but it struck him as singular indeed, that a gentleman so learned in the law as the master of the rolls, could not make up his mind upon the tendency of what the House had heard; a gentleman who, from his practice, was in the daily habit of making up his mind upon subjects infinitely more intricate than the present. The question was, whether the paragraph which had been originally complained of, was or was not a libel upon the House of Commons? and he admitted that, in examining the pamphlet, the intention of the author should be taken altogether. When he heard the paragraph alluded to read, he formed an opinion, exactly as a learned gentleman had stated his to be, viz. that it would be difficult indeed for any context to explain the meaning, so as to manifest the intention of the author to be innocent: so much, however, did he wish that an opportunity of explaining it might present itself, that he had attended patiently to the reading of the whole book, and having done so, he must declare it to be, in his opinion, a daring and atrocious libel. Any man who would maintain a contrary proposition, he had no scruple to pronounce ignorant of the laws of the land. If other members had not attended to it; if, from indolence or from a negligent disposition, they had slept upon their posts, it was their own fault; they had deserted their duty, and betrayed their constituents, by making their own negligence an excuse for not protecting the honour of the House. How was it possible that a man so familiar with professional matters as the Master of the rolls should be ignorant of the nature of such a pamphlet as that which the House had heard read? How could he for a moment doubt whether it was a libel on that House, and on the Revolution of 1688? So fully was his own mind made up on the subject, that he would not hesitate, even on the instant, to declare, that were he a juror, sworn to try the author, he would, without going out of court pronounce him guilty. He was surprised that gentlemen felt any difficulty upon a point so plain and palpable. Gentlemen should beware how they indulged their inclinations to screen men who traduced the principles of the Revolution, in which the people of this country gloried, and so justly gloried. They should recollect, that action produced reaction. The people of this country felt the insults that had been so often offered to them. They were proceeding to act as their ancestors did; and if that House, in its intemperance and folly, should carlessly pass these insults on the Revolution, the consequences would be dreadful; more especially as they were proceeding with bills founded on principles utterly subversive of every thing for which the Revolution was dear to the people. Such libels which the authors conceived to be sanctioned by government, occasioned answers in reply: this action and reaction naturally and necessarily produced consequences that kept the public in a ferment; they excited that bitterness and asperity of feeling in the country that occasioned that detestable and damnable system of pretended plots without doors, and of projects against the liberties of Englishmen within, that tended to undermine the foundation of social order, and alienated the affections of the people from the government. He called to the recollection of ministers the circumstances and conduct that brought Charles 1st to the block, and cautioned them to beware how they refused to pay due deference to the petitions of the people.-The author of the pamphlet had spoken contemptuously of the Revolution: he had stated it as a measure brought about by plots and conspiracies: he had said, that it was brought about by dividing men into different classes: he had represented the people of England then to be, what such miserable shallow politicians as the author wished to make them at present, by the aid of pensions, douceurs, and bribes; men capable of relishing the sentiments of despotism to serve the purpose of certain leaders-to make those of high rank league together to reprobate the principles of liberty. This wretched pamphleteer had traduced the proceedings of those who put the crown on the head of the House of Brunswickthat crown worn by his majesty. What this ignorant man meant, it was for the House, by their determination upon his publication, to declare. This had been declared by a former House of Commons in the case of Dr. Sacheverell. The doctrine of that person was voted to be scandalous and libellous against the sovereign then upon the throne, and against the Protestant succession, as by law established. That important event-an event so interesting and so advantageous to every Englishman-the author of this book said was vulgarly called a revolution, and was only called so by Whigs who waited for another, and therefore was | voice of the people was against them was not at this time to be spoken of as a re- evident [a cry of "No such thing" from the volution. Was this language to be tole- opposite side]. Sure he was, that if such rated by a House of Commons, that pre-measures were persisted in, the people tended to have any esteem for the princi- would rise against them: and then minisples of that Revolution? The House ters would, he had no doubt, lay hold of ought to be very cautious how they suf- some subterfuge, and endeavour to sneak fered slanders on that Revolution to pass out of their difficulty, as they had done on unnoticed. The people of England were other occasions. He knew the press so much, and thank God! so firmly at- would be set to work to defend them in tached to the principles then established, the usual way, and they would no doubt that he was convinced they were deter- be treated with another pamphlet from mined to live or die under those princi- the ingenious author of that under consiples. He was one of that description: deration. What a glorious representation and he hoped he should be found