that the informers, reporters, and spies, till they had lost the common feelings and one and all declared, that they never had the common character of humanity; and suggested that such danger was existing. they were provoked and instigated by the At that time, intelligence of a third plot evils which surrounded them till they bewas noised-a plot which was investigated came enraged beyond all moderation. by the magistrates acting on behalf of go- The nature of the people of both coun→ vernment, and in some degree confirmed tries was directly opposite; it was there. by their proceedings. This supposed fore impossible that similar enormities plot, after all, consisted in an intended could ever happen in England. An hon. assassination of his majesty at one of the gentleman had said the other night, that theatres, with a strange instrument that desperate evils must have desperate remewas never found, and by men who were dies. He acknowledged the truth of the afterwards released. That they were not maxim; but the existence of the evils guilty was evident, or they would not should be proved before the deduction have been released in the manner they was drawn from them. That the popular had been. Such had been the third spe- meetings and the outrage on his majesty cies of forgery resorted to.-To come to had any connexion, he peremptorily dethe present times, he was obliged again nied. At the late county meeting for to recur to his majesty's speech from the Hertfordshire, an hon. gentleman (Mr. throne. When that speech was delivered, Baker) had, in his opinion, acted with it was plain that ministers had no idea of great impropriety in coupling the conthe existing panic. Though he gave them gratulation to his majesty with a charge credit for great ingenuity, he was utterly against the societies. An hon. gentleman at a loss to imagine how they could pre- (Mr. Canning) had asserted, that the sume, in consequence of one desperate doctrine of king-killing was preached at outrage committed by some misguided Copenhagen-house. If it were true that individual, or, at the most, upon their such doctrines had been preached, proown confession, by a few thoughtless mis-secutions must have been commenced, or creants, to deprive so loyal, so patient, so submissive a people, of their dearest and most sacred right? Every one of these considerations afforded ample reason to believe the present to be neither more nor less than a forged plot.-If the minister adhered to his assertion, that a treasonable plot was actually in existence, and flew from an investigation of it, was it not natural to conclude that he could not prove it? But the right hon. gentleman always flew off to France for his examples. He enumerates all the instances of treason, murder, and rebellion which had arisen from popular assemblies in France; and then asked, whether similar causes would not produce similar effects in England? Was it not a libel on the English people to argue in that manner? There was no parity whatever, not the smallest analogy. Would they attempt to assimilate slavery with freedom, or compare despotism with a well regulated and limited monarchy? He would always deprecate such wretched, narrow, miserable modes of reasoning. The enormities committed by the French people were occasioned by the despotism under which they had so long groaned; their excesses, when they were free, were to be attributed to their former slavery: they had been oppressed and ground down the magistrates and the executive government would have been guilty of scandalous neglect. He was, therefore, warranted in disbelieving it. So far, however, was the fact different from the assertion, that it was generally known that no such pernicious doctrines were practised; on the contrary, the persons present, all of them, professed a spirit of loyalty to his majesty, notwithstanding their declamations against his ministers, against the war, and in support of a parliamentary reform. The chancellor of the exchequer had that evening said, that inflammatory handbills were swarming in every part of the métropolis. These hand-bills might be, and possibly were, written and published by some of the spies for their own profit and advantage. Let it be recollected that the spies themselves confessed in a court of justice, that to encourage and deceive others they were the loudest in a cry for reform, and the most forward to use inflammatory language: where, then, was he to find proof that those hand-bills were published or circulated by the societies, unless they would suffer him to know from whom those hand-bills came, and how they were obtained? When once a government encouraged spies and informers, it became a part of their business to commit such forgeries and create such terror. The right hon. gentleman might say, that the business of spies and informers was a respectable and necessary trade; no man, however, would pretend that it would ever be much respected, and therefore such odium and such suspicion must necessarily attach to it. With the solitary exception of Watt, he conceived it expedient, that ministers should support their spies, as was formerly the practice with those who brought up thieves, and instructed them while young in steal ing, to share their profits. He had him self heard a man declare, that in the heat of his zeal and loyalty, he appointed another to watch those whom he suspected, for which he gave him a guinea a week, but that at last he brought him accounts so alarming, that he gave him two guineas a week. Such would inevitably be the case, and we should go on from worse to worse, and all would be imputable to the same cause. He mentioned the immense meeting which had that day been assembled in Palace-yard, and the order and decorum exhibited on that occasion; yet, if the meeting had been held before the opening of the session, he should not have been surprised if it had been used as an argument for the necessity