description of men; that treafon and rebellion were properly and peculiarly the native growth of America; and that the bill could only operate on its proper objects. The Ministers urged, in the ftrongest terms, the neceffity there was for ftrengthening the hands of government at this critical period. They faid it would be impoffible to carry on public bufinefs, without delegating powers to the crown upon extraordinary occafions, which would not be proper, because they would not be wanted, in ordinary cafes. Parliament were the proper judges, when, and to whom, to entruft fuch extraordinary powers. If neceffity was a good ground for granting them, that neceflity moft apparently and incontrovertibly exited at prefent. The prefent fituation of affairs rendered it neceffary for government to call for every affiftance, which it was in the power of parliament to delegate or create. If parliament had not a confidence in the minifters, it was in vain for them to endeavour to conduct the public bufinefs. If it had a proper confidence in the crown and its minifters, it was in the laft degree of abfurdity to mix it with idle fears and ill-founded fufpicions.

They concluded, that the whole weight of the objections made to the entrusting of the crown with the power demanded, depended upon the fuppofition of its being applied to evil and dangerous purpofes. That this conclufion was unfair and unfounded; equally falfe in reafon and argument. It would be as logical, and more confonant to reafon and experience, to fuppofe that this power would be only uied with the Aristet pro

priety. Parliament was the great conftitutional check on all power, If the powers delegated at prefent, fhould in any degree be abused, that will hereafter afford a most proper fubject of parliamentaty enquiry, and its vengeance will hang over thofe offenders who dared to violate their truft. But fure it is an extraordinary mode of reasoning, to argue against the ufe from the poffible abufe of the bill. Notwithstanding the vigour of oppofition, the divifion upon the question of commitment, after the fecond reading, fufficiently expofed its weaknefs in point of number; the bill being committed for the following Thursday, by a majority of 195 to 43.

Feb. 10th.

Upon the day appointed, a gen tleman in office informed the committee, that having obferved in the late debate, that the fpecial power of appointing places of confinement, under the fign manual, in any part of his Majefty's dominions, had been much urged in argument, and created apprehenfions, that perfons taken into cuftody within the realm, were liable to be fent beyond fea, to distant places of confinement; and that his Majefty's fervants having no fuch idea in contemplation, and though they were convinced the claufe in its prefent ftate did not admit of that interpretation, were, however, willing to give every reasonable fatisfaction to thofe who thought otherwife, and would therefore obviate and remove the doubts which arose upon that conftruction. That he understood this was the only folid ground of objection which could be taken against the bill, and that, in order

to render the bill palateable, and unobjectionable to all parties, he would move, that the words" in any part of his Majesty's dominiens," fhould be left out, and that the words within the realm," fhould be inferted in their place. This conceffion was far from fatisfying the oppofition. They faid, that the power of indifcriminate banishment, however hideous, was only a matter of fecondary confideration; that the power of apprehending and confining the perfon of the fubject, upon bare fufpicion, without a pretext of any legal caufe, was the great object of alarm and danger, and what could alone afford life and activity to the other. They contended, that a line fhould be drawn between the innocent and the guilty; that the degree of probability attending the fufpicion, and the degree of guilt, upon which the fufpicion was founded, fhould be defined fo clearly, that the innocent might know when they were in a flate of security, and by what error or trefpafs it might be forfeited; and that a mode of redrefs fhould be provided, in cafes where the powers granted by the bill were manifeftly or grofly abufed. And that upon every idea of juftice and equity, a diftinction fhould be made, even with refpect to the Americans, between thofe perfons who were in actual arms, and fuch as only fubmitted to the refpective governments in which they refided, and to an authority which they were unable to refift.

But, in the name of goodness, faid they, if the intentions of the miniders are as pure and as innocent as they profefs, why do they refufe to confine the operation of

this bill to its proper object? Why extend it to Great-Britain? if fuch powers are neceffary in Ame→ rica, let them be created; but let their direction be fixed. If they are wanted in this country, what are they mincing the matter for, and making a fecret of it to parliament? Let them, in their own manner, make the demand in fo many words; let them, by their own rule of conduct, ftate the neceffity for fo doing; and when this is done, to the fatisfaction of parliament, let them obtain the power in the most ample and comprehenfive manner they can defire. But to difclaim the intention of feeking the power, and at the fame time endeavour by fpecious and delufive pretences to obtain it, carried fuch an appearance of duplicity, impofition, and contempt of that aflembly, as was not to be paralleled in any former tranfaction between minifters and parliament.

