left alone to contend with France. Was it probable, that if we were to abandon the contest, the French would alter their present system? Would their immense armies be peaceably disbanded? Would not the French government find it necessary to give them employment, and what other could be found, than to complete the ruin of the royal party, which still remained in sufficient force to afford us a powerful co-operation? Could the low countries be given up to France, consistently with our safe. ty? Should the French islands, in the West Indies, be restored to them; not only those who had placed themselves under our pro. tection would be ruined, but our own possessions would soon be thrown into confusion. The real losses of the French far exceeded those of the coalition, and the resources of the latter were greatly superior to those of the former. The pecuniary strength of France arose from the immense extortion of money and property from all ranks of people; a method of procuring supplies that could only be supported by terror and violence, and could not, in the nature of things, be lasting. France had expended, since the revolution, no less than three hundred and twenty millions sterling. The paper money they had created, had hitherto supported this prodigious expenditure. But paper credit was at an end, and it was evident, by the debates in the convention, that they did not dare to venture on farther emissions.

A reply was made to this speech by Mr. Fox. Had the minister, he said, avowed that his

design was to destroy the French government, he well knew that he would not have been so nu. merously supported; but his determination, to procure approvers of his plan, led him to disguise it: and what was the consequence? a series of the most astonishing successes on the part of the enemy, and of the most mortifying disasters on that of the coalition. He might be reproached for this favourable representation of the exploits of an ancient and inveterate foe; but he felt himself bound to speak truths, however disagreeable, from which only, motives of conduct could be formed. Folly, not fortune, was the cause of our disasters. If other nations could live peaceably with France, why could not Britain? Denmark, Sweden, and North America, had stood aloof from the contest without detri. ment, and so we might have done. Could England, with honour, it had been asked, submit to treat with France? But in what consisted this submission ? in no more than allowing the French to have a bad government. But had we not treated with govern. ments as bad? Had the govern. ment of France been better for a century past? Had we not tamely submitted to the infamous treatment of Poland? Could we, without disgracing ourselves, it was said, sue for peace to the French? He would answer this question by another. Were nations, at war, bound, in honour, to exterminate each other? for such must be the issue to one, if neither were to request peace. The royalists had been mentioned, as standing through

a

our

our engagements to them, in the way of a pacification; but surely the nation was not to be sacri. ficed to the rash promises of a minister. Experience had shewn we could depend on none of our allies, who were gradually desert. ing the cause into which they had drawn us. Prussia had for saken it, and so probably would Austria, at a convenient season. The French finances were said to be entirely exhausted; but this assertion had been repeatedly made, and as repeatedly belied, by the events of every year. It had also been affirmed, that whenever the French reverted to a more mode. rate system, which they must ne. cessarily do at last, there would be an end to their exertions, which were only supported by violence; but had their activity and efforts heen diminished, since the fall of Roberspierre, when they undeniably adopted a plan of moderation?

Mr. Joliffe coincided with Mr. Fox, and objected to the address, as binding the house to an impli. cit support of the war. He ex. pressed himself, however, highly averse to any treaty of peace, of which the French should dictate the conditions. The debate concluded at four in the morning, when, on a division, seventy-three voted for the amendment, and two hundred and forty-six against it.

On the 5th of January, the discussion on the suspension of the habeas corpus act was resumed by Mr. Sheridan. The preamble to that suspension stated that a dangerous and treasonable conspi. racy existed in this country; but a verdict in court had shewn this conspiracy to be a mere fabrica.

