Το

lawyers, legislators, or even historians, at
this time of day would give it a death's
blow" Suo sibi gladio hunc jugulo"
every judicial voice in the kingdom, he
would make a direct and confident appeal
against a tenet so ignorantly and so mis-

To resume the outrage, it was an act of treason-but committed by whom? and when? By a ruffian, who was part of a multitude in open day, and who acted in

the party reviling and menacing the sovereign. At the time of all others, most ungratefully selected, when the king as the father of his people, was in the act of preparing to animate the energies of the popular mind and will in their proudest form-that of a share in the legislative power. At a period very little prior to this, printed hand-bills had been circulated over the metropolis, prompting the very act of regicide. It had been truly said, that "no personal connexion was traced between the authors or publishers of these hand-bills, and those who committed the outrage of attempting the measure which they recommended." But was it better for the public, that instead of a conspiracy in two parts of the same concerted plan, we should have two detached conspiracies, and with no personal intercourse uniting them? the first rcommending, and the second attempting, the sovereign's death? Let it be two parts of the same conspiracy! or two distinct conspiracies! united, however, as they must ever be, in coincidence of time, and connexion of principles.

Before he touched upon the outrage which had endangered the king's life, he would remind the House, and would in-chievously false. form the people, who the king of this country is, or (as perhaps in parliament he should express it) what he is. He is no "despot;" as libellers have basely called him; but the king of men who are free-concert with at least many others, each of entrusted with duties inseparable from the public interest-amenable to control, direct or collateral, in all branches of his executive or legislative power-subject even to censure through his ministers and (which he would never dissemble as long as he had political existence himself) stripped of all claim to allegiance, if he should cancel the bond by converting his will into law. Upon such a king's person violence had been committed, which, endangering his life, the law (jealous of a deposit and palladium essential to liberty, as well as government) has made high treason, and has punished as if his death had been directly the object, and had even been accomplished. This outrage had been treated in so manly a way by an hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Grey), that he was in hopes no man living, who had ever dreamt of our law, and loved our king, would have disputed it. The hon. gentle. man had said, that even if that miscreant had acted without concert, and without intention, pointed in his thoughts at the king's life, he was yet guilty of "compassing and imagining the death," because he has committed an act of criminal outrage, which evidently endangers the life. But if the right hon. gentleman who sits near him is correct (Mr. Fox), it is no high treason; though he admits, almost in the same breath, by the tenor of his argument, that it is. He admits that if a jury should find this fact alone, their find ing would-be a verdict of guilt, and the guilt would be that of high treason. In other words he admits, that such a fact is in legal inference, that crime: but he discriminates by an expedient, which an understanding so elevated would have disdained in others. He puts the case-that a jury, having pronounced the fact should qualify it themselves in a kind of special verdict, and say, "but we don't believe that he had the intention to kill." This finding, it seems, would be an acquittal. Even to repeat such an argument amongst

He would now go farther back and recur to mischief that preceded the handbills. Call it here too, the same or a third conspiracy; and make your choice be tween those alternatives! What he meant so to describe had been stampt upon the records of parliament,-called high treason there, and called by its true name. It was a conspiracy, that having acquired. new strength every day, had rooted itself,

not in the good sense of the popular mind, "God avert that calumny," (he said) " from them and me!" but in those who hate the people as much as the king, who have acted and continue to act with ability, zeal, and concert for the attainment of an object, which he could not better develope than by two words fatally well understood-words imported from the wretched city of Paris, with an English version, to the disgrace of our national

character-the words "revolutionary government." In those two words, and in the sanguinary comment upon them which had struck horror into the world, he gave to enlightened men a picture which no eloquence of detail, if he could ever have commanded it, would make either more just in the potrait or more awful in the mischief.

But this, after all, is a "fanciful theory and a vision." An hon. gentleman over against him, whose dexterity as well as other talents (and most of all his wit), he had ever admired (Mr. Sheridan), blew it into the air by two pithy little words

had received prevaricating answers, and the right hon. gentleman had gravely observed, like Scrub in the comedy, that 66 some of them said one thing, and some another." He called upon them to give their sentiments upon the mischief; to admit or to deny it as a fact; and if it should be admitted by themselves, to co-operate in the discussion of the best remedial policy, that could meet or prevent that mischief. He called upon them, in the name of the Commons and people of England, but feared that he should call upon them in vain. We are told, "the laws are able to correct and suppress the evil." If they are, I (said Mr. Hardinge) am an enemy to this bill, and amended as it is in essential parts, I would oppose it as innovating at least in form, or in its possible abuse, upon sacred and established rights. In other words, he undertook (and there he took upon himself the burthen of proof), to demonstrate the necessity arising from the impotence of all existing checks, or of any but those which the bill imposed. What the inadequacy of law, thus imputed, was, he would mark, to the con

