which we had made the acquisition was curious. If it was valuable to the enemy or important to us, we might fairly have taken possession of it by right of conquest, as we had taken the West-India islands; but we had not done so. We had done it in a way that illustrated the doctrine in Dr. Price's sermon, rendered so conspicuous by the notice taken of it in the Reflections on the French Revolution, a book of such excellence, that a right honourable gentleman (Mr. Windham) had recommended reading it over again, having probably done so himself, as he had changed his first opinion of it. His majesty was once king of North America; he was now king of Corsica. In North America he had been cashiered, in Čorsica he had been elected so that the doctrine of electing kings, and cashiering them for misconduct, was not matter of dangerous theory, but of approved practice. Sir Gilbert Elliot convened the primary assemblies of Corsica; they chose delegates, who met with various other persons, and all had voices that came; so that the election, by his own account, was something very like universal suffrage. But this was not all-his majesty had previously determined not to withhold from the inhabitants of Corsica the protection which they sought for in their spirited efforts to deliver themselves from the yoke of France; and thus was made by his ministers to avow acting upon the famous decree of the French convention, holding out protection to the inhabitants of all countries who should make efforts to deliver themselves from the yoke of the government under which they lived a decree which the mere circumstance of the convention having passed, without having ever acted upon it, was two years ago held forth as a sufficient cause of war with France. On the propriety of his majesty's accepting the crown of Corsica, without consulting parliament, he should say nothing at present; but he had much doubt of its ultimately conducing to the honour of this country, or contributing to the restoration of peace.

If we were never to treat with the heads of the convention, but in such extremity as left no room for choice, when could we look for peace? He wished the chancellor of the exchequer would recollect that his honour, and the honour of the country, were two distinct things; and that it was too much to wait till the hour of extremity came, merely that he might be able to say,

Potuit quæ plurima virtus,
Esse fuit-

When he proposed treating, he held it more honourable not to wait till he was beaten into it. The country was already sorely beaten; it had received wounds both deep and wide,

but the obstinacy of ministers was not yet conquered. Perhaps, as they thought upon the same principle, that it would be dishonourable to restore the conquered West India islands, they were waiting till the French should retake them. He knew not if this was their intention, but they had given the French ample opportunity.

If it were advisable to go on with the war, let us look at the conduct of it for two campaigns, and see what hope we could have of success under the auspices of those who now directed its operations. Lord Chatham had retired from the admiralty, full of glory, covered with laurels, for his able disposition of our naval force, and the active protection he had given our trade. If the boasts of last year on this subject were true, it was unfair to check his lordship in the career of his glory, and unjust to deprive the country of his services at so important a crisis. But the boasts of last year were not true; his retiring was a confession of incapacity or negligence; and if he had delayed it much longer, there would have been petitions for his removal. To the West Indies such a force had been sent, as nothing but the great abilities of the officers who commanded it could have enabled to take the French islands, and, when taken, was insufficient to defend them, To Toulon such a force was sent, as was too small for defence, and too great to retreat with honour. The projected invasion of France had been kept alive from year to year, and served only to weaken our strength in quarters where it ought to have been more powerful, without even an attempt to carry it into execution. Were our cause as good as our resources were said to be inexhaustible, with such weakness, such want of system, such hesitating, such wavering incapacity in the direction of our force, we could hope for no success.

If the honourable gentleman who moved the amendment, and his friends (for the honourable gentleman he felt great respect, on account of the part he had taken in the abolition of the slave trade, à measure in which he felt deeply inte rested,) thought that, in consequence of their aiding him to obtain a speedy peace, peace might be made, without an inquiry into the causes of the war, he gave them notice that he would receive support upon no such terms. He would never forego inquiry into the causes of the war, and measures to prevent similar calamities in future. This was due to the people, least, in the enjoyment of peace, they should forget their former sufferings from war, and again yield themselves up to delusion. Both the present and the American war were owing to a court party in this country, that hated the very name of liberty; and to an indifference, amounting to barbarity, in the minister, to the distresses of the people. It was some consolation to him

that he had done his utmost to prevent the war, and to know that those who provoked it could not but feel, even while they were endeavouring to persuade others of the contrary, that they must, in no very long space of time, adopt the very course which he was recommending as fit to be adopted now. In the speech, not a word was said of the navy. He should only observe, that in our present circumstances, the neglect of building a single ship that could possibly be built, was a neglect highly criminal.

MR. SHERIDAN'S MOTION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE BILL FOR SUSPENDING THE HABEAS CORPUS Act.

TH

January 5. 1795.