tion of ministers, who had exercised an illegal influence over the grand jury, that found the indict. ment against the parties accused. He severely animadverted on the expression of acquitted felons, used by Mr. Windham, in the preceding debate, as scandalously misapplied. The parties had un. dergone the strictest trial, and no pains had been spared to criminate them. Eight thousand pounds had been paid to the crown-lawyers, and no less than two hundred witnesses had been procured against one alone, at a vast expence. He strongly ridiculed the epithet of formidable, bestowed on the supposed conspiracy; the strength and preparations made by which, he jocu larly stated, as consisting of an arsenal furnished with one pike and nine rusty muskets, and an exchequer containing nine pounds and one bad shilling. These were the ways and means with which the conspirators proposed to overturn the government of Great Britain. The suspension of the habeas corpus act, Mr. Sheridan explicitly affirmed, was, in fact, to suspend the whole British con. stitution. Nothing less than imminent, as well as evident dan. ger, could warrant such a measure. But ministers now acted on the most questionable of all information, that of spies; a species of agents more numerous and more employed and relied upon than at any preceding periods. He described, with great force of language, the various evils resulting to society, from the encourage. ment of persons base enough to assume so detestable, as well as so despicable, a character. The people people at large had, he observed, been lately charged with a seditious disposition; but the fact was, that they were discontented at the measures of administration, and apt to express their sentiments of persons in power, without disguise. The only method of preventing the complaints of the public would be, to alter the ruinous system hitherto pursued. Mr. Sheridan, then resuming the subject of the late ☐☐ trials, asserted, that the persons tried were not certainly more culpable than those well-known members of the societies, in 1780, that had acted precisely on the same principles, and that ought strictly to be considered as having set them the example. If their imitators were guilty of treasonable prac. tices, they had also incurred no less criminality, and merited equal punishment. Look to France, he noticed, was now the cry, when. ever the reform of abuses, demanded by those societies, was insisted on, as necessary to remove the complaints of the people. But, were he to look to France, he would look to the causes of its present calamities; the pride and oppression which the French had so long endured; the miseries of a despotic government, deaf to the repeated remonstrances of a fuffering people; and spurning at all entreaties, for an alleviation of their burdens. These were the ob. jects that would claim his atten. tion, as they doubtless would that of every man in England who reflected, that, in order to avert, from this country, those evils that now afflicted France, the causes that had produced them must be removed.

Mr. Windham replied, with great warmth, to Mr. Sheridan. He imputed the favourable verdict of the jury, in the late trials of the persons accuse 1 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. He took this occasion to deny his having uttered such an expression as " perish the commerce of England," which he attributed to another member, Mr. Hardinge, who did not dis. avow it.

cor

The propriety of continuing the suspension of the habeas pus was discussed, in a long and elaborate speech, by Mr. Erskine, who concluded, from what had passed on the trials, which he ae. curately 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.

If the determination of a jury, it was replied by Mr. Adair, were never to be called in question, upon what feeble ground the subject's li. berty would stand! Parliament was clearly entitled to investigate the conduct of jaries; otherwise there would be no redress against the corruption of juries or of judges, nor against ministerial oppression. On this maxim he justified the dis. cussions on the late trials, the issue

of

of which, though in favour of the accused, had, by no fixed rule, esta. blished their innocence. The suspicions entertained against them had not been cleared up to their ad. vantage: in one particular case, the jury hesitated two hours. Would the judges, would the grand jury, have countenanced the accusa. tion, unless it had appeared found. ed? but the transactions of the societies sufficiently proved their trea. sonable intentions. The general statement of a conspiracy was unde. niable. The same circumstances on which the suspension-act was grounded in the preceding year, still existed, and no valid motive could be alleged for its repeal,

In answer to Mr. Adair, it was asked by Mr. Fox, upon what argument the repeal would be founded, the former argument having been legally disproved? the decision of a jury, though doubtless revisable by parliament, could not, consistently with reason and equity, be question. ed without the most evident necessity. In the present cases, no acquittal had taken place, but after the strictest and severest trial: In that of Hardy, which decided the others, had a

conspiracy been proved, he must, unavoidably, have been condemned, as he was privy to all the transactions of the parties accused. His-discharge was, there fore, a proof that no conspiracy existed. Such being the fact, what was to be the motive of the suspen. sion? the house ought to reflect, that they were now sitting as a jury, on the palladium of English liberty. To say, that a suspension of the habeas would obviate the necessity of bringing people to trial, was pre. cisely the argument urged in defence of the lettres de cackets under the old

government of France, by which a person might remain a prisoner for years, or for life. He concluded, by reproaching ministers for charging opposition with promoting discon. tents, in the same manner as they accused the dissenters of being bad subjects, and encouraged an ignorant and bigoted populace to treat them with barbarity.