among of the people of England would that the number of those who would show, if House appear to be, if they passed by a necessary, not by words, but by acts, that pamphlet which had been read to them they would die before they would submit that night, in which they were represent to any attempt to make a king absolute ed only as a mere counsel for the crown, in England. It had been said that the and that in this consisted their greatest doctrine, that a monarchy might exist utility; that all the vigour and energy without a parliament, might apply to some which they were said to possess, as an other monarchy, and not of necessity to emanation from the people, was a mere our monarchy. Would any man say upon chimera; for such was the object of the his honour, that he believed that to be author in the publication of his book; a the intention of the author of the pam- book brought forward to support the phlet? Would any man stand up and say, principles of kingly government, which that he wished the debate to be adjourned, thank God, Englishmen got rid of! and in order to make up his mind upon that they must get rid of it again, if men of point? Would the House delay its deci-high rank and station should, with arms in sion upon such a question as that, and show a partiality for those who libelled the constitution, while they themselves were abetting and supporting his majesty's ministers in hurrying through the House two bills that had a tendency to destroy the principles of the constitution; and that at a time too, when they themselves knew the sentiments of the people were against the bills, about to be passed? When they knew that, with all the ardour which belonged to the affection with which they loved the Revolution of 1688, and the principles which were then established, would they take advantage of the temporary circumstance of an insult offered to his majesty, and the expressions of indignation which the people uttered upon that occasion, and pretend to say, that what they then expressed amounted to an acquiescence in the principles which ministers at this time maintained? If they did, he must tell them, that they would thereby render his majesty's life precarious, and the government insecure. He would maintain, that if ministers expected to be supported in such principles by the people, they would be deceived in the sequel. They would find that the people of England detested such principles. That the their hands, attempt to establish it against the public voice, as had more than once been hinted.-Mr. Erskine said, the debate of that night, and what had lately happened, would have convinced him, if he had stood in need of conviction, how inscrutable the ways of Providence were ; they seemed always intended to counteract the prognostics of men, in order to teach us prudence and patience. The higher orders of the people in this country, he had once thought had resolved to carry on the detestable doctrines contained in the book before the House and the principles of the bills depending, so that the people would have no hope but in the desperate alternative of either submitting to slavery, or attempting a remedy by force; that all the elements of society would be decompounded. He thanked God, his apprehension on that point was nearly at an end, from the manner in which many of the higher ranks had stood forth in the cause of liberty, and, by their conduct, had given the lie direct to the many insinuations that had gone forth against them. This proved that there were in the country men of high character who espoused the cause of liberty and of the people, and who were determined to sup the consideration of the pamphlet had not been brought on before? In answer to which, he begged leave to say, that he did not know whether he should have brought it on at all, He conceived that dangerous opinions might be stated in a publication, and that yet it might not be of consequence to prosecute the author. But when such a publication as the present was brought forward in that House, it was incumbent on them to show that they were not parties to libels upon the constitution, nor the patrons of those by whom such libels were circu port it at the hazard of their lives. What would be the consequence? The people would return to the standard of affection to the legislature. If, unfortunately their efforts should fail, and the people's rights should be disregarded, he would then say, in the language of a gentleman (Mr. Burke) who was no longer a member of that House, "When you put the sovereign against the people, they will cast your sovereignty in your face; nobody will be argued into slavery."-The author of the pamphlet under consideration was a member of the law; but he did not he said, choose to treat him as a law-lated. The existence of the Treason and yer, and therefore he should not state the book as the work of Mr. Reeves, but take it as if it had been the work of any other person of whom he had previously known nothing. He should only say, that the House should be aware how they gave the book their imprimatur. If they voted that the book was no libel, it would appear clear to the public they did so, because it was supposed to be in favour of the crown against the rights of the people. And here he must tell the attorney-general, of whose ability, integrity, and candour, no man could entertain a higher opinion, that if he went into the court of King'sbench with this book, and called for the verdict of a jury on it, they would not desire that time to deliberate upon it which the House seemed to wish. Mr. Serjeant Adair said, that the time proposed by the amendment was too short to enable any gentleman to form an opinion upon the subject. He was among those who entertained doubts as to the real intention of the author. With regard to that part of the pamphlet which had been originally complained of, he had no doubt of its being libel on