Liberty’s ‘Terror’
by which the blessing of liberty may be transmitted to our children unimpaired’. 56 Consequently, they did not wish to erode this freedom themselves through unjust trials and gratuitous persecution. For Henry Addingt on, a fellow Tory and Pitt’s successful nominee for the Speakership, 57 it was ‘of more consequence to maintain the credit of a mild and unprejudiced administration of justice than ever to convict a Jacobin’. 58 Where possible, legislation was caveated to prevent its misuse: the Two Acts needed parliamentary renewal after three years, whilst the suspension of habeas corpus , permitted only for those suspected of treason, 59 was to be maintained on the grounds that ‘prosecution, in no instance, ought to extend b eyond what the real necessity of the case required’. 60 In the context of Pitt’s previous support for parliamentary reform, as well as his endorsement of mitigating bills like Fox’s Libel Act, 61 the Prime Minister’s portrayal by contemporary radicals as the domineering, reactionary and traditionalist architect of an ‘English Reign of Terror’ seems, at best, simplistic. 62 An example used often to indicate the authoritarianism of the British state is the treason trials of the seven ‘Scottish Martyrs’. As mentioned, Lord Braxfield oversaw proceedings with little p retence of impartiality; consequently, some of the most severe sentencing of the decade followed: Thomas Muir, an advocate and vice-president of the Glasgow Society, was sentenced to 14 years transportation to Australia, while Robert Watt, having plotted the seizure of Edinburgh Castle, was executed. The events excited the ire of some in parliament (Fox exclaimed ‘God help the nation that has such judges!’) though the governmental response was markedly reticent. The Lord Chancellor, Baron Loughborough, a former judge in Scotland, 63 grudgingly condoned the rulings, conceding that ‘the authority of all tribunals . . . must be upheld’. 64 However, it is important to note that, although the decisions were never publicly condemned, much of the cabinet was quite embarrassed by the avidity of the Scottish courts, with Pitt himself refusing in 1794 to defend the fairness of their sentencing in the Commons. 65 Principally, Pitt’s aversion to gratuitous litigation and disproportionate punishment stemmed from contemporary conservative political thought. Rejecting his characterization as a convert to Toryism, the Prime Minister, a self- professed ‘independent Whig’, 66 held ‘the principles of liberty settled at the [Glorious] Revolution’. 67 According to his confidant George Tomline, Pitt ‘reprobated [Locke’s] notions 56 See William Wilberforce, quoted in Emsley, ‘Repression’, 804. 57 See the entry on Addington in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed R. Thorne (1986), available at https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/addington-henry- 1757-1844. Accessed on 14 July 2021 58 Quoted in Emsley, ‘An Aspect of Pitt’s “ Terror ”’, 175. 59 Emsley, ‘Repression’, 808. 60 Duffy, 149. 61 Mori, 236, 246. 62 Thompson, 182. 63 See the entry on Loughborough in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1754-1790, ed L. Namier, J. Brooke (1964), available at https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1754- 1790/member/wedderburn-alexander-1733-1805. Accessed on 13 July 2021. 64 Derry, William Pitt, 101-2. 65 Duffy, 148. 66 See the entry on Pitt in the History of Government Blog, Arthur Burns (2015), available at https://history.blog.gov.uk/2015/09/16/william-pitt-the-younger-whigtory-1783-1801-1804-1806/. Accessed on 12 July 2021. 67 See the entry on Pitt in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed R. Thorne (1986), available at https://www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1790-1820/member/pitt-hon-william-1759- 1806 . Accessed on 11 July 2021.
41
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator