in a state of unexampled prosperity, they forget that it was in the midst of that prosperity that those societies began their attacks on government.

revolution be a benefit? If those societies were pursuing laudable ends, why were they not encouraged? If the contrary, why should they not be resisted? What undefined, strange principle of action must that be, which neither merited applause, nor called for resistance! He hoped gentlemen would candidly say, under which of those classes they should be ranked. Gentlemen had said, that the presumption of guilty intentions in those societies had undergone a judicial discussion, and held out a verdict as a proof that no danger existed: for his part, he had always studiously avoided that subject, and would not discuss whether verdicts had the operation of merely exempting from punishment or restoring to innocence; but surely no one would contend, that, because twelve men gave an opinion, the House should abandon all legislative judgment? Would it not be monstrous, if, when the state of the people called aloud for their protection against those numerous societies, they should answer, "We must do nothing, because twelve men have declared three of the society not guilty, and therefore there 'can be no danger to submit to ruin! we cannot save you!" To this height, extravagant as it was, he maintained, the arguments of gentlemen on the other side carried it.

It had been said, that ministers had acted inconsistently in alarming the House about danger, after having stated, in the Speech from the Throne, that the people were quiet. Before he spoke to this he must observe, that there was a fashion grown up of late, that made it impossible to state a sober proposition, without fencing and guarding it round with all its meanings and definitions. Ministers had stated that the people were loyal, but that did not argue that there might not be one or more discontented. If a man stated that there was a considerable degree of disaffection in those factious societies, then the construction of government was, that the whole body of the people was disaffected, the whole nation libelled, and all were to be deprived of their freedom. Each of those, however, were nevertheless true in a reasonable extent. It was certainly true, that the great body of the people were well affected to the constitution; did it, however, follow, that, because the number of the disaffected was small, the majority should not take measures to prevent the mischievous effects of their disaffection? That was the very condition in which strong measures should be taken; this was a point insisted upon on a similar occasion by the first philosopher and statesman of Rome, who said that a body of conspirators, of very small number, when compared with the bulk of the people, might shake the empire to its foundations. France, also, afforded a useful lesson, how small a portion of men had there produced the most ruinous effects. Paine himself stated, that the first persons who set on foot the Revolution were no more than seven, so despicable in talents, character, and power, as not to be thought worth resistance.

The next mode of getting rid of the subject adopted by gentlemen was saying, "discontent and disaffection are the natural consequences of the measures of administration, the war, &c." On that he would say a word, and answer the argument by a simple question, "Did the proceedings of those societies, or did they not, begin before the war? Did they not begin when there was no other ground of complaint or grievance, but the constitution itself? Yet this was compared to the time of Charles 1st, who, by making innovations, was destroying the constitution, and would have left no liberty; and If those societies proceeded on the mo thereby raised disturbances, which he en- del of their predecessors, the Jacobins of deavoured to prevent by harsh punish- Paris, and followed up their plans, they ments. It was not for protecting but for would eradicate all regard for the constiinvading the constitution, that he incur- tution, and destroy respect for every spered national resentment; but it was the re- cies of authority; not merely the authofusal of the parliament to innovate and des-rity of place and office, but the authority troy the constitution, which afforded matter of complaint and grievance to those societies. And while gentlemen insist that the chief criminality of ministers, which fomented those disturbances, was, that they had thrown the nation into war when

annexed to men of talents which was as much the strength of the state, as any authority derived from artificial institutions. It would, indeed, be lamentable, if such made a party against itself; as it would be ridiculous to think, that if they could

get the disaffected to go certain lengths, they might then throw them off. Such men should recollect, for their own instruction and guidance, that if all that was wise, great, and virtuous in human nature rose up on one side, and the wretched libeller Marat, on the other, said to the people. "Be on your guard against the aristrocracy of talents and wealth; you cannot suspect me, who have neither talents nor views of aristocracy :"-all would sink before him. To that state, he said, it was possible we might be brought. A right hon. gentleman, of the most splendid talents, had to be sure said, that English minds were so constituted as to resist such examples; he believed he was to a certain extent, right but though they might be able for some time, they could not be expected to resist a constant address to the passions, when assailed in the most flattering way; not in the way of obedience to power, but of rights and resistance to usurpation.

the grindings of oppression, ascribed every incidental evil, to which human nature is exposed, to the errors and wickedness of the government, and, without ever adverting to their duties, inflamed them with extravagant notions of their rights.

