lowed by law in cases of high treason, merely because the aged cardinal had not yet paid the debt of nature! He was glad, he said, that the penalty under this bill was not to be greater than that to which persons were subjected who were convicted of counterfeiting the great seal; but, on the other hand, he feared that this seeming lenity was not what it appeared to be, the child of mercy; he apprehended that its object was to facilitate the conviction of the accused, by taking from him the means of defence, which he might claim as his right, if the bill left the enumerated acts within the statute of the 25th of Edward III. These acts might be considered as proofs of an adherence to the king's enemies, and consequently came within the species of treason on which corruption of blood attached; but, by classing them under the head of treasons which did not operate a corruption of blood, the framers of the bill had contrived to take from the accused the means of defence, under the appearance of lenity. Of all the characters of cruelty, he considered that as the most odious which assumed the garb of mercy: such was the case here; under the pretence of mercy to the accused, in not charging him with corruption of blood, he was to be deprived of the means of making his defence. That he might not stand a chance in the contest, his shield was to be taken from him. The list of the jury, to give him the benefit of the challenge-the list of witnesses, to enable him to detect conspiracies and to prevent perjury the copy of the charge ten days before the trial, to enable him to prepare himself for the awful daythe assistance of a learned gentleman to speak for an unlearned man all the arms and means of protection with which the humanity of the law of England had fortified an individual, when accused by the crown, were to be taken away. Harshness and severity were to be substituted for tenderness and compassion; and then he was to be insulted by being told he was spared the corruption of blood! But, really, it seemed to him as if some gentlemen thought there ought to be a law for the facility of conviction of high treason; and if so, why did they not speak out boldly, and alter the preamble of the bill, and word it to this effect-"Whereas by allowing prisoners lists of evidence and juries, copies of indictments, and other means of defence, it has been difficult to convict them, be it therefore enacted, &c." He said, he should, on the third reading of the bill, have another opportunity of opposing its principle, a principle which would appear somewhat less tyrannical if the proposed clause was admitted, but which must be still more odious if it was rejected.

The clause proposed by Mr. Adam was negatived by 110 to 32.

April 9.

On the motion, that the bill do pass,

Mr. Fox said, that as in every stage of this bill he had entered his protest against it, he should conceive himself wanting in his duty to himself and to his constituents, if he now suffered it to pass in silence. He therefore was ready to declare, that in the course of his parliamentary life he had never seen a bill so unfounded in policy, aud which was contrived so effectually to violate every principle of justice, humanity, and the constitution, as the one in question. The right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer had, in defending it, confounded two things, in their nature the most distinct, the principle and the pretext of the bill. He had said, that the principle must be unobjectionable, because it was to prevent supplies of military stores and other necessaries from being carried to the enemy; but this was the pretext for bringing in the bill, not the principle on which it was founded. The bill was much better calculated for entrapping individuals, than for guarding them against the perils of high

treason.

Mr. Fox said, it would be discovered that they who opposed the bill were, in truth, the sole persons who endea voured to thwart the designs of our adversaries, while its supporters were giving every advantage to our foreign foes. But on the grounds of its impolicy he did not now mean to argue. He recurred to the principles of justice and humanity, which were superior to all policy, and on which alone true policy could rest. In the introduction of this bill, it had been said, that part of it was declaratory of the old law, and part of it contained new enactments. But, we were now told, that all of it was both declaratory and new; and by this sophistical quibbling, the understanding was confounded, and gentlemen were at a loss what opinion to form, or upon what ground to proceed.

The first clause was merely declaratory. It did not abrogate the statute of the 25th Edward III. It did not make that not to be treason which before was treason, under pretence of defining the law of treason; it served as a snare to entrap the unwary and inconsiderate. It would have been more proper, more candid, and more just, openly and specifically to have stated, whether sending cloth to France was or was not treaThis might easily have been done by an express clause for the purpose; whereas, according to the present existing

son.

law, if the bill should pass, these clothiers would still be liable to the penalties of the old law, without the possibility of their knowing whether they were guilty or not, and at the same time rendered obnoxious to a severer punishment than that which the present bill inflicted. He would not repeat the arguments he had formerly adduced against the first clause of the bill. By the wording of it, however, he could not help again observing, that the mere agreement to commit an offence, and the offence itself were put upon the same footing, and liable to the same consequences. Inchoate crimes were classed in the same degree of enormity with those which were completed; and, by this confusion, every rational doctrine of criminal jurisprudence destroyed. Although a verbal agreement for a lease of above three years, and for a sale of goods above the value of ten pounds, was declared absolutely void by the statute of the 29th Charles II., because of the ease with which perjury in these cases might be committed, yet this bill wantonly exposed the life of an individual in cases where perjury might be perpetrated with equal facility. The former wise statute would not permit the fortune of a man to be injured by such means; the present bloody bill exposed his life to destruction in similar circumstances. This was, indeed, a sanguinary part of the clause; and late as the stage of this bill was, he trusted the House would still recede from it, covered with shame and confusion for having entertained it so long.

