Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

guilty of crime, who has exposed, in his proper character, an unworthy servant of his Sovereign, whose councils are mischief, and whose presence is pollution."

Memorialist further states, that he is sincerely desirous to conform to the law, as well in the manage ment of his newspaper, as in every other part of his conduct: but that the uncertainties, contradictions and absurdities, of the law of libel, as explained by the judges, leave him in utter ignorance of what may or may not be safely published. Not only have different judges given different, and consequently false, interpretations of the law of libel, but even the same judge has differed from himself at different times. By the present Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench it has been laid down as law, that there is no impunity to any one who shall violate individual feelings, or render the person or abilities of another ridiculous; a definition as intelligible as it is sweeping, and which at once reduces the right of discussion to a non-entity; but which cannot, by the imperfect understanding of your Memorialist, be reconciled with the principle of another maxim declared by the same learned and noble judge to a jury; namely, that a certain class of persons, called authors, may very safely and properly be held up to just ridicule; and that it is for the interest of society and government, that their works should be fairly examined, and praise, censure, or sarcasm, applied according to their merits. Memorialist claims the benefit of this liberal principle, in behalf of such discussion as applies to rulers and to governments: and he complains to your hon. house, that he has been tried and punished by a law, which, instead of being plain to the meanest capa city, is involved' in inconsistency, and absurdity.

Memorialist by bringing forward

these facts under the consideration of your hon. house, conceives that he has acquitted himself of a duty.. He entertains no feeling of impatience under his fate, being more than compensated for its hardships by the belief that his exertions have done much towards abolishing a horrible species of punishment, which disgusts the national feelings, while it disgraces the national character, --which debases that army which it is intended to reform,-which places man on a footing with the beast that perisheth, and converts a land of superior freedom and humanity into the last assylum for the system of torture, which has been banished from Continental Europe.

While, day by day, facts are transpiring, which place beyond a doubt the injurious effects of the savage punishment which Memorialist has condemned :—while the most distinguished officers in the service are raising their voices against it while the legislature is interfering to do away with it by degress.

-Memorialist addresses your hon. house from the prison to which he has been sent, for engaging in the good work. He has been sentenced to undergo a heavy punishment for publishing an arti cle, which, in all its essential parts, has been acquitted by a jury:he has been convicted under a charge of being the friend and advocate of the enemy, and he has been punished under a charge of libelling the enemy-in fine, he has been convic, ted of LIBELLING may merit praise instead of punishment, and he has been tried under a law which assumes new shapes for every case, and concerning which nothing is certain but its uncertainty. These circumstances form the ground of the complaint which your Memorialist prefers :

an act which

And Memorialist submits these premises, &c. &c. &c.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN BRITAIN AND AMERICA.

The following is an abstract of the correspondence between the Marquis Wellesley and Mr. Pinkney, taken from the papers published by order of the American government; and which were refused by Mr. Perceval, upon the motion made by Mr. Whitbread, in the house of Commons, for their production.

The effect of the conduct of Lord Wellesley upon the American minister, and thereby upon his govern ment, will be seen by the succeeding extracts from Mr. Pinkney's letters to Mr. Smith, the American secretary of state, contained in the same pamphlets published by order of the American government.

Mr. Pinckney writes to the Marquis Wellesley

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

2d. Jan. 1810. On the subject of the conduct, and demanding the recal of Mr. Jackson. Not answered till the 14th of March. Mr. P. says in a letter to the secretary of state, although I was aware an answer "would not be hastily given, I was "not prepared to expect this delay." 15th Feb. On the subject of blockades. Answer, 2d March. 30th April.-On the Berlin and Milan decrees. No answer.

2d May.-Complaining of, and re monstrating against the permission of the forging American ships' papers in London, to give an American character to the British ships, and of such papers being an open article of traffic. No answer.

22d June. Referring to his letter of the 30th of April, on the subject of the Berlin and Milan decrees to which no answer had been given. and requesting a reply on that subject. No answer.

7th July. On the delay of nominating a minister to the United States. A verbal assurance that it should be immediately done.

8th Aug.-Referring to his notes

VOL. IX.

of the 30th April and 23d of June. No answer. 21st Aug. blockades. No answer.

On the subject of

25th Aug. Announcing the revocation of the Berlin and Milan decrees, and demanding the revocation of the orders of council in conse quence. Answered the 31st of Au gust.

1

15th Sept. On the misconstruction, by Sir J. Saumarez, of the blockade of Elsinore, the seizure of the American ship Alert, and taking away four of her seamen. Answered, only as to the misconception of the blockade, on the 26th September. The case of the ship was referred to Sir W. Scott's tribunal, who, after the usual delay in the admiralty court, restored the vessel, as there appeared no ground for her detention; but awarded no damage for the loss of the voyage or expences attending her recovery, only ordering the captain of the man of war to pay his own expences! No answer as to the men taken out of the ship'; but they were afterwards released by an order of the admiralty board.