The minifters ftill infifted upon the purity of their intention; that the prefent amendment removed all manner of ambiguity from the bill, and muft afford fatisfaction to any thing less than a fixed determination to find fault in all events, and to oppose indifcriminately in all cafes. The title of the bill, its preamble, and the occafion of bringing it in, all ferved, to fix its locality, and as explanations of its true import and defign. Thele would effectually prevent or clear up any poffible mifconftruction of the enacting claufes.

A gentleman in opposition faid, he would put adminiftration to a teft, as to the fincerity of their profeffions, and the innocency of intention in the bill. If thele

were

were real, they could have no objection to the amendment he was going to propofe, which only tended to limit the operation of the bill to its avowed objects. He accordingly moved for a claufe of amendment, to specify that the offence for which any perfon was apprehended, on fufpicion or otherwife," within the kingdom," must have been ftated, to be comnitted within the kingdom, and

not elsewhere.

In the mean time, a gentleman of confiderable rank in judicial proceedings, though not one of thofe who are immediately confidered as the crown lawyers, diffented totally from the opinion held out by his brethren in office. He acknowledged, that the bill was manifeftly at variance with the title and preamble; that the firft held out only a power to the crown of apprehending and committing, upon grounds of fufpicion, fuch perfons as are described in the preamble, who have been, or may be, brought into this kingdom; but the enacting part, not only gives that power, but it grants a general power, of taking all perfons up without any fpecification of crime whatever. That it was abfurd to fay, that the locality of the crime was marked out by the bill. Where was the redrefs provided? There was no redress, but by an application to the privy council, who were now to be invefted with the powers belonging to the courts of common law. But the mischief would be done, in the first inftance, previous to any fuch application, and the Habeas Corpus Act would be in fact fufpended, to all its intents and purposes,

within the realm, for crimes not pretended to have been committed within it. He was therefore clearly of opinion, that it was better to fufpend the Habeas Corpus at once; because in that cafe, every man would know what he had to depend on, and every good subject would acquiefce in a power, created for the public benefit.

So unexpected a difference of opinion, in fuch a quarter, and fo powerful a confirmation of the objections laid by their antagonists, coming from fuch an authority, could not fail to furprize, if not ftagger the minifters, and muft, at another feafon, have proved fatal to the bill. The critical fituation of public affairs, and the neceffity of ftrengthening government, were, however, brought to the fupport of the measure in this exigency, and the laft propofed claufe of the amendment was rejected upon a divifion, by a majority of five to one, the numbers being 125, to 25 only, who fupported the mo tion.

This defeat did not prevent the debate from being renewed with equal if not greater vigour on the following day, when Feb. 14th. the report was received by the house from the committee. A petition ftrongly oppofing the bill, was alfo received from the city of London on the fame day. They concluded this petition with a declaration, That measures fo violent and unconstitutional; fo fubverfive of the facred and fundamental rights of the people, and fubjecting them to the moft crue! fubjection and bondage, would, in the judgment of the petitioners, be introductive of every fpecies of mif

chief and confufion; and thereby precipitate the impending ruin of this country.

In this debate, a gentleman in oppofition moved for a claufe of amendment, That nothing should be deemed piracy within the true meaning and legal conftruction of the act, but acts of felony, committed on the fhips or goods of the fubject on the high feas. This amendment was the more particu larly contended for, as by fome of the former ftatutes of piracy, the trading or correfponding with pirates was ordained to be felony without the benefit of clergy; and it was apprehended, that perfons who had innocently traded with the Americans, might, by conftraction of law, and coupling their meaning with the prefent bill, have been fubjected to the penalties of thefe ftatutes. The ftatute 8 George I. chap. 24, was accordingly called for and read, to fhew that the ground of jealoufy was fairly ftated, and the inference clearly made out.

