man upon that subject. He would say, then, that they were concluding irrationally indeed, if they said it was owing entirely to the doctrine of the Jacobins that the horrors of that day were exhibited, or that they were the cause of the dreadful catastrophe of the late unfortunate monarch of that country; a prince whose cruel fate might induce them to overlook the errors of his reign. In fact, his fate was in a great degree owing to his avowed connexion with the nobility of that country: a nobility whose views were hostile to the interests of the people. He believed the king and his ministers were guilty of planning what was attempted at that time against the people. Supposing even that they were not, he would ask, was not the suspicion that they were guilty, a great cause of the revolution of the 10th of August, 1792? At that time the king's brother had left him; and the situation of his family, and their connexion with the house of Austria, then known to be enemies to the government of France, were so well ascertained, that their objects could not be doubted. Did not these circumstances give ample room for suspicion, on the part of the French, as to the intentions of the king, and those ministers by whose council he was so fa tally guided? If this were admitted, he had a right to say, that the catastrophe was no more accelerated by the wickedness of those who attacked, than by the baseness and folly of those who defended. The hon. and learned gentleman had observed, that if he had said some years ago, that the then constitution of France would not last so long as our own, he should, by many, have been treated as a person who spoke in a very visionary and idle manner. In what company that gentleman had been, or from whose sentiments he formed that conjecture, Mr. Fox said, he did not know; if the learned gentleman had alluded to him, he had never said any thing like it. On the contrary, he had always entertained and professed a different doctrine. Would any man assert, that although he had often said, that the first French revolution was a glorious event, he had asserted, that the systems which had been built upon that revolution were good? So far from it, the most moderate of them appeared to him to be unstable at least. That was his opinion; and the right hon. gentleman opposite to him knew it to be so; in one particular instance, he had emphatically

so pronounced it. He meant to allude to a motion made for a reform of parliament. On that occasion, he had stated it as his opinion, and he had not changed it, that an old edifice, well altered and repaired, was more likely to be useful than one built on an entirely new construction, of the structure of which they had no experience. That was his opinion then, and it was his opinion at the present; the hon. and learned gentleman's allusion to opinions, therefore, if directed to him, was unfairly directed, and the sarcasm ill applied.

The rest of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech was what was commonly called pathetic, and he thought it necessary to take some notice of parts of it. He had stated, that if there was a violent party in this country, who pretended to have in view the destruction of the power of ministers and the correction of abuses, and they should once succeed, they would not stop there: that not only the minister would be the object of their fury, but they would aim at the destruction of others who had any authority in the country from their talents, independent of any connexion with the government. If the hon. and learned gentleman did him the honour to include him under that class, be would tell him plainly, the caution to him was needless; by such an observation the hon. and learned gentleman only brought to his mind what, indeed, had been but seldom absent from it for many years." If ever," said Mr. Fox, "those persons who wish to destroy the constitution of this country, as was done in the French revolution, by rapine and plunder, by carnage and desolation, should become a triumphant party here, though I may not be the first, I am well convinced I shall not be the last object of popular fury." If ever the day should come, which God avert, when men's lives should be subject to that sort of popular fury, he thought there were others who would go before him, and those were the authors of the present measures; and from that time, in his conscience, he believed, his life would be short indeed; and therefore the hon. and learned gentleman need not warn him upon that subject. He saw that danger clearly; but he was not one of those who looked at the danger on one side only. The hon. and learned gentleman had said, if he joined bad men, he

See Vol. 30, p. 916.

they to be separated? By setting about to correct abuses in earnest, as much as possible, whether in that House, or in any other part of the government. This would remove all ground of jealousy and discontent on the part of those who loved the constitution, and who wished only to see the abuses eradicated; and this would destroy the alliance between them and those who really harboured a hatred for the constitution itself. This was the sort of separation which Mr. Burke recommended with regard to the Americans; and this was the separation which he would recom❤ mend, of the discontented in the country, at this time Strike out the bad part of our present system, add to the beautiful parts, if that be possible; but, at all events, strike out the bad ones; and then, although they should not reconcile to their system, those who hated the constitution itself, they would deprive them of their force, by taking away the arguments by which they prevailed on good men to join them, and by which alone they could ever become formidable: namely, that of stat. ing the abuses of our constitution as they subsisted in practice at present, What were the arguments that these men made use of to gain to their party those who loved the constitution, and which had been said by the hon. and learned gentleman to be so seducing? Topics of abuses in the constitution! Reform those abuses, and they took these seducing arguments away. It was, indeed, the whole of their argument; for as to their theory of govern ment, that, he was sure, would not make any deep impression on the body of the people, who had too much good sense to be misled by such egregious fallacies.

