he was thought to merit. He believed that Holland might have been with ease preserved, if we had shewn a disposition to negociate at the beginning of the war. Though he was not one of those visionaries who believed it possible to establish universal peace, and though he had prepossessions in favour of continental connections, yet, he thought it was an honour to have been in the minority on the questiou of war, not only on this but on many other occasions. He asked who were the best friends to the country, those who attempted to conceal from the people the dangers to which they were exposed, or those who stated fully those dangers, without inculcating despondence? With respect to the question before the House, it was true that he was pledged to them to support an armament, but not the distribution of it; he was only pledged to the support of the increase of the navy, even if it were necessary that the army should be diminished.

BILL FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE HABEAS CORPUS

A

SUSPENSION ACT.

January 23.

BILL having been brought in to continue the act of 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 second reading was this day strongly opposed by Mr. Lambton, Mr. Jekyll, Mr. Francis, Mr. Curwen, Lord William Russell, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Fox, and Mr. Grey. The measure was supported by the attorney-general, the solicitorgeneral, Mr. Hardinge, Mr. Serjeant Adair, and Mr. Pitt.

Mr. Fox said, he had come down to the House full of curiosity, to hear what case could be made out to justify the renewal of the bill; for although he had heard much declamation on the subject, in the preceding debates, he had found so little argument, that he conceived it must have been all reserved for the present occasion. In one respect his curiosity had been gratified. Some of the arguments were not only new, but the most extravagant, perhaps, ever uttered in a House of Parliament. The attorney-general had said, that the object of the bill was, not to give a power of taking into custody and prosecuting persons who might be guilty of treason, but to give a power of arresting and confining persons in cases of inchoate guilt, and preventing them from completing the crimes they would otherwise commit. This was a principle as inconsistent with English law, as it bore a near resemblance

to what had been the former, and was too much the present practice of a neighbouring country, which for several years had been paying the penalties, and expiating the crimes, of an absolute monarchy. This argument was not even supported by the bill of last year; for that went directly to the taking up and prosecuting of persons supposed to have committed acts of treason. To adopt such a system of prevention was to desert all the principles and policy of our ancestors, in favour of the infernal policy upon which the bastiles and dungeons of tyranny had been peopled. It was to say, "We will take up men out of mercy and kindness, because we think them likely to commit crimes; but this very mercy shall immure them in prisons, and cut them off from society during our will and pleasure." Members of parliament were excepted; but might not any other man be deprived of his liberty by the will or mistake of ministers, as much as in any country where there existed a power of arbitrary imprisonment? It was said, that no man could be taken into custody on suspicion of a crime of which he had been previously acquitted; but ministers, upon their own arguments, must consider the persons lately acquitted of treason as more likely than any other to commit acts of treason; and what security was there against our seeing that which had been declaimed upon as the climax of French injustice, viz. men who had been acquitted, and imprisoned as suspected? The whole went upon the new French principles, which characterized every fresh act of ministers, while they were holding them up as the grand object of alarm. What but caprice could prevent them from taking these men again into custody? They would not take up Hardy Why? Because, when men abandoned the plain road of the constitution, they were involved in eternal contradictions. It was admitted that a conspiracy to levy war was not treason, and then it was asked, "Shall we not prevent the mischief by taking the parties into custody before war is actually levied ?" The law said distinctly, You shall not take them into custody as guilty of treason; this was all the answer necessary to be given; and to say otherwise was to calumniate the statutes of Edward III. and Charles II. He was the less surprised to hear the law calumniated, when he heard the same persons who did so, calumniate those who were charged with the administration of the law. They talked of juries respectfully in words, but what was their argument?" We will not try any of the persons implicated in the charges against the persons lately acquitted; but if any shall be guilty of similar offences, them we will prosecute, and take our chance of the verdict of another jury." Thus they would reduce trial by jury to