HIS day Mr. Sheridan moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the act of the last session "to impower his majesty to secure and detain such persons as his majesty shall suspect are conspiring against his person and government." The motion was strongly opposed by Mr. Windham, who imputed the favourable verdict of the jury, in the late trials of the persons accused of conspiracy, to ignorance and incapacity to discern the true state of the case before them. He asserted, that the real object of the societies was to overturn the constitution, and that the principles imported from France would produce the worst effects, unless they were opposed with the strictest vigilance. The propriety of continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus act was discussed, in a long and elaborate speech, by Mr. Erskine, who concluded, from what had passed on the trials, which he accurately recapitulated, that a conspiracy had been explicitly disproved. This being the basis on which the suspension rested, no pretence could remain for its continuance; which would be to suspend the liberty of the whole nation, on the mere suspicion of some individuals. Mr. Serjeant Adair replied, that if the determination of a jury were never to be called in question, the liberty of the subject would stand on feeble ground. Parliament, he said, was clearly entitled to investigate the conduct of juries; otherwise there would be no redress against the corruption of juries or of judges, nor against ministerial oppression.

Mr. Fox said, that if a person unacquainted with the rules of proceeding in that House, had listened to the speech just delivered, he would have thought he had heard a learned serjeant pleading for a new trial, an inflammatory orator exciting to war, by a declamation on the state of France, or an admirer of the constitution opposing some motion for altering the government; but it never would have come into his head, that the speaker was attempting to prove the necessity or the use of continuing the suspension of the habeas corpus act. On this, which was in fact the whole question in dispute, not one word had been said by his learned friend. Whenever the repeal of that suspension was proposed, the proof lay all on the side of ministers; for if they could not prove, that to continue the suspension was absolutely necessary, it ought not to be continued for a moment. They were bound to do more: they were bound to prove that it was useful. But, of what use could they now prove it to be; or what good purpose could they shew to be answered by it? Had they discovered a new treasonable conspiracy? or, having failed in their first attempt to prove treason, did they know of any new persons fit to be taken up on the old plot, and on whom a second experiment might be made with better hope of success?

It had been asked, wherein the difference consisted, between the state of the country when the suspension act was passed, and its present state? It consisted in this, that ministers had prosecuted the persons whom they considered as the principals in the alleged conspiracy; that, with respect to some, they had failed in establishing the charge, and, with respect to others, had declined proceeding. They were now called upon to say what object they expected to obtain, by continuing the suspension; for their old object was gone. Would they say, that they had prosecuted the wrong persons, that the conspiracy existed, although they had been mistaken as to who were the conspirators, and that they meant still to go on prosecuting? They could not say so, for the effect of the verdicts of Not Guilty, at least the prudential effect, as appeared by their own conduct, was, that not a single person was now under prosecution on account of the supposed conspiracy. It was unworthy of the talents of the learned serjeant to attempt to influence the House, by arguing as if it were intended to set up the decision of a jury as paramount to the authority of parliament. Was the suspension of the habeas corpus act a question of general legislation? He feared it was; for, from what he had heard, there was too apparently an intention to render it perpetual. But, on a particular case, which parliament, by what some thought sufficient ground for

a temporary measure, had been induced to adopt, would it at all derogate from their dignity to yield to the decision of juries, perhaps more in the habit, and better fitted for the investigation of evidence, and with more evidence before them? With the learned serjeant he did not, in one point of view, love to contend, because there was no man for whom personally, and on account of his constitutional principles on most subjects, he felt more respect; and few men possessed greater powers of reasoning. But, in another point of view, he loved to contend with him, because in general he stated his adversary's argument fairly. Hence the argument of the learned serjeant, and that of his honourable and learned friend (Mr. Erskine) as stated by him, were by no means incompatible, and both went in fact to support the motion. The jury acquitted Hardy, either because they did not find a treasonable conspiracy made out by the evidence, or because they did not find that Hardy was implicated in the conspiracy. Now, he contended with Mr. Erskine, that they acquitted him on the former reason. Why? Because all the papers alluded to by the learned serjeant were signed by Hardy or brought home to him as a party, and if the jury believed that those papers contained proofs of treason, they could be under no difficulty in finding that Hardy was an accomplice in that treason. Which was it more easy to imagine, that the jury did not think the papers amounted to proof of treason, or that they could not read Hardy's name at the bottom of them? The learned serjeant, in a speech chiefly intended to shew the treason contained in those papers, appealed from the jury to the House" And here," said Mr. Fox, "let me adore the trial by jury! When this speech was made to another jury, (Thelwall's,) a speech which has been to-night received with such plaudits, that we seemed ready ire pedibus in sententiam, it was answered with a cold Not Guilty. Such would have been my verdict, had I been in their place; such will ever be the judgment of men consulting their conscience and not their passions. But such is the partiality of the learned gentleman for his own chain of reasoning, that he will rather believe the jury blind to the name of Hardy, at the bottom of the papers he signed, than deaf to his arguments, that these papers were full of treason." Mr. Erskine, he contended, had renounced no part of what he maintained as the law of treason, on the trials. But it was said, he had not rested the defence on that alone, which, if true, would have been conclusive-if he had omitted any point that could be urged, he would, in such a case, have failed in his duty to his clients. It was said from the bench, that the argument of Hardy's not being implicated in the conspiracy,