of the bill. He wished Mr. Canning would come into his committee, and prove that the societies did preach the doctrine of king-killing; because, in that case, a prosecution would be instituted, and the truth be investigated by due course of law. He concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the existence, extent, and danger of the Seditious Meetings, referred to in his majesty's Proclamation on the 4th of November." Mr. Powys said, that the House had not, it was true, nor need it have, specific evidence of the treasonable designs of the meetings. The notoriety alone was enough to justify the legislature in resorting to strong regulations, to prevent the consequences that might arise from such inflammatory assemblies. The hon. gentleman had stated it as a grievance, to connect the outrage offered to his majesty, and the doctrines preached at the meetings alluded to: this was the very plea used by the societies themselves. The hon. gentleman had stated an alternative respecting the publications handed about at one of the meetings; viz. either that there was sedition, or there was not. The hon. gentleman asked, if there was sedition, why not prove it? If it could not be proved, the thing, he said, was a forgery. To this publication the name of citizen Lee, as printer, was annexed; and it was notorious that Lee was usually employed by the Corresponding Society: and in this instance, the hon. gentleman should show that he was not, as usual, engaged by them. It was plain from all the proceedings of the meetings, that the government was the great obstacle in their way; that at government they aimed all their efforts; and therefore government was obliged to endeavour to secure itself from the attacks of weak, insidious, and dangerous men. The daring attack on the king, was a blow at monarchy; nay, it struck at the root of the constitution. He wished to ask the House, whether the general notoriety was not enough to justify them in the measure? Was not that the ground of the Riot act? What were we to think of the conduct of our ancestors with respect to the gun-powder plot? Did they go into evidence about that plot? Had they done so, the House of Commons ought to have been gunpowder proof. Such was the case with the present bill: the notoriety was such, that to go into proof would be rišiculous. The parliament of Copenhagen house, and the parliament assembled in St. Stephen's, Westminster, could not exist together. The British parliament, as consisting of king, lords, and commons, would be crushed for ever, if they did not crush the unconstitutional parliaments in question. Mr. Jekyll said, that nothing in the nature of proof or necessity had been offered to justify the present measure. No connexion had been established between certain proceedings of the Corresponding Society, and the outrage of fered to his majesty. The gunpowderplot, which had been urged as a precedent for acting without inquiry, was not a very fortunate instance; for the gunpowder was actually found, and the overt act was indisputable. If he saw the name of citizen Lee to any libellous hand-bills, did it follow that they were not the contrivance of ministers themselves? In the instance of Oates, the ministers of Charles the 2nd had, for their own purposes, encouraged, or framed similar machinations to those of the present administration. That they were really the production of ministers, and propagated for their designs, was confirmed by the supineness of the attorney-general, who had instituted | fore, that seditious designs did exist, the no prosecution. Such were the shallow accused were cleared by verdicts of their pretences on which they were required to country. On that occasion he thought pass two bills, one of which assassinated the juries had done their duty, and that the best privileges of the constitution, the House had acted properly in laying and the other gagged the mouth of every the charges as they did. He could not, British subject. The chancellor of the however, consider it fair to make such an exchequer had formerly been no small ad- attack on him, when the grand jury, after mirer of debating clubs; he had been much deliberation, had found the charges accustomed to frequent them, although laid in the indictment; and as he could he seemed now to favour their sup- collect nothing to the contrary from the pression. Such, indeed, had formerly learned bench that presided, it was his been his ardour for debate, that he had duty to follow up the prosecution. He even harangued in a mask on some occa- entered into a detail of the proceedings sions. He had however now pulled off on the trials: two persons who were the mask and disclosed himself in his true called spies were examined, who, from character. minutes taken by them, proved the conduct of the societies for two years; and though the counsel for the defendants called two or three persons to invalidate their evidence, it remained uncontroverted. This was ample proof of the existence of sedition.-It was true, the people of this country, agreeably to the constitution, might assemble to discuss political subjects; but how far they might, in the present complexion of things, abuse that privilege, was a question highly important for the House to consider. It had been the wise usage of our ancestors to give up a part for the safety of the whole. Such were the various suspensions of the Habeas Corpus act, which, though they trespassed on the Bill of Rights, were the causes of preserving it for ages. The societies had totally changed their system last year they declared they would not petition: now, they would petition. He called the attention of gentlemen to the atrocious libels circulated at the meetings of these societies: he had in his hands, libels printed by citizen Lee, that went to the same extent.