something of equal value with a trial by chance. Those who in colourable words so talked of the effects of the institution, he could not but suspect of disliking the institution itself. His learned friend (Mr. Serjeant Adair) had said, that the crossexamination of witnesses on the trial had been permitted to a latitude beyond all precedent. By whose fault? The fault of the court undoubtedly, and if the court was to blame, let the court be censured, or rather let his learned friend own fairly the principles of those with whom he now acted, and say, "When the court and the law are in our favour, they are entitled to all possible deference, but when they happen to be against us, we owe them no respect." The entire speeches and evidence of the learned gentlemen on the trials had not convinced the juries, and parts of the one, with scraps of the other, should not convince him. He would venture to assume, that they who heard part of the argument and evidence, and that only upon one side, could not form so good a judgment of the case as the juries who heard the whole. All the means of prosecution and of evidence were in their hands; all the persons whom they thought fit to prosecute had been acquitted; they acknowledged the acquittals to be so decisive, that they did not think it adviseable to prosecute any more; it was not, therefore, fanciful to say, very that every man and woman in England had been acquitted of the alleged conspiracy; and, notwithstanding all he had heard, his ideas were too gross and concrete to conceive a conspiracy without conspirators. The arguments of those who opposed the bill were said to be few. They had on their side the law and the constitution, and were only called upon to refute the strange arguments brought against them. If original arguments were ever so abundant, he would disdain to use any, for he was not so presumptuous as to set up any theory of his own in preference to the law of Edward III. and of Charles II. To suppose that any number of the people of this country were disaffected to the constitution was a calumny. The House was called upon in 1795 to suspend the habeas corpus act, for correspondence with France which had taken place in 1792, two years before the first suspension was proposed. Ministers › themselves owned that even in the suspected societies the greater part were deluded by the few, who, under the mask of parliamentary reform, wished to lead them to subvert the government. What did this prove, but that the people were so well affected to the constitution, that no man durst speak openly against it? Had there been a period since the accession of the house of Brunswick, when there were fewer persons in this country disaffected to his majesty's person? Was any such period likely to occur? At what time, then, could they

hope for the restoration of the habeas corpus act? Better would it be, to say at once, that they had taken their last leave of it, and that the state of Europe was incompatible with a limited monarchy in Great Britain. Were we to wait till the London corresponding society dissolved themselves? Ministers would say, that the dissolution was only a pretence. Were we to expect the death of all the members? Few as they were, they would have successors; for, till all governments were perfect, and all men wise and virtuous, there would be discontented persons in every country. Under arbitrary governments the discontented were more numerous, though less active, and consequently apparent; but, when the awful crisis came, then it was found, that curses had been uttered, not loud but deep. In 1768, 1769, and 1780, there had been popular tumults, which the authority of the civil magistrate could not suppress; but, since the epoch of the French revolution, the source of all our alarms, had there been a single instance of resistance to civil authority, except, indeed, when the zeal of loyalty was exerted to burn the houses of dissenters?

Mr. Fox asked, how any man of sense or humanity could talk of the persons lately acquitted, as having experienced the mercy of their country? Was it mercy to be torn from their families, to be imprisoned for six months, and then turned out into the world again, their means of subsistence perhaps cut off? They had experienced the justice of this country in their acquittal; but to talk of mercy was an insult. He paid a handsome compliment to the character, abilities, and public services of the Earl of Mansfield, with respect to whom, he understood an appeal had been made to him. He concluded with observing, that the trial by jury, and the representation of the people in the House of Commons, were the cornerstones of the constitution. The latter, he had long been of opinion, stood in need of some reform: for although it was true, that the House was capable of receiving an impression from the people, it had been most calamitously proved in the American war, that it did not receive that impression soon enough; and there were cases, such as the present war, still more calamitous, in which time was every thing, and delay might involve House, lords, king, and people in one common

ruin.

The House divided on the question, that the bill be read a second time:

MR. GREY'S MOTION FOR PEACE WITH FRANCE.

January 26.

MR R. Grey moved, "That it is the opinion of this House, that the existence of the present government of France ought not to be considered as precluding at this time a negociating for peace." The motion was opposed by Mr. Pitt, who moved an amendment thereon, by leaving out from the first word "That," to the end of the motion, in order to insert these words, "under the present circumstances, this House feels itself called upon to declare its determination firmly and steadily to support his majesty in the vigorous prosecution of the present just and necessary war, as affording at this time the only reasonable expectation of permanent security and peace to this country; and that, for the attainment of these objects, this House relies with equal confidence on his majesty's intention to employ vigorously the force and resources of the country in support of its essential interests; and on the desire, uniformly manifested by his majesty, to effect a pacification on just and honourable grounds, with any government in France, under whatever form, which shall appear capable of maintaining the accustomed relations of peace and amity with other countries." Mr. Wilberforce not thinking the terms of the amendment sufficiently explicit, proposed to leave out from the word "declare" to the end of the amendment, in order to insert these words, "That the existence of any particular form of government in France, ought not to preclude such a peace between the two countries, as, both in itself, and in the manner of effecting it, should be otherwise consistent with the safety, honour, and interests of Great Britain."

Mr. Fox began by desiring the original motion and the two amendments to be read; and said, that before he proceeded to give his reasons for preferring the original motion of his honourable friend, to that which had been made by Mr. Wilberforce, though the difference between them was not very essential, he must take notice of the amendment which had been so unexpectedly made by the right honourable the chancellor of the exchequer. He said unexpectedly made; because, when the motion of his honourable friend was originally announced, which was three weeks ago, the terms of it even were settled; for his honourable friend, with more candour than prudence, had stated the precise words upon which they were to come to issue. The right honourable gentleman pledged himself to come to issue upon these words: but, however, he did not now feel so bold as he did three weeks ago;