prove it!" His answer to those two words could not be so very short, but would, at least, be short enough to refute them in almost as few words as any thing like an argument was able to select. First, he would say, as a member of parliament, that upon the subject of remedial and prudential measures, he should ever protest against the formality of proofs in a legal or juridical sense of the term, as a mode of determining fact injurious to legislative policy in measures which like this, if necessary at all, were founded upon circum-viction of those who heard him, in a very stances too well known to need proof, and whose exigency was of a kind that required all practical haste. He would next affirm, that in every view of that solemn phrase, which could affect a House of parliament with a general notice of the facts they have been proved. High treason has been recorded against a number of corresponding and affiliated societies by an act of legislature. It is not even denied, that such have been the hand-bills; and our own senses have told us what else we could not have believed, that such an outrage has in fact been committed upon the person of the king. But, in the same two little words, infinite fallacy was covered. It was true (and this was the fugitive cry of the moment), that no proof has been or could be adduced as the law now stood so as to punish the conspirators, or avert the continuance of their projects. Upon the despair of that proof stood the bill and stood upon a rock.-" Prove it!" "Yes, I will prove it, (said Mr. Hardinge), if you give to me this bill. The executive arm shall be my agent for the purpose of that proof; it shall punish or prevent, or shall take upon itself the mischief."

His learned friend (Mr. Grant) had well said, "What is your opinion of these doctrines, and of their practices? we have told ye ours." To this appeal we

few words. First, there is no legal power to compel notice of the meeting, and an open allegation of the ostensible purpose. This defect of the law enabled sedition to convene itself abruptly, in pursuance of secret arrangement for that purpose amongst the confederates. Secondly, as the law now stands, no magistrate has the legal power of access to the interior of the meeting; to the fountain-head of the mischief in the oracles of sedition. He may now be excluded as an impertinent gossip, who obtruded himself as a mere spy, upon the liberty of popular discussions. Thirdly, the mask of the ostensible purpose could baffle, as the law now stood, any general suspicion or grounds of alarm: such a mask would no longer be of any avail: it would be torn off by the detected perversion of the colourable object. Fourthly, there is no legal power to disperse the meeting, if the language is inflammatory, but without external outrage or tumult. It was to mischiefs like these that a remedy was claimed, and if the remedy adopted in this bill was not commensurate, or strayed an inch too far, it was tyranny; and perhaps a worse mischief in itself.

He had listened attentively to argu ments arising from two sources, both of them invidious, and yet both of them as

would be of no use, it was a dicatur, that would necessarily end in the curse of an imprimatur, and would in that shape fall with redoubled weight,—it was the first hint: and the liberty of writing would soon follow the liberty of speech; the laws were adequate; the bill was unduly and suspiciously hurried through the House of Commons, the best way to correct popular disaffection was, to deserve popular esteem, &c. &c." What has been the result? It has been innocent at least, and the mischief at which it aimed, that of seditious theatres under this dramatic veil, had been suppressed. If it was a tyranny in itself upon genius, wit, and freedom of thought, where has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sheridan) lived, that he could suffer its continuance?-he that had an interest, as the Congreve and Wycherly of his time, (with a dash of the political reformer) to make such theatres free as air? And if theatres dramatic, in their general office, were checked upon account of this occasional abuse, by the permanent control of a chamberlain, what shall we say of a check only for a time upon Mr. Thelwall's political theatre, and by a magistrate sworn? Are such theatres less prone to abuse for purposes of sedition? Is the licence here under a magistrate's view less convenient, or less wanted at this time? a time in which not occasional, but universal abuse of general freedom has endangered the safety and existence of the realm? If there ever existed such a thing as an argument à fortiori, it was in all branches of the parallel decisive here, and he challenged all the abilities in battle array against him to answer it.

For to

practice and sound discretion. administer with justice and caution, the duty at present incumbent on parliament, was the sure method to make its expedi ents effectual, and to give vigour to the law we were called upon to enact. Did there exist any necessity for the interference of parliament on the present occasion? Had it a right, arising out of that necessity, to circumscribe the liberty of the people to meet for the purpose, or under the pretence, of petitioning to any branch of the legislature? How far did that necessity, and the right derived from it, extend? These were the first ques tions for honest and independent men to decide.-The best criterion of the necessity arose from the consideration of the consequences which might follow from abstaining to interfere. And here he wished to pause, and leave it in some degree to the minds of gentlemen to supply this part of the argument; because it was impossible for any lover of genuine liberty to have failed to gain from recent experience, if not before from history, observation and reflection, a sufficient fund of ideas to convince him, that some strength was necessary in the hands of executive government, to repress the destructive machinations of some persons in this kingdom.--But it was said, were not the laws in being sufficient to empower the executive to repress these disorders? Upon this part of the argument the opposers of this bill derive a great advantage, from an imputed remissness on the part of government to employ all the weapons already in their hands; and, perhaps, from an unskilful use of those which they have Mr. M. Montagu said, that since he employed. Upon this head, he confessed had the honour of a seat in that House, himself to be of opinion, that blame no subject had occurred which required would possibly attach to them. Still he so calm and deliberate a discussion, and believed that the existing laws required to to which the circumstances of the times, be reinforced, and particularly to be dethe temper of individuals, and even acci-clared and notified by some fresh act, dent itself, had so little contributed to afford such a disposition. To narrow the ancient right of petitioning, by any incroachment on its free exercise in the utmost latitude, was to touch one of the main pillars of the constitution. This was a truth which could not be denied. It followed of course, that the only justification for even the slightest interference must rest on an imperious necessity, and that the right of that interference could be only commensurate with the danger to be prevented. This principle was not more true in the abstract, than in wise

