extended, in its operation or construction, to any of his Majesty's subjects resident in these kingdoms."

On the order of the day for receiving the report of the Bill,

Mr. Luttrell rose, and spoke with great asperity against the Bill, and the framers of it; said it was not only arbitrary and ambiguous, but replete with danger to every individual in this country; and in its present form and extent directly contrary to the intentions avowed by the noble lord (North) and his coadjutors, when they brought it in. He said the more he heard it discussed, the more he was convinced of its importance to the public, and of the many unconstitutional designs and mischiefs couched under it.

Mr. Serj. Glynn spoke warmly against the Bill; and insisted, that if it passed in its present form, no man, however innocent, loyal, or virtuous, could say how long he should be out of a loathsome dungeon.

Mr. Fox was against receiving the report. He said no man was safe an instant, should the Bill pass into a law. It would arm the most profligate of the human species; and give them a power over the best men in the nation. No man would be safe under it, unless one could suppose that a country magistrate understood more law, and was more sagacious; or a trading justice had more honour and equity in him, than the chief justice of Chester, (Mr. Morton.) That gentleman was of opinion, that the Bill gave the powers now attributed to it; and if so, it was clear, the Bill meant something very different from what it was said to import.

Mr. Powys moved a clause, "That nothing therein contained shall be construed to be piracy, but what is committed on the high seas." This clause, if agreed to, he apprehended, would be the means of quieting the minds of a great number of innocent people, and of removing those terrors which must be suspended over their heads, should the Bill pass into a law. By an Act of George the 1st, it was enacted, that trading or corresponding with pirates, shall be adjudged felony, without benefit of clergy, according to the statutes of the 28th Hen. 8, c. 15, and the 11th and 12th Will. c. 7, so would bartering, dealing, furnishing them with stores, &c. Now, if before it was declared by this Bill, that the depredations committed by the Americans, on our trading vessels and our property at sea, was piracy; it should appear r be made a ground of suspicion or accu

sation, that persons in this country had actually corresponded with America, and that such correspondence should be deemed piracy within the statute, it would follow, that many of his Majesty's loyal subjects might, by construction of law, coupling both statutes, in such a manner as to give them the desired effect, be deemed pirates, and be liable to suffer the pains and penalties of death, as convicted pirate felons. He presumed that was not the intention of administration; nay, it could not be the intention, because they had so repeatedly disclaimed it; yet as nothing now remained to be proved, but that the present statute, having reference to that of George the 1st, was capable of such an explanation, it would be proper to guard against such a dangerous possibility. He therefore desired that the statute of the 8th of George the 1st, c. 24, might be read; by which it appeared, that the ground of jealousy was fairly stated, and the inference clearly made out.

Lord North, after affirming that no such construction of the law was ever meant to be made, acquiesced in the amendment, he said, to remove every object of jealousy that could be entertained on that head. The clause was accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Powys next observed, that by the Bill, in its present form, any man was liable to be apprehended, on suspicion of having committed high treason in America, though he had never been in America, nor perhaps out of his own parish. He said, this power of general commitment had a most dark and dangerous aspect. To clear up this point, he had a clause to offer, which would put matters on a proper footing; if ministers really meant what the title of the Bill imported, and what had been so often declared by the hon. gentleman who moved the amendment the preceding day, they could not decently refuse it. A person never out of England, could not be guilty of high treason committed in America. If not guilty of high treason in America, but perhaps in Great Britain, why not hold that language in the Bill; and add, or in Great Britain? Besides, it would be preposterous to continue the Bill under the name of a Bill, to secure or detain, on suspicion, persons guilty of committing high treason in America, when, by construction of law, it was meant to include Great Britain. He therefore moved the following clause: "That no person shall be secured or detained, under, or by virtue of this Act, for

high treason, or suspicion of high treason, unless such person shall be charged to have been locally resident in his Majesty's said colonies or plantations in North America, at the time he shall be charged with, or suspected of committing high treason." Mr. Cornwall quoted several cases, in which persons had been charged with acts of treason, committed in one place, though it afterwards came out in proof that said treason had been committed in another. Such was the case of the publication of the imputed libel of the seven bishops, in the reign of James the 2nd. It was proved at the trial, that the petition was drawn up at Lambeth, in the county of Surry, at the archbishop's palace, and the publication was in the council-chamber or drawing-room, at St. James's, where the petition was presented. The offence was charged to have been committed in Surry, though, in fact, the publication, which could only constitute the offence, was committed in Middlesex. The exception was, therefore, taken by the bishop's counsel, as a ground of justification, that no such offence was committed; for that the writing the petition in itself, was an innocent act, that it was the publication that constituted the crime; and that, consequently, the defendants ought to be discharged. Yet, he said, the court were unanimous, that the writing the libel at Lambeth, and publishing it at St. James's, constituted effectively but one act, on which the plea was over-ruled. Mr. Cornwall dwelt, likewise, a considerable time, on the case of lord Preston, early in the reign of William the 3rd. There it appeared that treasonable papers and correspondence found on his lordship, were composed in London; that he was endeavouring to escape to France, but was taken aboard a smack, or fishing vessel, hired for the purpose, down near the Nore, on the coast of Kent; when the vessel being searched, the treasonable papers were found concealed, as his lordship had not time to destroy them. His lordship was indicted for an offence committed in Middlesex, though the publication, or discovery, was manifestly in Kent. A similar plea was offered, but it was overruled on the same ground; that the writing and publishing was all one act. In the present case, therefore, he contended, though the offence might have been committed here, by a person who had never been out of this kingdom, yet its operation in America, within the words of the