could not shake of his companions, nor check their excess; a truth which history confirmed. Was it not true on the other şide also? If it was true, that if he acted with men of bad principles, the effect of such a junction might be that those who had served them in a particular cause, might have no power to resist their fury; was it not, however, undeniably true, that those who joined a particular minister, and assisted him in his attempts to destroy the constitution of the country, would feel the same inability to check the progress of his ambition? Was it not as elearly true, if he had lent his assistance to bring about that euthanasia of the constitution, that he must afterwards yield his life to that accursed power who had effected the destruction of their country? He believed the time was not very distant, when those who had lent the minister, what he would call very honourable assistance, would not deny that they were become his personal slaves. He believed that some of them had felt it, and he thought he had seen some symptoms of that fact already. Certain gentlemen smiled at this: he did not mean to say any thing that could be deemed a personal degradation to them, if they did not feel it for themselves. But when he saw, day after day, and year after year, a system pursued, which tended to bring this country to that euthanasia predicted by Hume, he could not say he was willing to be an assistant in its accomplishment. With regard to the mischief, which was dreaded from the junction of men who only wanted to reform abuses with those who wished the destruction of the constitution, he would apply the remedy proposed by Mr, Burke in the case of America, who had said on that occasion, that he would wish to separate the Americans-not by separating the north from the south, not by separating the east from the west, not by separating Boston from Philadelphia, but by separating those who were merely discontented with the abuses of the constitution, from those who had a hatred for it, and wished its total destruction.

The hon. and learned gentleman had asked, in what manner they should enter into a negociation with these discontented persons? He believed there would be some difficulty in knowing with whom to treat. As to the question, how he should treat? his answer was by conciliation. This would be done, as Mr. Burke had said, by separating them. How were [VOL. XXXII.]

The hon. and learned gentleman, in one part of his speech, and only in one, seemed to have a reference to the bill before the House. The hon. and learned gentleman admitted that the House was going to make a sacrifice by the measure before them; but had contended that what was retained of the rights of the people was still of higher value; the history of governments was certainly better than theory; in this, therefore, he agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman. He did not, however, agree with him, that what they were to retain was superior to what they had to lose, if the bill were passed into a law. That which was to be taken away was the foundation of the building. It might, indeed, be said, that there were beautiful parts of the building still left. The same [2 E]

then pronounced on the prosperity of the empire!" Tum tutus bos prata perambulat." This was flattery to Augustus: to that great destroyer of the liberties of mankind, as much an enemy to freedom, as any of the detestable tyrants who succeeded him. So with us, we are to be flattered with an account of the form of our government, by King, Lords, and Commons-" Eadem magistratuum vocabula." There were some then, as there are now, who said that the energy of Rome was not gone; while they felt their vanity gratified in viewing their city, which had been converted from brick into marble, they did not reflect that they had lost that spirit of manly independence which animated the Romans of better times, and that the beauty and splendor of their city served only to conceal the symptoms of rottenness and decay. So if this bill passes you may for a time retain your institution of juries and the forms of your free constitution, but the substance is gone, the foundation is undermined ;your fall is certain and your destruction inevitable. As a tree that is injured at the root and the bark taken off, the branches may live for a while, some sort of blossom may still remain; but it will soon wither, decay, and perish; so take away the freedom of speech or of writing, and the foundation of all your freedom is gone. You will then fall, and be degraded and despised by all the world for your weakness and your folly, in not taking care of that which conducted you to all your fame, your greatness, your opulence, and prosperity. But before this happens, let the people once more be tried. I am a friend to taking the sense of the people, and therefore a friend to this motion. I wish for every delay that is possible in this important and alarming business. I wish for this adjournment"Spatium requiemque furori." Let us put a stop to the madness of this bill; for if you pass it, you will take away the foundation of the liberty of the people of England, and then farewell to any happiness in this country!*

The House divided on Mr. Curwen's motion:

The late Mr. Whitbread, in a letter to the Editor of this Work, written a short time before his death, informed him, " that Mr. Fox always spoke of this reply to Mr. Grant with greater satisfaction than of any speech he ever made, arising totally out of matter brought forward in debate."