which should instruct the ignorance, and rouse the activity of the peace officers. The same argument of the sufficiency of the laws might have been urged with equal truth in 1780, when London was in flames; because few understood, many doubted, and none dared act on the established provisions. Upon this ground, he was for a new act, which he confessed he should approve the nearer it approached to a declaratory act. But the rise of new species of tumult, required new provisions, and we ought at least to be sure that we rendered the measure effectual.

vity, since he seemed disposed to adopt the same mode of illustration. The learned gentleman had likewise thought proper to assume the task of stating the argument against his own side. In this he had succeeded to admiration; in the course of his speech, he seemed all along to argue against the part he really meant to espouse. This, indeed, was not an uncommon case with the learned gentleman, nor with the profession to which he belonged, to speak on both sides the question. How he had discharged the duty to his client he would not decide, but he would by no means advise the meetings complained of to put their brief into his hands.-The learned gentleman had called upon his side of the House to say whether Jaco

and then objected that the proof of it was demanded. To this he would again say, "prove it." It was not, however, juridical proof that he looked for; but that kind of proof that ministers them

Mr. Sheridan said, that the direct allusions which had been made to him, would prevent any surprise at his anxiety to come forward. It had been remarked, that during the late momentous period, the magistrates had been extremely supine, and had not been active to exert their authority in suppressing the meetings, and resisting the principles, from which so much of the danger was thought to arise. If any evils, however, had arisen from their neglect, he would ask how the present bill was calculated to secure their activity? Instead of prompting them to greater vigilance, it threw impediments in the way of their exertion. They were placed in an odious situation, when they could not execute their trust, without incurring the detestation of their fellow sub-bin principles had not increased of late; jects. Men of virtue and talents would avoid a station which they could not fill with credit or respect. He had been accused of casting reflections upon the magistrates in this country, although he had never uttered a sentiment in general dis-selves had brought forward previous to the paragement of that class of men. He had passing of the act for the suspension of limited his charge to the justices of West- the Habeas Corpus. That measure, howminster, who were appointed, paid, and ever, was not near so strong as the precontrolled by the executive government. sent. It was, therefore, not extraordinary He was pleased, that the learned gentle- that he required, on a greater occasion, man had placed the argument upon that what they had voluntarily brought forward footing, on which alone the subject ought on a less. Was it wonderful that now he to be considered, namely, what the neces- should demand a similar proof? For sity was that required the interference of merly, the House had been deceived by the legislature; "aud whether the present the assertions of the minister; and he measure, or any part of it, was adapted was on his guard against a fresh imposto meet the exigency of the case such as ture. None of the plots which had been it might be. In the applauses which had announced in such alarming descripbeen given to the speech of a learned gen- tions, the plots to seize the tower, tleman (Mr. Grant) on a former occasion, and the various other conspiracies, he heartily agreed, as it was a perform- had existed. The verdict of impartial ance conspicuous for ingenuity of reason- juries had decided that ministers had ing, and the appropriate character of its stated to the House, what the event did language. Without detracting from its not justify. Where was, likewise, the plot merit, however, he could not but observe, which had been fabricated at a very parthat the main points involved in the dis- ticular period, during the sitting of the cussion had been omitted: he had neg- grand jury, upon which various persons lected to establish the existence of the ad been apprehended, and harshly and evil, and to demonstrate the fitness of the unjustly confined for many months, withremedy. The learned gentleman had ob- out the shadow of proof or reality for the jected to him, that he called for the proof accusation. Being thus three times deof the disorders to which the application ceived, does the learned gentleman trust was to be made, and had summed up all again to the assertions of administra his argument in the two words, " prove tion?-He was ready to declare, that it." The learned gentleman seemed stu- he did not think the principles complained dious of brevity, and had divested these of were increased. And on which side words of all the observations with which did the presumption lie? There was a they had been connected. He wondered, most important difficulty to be surmounted at the same time, how the learned gentle-before the gentlemen on the other side man found fault with this imputed bre- could maintain their argument with con[VOL. XXXII.] [2 F]