France, he said, like the societies in question, at one time entertained so high a notion of metaphysical theories in government, that she erected an edifice of her own, in contempt of those musty fabrics, projected and matured by the experimental wisdom of ages. So greatly had this ephemeral production been admired and applauded in this country, that, three years since, he should have been censured by some gentlemen, and thought too sanguine, if he had ventured to predict that it would not outlive the old and venerable fabric of the British constitution. They even then theorized upon theories, and tried the wonderful exercise of the Rights of Man, building their constitution upon the sovereignty of the people, and the will of the majority. They supposed, that if the mass of a nation was assembled, and the people of wisdom, experience, sense and erudition, ranged upon one side, with the foolish, the giddy, and the idle, op

The very evils incident to life were attributed to government. Human nature itself might be brought into contempt, if its foul side was always produced, and its fair side put in the shade; and for those innovators he would say, that Swift's des-posed to them on the other, if the latter cription of the Yahoos was as fair a representation of human nature, as the Corresponding Societies description was of the Constitution. Keep out of sight all that is beautiful and excellent, and the best work of creation might appear foul and detestable. If those societies and lectures were permitted to proceed farther he would venture to predict that the natural disposition of the English mind would undergo a complete and fatal change. The fascination of the kind he complained of, however slow, was inevitable in its effects. It had, indeed, been alleged, that there was a great disparity between the French and English characters, and from this the conclusion was drawn, that however similar the causes, the effects could not possibly be the same. He was ready, as well as happy, to admit the disparity of their characters; but he was far from being sure that the worst effects might not be produced, by men of great rank and character attempting to pursue public objects successfully by the assistance of the multitude. The multitude, he believed, were seldom harangued with so much success, as when the speakers addressed themselves to their ruling passions, when they attributed their inferior stations in life to

was more numerous, their will should be obeyed. As it might well have been foreseen, this experiment had only proved the futility of such theories; and yet gentlemen would still persist in encouraging such absurd as well as mischievous opinions. Mr. Grant, in glowing colours, described the miseries which those symptoms had produced in France: the oppression of the people; the dethronement, imprisonment, and subsequent murder of the monarch: the expulsion of the clergy; and the extinction of religion, which he wished the gentlemen on the other side to weigh well in their minds. Considering the bill as a measure of protection, and not of prohibition, at least in the strictest and worst meaning of that word, he should vote against the motion. He apologized to the House for having been led into much greater length than he originally intended, by the various ideas that had suggested themselves as the different topics came under his review, and although he thought it right to support the bills, he admitted them to be an infringement; though he was convinced that they would operate, not, as was said, as a ruinous restriction upon the constitution, but as a salutary protection of that glorious fabric.

the truth of the observation, and was convinced that no man had better reason to complain than himself. The hon. and learned gentleman had accused gentlemen on that side of the House of wishing to produce this dilemma, either that the people were animated by an universal spirit of loyalty, or that they were inflamed with a spirit of disaffection. He had never said that the people were completely harmonious in their political sentiments or opinions, or that no discontent

Mr. For said, he had listened with sincere pleasure, in common with every man in the House, to the able and eloquent speech delivered by the learned gentleman who had just sat down. He respected the talents of that learned gentleman, and admired his ingenuity. Nor did he mean any thing in the least disrespectful to the masterly display of both, which he had made on the present occasion, when he said, that though his speech was full of argument, and replete with eloquence, a man might safely subscribe to every state-prevailed. It had, however, been often ment he had brought forward, and every conclusion he had drawn, and yet vote against the present bill. The ingenuity of the hon. and learned gentleman had indeed, made no inconsiderable impression upon the House; though his arguments seemed not so much to bear on the principle of the bill under immediate discussion, as on the general policy of legislation. He felt the difficulty, therefore, in replying to a speech of that nature. Able and extensive as it had been, he was not in the least disposed, nor did he believe any sober politician would be inclined to controvert the principles laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman in the beginning of his speech. His position was, that, at a time of considerable danger, it was proper to give up part of the constitution, in order to secure the remainder. That maxim abstractedly considered, was incontrovertible; before it could have any weight, however, when applied in a practical view, it was necessary to prove the existence of the danger, its extent and magnitude; it would also be necessary to show, that the remedy called for was exactly a surrender of that portion of the constitution which it might be proper to sacrifice, and not more than the value of the object to be secured. The degree of constraint which government was to impose, could be the only ground of doubt and difference of opinion. That government was in its application a system of restraint upon human action, was clear and undeniable. It was important, however, to consider well the quantity and the quality of the restraint which circumstances might require.