There was another clause in it, which was also sanguinary, but which was, if possible, more absurd than sanguinary; it was that which made it death in an Englishman - to do what? To return to his native country! An Englishman might go to Ireland, and there agree, without guilt, for the purchase of an estate in France; he might go to Hamburgh, and there make a like agreement, and that would be only an inchoate crime he might pay the purchase money, and by his attorney take possession of the estate; all this would not amount to high treason; but should he after this, return to his native land, this return would consummate his guilt, and bring upon him the penalties of treason. Some gentlemen might think such a clause as this without a precedent; but, in fact, it was not, it was stolen from the national convention, where the most arbitrary laws were enacted for ascertaining who should be deemed emigrants, and which afterwards devoted them to death, if they should presume ever to return to their native country.

In the discussion which had taken place last night, it had been asserted, that no act was tyrannical which tended to bring the guilty to a certain and speedy conviction; but, was

not the acquittal of innocence, as well as the punishment of guilt, an essential object in every humane code of criminal law? Why, therefore, were persons, who were indicted under this act, to be deprived of the benefits of the statutes of William and Anne? By these acts, a copy of the indictment was to be granted to the prisoner; counsel were permitted to plead for him on questions of fact, as well as questions of law, and what was, perhaps, of more importance, were allowed free communication with him at all times. To these important privileges were superadded that of having a list of the jury who were to try the prisoners, and of the witnesses who were to be adduced against him. A reason had indeed been assigned by the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer, for withholding this privilege in the present instance, which he confessed he was sorry, as well as ashamed, to hear assigned. The House had been told, that this privilege was rendered perfectly nugatory, because the crown could give in such a numerous list of witnesses that the prisoner could not possibly inquire into their situation, or have an opportunity of knowing who were really to be produced against him. If such an artifice was ever made use of, either by the right honourable gentleman, or the other servants of the crown, he trusted there was still virtue enough in the House, and spirit enough in the nation, to call them to a severe account for such notorious misconduct. But, amidst all the severe enactments with which this bill was filled, they were still said to be null, because the operation of the laws of forfeiture was prevented from attaching upon the persons who might offend within this bill. He lamented, in pathetic terms, that because this bill was not to work corruption of blood, a person accused of a breach of it was to be deprived of the aids and shields which were allowed by the 7th of William III. to persons accused of high treason; the distinction of treasons, working and not working corruption of blood, was to cease at the death of Cardinal York, a period which could not now be considered as very remote: from all that he had ever heard of that person, who was by every one represented as a very meritorious individual, he felt a much greater disposition to wish him a long life, than to wish for his death; and yet a man might be tempted to wish for the latter, when he found a legislature so absurd as to continue a cruel distinction between different species of high treason, and refuse to individuals accused of one the indulgencies which it allowed when they were accused of another, and when there existed no other pretence for the distinction, than an absurd apprehension of an invasion from an aged cardinal to revive the claims of the house of Stuart. If any person unacquainted with our

laws, our manners, and our customs, should inquire into the nature of a punishment which was said to be lenient, he would certainly conceive it to be imprisonment or pillory almost; but, if he was informed that death, the ultimate right of civil society on the individual, was still inflicted by this bill, with a less probable chance of escaping than under the former laws of the country, and with the trifling exemption from forfeiture and corruption of blood, he might, perhaps, be led to conclude, that this tyranny was of all others the most odious and detestable-a tyranny which wounded under the garb of mercy.

He could not help again taking notice of the severity of the bill, in submitting all persons to be tried, without the assistance of a gentleman of the learned profession to address the jury for them. He must say, that allowing counsel to speak for them appeared to him an important point. It had, indeed, been said, that this bill was founded upon the general principle of the laws of treason, and on the 25th of Edward III. That was only a pretext, as he had said before. Was the fact so? Not the least like it. Was it no advantage to a poor man in prison, accused of high treason, to have a counsel to visit and attend him, and to assist him in making out his defence? Was it of no advantage to a person thus accused, to have a list of his jury before his trial for perusal? Was it of no advantage to a person so accused to have a copy of his indictment several days previous to his being called upon to appear upon his trial? Was it no advantage for such a person to have a list of the witnesses to be examined against him? Most unquestionably it was. Under the bill now before the House, one witness was sufficient; no evidence of innocence of intention was admissible; no means of defence provided; no guards for innocence secured; no power of inquiry given; no opportunity of knowing the witnesses afforded.

Upon the point of the list of witnesses, he sincerely hoped the chancellor of the exchequer had repented of what he had said, in answer to that observation yesterday. He was the minister of the crown; it must be by his advice that the law officer of the crown was, in a great measure, to conduct prosecutions for treasons; and, that such a person, in such a situation, should say that a trick might be played on the prisoner, by sending him a list of witnesses so numerous that he should not have time to examine it, by which the purpose of an act of parliament might be defeated, was a declaration of a most alarming nature to the people of this country. All he could say was, he hoped no such infamous tricks would be attempted; but, if there was such an attorney-general in this