DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.6915#0025
MEMOIRS OF JOHN DUNNING, LORD ASHBURTON.
13
In the following session, the contest between England and the colonies
becoming more violent, few hopes were entertained of bringing it to an amicable
conclusion; indeed, the refusal of Congress to treat with the Commissioners sent
out by government, unless the independence of America were previously
acknowledged, seemed to destroy every expectation of an adjustment. Yet the
members of opposition frequently renewed motions apparently calculated to
conciliate; and Mr. Dunning supported one made by Lord John Cavendish,
that the House should resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the revisal
of all acts of parliament by which his Majesty's subjects in America considered
themselves aggrieved.
The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act met with the decided hostility
of Mr. Dunning. His veneration for the constitution, and love of the liberty
of his country, were well known. He considered the freedom of the subject
not as a thing conceded at different periods, and to be construed strictly
according to the terms of the grant; but as an ancient inherent right, never
invaded but by tyranny, nor restricted but by encroachment. He had insisted
that the "Bill of Rights was only declaratory of rights existing prior to that act;
that therefore the people were not to confine their claims to the literal words
of it, but to recur to the great principles upon which that declaration was made.
He did not therefore debate the Bill upon legal grounds ; for where there was
no reason or justice, there could be no law. Law supposes a rule, defines the
offence, annexes the punishment, and directs all the intermediate steps between
the charge and conviction, and prescribes the measure and quantity of the
punishment. " But in this Bill," he said, " no crime is imputable, no exami-
nation of innocence or criminality is to follow. The punishment is inflicted,
in the first instance, on the ground of mere suspicion. If its only effect were
to establish a precedent, I should be against it: but, on the whole, I deem it a
most formidable, dangerous, and, I fear, fatal attack upon liberty, directed at
its very vitals, and threatening its total destruction, if not a dissolution of the
constitution." On the third reading, he offered an amendment, somewhat
limiting its operation, which with a slight alteration was adopted, and the event
produced a brilliant speech of exultation and compliment from Mr. Fox.
It was in this session that Sir Flecher Norton, the Speaker, apparently
13
In the following session, the contest between England and the colonies
becoming more violent, few hopes were entertained of bringing it to an amicable
conclusion; indeed, the refusal of Congress to treat with the Commissioners sent
out by government, unless the independence of America were previously
acknowledged, seemed to destroy every expectation of an adjustment. Yet the
members of opposition frequently renewed motions apparently calculated to
conciliate; and Mr. Dunning supported one made by Lord John Cavendish,
that the House should resolve itself into a committee, to consider of the revisal
of all acts of parliament by which his Majesty's subjects in America considered
themselves aggrieved.
The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act met with the decided hostility
of Mr. Dunning. His veneration for the constitution, and love of the liberty
of his country, were well known. He considered the freedom of the subject
not as a thing conceded at different periods, and to be construed strictly
according to the terms of the grant; but as an ancient inherent right, never
invaded but by tyranny, nor restricted but by encroachment. He had insisted
that the "Bill of Rights was only declaratory of rights existing prior to that act;
that therefore the people were not to confine their claims to the literal words
of it, but to recur to the great principles upon which that declaration was made.
He did not therefore debate the Bill upon legal grounds ; for where there was
no reason or justice, there could be no law. Law supposes a rule, defines the
offence, annexes the punishment, and directs all the intermediate steps between
the charge and conviction, and prescribes the measure and quantity of the
punishment. " But in this Bill," he said, " no crime is imputable, no exami-
nation of innocence or criminality is to follow. The punishment is inflicted,
in the first instance, on the ground of mere suspicion. If its only effect were
to establish a precedent, I should be against it: but, on the whole, I deem it a
most formidable, dangerous, and, I fear, fatal attack upon liberty, directed at
its very vitals, and threatening its total destruction, if not a dissolution of the
constitution." On the third reading, he offered an amendment, somewhat
limiting its operation, which with a slight alteration was adopted, and the event
produced a brilliant speech of exultation and compliment from Mr. Fox.
It was in this session that Sir Flecher Norton, the Speaker, apparently