The propriety of the bill suspend. ing the habeas was maintained by the master of the roils, and as ear. nestly opposed by Mr Thomson, and Mr. Milbanke. After a concluding speech in its support, by Mr. Pitt, the debate closed, by 41 votes for a repeal of the suspension, and 185 against it.

Ten days after the decision of this matter, a motion for leave to bring in a bill, to continue the suspension of the habeas corpus, was moved by the attorney-general, and carried by 71 against 13. But the second reading, which was on the 23d, met with a strong opposition. Mr. Lambton observed, that the power entrusted to the minister, by the intended bill, was enormous: he might imprison individuals on what pretences he thought proper. The whole nation was in a manner surrendered to his discretion. The worthiest men were liable to be thrown into confinement, without being informed of the particular crime or offence for which they suffered, without knowing their accuser, and without the benefit of a trial till it suited the minister's convenience. Was such treatment of the subject to be endured, in z country, calling itself free, without the most glaring and self-evident necessity? The trials, that had taken place, had proved the innocence of the parties accused, of every charge brought broughtagainst them. What more was required, by the law of the land, to clear them of those accusa. tions that brought them into court? was not this sufficient not only for their discharge, but to shield them from all malicious imputations? No acts of treason had been substantiated against them. This being the main intent and scope of their trial, and having entirely failed, what remain. ed for the candid parts of society, but to acquiesce in the verdict of an unbiassed jury, and to acknowledge them, what they certainly were, af. ter such a decision, not guilty of the crime laid to their charge? The grand jury, it was alleged, had found the bill against them; but upon what evidence? that of persons suspected of being spies and in. formers, and whose occupation it was to discover guilt in hope of a reward for their discovery. Were these characters worthy of the least credit, either in private transactions or in a public court? did it become either ministers, or their partisans, to insist upon the weight of such testimony? Had they not been con. futed in open court? was it fair, was it legal, to build on the reports of such men, so weighty a measure as the suspension, which was to af. fect the public tranquillity, and the domestic quiet of a whole nation? for who was safe, when once sus 'picions were deemed sufficient motives to rob a man of his liberty? These were not surmises, nor groundless insinuations: every man that had spirit enough to avow his disapprobation of ministerial mea. sures, laid himself open to the severest treatment. Before a trust of such magnitude as that which was given to government, by the sus.

pension of the habeas, could be assented to by the reprezen atives of the people, they ought to be well persuaded, that it was indispensably required; they ought also to have proofs of such necessity: without these they had no right to inchain their constituents at the foot of a minister, subject to all those passions that are the natural concomitants of an exalted post, and whose native uprightness of disposition, however it might be asserted by his adhe. rents, ought by no means to com. mand implicit confidence. Var ous societies had of late years been staa blished throughout the nation, and obtained great popularity: it was usual, in the ministerial circles, to represent them as consistin, chefly of disaffected people. But these societies were the very life of liberty in a free country: those only dis approved of them, who were better friends to the agents of the exec tive power, than to the freedom of the constitution; the existence of which depended on the avowal and circulation of free and manly ideas on political subjects. To oppose, or to depreciate these societies, was a proof that ministers dreaded their investigating spirit. This alone shewed a consciousness of deserving censure; but this was the strongest arg ment in favour of these societies, and how firmly they ought to be supported by a nation that valued its freedom. The incessant com plaints of their seditious tendency proceeded solely from the mouths of notorious tools of power. He was himself, Mr. Lambton said, a member of one of these societies, that of the friends to the people, and defied any unprejudiced man to tax their proceedings with the least