Act, would constitute one complete offence. The fact might not be criminal, in the first instance, and become criminal afterwards, from its consequences, and yet, by a fair and justifiable construction of law, be deemed one complete act. He was of opinion, therefore, that the clause would destroy one of the main purposes of the Bill, and could never answer any purpose of protecting the innocent, though it might effectually serve the purpose of skreening the guilty.

The House divided on Mr. Powys's second clause; For it 14; Against it 49.

February 17. On the order for the third reading of the Bill for suspending the Habeas Corpus Act,

Mr. Dunning said, he had a clause to propose, which he trusted would appear of singular importance to the House; and which, he hoped, would meet with the approbation of a considerable majority. It was of infinite importance itself, but became still of greater, in the reception it was likely to meet with from a certain set of men, who on the present occasion thought fit to differ from their friends. The clause would, to borrow a phrase from a celebrated political writer, prove a test or trial of spirits, whereby the public at large, would be enabled to decide on the political principles of the learned gentleman who framed the Bill, and his other learned friend near him (the Attorney and Solicitor General.) It would besides shew, whether those gentlemen were serious, or whether the different conversations they held within these walls, for some days past, ought to be held in the light of the ingenious exercises of ingenious men, willing to shew their talents in the science of parliamentary controversy, the chief excellence of which consisted in a knack of giving words and phrases, any interpretation but their natural and obvious one. The clause he had to offer, would appear as matter of record, that would admit of no qualification whatever. It would bring the friends of the Bill to the bar; they must either leap over it, or flatly and directly refuse it. The professed father of the Bill (the Attorney General) had, as he conceived very proper. ly, given it the title of a Bill for apprehending and committing persons charged with or suspected of committing high treason in America, or on the high seas, or of the crime of piracy. The preamble of the Bill spoke the same language, and

Mr. Wilkes. I cannot continue silent, while the fate of so important a Bill as the present is depending before this House. Administration at first brought in this Bill, in a form which gave a very general and just alarm, to the city, to the nation. If it had passed in that form, in my opinion the whole kingdom would have been put under an interdict of law. The personal liberty of every man in this island had been precaricus and insecure, depending solely on the will of the minister. The spirit of the Bill, in its original state, was oppression and tyranny through every part of the empire. In this state the Bill has continued till this day. By the patriotic zeal of an hon. gentleman of the law (Mr. Dunning) a clause has just been offered, and adopted by way of rider, as it is called, in this stage of the Bill, which gives peace of mind and security, in some degree, to every subject resident in this kingdom. Persons under this description are at length declared not to be the objects of this Bill. I speak of the clause, Sir, even as pretended to be amended by an hon. gentleman on the Treasury-bench (Mr. Cornwall.) His words, however, Sir," out of the realm," are too loose and ambiguous, by no means descriptive enough of the persons, who are declared by administration not designed to be the objects of the Bill. The Bill is professed to relate only to treasons committed in North America, by persons actually resident in that quarter of the globe. Gentlemen, however, on a tour of business to Ireland, or of pleasure to France or Flanders, or even on a fishing party on our own coasts, beyond low-water mark, are acknowledged to be "out of the realm," and may be brought within the Act, even as it now stands. An opening is still left for public or private revenge and oppression to operate. The expression, therefore, ought

