§ The Attorney General moved, that this bill be now read a third time.
§ Sir Robert Wilsonsaid, he thought it his duty to state the grounds on which he should give his vote on this bill. He meant that his observations should be addressed not to the present ministers only, but to all their successors; not to the present generation, but to all futurity. He begged to assure the attorney-general, that he gave him full credit for purity, of motive, and integrity of intention. When this bill was first brought in, none was a greater enemy than he was to the trial by wager of battle. That part of the bill which abolished all appeals to the judgment of Heaven, he most fully approved of. The practice of calling for judicia Dei by the exercise of -sticks, staves, and other weapons, had its origin in the ignorance and superstition of a barbarous age, and could not stand the light of truth and the test of reason; but the right of appeal to a jury against the prejudiced verdict, or an unwarranted pardon was a very different 1121 question, and seemed to him to merit a very different kind of treatment. It might be said that this was a very difficult question for him to argue. It was true indeed that he was not very conversant with the intricacies of the law, but he would always endeavour to perform his duty as a representative of the people; and in. contending for the reasonableness and utility of the right of appeal, he was not less the advocate of the army than the representative of the people. The people ought to be governed, not by the sword of the soldier, but by the authority of the civil magistrate. If soldiers should ever be called to suppress a popular tumult, they ought to be restrained by every consideration, from a rash and fatal use of military weapons. Lord chief justice Holt had warned an officer on such an occasion to beware of firing upon the people; for if he should, he would be found guilty of murder. The officer must further have known, that the Crown would not have the power of granting him a pardon. The officer would, therefore, be very cautious in his proceedings. If, on the other hand, a minister of the Crown could have said to him, "Obey our orders, and if any conviction against you should be the consequence, we have a pardon in our pockets for you," might not the officer have forgotten what was due to the constitution, to the army, and to his fellow subjects? He was most anxious to prevent the power of life and death from being placed in the hands of persons who might be influenced by private or factious motives. He contended for a great constitutional principle. He did not wish to encroach on the prerogative of the Crown, but he was against its interference with public justice; he wished not to restrain the exercise of mercy, but he deprecated its being made the instrument of bloodshed and cruelty. He had read of the opposition made to the Riot act; but if this bill should pass, they would consummate the evil of that measure. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That the bill be read a third lime this day three weeks."
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, he had heard a very able speech from a learned gentleman on the other side of the House, in support of the bill, but the right of appeal appeared so important to the liberty of the subject, that on that ground he would vote against the bill.
§ The House divided upon the question that the bill be ROW read a third time.
1122§ Ayes, 64; Noes, 2: Majority 62. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.