leaft impropriety or difaffection to government. They canvafied its meafures with unreferve; but were Readily attached to the conftitution itlelf; which indeed had fo little to apprehend from thefe focieties, that it was chiefly among them the warmeft fupporters of it were found. The reform of parliament had long been their principal object. Motives of prudence and moderation had, in the prefent tempeftuous feason, fufpended their efforts to accomplish it; but they would certainly purfue their determinations on that point at a more aufpicious period,

Such was the purport of the remarkable fpeech made by Mr. Lambton, on this occafion. It was anfwered by the attorney-general, who folemnly declared, that he was induced by no other motive than conviction of its propriety, to fupport the continuance of the fufpenfion-act. It was with grief, he faid, that he had heard the arguments of fo able a speaker as the laft, in oppofition to it, as they feemed calculated to encourage perfons illaffected. It was not, he faid, the guilt of particular individuals that was now under examination: it was the existence of a confpiracy of which parliament was clearly competent to decide the reality, whatever might have been the opinion of a court of juftice. The accufed had indeed been pronounced not guilty but that did not impofe filence on the fupreme court of the nation; which, without interfering with judicial authority, had ftill a right to retain its own opinions. Who could deny the prepoffeffion of the focieties in favour of the French and of French principles, as well as that of the writings of Payne, Barlow,

Macintosh, Mrs. Wolftencroft, Mr. Chriftie, and other champions of the revolution? Was it not incumbent en perfons in power to guard against the diffemination of fuch dangerous doctrines? From the conduct of those who formed the convention in Scotland, it fully ap peared, that the focieties, and their abettors, had no intention to apply to parliament for thofe alterations they required; they had determined, it was plain, to depend folely on their own energy.

Mr. Jekyll contended for the propriety of conduct in the focieties, in commiffioning their a gents to infift on a reform in parliament, which would never, of its own accord, undertake a task, fo irkfome to most of its components. No punishment, it had been faid, was inflicted, by holding perfons in cuftody, as if their very detention were not a fufficient punish ment. He warmly reprobated the unqualified manner in which the perfons acquitted at the late trials had been ftigmatized in the houfe. The fufpenfion-act, he infinuated, was gliding into an annual motion, and unlefs arrested in its progrefs, would be, at laft, confidered as a ftanding rule for every feffion. He refolutely expofed the ignominious employment of fpies, wherever they could be intruded on any part of fociety. He read, in proof of what he af ferted, a letter, defcribing the arti fice and bribery that had been ufed, in order to prevail upon a certain perfon to become a fpy.

Mr. Curwen, and Mr. Francis, zealoufly oppofed the fufpenfionact: Mr. Francis particularly expofed the inconfifiency of pre

ferring

ferring the opinion of a grand jury, to the verdict of a jury on a legal trial. No cafe of treafon having arifen fince the late trials, there was no ground for the fufpendingact, which, previously to them, had refted on that pretext of a confpiracy, by which they were occafioned.

In order to prove that a confpiracy might be real, and yet no proofs of it be produced, the folicitor-general alleged the wellknown cafe of captain Porteous, during the reign of George II. not one of the agents in which was ever difcovered, though the tranfaction itself happened in the midft of a large and populous city. In the fame manner, though proofs had not been yet brought home to the prefent confpirators, yet the reality of there being fuch in the kingdom, was ftrongly in the perfuafion of a majority of the legiflature, which, of itself, was a valid reafon for continuing the act of fufpenfion.

The authenticity of the proofs, adduced to afcertain the exiftence of a confpiracy, was infifted upon, in a long and laborious argument, by Mr. Hardinge, who was replied to, in one no less elaborate, by Mr. Erfkine, who objected to the intricacy and obfurity of his reafoning. A confpiracy, he allowed, might exift, and the confpirators not be known or convicted; but this was not the cafe in agitation. The confpiracy, now in queftion, was fpecifically to affemble a convention, independently of government: papers of various kinds had been brought forward to fubftantiate it; the authors of which were afcertained: but had thefe papers been treasonable, how could their authors avoided conviction? these papers, VOL. XXXVII.

therefore, contained no treason, and the acquittal of their authors proved that they were not engaged in a treasonable confpiracy. This pretence, of course, fell to the ground, and could not, confequently, warrant the continuance of the fufpenfion-act. A traitorous fpirit was attributed to these papers, and a defign to degrade and vilify the national reprefentation; but to complain of the mifconduct of parliamentary men was not treason. The beft anfwer to the complaints of the public would be to liften to them, and correct thofe errors and flaws in their conduct that had given occafion for difcontent. "Was it a time, faid Mr. Erfkine, to treat the people with feverity, and repeal their most effential privileges, when the very exiftence of government depended on their affections?" Minifiers, ought, he added, to take warning from what had happened in the low countries; the people there had loudly demanded the reftitution of their ancient rights and immunities, as the people in England now did a reform in parliament; but they were treated with neglect and fcorn by the Auftrian government. What, in the flue, was the refult of this contempt and haughtinefs? as foon as the French carried their victorious arms into that country, the power of Auftria fell before them; the people flocked to their ftandard, and preferred fubmiffion to a foreign conqueror, to the flavish fubjection required of them, by a family defcended from their ancient fovereigns. The hiftory of Holland fpoke the fame language; and that of America held up a precedent of which a British miniftry ought, on the prefent occafion, to be earnestly re[M]

minded.

minded. He concluded by faying, that, "the friends of kings would never be quiet until they had deftroyed all the royal governments; the lofs of their people's affection, and of their power, had uniformly arifen from the pernicious counfels of those friends."