21st Sept. Again on the subject of blockades, referring to the notes of 30th April, 23d June, and 8th August, and urging an answer, as the American government had long expected a communication on that subject.

but

Sth Dec.-On the subject of the For, demanding her release in consequence of the revocation of the French decrees. No answer! the king's advocate had orders to suspend proceedings in this and all similar cases till farther orders. This suspension was continued till after Mr. Pinkney and Mr. Foster had sailed. The printed speech of Sir W. Scott gives the result.-The condemnation of the vessel.

10th Dee. Is the date of the last letter published from Mr. Pinkney, embracing the general subject of his long neglected letters.A short re

3 c

ply, but no satisfactory answer; on which Mr. P. demanded his audience of leave.

The following are extracts from Mr. Pinkney's letters to Mr. Smith, the American Secretary of State :

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

concerning the four American seamen taken from the Alert. I in"ferred from the reply to my appli"cation for the Mary, that she "would be released; but so far "from it, she is to be forthwith pro"ceeded against as a prize. These things require a large stock of pa"tience."

13th June." I have not yet ob66 tained any answer from Lord Wel-" lesley to my letter of the 30th of "April last, concerning the block"ades of France, before the Berlin "decree.".

26th June.-Lord Wellesley still "withholds any answer to my note "of the 30th of April, and I again wrote to him on the 23d inst." 14th Aug. No answer yet from "Lord Wellesley to my note of the 30th of April and 23d of June. I wrote to him again on the 8th inst. No importunity had before "been spared which it became me "to use, and I intend to renew my "efforts to obtain some answer."

29th Aug." Yesterday, in a Yesterday, in a short conversation, Lord Wellesley "told me, that my notes resepcting "the Berlin and Milan decrees should "be mentioned to his colleagues today, and that I should have an "immediate answer; that the affair "of the Chesapeake should be settled

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

46

eye,

to my satisfaction; and that he "believed he should recommend to "the King the appointment of a minister either this week or the next; (" that he had two persons in his "both men of high rank. I urged promptitude on all these subjects as indispensible; but you will per"ceive, notwithstanding past promises, nothing has yet been done; and there has been no security that "we shall have any thing but pro"mises: I am truly disgusted with "this, and if I followed my own in"clination, would put a speedy end

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

to it."

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

7th Nov.-" I mean to mention again to Lord Wellesley the appoinment of a minister, which notwithstanding his written and ver"bal pledges, he seems to have forgotten!"-The first mention of it was in January, 1810, and Mr. Fos ter was not appointed till after Mr. P. had demanded his audience of leave in Feb. 1811.

14th of November, and its postscript of the 15th.

He appears to have lost all confidence in Lord Wellesley's promises; determines not to write as he thought of doing respecting the minister; that he hears nothing from Lord W. as to the orders in council; and adds, "It is impossible for me to "look back, and to place much va"lue on conferences."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

14th Dec." The general impres sion as to the orders in council is, that they will do nothing. My letter (of the 10th) was written (as my verbal communicatiou had "been given) under a persuasion "that they will do nothing if they can help it. A very firm tone ought now to be assumed with this "government."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

23d Dec.-" No answer of any sort has been given to my note of "the 21st of Sept. on the subject of "blockades. I have urged in my "letter of the 10th instant, the revo"cation of all the blockades to "which my note of the 21st of Sept. "related."

What apology can be made for such conduct on the part of the Marquis Wellesley, it is difficult to conceive; but it is hardly possible that upon such documents, the as

sertions so repeatedly made by his Majesty's ministers that no conciliatory effort towards America had been neglected on their part, can be founded. Common courtesy appears to have been wanting on the part of our government!

PETITION FROM THE FRIENDS OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AT THE LONDON TAVERN.

To the Right Honourable, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in parliament assem bed:

The humble petition of the several persons whose names are hereunto subscribed, being protestant dissenters, or friends to religious to leration, residing in various parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

That your petitioners have been informed that a bill is depending in your right honourable house, entitled, "An act to explain and render more effectual certain acts of the first year of the reign of King William and Mary, and of the nineteenth year of the reign of his present Majesty, so far as the same relate to protestant dissenting minis

ters:

That your petitioners humbly represent and submit to your lordships, that it was the object and meaning of the before-mentioned act of the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary, that all persons being dissenting protestants, who conceived themselves to be qualified to preach or teach, and who thereby pretended to holy orders, and who demonstrated their loyalty and christian principles, by taking the oaths and subscribing the declarations thereby required, should be at liberty to teach and preach, under the regulations thereby enacted, and that it was also the declared intent and meaning of the said before-mentioned act of the nine

teenth year of the reign of his pre sent Majesty, to extend towards such persons further relief.