This new clause, Sir, has happily narrowed the objects of the Bill, but in no degree narrowed the proofs, or the nature of the evidence necessary. I shall therefore give the Bill my hearty negative, for I will never consent to increase the enormous power of the crown, at the expence of the freedom of the subject. I will not arm ministers with an unconstitutional power, dangerous to the people. In the preamble to the Bill, it is said, "Many persons have been seized and taken, who are expressly charged or strongly suspected of such treasons and felonies, and many more such persons may be hereafter so seized and taken :" in the first enacting clause of the Bill, and throughout, the word "strongly" is omitted, and the slightest suspicion may warrant the com mitment. The words are," All and every person or persons, who have been or shall hereafter be seized or taken in the act of high treason, committed in any of his Majesty's colonies or plantations in America, or on the high seas, or in the act of piracy, or who are or shall be charged with, or suspected of, the crime of high treason, committed in any of the said colonies, or on the high seas." It is therefore apparent, that a mere pretended suspicion, or foolish credulity, or determined villainy, in a wretched, ignorant, mercenary tool of a ministerial magistrate, may still render the objects of this Bill, who are the inhabitants of above half the empire, liable to imprisonment, and imprisonment without bail or mainprize; for that cruelty was still determined to be exercised by the committee, notwithstanding the humane motion of my worthy colleague, to leave out those obnoxious words. There is not a syllable in the Bill of the degree of probability attending the suspicion. The Bill, greatly amended as it has been, does not even now require an oath, nor that the parties should be heard in their own justification, nor confronted with the witnesses, nor does it mention that two witnesses should be deemed necessary for the colourable ground of a commitment for so high a crime as treason in America, as is

the immediate eye and direction of ministers, is guilty of such an illegal commitment, what is not to be dreaded from the base engines of power, in the more remote counties? Is it possible, Sir, for too great caution to be used, by enforcing in the body of a Bill, which is to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, the necessity of an oath of two witnesses to the charge, and of their being confronted with the pri soner?'

the law in other cases within the kingdom. Is it possible, Sir, to give more despotic powers to a bashaw of the Turkish empire? What security is left for the devoted objects of this Bill against the malice of a prejudiced individual, who, if he is prosecuted afterwards for so flagrant an abuse of power, will certainly be indemnified, probably rewarded, by a most arbitrary administration? Actions may indeed be brought against the offender, but we know all damages recovered, however great, are paid by the people, not by the party. Even in the case of petit treason, by an express Act of Edward 6, no person can be convicted, but on the oath of two sufficient and lawful witnesses, or confession, willingly without violence. So careful, Sir, were our wise ancestors of protecting the liberty of the meanest subject.

This case, Sir, demands our strictest attention and vigilance from what we daily experience of the conduct of those underling officers of every minister, who traffic and deal out justice, under the colour of legal magistracy. There is now, Sir, actually in Newgate, an American merchant, named Ebenezer Smith Plat, who stands committed so lately as the 23d of last January, charged with high treason at Savannah in the colony of Georgia in North America. He is committed by the well-known justice Addington, and, as I am informed, was not allowed to see any of the witnesses against him, nor even to hear their affidavits read. He had before been tried on the same charge, at Kingston in Jamaica, and acquitted. I never saw him, but I have read an attested copy of the warrant of his commitment. He is charged generally with high treason, which I take to be an illegal commitment. I do not pretend, Sir, to a deep knowledge of the law. I have only the attentive reading of a private gentleman. I build my legal faith on some known and approved authorities, a Blackstone, a Burn, and a very few others. Those authors agree, that every warrant of commitment ought to set forth the cause specially, that is to say, not for treason or felony in general, but for treason in compassing the death of the king, or levying war against his majesty in the realm, or counterfeiting the king's coin; or felony, for stealing the goods of such a one to such a value, and the like. A court may then judge, whether the offence is such, for which a prisoner ought to be admitted to bail. If then a justice, living in the capital, under

The case of Plat, Sir, gives us an instance of another violation of the law, an evasion of the Habeas Corpus Act, that holy statute, which ministers hold in abhorrence, and are allowed in England to evade with impunity, in America to suspend for very near a twelvemonth. The history of it is this: Plat was first confined to the Antelope for three months, then removed to the Boreas for four weeks, then carried on board the Pallas, and in her brought in irons to England. On her arrival at Portsmouth he was removed on board the Centaur for three weeks, then to the Barfleur. On the 4th of January, an Habeas Corpus was obtained, directed to the captain of the Barfleur; but before it could be served, an express was sent from the Treasury, by their solicitor, and Plat was removed again to the Centaur, before the Habeas Corpus could arrive at Portsmouth. The return to the Habeas Corpus was thus eluded, but on his friends' being determined to sue out another, Plat was at last sent to the capital, and in the illegal mode, which I have stated, was committed to Newgate. I speak, Sir, in the hearing of many gentlemen, who ought to contradict me, if I have advanced a single circumstance not founded in truth. Can ministers, Sir, who are capable of thus trampling on our most sacred laws, be too narrowly watched, too deeply suspected, too strongly guarded against? Do we not owe it to the people to demand every security from the sanction of an oath, the number of witnesses, the confronting of them with the prisoner, the hearing him in his own justification, and other circumstances, of which not the least trace is to be found in this criminal, arbitrary Bill? Is the personal liberty of the subject to rest on the mere pretended suspicion of a man, who acts under orders of a professed ministerial agent, ever ready to make his court to power by the sacrifice of public virtue and innocence, whose incapacity perhaps can only be equalled by his mean ness, and sordid lust of gain?