The hon. and learned gentleman had complained, that it was the temper of the times to take every general principle as meant to apply universally, and to fasten upon the person who employed it all the absurd consequences which might arise from such an application. He admitted

stated on his side of the House, and he would call upon the hon. and learned gen. tleman to say, whether he believed the spirit of dissatisfaction was greater or less at present than it had been previous to the war. He had never stated, because he had never believed, that the state of public affairs was wholly without danger. If it was allowed to be greater, to what cause was the increase to be attributed? He was surely entitled to presume that it was occasioned by the discontents excited by an impolitic and unjust war? by the measures of a corrupt, incapable administration; and that it was ascribable to the complicated miseries arising from the decay of commerce, and the pressure of famine, into which the country had been plunged. The war, then, had produced an effect directly the reverse of that stated by ministers themselves as the chief reason for triumphing in its success. If, on the other hand, the ground of apprehension was less, why were the sacrifices required for public security to be increased? He asked pardon of the House for the repetition in which he iudulged; but when the same arguments came from the opposite bench, and the same objections were of. fered to gentlemen on his side of the House, he could not forbear repeating that material question.

With regard to the point of danger, of which the hon. and learned gentleman was so anxious to have a specific declaration of his sentiments, he had always stated, that some discontent existed, which might not be unworthy of attention, but which would never justify the legislative remedies proposed. The hon. and learned gentleman had affected to treat as a paradox the observation of his hon. friend (Mr. Lambton), that the danger of an attack was often created by the injudicious mode of defence. If it was a paradox, however, it was one of those which frequent experience proved to be true. Who could

tile to the constitution drawing to itself all the discontented persons of the country. If the strength of this party depended upon the discontent which a bad government produced, and as the worst administration necessarily would occasion the most discontent, he would defy any man to deny that a great part of the ill humour arose from the bad conduct of ministers. If the discontented were composed of two kinds, those who were enemies to the constitution, and those who, from a spirit of discontent, joined their

deny that many political evils were rendered desperate by the absurd methods pursued to remedy or to remove them? Was the hon. and learned gentleman so much more of a Whig than himself, as to impute the whole evils of the civil wars, and the resistance to Charles 1st, to which the nation owed its liberties, to the conduct of that ill-fated monarch? Did the hon. and learned gentleman believe all these calamities were to be ascribed to the illegality of ship-money, or of various other acts of that prince? Had there not been at that time a body of persons, pre-party and increased its number, correct viously inimical to the constitution; and was not the attack upon the monarchy rendered formidable, and even tragical in the event, by the rigorous measures which rendered the breach irreparable? The hon. and learned gentleman had also mentioned the case of the Americans. When that unfortunate dispute was first agitated, and when he heard scraps of pamphlets, and papers read, to prove that there was a settled design formed to shake off the connexion with this country, he had never been so unqualified a supporter of America, as to assert that no such designs were entertained. He was convinced, however, that those who had conceived the project of separating from the mother country were few indeed. By injurious attempts to remedy the evils then complained of, the catastrophe which it was intended to prevent was realised.

The hon. and learned gentleman had recurred to the fallacy so often answered, of which gentlemen on his side were accused, that they ascribed the discontents to the measures of his majesty's ministers. The hon. and learned gentleman asked, did not these discontents exist before the war, to which much of the discontent was imputed, had been commenced? Here again he would recall the two examples he had already employed. In the time of Charles 1st there might have existed causes of dissatisfaction, which, nevertheless,the extravagant pretences of that prince, and the impolicy of his ministers in urging them, carried to that height which proved so fatal to themselves. At one period a compromise with America was practicable, but the opportunity of conciliation was lost, and the desperate system pursued in this country for ever cut off all hopes of that compromise being effected.

It had been said, that much danger was to be apprehended from that party hos

the abuses which had been so much the subject of complaint, introduce moderation and economy in the public expenditure, and banish that corruption which had crept into the representative body. Such a proceeding would separate those from the disaffected who were displeased with abuses, and at the same time reconcile those to the constitution who had been alienated by its defects.

The hon. and learned gentleman, in animadverting on what had been said to come from gentlemen on his side, had only engendered a monstrous doctrine to show his dexterity in demolishing it. It had never been said, much less contended, that the verdict of juries on the state trials had proved that no seditious practices existed, but merely that the traitorous conspiracy was proved to be ill-founded. He had no hesitation to declare, that he considered the verdict of the jury on that point to be of more weight than the report of the secret committee. The hon. and learned gentleman. had attempted to point out an inconsistency between the language at present held, and that which they had heard upon the report of the secret committee. The hon. and learned gentleman likewise had confounded a variety of circumstances, and, from the result of his own combinations, had endeavoured to fix on his side of the House that inconsistency which he had first invented, and then urged as a charge of inconsistency.

With regard to the degree of danger the honourable and learned gentleman imputed to the Corresponding and other societies (principles which he charged upon no authority), it was impossible to believe that, among the whole, there was a majority unfavourable to monarchy. They might, indeed, have professed to maintain the doctrine of annual parliaments, and universal suffrage. These