that House. He said he differed from the secretary at war totally. He could not admit that it was historically correct, that the monarchy of this country was at any time antecedent to its constitution. He also defied any one to prove that the monarch could carry on the government without the great council of the nation; and he rejected with disdain the idea that the monarch of this country could carry on the government without the aid of parliament. It was a doctrine not to be tolerated for a single moment; and he believed it would be difficult for any context to explain, in the author's favour, the paragraph complained of. Mr. Fox said, it had been asked, why [VOL. XXXII.] Sedition bills formed another ground why this publication should not be passed by; for if it was found that arbitrary doctrines were recommended in the pamphlet, and that arbitrary measures were in the course of being adopted by ministers, it of consequence followed, that the House should not subscribe to the opinion of the secre tary of war, that the passage in the pamphlet referred to was apparently innocent. The learned gentleman admitted the publication to be a libel on the constitution, and yet he avowed himself an advocate for delay. Why did he not narrow his condemnation to the doctrines contained in that particular passage. Notwithstanding all the partiality of ministers for arbitrary power, he did not believe that many of their advocates would come forward to support those doctrines. A delay, then, was on their part desirable, in order that they might concert what defence could be set up for the passage, in all probability the produc tion of one of their own agents. Was this exceptionable passage so long, was it so doubtful, that, after having heard it once read, the House could have any hesitation with respect to its tendency? Did ministers wish for the delay of a few days, in order to give notice to the author of the libel to get out of the way? Did they wish for time, in their distressed situation, in order to reconcile, by some strain of construction, some contortion and twisting of the sense of other parts of the pamphlet, this defence of the passage with the declaration set up by the secretary at war, that it was perfectly innocent? It was, Mr. Fox declared, a libel of a more dangerous nature and a worse tendency, than any that had been issued by the Constitutional and Corresponding Societies. It was not difficult, however, to perceive the tenderness of [S] ministers for this libeller on the House of Commons, nor to penetrate into the motives of their conduct; and it was surely a bad omen for the country, that while such dispositions were manifested, it should be urged, that not a moment was to be lost in coming to a decision on bills, which, under the pretence of giving greater security to his majesty's person, were in reality, calculated to strengthen the hands of government, and overturn the priviliges of the constitution. The Attorney-General said, it did not become him to give any opinion as to the nature of the pamphlet, but to receive the instructions of the House. On a principle of justice to the unknown individual, and from regard to their own dignity, he must, however, vote for the adjournment. That House was the grand inquest of the nation. It had been found, in former instances of complaints sent from the House, that a jury, after a long investigation of the facts charged, differed in opinion and acquitted the party prosecuted. After all the attention which he had given to the pamphlet, he could not, if he was called upon on the sudden, give an opinion whether he should think it adviseable to prosecute or not. The motion, that the debate be adjourned till Thursday, was then agreed to. Nov. 26. The adjourned debate having been resumed, Mr. Sheridan said, he had not, on a former night, troubled the House with any long comment upon the pamphlet in question, because he thought it his duty to read it first. In the intermediate time, he had read it over with due deliberation; and if he had found it to have only contained a solitary passage, if he had found the passage itself contradicted by the context, or if it had not plainly appeared to him that it was the general wish of the author to libel the constitution of the country, he would not have risen to press the motion, which he submitted to the House on a former night. He had now considered the whole of the pamphlet, and the whole of it manifested the same deliberate malignity, against the constitution. The publication had been ascribed to a man, whose intimate connexion with the government was well known; to a man to whom it had been said by the secretary at war, the national gratitude could not be too much directed; to a man who had been the chairman of that association, which had incited and encouraged associations throughout the country. To that person the pamphlet had been ascribed; but it had been reported to him, since he came into the House, that the assertion of Mr. Reeves being the author of the pamphlet was to be solemnly disavowed. He was glad of it. Mr. Reeves he had formerly known, when he was a member of that Whig Club which was so much reprobated in this pamphlet. The prominent doctrines maintained in the pamphlet were, 1. That liberty flowed from the king alone. 2. That all security for law and government was derived from the kingly power. 3. That the revolution in 1688 was a fraud and a farce; and that all the people got by it was a Protestant king. 4. That the dissenters were enemies to the country, and ought to be exterminated. 5. That the Whigs were im. postors, and had always been either in the pay of the court, or in league with democrats. 6. That a constitutional lawyer was either a knave or a fool. 7. That the verdict of a jury was not a final decision, and was entitled to little or no weight. 