That your petitioners apprehend that the said bill is inconsistent with the principle of the before-mentioned acts, and will greatly diminish or entirely subvert the privileges and exemptions which those acts have so long usefully conferred--That your petitioners conceive that such bill is not justified by necessity, nor can produce any advantage, but that it will occasion great inconve nience and distress to many of your petitioners, and to many hundred thousand loyal, virtuous and religious inhabitants of this realmwill injure the public peace and prevent national prosperity-and will contravene the object of the first before-mentioned statute as declared in the preamble thereto, by tending "to disunite his Majesty's protestant subjects in interest and affection."

Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the said bill may not pass into a law, and that they may be heard by their counsel or agents against the same.

Signed by about 600 persons.

PETITION OF THE MINISTERS OF THE THREE DENOMINATIONS.

May it please your Lordships, We, whose names are subscribed, being psotestant dissenting ministers of the three denominations, residing in and about the cities of London and Westminster, beg permission most respectfully to approach your lordships, for the purpose of expressing the deep concern and alarm with which we have perused a bill now before your right honourable house, intitled "An Act to explain and render more effectual certain acts of the first year of the reign of King William and Queen Mary, and of the nineteenth year of the reign of his late to Protestant Dissenting Ministers." present Majesty, so far as the same re

Your petitioners conceive the principle of that bill to imply an invasion of inalienable rights pertaining to the dearest interests of man, nor can they con

template its provisions without anticipating a state of embarrassment and vexation which they are convinced your lordships, no less than themselves, would be anxious to prevent.

It would neither gratify nor become your petitioners to expatiate in their own praise or in praise of that numerous class in the United Kingdom, with which they are more or less connected, and in common with which they now participate the liveliest apprehension. They will, however, humbly appeal to your lordships, whether the moral habits of protestant dissenters, their obedience to the laws of the realm, their submission to public burdens, and their zeal to support the interests of their country on every emergency that has required their co-operation, have been so remiss and defective, as to call for the introduction of measures calculated to produce among them nothing but disappointment and perplexity.

They appeal to your lordships, whether they may not claim to be considered a peaceable and loyal part of the community and they submit whether justice and policy do not urge the proprie ty of leaving them in the undisturbed possession of the protection and privileges secured to them by an Act of the First of William and Mary, and confirmed and enlarged by an act of the nineteenth of his present Majesty, and whether their conduct has not been such as to entitle them to the undiminished enjoyment of that protection and those privileges, for which they are anxious to express their grateful acknowledgments to the Supreme Being, and under him to a wise, equitable and indulgent government.

Maintaining, as it is presumed every friend to well-defined liberty must maintain, that men are amenable to God alone for their religious opinions, and should be left to worship him conformably to the dictates of their consciences, your petitioners infer the right of every individual to communicate religious instruction, agreeably to his own views, and according to the measure of his abilities, to all who are willing to hear him, procided the public peace and security be not thereby violated or endangered.

Your petitioners have observed with regret constructions put on the acts of the First of William and Mary, and the nineteenth of his present Majesty, which have exposed many of their brethren,

applying to be qualified under the provisions of those statutes to various delays and difficulties, as well as to the absolute refusal of the benefits intended to be granted by them, so that such persons have been reduced to the alternative of abandoning what they deemed an important duty, or incurring the penalties from which those acts were designed to protect them. But while they have refrained from soliciting the interposition of the legislature, considering it inexpedient to agitate the public mind, they had indulged the hope that if the subject were brought under the notice of parliament, it would be with a view to the extension and not the abridgment of the privileges they have so long enjoyed.

It is, therefore, with much pain and surprise that your petitioners perceive in the bill introduced to your lordships, provisions generally restrictive, and likely in their operation essentially to prejudice all who may be desirous of exercising the christian ministry among protestant dissenters, and also those who are already engaged in the duties of that profession. Your petitioners, adverting to those provisions, beg leave humbly to represent, that in their judgment, they all proceed upon the assumption, that the right of determining in ecclesiastical matters, even for dissenters from the established form of worship, is vested in the legislature, and that if carried into a law, they will most materially interfere with the principles and arrangements long since adopted and still prevalent in their congregations.

The bill before your lordships, purports to be an act to explain and render more effectual certain acts of the First of William and Mary, and the nineteenth of his present Majesty, which are recited in itș preamble; but it contains provisions not existing in those statutes, and by no means according with their liberal spirit and design.

Your petitioners humbly submit, that the interpretation given, in the preamble fof the bill, of those clauses of the recited acts, which describe the persons who may claim the benefits and immunities proposed to be granted by them, is unwarranted by those statutes, which, under the denominations of persons in holy orders, pretended holy orders, or pretending to holy orders, or ministers and teachers of congregations, have, hitherto, been liberally construed, ta

« VorigeDoorgaan »