Nov. 27. After several petitions against the two bills had been presented, Mr. Pitt moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Seditious Meetings bill. Mr. Fox rose merely to ask when it was probable that the report, and the third reading of the bill, would come on. Mr. Pitt said, that immediately after the bill had gone through the committee, he should move for it to be printed, and that the farther consideration would probably come on about Tuesday, December 1st, and the third reading on the Thursday following. Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, and the other opposers of the bill (Mr. Sheridan excepted) immediately rose and left the House. Mr. Sheridan said, he did not attend for the purpose of proposing any amendments to the bill, being persuaded that no alteration, except that of negativing every clause in it, would be of service, or render it palatable to the great majority of the public. He attended chiefly to watch some things which were going forward, and to hear what amendments wonld be proposed. The House then went into the committee; the several clauses of the bill were gone through; and the bill was reported to the House.

Dec. 3. After several petitions against the bills had been presented, Mr. Pitt moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Seditious Meetings bill.

General Smith said, he would oppose the third reading of this bill, which was by far the most fatal, in his opinion, that had ever been introduced into that House. Two years ago the minister, in moving for the first suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, admonished the House to consider whether the danger would not be greater, under all the circumstances, in submitting to the evils with which they were threatened, than in suspending for a while this

otherwise salutary protection of the liberty of the subject. At that time, evidence was laid before the House of the existence of the danger; and upon actual proofs of treason, recorded against the societies then in question, he had voted in favour of the suspension. At present, however, when the House was called upon to adopt a measure much more violent and serious, no proof was given of the existence of the danger. To adopt the ministers admonition, he wished to consider whether we had any thing to gain in security, as an equivalent for the surrender we were making. Such was his view of the measure, that he vowed to God, he should think an actual invasion not half so great an evil as the passing of this bill; the enemy must shortly be repelled, but the operations of the bill would be permanently destructive. He foresaw all the mischief that was likely to result from them; disturbance to the happiness, peace and tranquillity of the nation. If the bill had been compared to the riot act, and merit had been assumed because it was said that the bill was not worse than that act, he denied the assumption. In the riot act it was provided, that the magistrate should come as near as possible to any meeting. Why had not the same provision been introduced into this bill? Instead of such a provision, the magistrate might go into a neighbouring field or highway, and read the riot act, and nineteen out of twenty persons, if the meeting were numerous, might not know that the riot act had been read. The bill ought to have been divided into two bills.

Mr. Hardinge said, that he would make one preliminary comment upon what he had just heard from the hon. general, partly out of respect for him, and partly because what he had said was material to a point, in the discussion of the bill, which point, fairly considered, would remove at once every disagreement between them, so as to make the general his convert upon his own principles. The hon. general told us that he co-operated with government and with a majority in the House of Commons, upon the bill to suspend the Habeas Corpus act, on actual proofs of treason recorded against the societies who had produced that measure." But he would now ask the general himself, or any other man of honour, if he would put his hand upon his heart and say, that in his judgment and conscience, any one of their tenets and of the conspiracies then recorded

against them, did not exist at this moment, in equal, if not accumulated force. They have themselves asserted in print, and recently too," that still their ends are the same." Yet we are told by the hon. general, that although it was just and wise to suspend the Habeas Corpus act, it is iniquitous and foolish to pass this other bill, for want of similar proofs; yet he must admit, that in comparison to that restraint upon the liberty of the subject, we are new doing, what is "light as air :" and that our proofs are the same is evident; because the societies exist, and have not only never disclaimed, but have in explicit, though general terms affirmed their adherence to the original system which parliament has branded with a just character of treason.

He then opened his argument in support of the bill; and began it, by assuring the House, upon his honour, that he of fered himself to their attention, rather to mark openly what he thought and felt upon the subject without reserve and without fear, than with a hope to impress it upon the conviction of others, After the effect produced on the public mind, by a learned friend of his (Mr. Grant) upon a former stage of the debates (in the most commanding powers of intellect that ever enlightened a political subject), he should have been silent if he had not felt an im pulse to the vindication of his own sentiments, in language, at least, as unequivocal as words could frame, at the most awful crisis that ever the country knew. It was the exigency of the times, and a despair of meeting it with effect as the law now stood, or without such a bill, that made our safety and our freedom as a people demand imperiously this measure. That it was a new check upon the right of popular discussions, and even upon the right of petitioning (by its effect upon the continuauce of the assembly, held for that ostensible purpose), he would readily admit, not being a sycophant in praise of the measure, but an honest, impartial, and reasoning friend. Having gone thus far in concessions, which it would be neither manly nor ingenious to withhold, he would proudly devote himself to popular odium, if that must be the fate of his ardent wish for the passage of this bill into a law. He considered it as a bill of allegiance, framed in the generous and loyal spirit of that oath, which he and those around him took upon their admission to the representative character and functions; an oath, which