8. That the Lords and Commons might be lopped off without injury to the constitution. These doctrines were elaborately argued through the whole of the pamphlet. Of the king it was asserted, that "he makes and executes the laws." In the next page of the pamphlet it was said, that accordingly the king can enact no laws without the advice and consent, not only of the Lords spiritual and temporal, who are in some sort counsellors of his own choosing, but also of the Commons in parliament assembled." The Lords would, he believed, feel but little obligation to the man who considered them merely as counsellors of the king's own choosing. The author through several passages entered into a history of the Reformation, and seemed to consider it as the source of French principles; and asserted that the Presbyterians, Quakers, &c. were the propagators and promoters of these principles. The author stated, that "Presbyterians, Independents, Commonwealth Men, Fifth Monarchy Men, Anabaptists, Quakers, and other sects and divisions too irksome to be named, all of them, more or less, disciples of the same school, where the sovereignty of the people, and the killing of kings was first brought into system and sanctioned by the dictates of the gospel." Through three whole pages had lived in those wicked reigns of Charles 2nd and James 2nd they would have en he represented the Dissenters to be a race not fit to exist, and as worthy of being exterminated as the Caribs of St. Vin-joyed in theory, though not, in practice (and theory of the two, is more considered by modern reformers), as good a constitution as they have had since, with the single exception of a Protestant king." So that, according to this author's doctrine the Revolution had done nothing more for the people of this country than to secure them a Protestant king. With respect to any constitution that had been established by the Revolution, that was a thing utterly unknown. "The government we know, and the laws we know, but the constitution we know not." Having concluded his dissertation upon the Whigs, the author adverted to the persons that had been tried at the Old Bailey: "The designs of these democrats have been fully exposed to the public view, on the trials of some of them last year for high treason; they were then, indeed, acquitted by a jury, but they cent's, and the Maroons of Jamaica. The authors of the Reformation were considered, by him, as Jacobins, and major Cartwright was compared to Calvin and Beza. Of the Revolution, the author expressed himself in these words: "The abdication of king James 2nd, and the transactions that ensued upon the vacancy thereby made in the throne, compose a very important and curious passage in the history of our government and laws. It has been vulgarly called "the Revolution;" upon what authority I know not; it was not so named by parliament, nor is it a term known to our laws. This term had certainly no better origin than the conversation and pamphlets of the time, where words are used, in a popular and historical sense, without any regard to or thought of technical propriety." To controvert the assertion of so bold and ignorant a writer, would be to insult the un-have since been found guilty by their derstanding of the House. country." The pamphlet contained a The pamphlet next proceeded to in- vast variety of other matter, equally ofveigh against the Whig Club for making fensive with the passages which he had the Revolution "a subject for tavern quoted. In the opening of his speech, he meeting, for congratulation, and for fri-had said, that he considered this as part volous festivity. To repeat nothing here of the folly in such effervescence of zeal, I wonder, considering the rank and station of some of these persons, that a sense of good breeding and decorum has never suggested to them that so much commemoration of that revolution, repeatedly urged out of all season and measure, cannot sound agreeably in the ears of the sovereign." Gentlemen would therefore observe that the ears of the sovereign were supposed to be offended at the mention of the Revolution that seated his family on the throne, and that "to him such commemoration must convey some insinuation of reproach."-" To these men," (viz. the Dissenters and Whigs)" and to this sinister design," said the author, "we are indebted for the jargon of which I have just complained. They invented the term Revolution to blind and mislead; and they have never ceased repeating it, that they might put the people in mind of making another. But what disappointment and discomfiture must it be to these idolizers of the constitution, supposed to be established at the Revolution, to discover at length, that they have bestowed their applause and affection upon the shreds and patches of old date; and that, if they of a system of a set of men who, to screen themselves from punishment, clung to the throne, which they wished to strengthen by any and all means in their power. This assertion he should proceed to prove. Another pamphlet had been published anterior to the present: its title was, "The Example of France a Warning to Great Britain." Its author was Arthur Young, esq. To prove the connexion between pamphlets of this description and persons in pay of government, he should only read the first testimony of approbation annexed to Mr. Young's work. The testimony came from Mr. Reeves, as chairman of the Crown and Anchor Association. It was wonderful to observe the conformity of sentiment between this work of Mr. Young and the pamphlet imputed to Mr. Reeves. The same arguments were urged through both. The first attempted to prove the Commons to be corrupt, and that such a system of corruption was necessary. The second talked of lopping off the Commons. Certainly, if the allegation of corruption could be proved, there would be few who would say that the lopping them off ought not to be tried. Mr. Sheridan read the offensive passage that was complained of in the House be |