Mr. ferjeant Adair maintained the reality of a confpiracy, from the conftant language and tranfactions of the popular focieties: though, poffibly, not yet guilty of treafon, they bordered upon it; and government acted wifely in taking timely alarm, and obviating evils, which, if left unchecked, would rapidly have become irresistible. It was through the seasonable interpofition of government, that the enemies of the ftate were ftill fo weak in number, and fo infignificant in character.

The principle of punifliment upon fufpicion was reprobated, by Mr. Fox, as incompatible with the law, and with the fpirit, of the Englifh conftitution: it was the principle of all the tyrannical govern ments in exiftence. The fufpenfion of the habeas corpus had only that treafon in view which was clearly defined by the ftatute of Edward III. but, if conftructive treason were once admitted, any fpecies of mildemeanour might come under that interpretation. So ftrong and pofitive had been the acquittal of the perfons lately tried, that government was completely deterred from farther profecutions. It was allerted, by the fupporters of miniftry, that the reafonings of opofition, against the fufpenfion, were few, in comparison of thofe that militated for its propriety; but, if few, faid Mr. Fox, they were appofite to the cafe; they were founded upon law, the beft of all

reafons. He denied the difaffection imputed to the oppofers of minifterial measures: to thefe, he allowed, there were multitudes of enemies; but these the trueft friends to the conftitution, and to the means of its duration; the moft efficient of which means, was to treat the people with lenity, and to restore to them that fafeguard of their conftitutional freedom, the habeas, of which they were fo caufeleffly deprived. Difcontents would always exift; but that was no argument for wrath and refentment at a whole community. The loyalty of the people at large was unquestionable; they had hitherto fubmitted to the executive power, without the least fhadow of refiftance; their defire of a reform in the reprefentation was well founded, and ought to meet with compliance, before dif contents rofe to an alarming degree. Parliament, though elevated to the fupreme authority of legiflation, fhould remember who exalted them, and confult at once the interefts and the wishes of their conftituents. When opinions became general in a nation, its rulers fhould act conformably to them; as it could not reafonably be fuppofed, that the body of an immenfe people were not able to judge for themfelves fo well as thofe whom they deputed and authorised to act for them, merely to prevent turbulence and confufion. It were a happy circumftance for nations, if their rulers would more frequently condefcend to receive impreffions from them: had not the British government unfortunately difdained fuch impreffions, Britain and America would, at this hour, be but one people. Inaufpiciously for ftates, thefe imprefiions were ufually felt

too

too late; and when the retrofpect of paft errors forced them upon minifters and their followers, but then they ferved only to fill them with repentance at their haughtinefs and folly. Till then they perfifted in fcorning to place any advice on a level with their own counfels, and in giving thefe an exclufive preference, not only to the admonitions of all other men,. but to the experience enforced upon them, by the difafters arifing from their own obftinacy.

In fupport of the fufpenfion, it was argued, by Mr. Pitt, that it was a conftitutional remedy, the application of which had always proved effectual in cafes fimilar to the prefent; it was prudent, therefore, to apply it before the evils apprehended became incurable: prevention was proverbially preferab'e to cure. Through the meafure propofed, the revolution that feated William on the throne was confirmed, and the acceffion of the house of Brunswick fecured. The times required that a difcretionary power fhould be lodged in government, and that a fpeedy execution of meafures fhould follow the determinations that circumstances pointed out as indifpenfible. Were legal proofs of inimical defigns to be waited for, they might be carried into execution with the most fatal facility, as they would then be only known by being executed. It were nugatory to deny the existence of hoftile projects to the conftitution; allowing that nothing had been ftrictly proved, all nevertheless was fufpected that had been alleged against the parties accused. It would, therefore, be unpardonable in government to remain inactive in the midft of fo much danger.

This was the greater, for the induftry and art with which it had been kept out of the reach of legal proof; for that was the utmost that could be affirmed of the confpiracy alluded to; in every other refpect it was evident and notorious. Those who were partics, thofe who were privy to it, did not, in general, feem in the leaft anxious to conceal the plans they had in contemplation: they did not directly avow them, but their hints and infinuations were eafily comprehended, and left no room to doubt of their intentions.

The actual neceffity of the fuf penfion-act was denied, by Mr. Gray, on the ground that no prece dent could be cited of its being put in force, unlefs in cafes of manifeft and preffing danger to the ftate, or to the perfon of the fovereign. Neither of thefe could now be faid, with any propriety, to be expofed either to public or private machinations, worthy of the least attention. To pretend apprehenfions, while none were entertained, was a deception which could not be practifed upon the public, without weakening its confidence and attachment: the prefervation of which depended on the opennefs and candour of its rulers, but would irrecoverably be loft, whenever fo unwarrantable an impofition was detected. The ful penfion-act was juftified, it was faid, by the neceffity of guarding against jacobinifm; but how could the feizure and imprifonment of individuals prevent the propagation of their principles? experience, in all ages and countries, had invariably proved, that harsh treatment had always a contrary effect. Public murmurs were not to be filenced by fuch means; the difcon[M2]

tenis

tents of nations were not produced by the writings of man, but by the bad conduct of governments. While thefe acted irreproachably, they might fafely bid defiance to calumnies and mifreprefentations.

The debate continued till three in the morning, when the bill for the fufpenfion was carried by two hundred and three votes against fifty-three.

In the house of lords, much the fame arguments were used for and

against the bill. The fpeakers in its fupport were lords Grenville, Carlile, Warwick, Hawkesbury, Spencer, Sydney, Aukland, Hay, and the chancellor, with the dukes of Leeds and Portland. Its oppofers were the dukes of Norfolk and Bedford, the marquis of Lanfdowne, and the earls of Lauderdale and Guildford, who, on the bill's palfing, entered a proteft against it, conceived in the strongest and most animated terms.

CHAP.