisoes, the fforce of it was so “ mutilated, that it was not thought worth having; " and so it died.” This quotation makes it highly probable, that there is a mistake in the entries concerning this bill, in the Journals of the House of Commons. The noble Earl (then Sir John Lowther) could not be mistaken in the fact, that two provisoes were agreed upon in the committee, or in the description of the provisoes themselves. The probability therefore is, that the com-'
mittee had larger powers, than are mentioned in the SECTION Journals. And that it drew up and reported, not one proviso, but threę, all of which were afterwards adopted by the House, and incorporated into the bill.
To return, Mr. Rose says, “ On the main point, Ralph “ however, Ralph was correct in asserting, that if any Rose, p. 184. “ clause to the effect stated was offered, it was by way " of supplement to the bill,” and he gives a reason, of which the reader will probably not easily see the application, " because both the clauses, objected to " by Mr. Fox, were certainly added to the bill, after 6 it was in the House of Commons.” One of the clauses objected to by Mr. Fox, namely, that respecting Monmouth, was in the bill when presented to the House, and read a first time; the other clause, concerning the succession, was certainly added afterwards. But let it be granted, that both the clauses were added after the bill was introduced, Mr. Rose has still to shew, in what manner that fact can affect the passages in Burnet, or prove that the clause, 'which Ralph alludes tó, was offered by way of supplement, i. e. as a clause to be added after the bill was brought in. It happens, that Mr. Rose, and Ralph are, here, both mistaken, and Bishop Burnet perfectly right, for he speaks only of the first clause in the bill, and that clause was un. doubtedly in the original draft, and could' in no sense of the word be a supplement to it. He was writing
correctly concerning an event, with which he was perfectly w ell acquainted, while Mr. Rose, and Mr. Ralph, from
a want of knowledge upon the subject, have been finding fault without any reason,
Rose, p. 157.
But Mr. Rose has not yet finished with the Bishop, he attacks him for stating, that the bill was opposed by Serjeant Maynard, which he says“. may be true, but “ nọ trace of a discussion can any where be found, and “the serjeant was the member first named to bring in " the clause” respecting the succession. The publication of Lord Lonsdale's Memoir has, removed, all difficulty, and demonstrated that the Bishop, even when he stands alone, and unsupported by contemporary historians, is deserving of credit, For in the quotation made in a former page, the noble historian not only informs us, that the first clause was discussed in the House of Coma. mons, but also gives us the substance of the arguments used on both sides. We are under still greater obligations to the noble author, for he accounts for a whig being named first upon the committee, and for a memo ber, who had opposed the bill in its original form, taking: an active part in the introduction of the additional clauses, It is not improbable that the whigs upon that committee, were induced to consent to the resolutions concerning the succession, by way of compromise, in order to obtain other concessions, which ultimately occasioned the loss of the bill altogether.
A strange fatality seems to attend Mr. Rose, for when- SECTION ever he strenuously supports the correctness of any particular author, upon a specific point, there is almost constantly discovered some other instance of bis being incorrect; here Ralph in the passage, quoted by Mr. Rose, Ralph agaia not only unjustly charges Burnet with inaccuracy, but is guilty of that fault himself, when he says, that s.this ss bill never reached the Lords," for it has been shewn, that it not only reached the Lords, but was read a' first time in that House, on the 30th of June.
ante, p. 229.
The reader may recollect, Mr. Rose's remark, that the bill re. nothing was said by Mr. Fox to point out the resemblance dern act.am between certain measures, which had been adopted a Rose, p. 155. few years ago for the public safety, and the provisions of this bill, notwithstanding he had a desire to impress his readers with an opinion: that they were of a similar nature.. Mr. Fox's supposed omission in this respect, it seems, from the concluding paragraph of the section, now under consideration, did not prevent Mr. Rose from discovering the late acts of Parliament, to which allusion was made. He was a joint Secretary to the Treasury, when the administration, to which he was 'attached, introduced them to the consideration of the legislature, he was a member of the House of Commons, in which those bills were: warmly debated; the duties of his office required from him a constant attendance in that assembly, and a steady attention to its proceedings; and it is not
going too far to presume, that he must have voted in favour of these measures of his friends, and was consulted about them. As Clerk of the Parliament also, the copy of the bill for preservation of the person and government of James the second was in his custody, and his love for antiquities and history, justifies the supposition, that if attachment to his party had not stimulated him to examine this paper, he would not have permitted it to have remained unexplored, or unproduced, if occasion called for it. With some surprize, therefore, we find the following.
paragraph in his book, “Mr. Fox has not told us for ." which of our modern statutes this bill was used as a " model, and it will be difficult for any one to shew such " an instance.” We accept his challenge, and let the impartial reader judge between us, whether there is no resemblance between the bill, in question, and the following statute; and whether they are not of a similar nature. The modern statute, we fix upon, is the 36. George III. c. 7, which received the royal assent on the 18th of December, 1795, and is entitled, “an act for the • safety and preservation of his Majesty's person, and “ government, against treasonable, and seditious practices, " and attempts." This act, when first introduced into the House of Lords, where it originated, bore a much closer resemblance to the bill, so often mentioned, than it now does as printed in the statute book. Several alterations were made in both Houses, and in particular a provision confining the power of instituting prosecutions to the King under bis