-There were people now who lived by libels: it was become a trade. It was not unusual to see the wares of useful trades exposed to sale on one side of a shop, and libels on the other. Such were their numbers, that it was his conscientious opinion, they could not be effectually checked, if some law were not made, expressly to stop their progress. The bills would not have been brought in, if he did not conceive them to be justified by the notoriety of such infamous proceedings. Let the language and conduct of the meetings at Sheffield, Wakefield, and Chalk Farm be duly weighed. They did not say they would petition parliament; but called their legislators their plunderers, enemies, and [2 B] Mr. Curwen said, that the conduct of the House in refusing inquiry where it ought to have taken place, and in their careless superintendence of the public money, as well as their implicit acquiescence in every ministerial measure, was little deserving of respect. What must the people think of the corruption and prodigality of ministers, of the sums of public money, which they had lavished on their creatures and dependents? Especially what must they think of the unexampled pension bestowed upon Mr. Burke, to whose private virtues he believed much regard was due? In the mode, however, in which the pension had been bestowed, his character had been degraded. Had he really deserved it on national grounds, it should have come before parliament. Had it been so brought forward, he would have opposed it; because even public virtue was not always to receive public remuneration. Liberality of rewards rendered the purity of the motive suspected, and injured the general course of real patriotism. The consciousness of having discharged their duty was the best and most unequivocal reward of public services. Without farther evidence, the House was not warranted in proceeding with the bill. The present measure was too weak for actual insurrection, too strong for the existing state of the country. With regard to the facts stated by ministers, he utterly disbelieved them. He thought the pretence of the outrage was assumed to divert the attention of the public from the destructive war in which ministers had involved us. The Attorney General said, that one hon. gentleman had observed, that he ought to have prosecuted. To this he would reply, that when it was proved be[VOL. XXXII.] oppressors. If these societies and meet ings were suffered to proceed, the business of the country could not go on. Surely, then, there was sufficient ground for the bill; and however irksome it was to a lover of the constitution to feel his liberty abridged, every wise man would admit, that when every thing dear to him was in danger from the daring herd of rash innovators, and the licentious doctrines of the dealers in sedition, that, valuable as British freedom was, a part should be sacrificed for a time for the safety of the whole. The provisions of the bill were such, that the peace of no family would be disturbed, nor would a constitutional club or assembly be interrupted. would say not less respectable, from their situation in life; and in his opinion, not less respectable, because they were removed from those objects of ambition which might be supposed to have had some influence with the members of that committee, and which some of them since might have been deemed pretty well to have attained. In the course of the business, he had been early convinced of the want of evidence sufficient to convict those men, and had broadly stated his sentiments on that subject; but the learned gentleman had said, that Mr. Erskine and Mr. Gibbs, the prisoners' counsel, thought differently. For one of those gentlemen, from habits of long intimacy, he enterMr. Fox said, that he would principally tained sentiments of the highest regard advert to what had fallen from the and friendship; of the other, from all, he learned gentleman. He was not one of had heard of him, he had been taught to those who thought that the attorney-ge- think with the greatest respect. But he neral ought not, in the recent instances, should not have felt, for one, that ardent to have prosecuted for high treason. The friendship, nor should he have deemed the declaration of the two Houses on that other entitled to that sincere respect, if, subject was decisive. Whenever it was in a question of life and death, where the opinion of the attorney-general that they were called upon to act as counsel, persons had been guilty of high treason, from any speculation of their own, with it was his bounden duty to prosecute. respect to the guilt or innocence of the But it did not follow, because those per- prisoners, or with respect to the nature of sons had been acquitted of the crime of evidence, they had neglected to set up high treason, that if they had been tried that defence which was infallibly calcuupon a different charge, they would have lated to save the lives of their clients. been found guilty of a misdemeanor. He Was it in consequence of the result of the had no doubt, that under this alteration trials that the bills were brought in? He of the charge, the jury would have con- was told that not from these trials only, scientiously exercised their judgment. and but from their subsequent proceedings, brought in an honest verdict according to the dangerous temper of these meetings the circumstances of the case. The had been proved, and that their mislearned gentleman said, that acquittal did chievous tendency could not be corrected not disprove guilt. He was not one of except by some new legislative regulation. those who would contend that acquittal He would appeal to ministers what had was an unequivocal proof of innocence. been the effect of the former regulations In common cases there were many cir- they had adopted. Had they not suscumstances that might engender doubt as pended the Habeas Corpus act, upon to the question of guilt or innocence. grounds which he must ever contend to First, when the existence of the offence be slight, and such as by no means warwas