The first appearance of a difpofition to relax in any degree with refpect to the bill, or to affent to the juftice of any objections that were made to it, was upon this occafion fhewn by the minifter. He difclaimed for himself, and for the framers and fupporters of the bill in general, every intention of wrong, oppreffion, and injuftice, and the fmallest defign of extending its operation beyond its avowed objects, and therefore agreed to the amendment with the utmoft cheerfulness, hoping thereby to remove every poffible ground of jealousy.

This fuccefs, and the appearance of flexibility which attended

it, encouraged the framer of the amendment to propofe another of ftill more general importance, tending to remove the great objects of alarm and contention, the general power of commitment, and the operation of the bill in this country. For this purpose he moved, That no perfon fhall be fecured or detained, under, or by virtue of this act, for high treafon, or fufpicion of high treafon, unless fuch perfon fhall be charged to have been locally refident in his Majefty's faid colonies and plantations in North America, at the time he thall be charged with, or fufpected of committing high treafon.

Befides fuch of thofe arguments which we have already ftated, as applied particularly to the fubject of the motion, it was further fupported on the following grounds. That the power of general commitment had a moft dark and dangerous aspect. That as the bill flood at prefent, every man in the kingdom was liable to be deprived of his liberty under the pretence of treafon committed in America, although he had never been out of his own country or parish. That it was abfurd and prepofterous to continue the bill under its prefent title, which related to America only, when by conftruction of law it was meant to include Great-Britain. That in reafon and fact, a perfon never out of England, could not be guilty of high treafon committed in America; if not, but that it is fuppofed he may be guilty of that crime in this country, why not hold that language in the bill, and add to the title, the words or in Great Britain ?? And they contended, that the ni nifters could not do less in con

formity

formity with their own profeffions, if they were really fincere in them, than to grant the fecurity required, by a compliance with the prefent

motion.

On the other fide, feveral cafes were quoted, in which, by conftruction of law, charges of treafon laid to be committed in one place, though they were afterwards proved to be committed in another, were notwithstanding ad. mitted as valid; and they contended, that though an offence might be committed here, by a perfon who had never been out of the kingdom, yet its operation in America would conftitute one complete offence. The fact might not be criminal in the first inftance, and might become criminal afterwards from its confequences, and yet, by a fair and juftifiable construction of law, be deemed one compleat act. They concluded, that the propofed claufe would destroy one of the main purposes of the bill; and that it would not afford any protection to the innocent, although it might effectually fcreen the guilty. The motion was accordingly rejected upon a divifion, by a majority of

49 to 14.

Though all the grounds of argument feemed exhausted on both fides, in the long and frequent contention which attended this bill in every part of its progrefs, and that the fpirit of the difputants might, by this time, have been well deemed in the fame fituation, yet the vigour of the combatants feemed to grow with the toil, and the third

Feb. 17th. reading produced one of the longest, most interesting,

and most animated debates, that has been known.

Mr. Dunning, who first laid open the principle and tendency of the bill, and had fince been indefatigable both in his general oppofition, and his endeavours to difarm it of fome of those powers which he confidered as the moft dangerous, not difcouraged by the rejection of Mr. Powys's lat claufe of amendment on the fecond reading, propofed another, nearly fimilar, to be added to the bill by way of rider. He introduced the amendment with a fpeech fraught with legal and profeffional knowledge, in which, with his ufual ability, he went through and examined the whole courfe of controversy on both fides, and having combated the arguments which had been used in fupport of the bill, and pointed out the evil confequences to be apprehended in its prefent ftate, moved an additional claufe to the following purport: Provided alío, and be it hereby declared, that nothing herein contained is intended, or fhall be conftrued to extend to the cafe of any other prifoner, or prifoners, than fuch, as have been in fome one of the colonies, before-mentioned, or on the high feas, at the time or times of the offence or offences, wherewith he or they fhall be charged.

A gentleman, who fat not far from the Minifter on the treasury bench, agreed to receive the claufe in part, if the mover would admit an amendment of his own to be interwoven with, and added to it; viz. that the words, In fome one of the colonies, or on the high Seas," "fhould be left out, and.

the