ascertained the difficulty was to prove ranted so violent a measure? Had they by whom it had been committed, to what not afterwards renewed that suspension? particular quarter the guilt should attach. The suspension, however, they had afterSecondly, even when there was a moral wards allowed to drop during the interval certainty, with respect to the authors of of the sitting of parliament. He had conthe offence, there was often extreme diffi-gratulated himself at the beginning of the culty in bringing home the charge to the individual, by legal proof. Neither of these circumstances, however, existed in the case of the individuals tried for high treason. They were acquitted by a jury not less respectable than the committee of that House who had drawn up the report respecting their proceedings. He session, when he heard his majesty talk of the spirit of order and submission to the laws, which, with a very few exceptions, had discovered itself among his faithful subjects. Coupling this declaration with the conduct of ministers, in allowing the suspension of the Habeas Corpus to drop, he had flattered himself that ministers had now renounced the opinion, that the evil to be dreaded from certain principles would be diminished by vigorous judicial proceedings, and the prosecution of the war with France. He did not think, for his own part, that the evil was in any degree diminished; but he conceived that ministers had begun to form more just opinions on the subject; that they had begun to perceive the folly and inefficacy of their former measures, and to adopt in the course of their future proceedings the suggestions of a milder spirit and more enlightened policy. Unhappily, however, for the country, it appeared from the present measure, that he had been mistaken in these expectations. Was it in consequence of the meeting at Copenhagenhouse, or the meeting at St. George'sfields, that they had been induced to bring forward the present bills? Both these meetings had taken place previous to the commencement of the present session, when the ministers put into the mouth of his majesty a declaration of the spirit of order and submission to the law, which had manifested itself in the country. Would they then say, that any thing which had occurred at those meetings, was the ground of their present measures? If they did say so, he defied even credulity to believe them. But he was told that the outrage on the king was connected with the proceedings of certain societies. He was referred for proof to the coincidence in point of time, and the notoriety of their transactions. Here he remarked, that while ministers declined giving that proof to which the House was entitled, they brought a sort of evidence which was worse than all; evidence was brought from a proclamation of the executive government. An attempt was made so far to degrade the House, as to bring in a bill upon the evidence of a proclamation of his majesty's ministers. If parliament were so careless of their duty, so lost to all sense of character as to take a proclamation of the executive government as evidence of the facts, upon which they were to ground their proceedings, they would, indeed, deserve that contempt which they were said to have incurred. The learned gentleman had read a number of papers, to show the atrocious views of the persons who composed these meetings. It was a sort of evidence which he confessed he received with much suspicion in consequence of the distrust with which he was accustomed to receive every such communication from that quarter of the House. If such facts existed, why were they not brought before the House in such a way as might constitute a proper ground for their proceedings? Why ought not the House to have the spies of the right hon. gentleman at their bar, in order to examine them as to their report of the facts which might have come under their inspection? The learned gentleman said that spies were instruments whom government had at all times found necessary to employ. Mr. Fox admitted that there were different sorts of spies. First, there were persons who might by chance be privy to some intelligence, which they might deem it essential to the safety of the state to communicate, and these he should set down as useful or meritorious spies. There were others who went.ccrtain lengths in order to acquire information, and made certain sacrifices, in order the more completely to get into the secrets of others; these he should reckon as at least doubtful. But there were a third sort, who in order to serve their own vile purposes, insinuated themselves into the confidence of those whom they wished to betray, not only affected a similarity of sentiment, but even spurred and goaded them on, and prompted them to adopt more reprehensible propositions, than they would otherwise have employed-of such characters there were no words in the English language which could sufficiently mark his contempt and detestation. This was the description of spy, which most frequently appeared in the trials at the Old Bailey. In all instances, the spy had been found the most furious in his sentiments, and the most intemperate in his language. He had often been the exaggerated and falsifying reporter of those proceedings, of which he himself had been prime mover and contriver. He would here refer to the trial of Mr. Walker, of Manchester, the proceedings on which were of such a nature, that they made his blood run cold, whenever he read or thought of them. Mr. Walker was not, indeed, put in peril of his life, for it required the oaths of two witnesses to have brought him to condign punishment; and fortunately for human nature, a second Lunn was not to be found. But he was put in hazard of his character, his liberty, and his fortune; and in the course of the trial it was found, that the person by whom he was accused was notoriously perjured. Yet on the oath of this very man, one of the name of Paul, |