grefs, yet that, from the exertions of their adverfaries, they had not been ultimately fuccessful. The time which his lordship particularly dwelt upon as most analogous to the prefent, was during the reign of Louis XIV. in 1672, when the conquefts of France extended beyond what they at prefent did; yet their progrefs was stopped, and they were compelled to abandon their conquefls. In 1688, the immenfe troops of that monarch were repulfed in a fimilar manner by the duke of Lorraine. His lordship then proceeded to detail the events of the two fucceffion wars, the confequences of which were the fame. In the war of 1757, the French were once more compelled to re-crofs the Rhine, and the war concluded with peculiar glory and advantage to this country. The French arms had, his lordship obferved, been formerly as powerfulas now, but they had been driven back. He therefore faw no room for defpondency from the progrefs of the French; and confidering that not less than our lives, our properties, our laws and liberties, were at ftake, it was our duty to ftruggle, even though our calamities were much greater, and our acquifitions lefs. His lordflip contended ftrongly for the importance of Corfica, and noticed that Minorca and Gibraltar, though at leaft equally unproductive to the revenue, had been always confidered as of peculiar confequence to

this country.

The amendment was fupported by lord Stanhope with his uiual peculiarity and energy, and oppofed by the earl of Mansfield, who thought it would be in the highest degree difgraceful to crouch at the foot of France, elated with victory, and drunk with fuccefs.

His lordship afferted the total ruite of the French finances: that the expenfe of the laft campaign had coft France 144 millions fterling,

that there were equal to 240 millions in affignats in circulation,-that the quantity of forged affignats defied all calculation, and they were as current as the true ones; in confequence of which, the whole was fo depreciated, that for 24 livres in fpecie, 112 were given in affignats. The forced loan, and the difufe of the maximum, proved their exhauftion. Their want of provifions his lordship ftated to be exceffive, and repeated what had been fo often urged in the houfe as the impediment to peace,-want of fecurity. Under the prefent circumftances, we muft, he faid, either profecute the war with vigour, or fink into humiliation and difgrace.

The reprefentation made of France as having exhaufted her finances, while thofe of this country were in a flourishing state, as an argument againft negotiating a peace, was oppofed by the earl of Lauderdale, who further noticed the obfervation that France was now drunk with fuccefs, and therefore it was unfit to fue to her at prefent. It was, he faid, fcarcely poflible that France fhould bear herfelf fo haughtily, if her finances were really in fo deplorable a fituation. The affertion that the French were actuated by boundless ambition, was, he thought, contradicted by their being at that time actually engaged in a treaty with one power for peace, and having kept faith with the neutral powers with the utmoft punctuality. His lordship adverted to the late trials for treafon, charging minifters with having nurfed up fedition for a long time after they knew it was

active,

active, in order that it might grow up into treafon. He thought it very extraordinary that the firft lord of the admiralty fhould hope our naval force would in the enfuing year prove larger than was ever known before, and that it fhould be unknown to the admiralty board that the French fleet were in the chops of the Channel till it was cafually communicated. He lamented that a larger land force had not been fent out with fir C. Grey to prevent the difafters which had arifen in the Weft Indies. His lordship, fpeaking of the Auftrian loan, contended that the eafe with which it was made, was imputable folely to the minifter's having pledged the country as a collateral fecurity; as, when the emperor's agents had folicited a loan in London on his fole fecurity, no monied men came forward to countenance it.

Lord Grenville enlarged upon the different arguments refpecting the war and the impolicy of negotiating for peace, which had been urged by the movers and fupporters of the addrefs. The duke of Leeds and the marquis of Abercorn difapproved of the addrefs as pledging the houfe to the fupport of the war, but objected to the amendment. Both, however, earnestly wished for the bleffings of peace. The duke of Bedford made a very animated reply to the fpeech of lord Grenville. He confidered the statement made of the French finances as involving a contradiction. Minifiers, he fid, bad uniformly afferted that the enemy could not bear the expenfe of another campaign; yet every fucceeding campaign had been more efficient than the preceding one. The argument on which fo much ftrefs had been laid, that the deficiency of their re

fources appeared from their immenfe outgoings, was, he thought, abfurd: he did not credit the premifes; but if he did, they warranted a very different conclufion. The affertion of the noble fecretary, that their laft campaign had coft 160 millions fterling, he must doubt, as it was not accompanied by any authentic document. Admitting it, however, as correct, it only proved that minifters had been mistaken in their previous statements, or that a fyftem of impofition was regularly purfued. What confolation could, he asked, be derived from miferable fpeculations on the refources of a people who kept the field which we and our allies had conflantly abandoned, and accompanied by other, inftances of inibecillity, fuch as hook Europe to its bafis? His grace pointedly ridiculed the forefight of minifters which had been mentioned by the noble fecretary, and appealed to the houfe, whether the predictions of miniiters had not uniformly failed, while thofe of their opponents had been as uniformly verified. His grace again ftated the eafinefs of treasing with France, and that the fpeech ftill left the object of the war undefined. Had minifters ever clearly fhown that object to be just and reafonable, it would, he faid, have met with his moft ftrenuous fupport. But when called upon to fupport a war of mutual deftruction, he had no option but to grapple for his own fafety as long as he could; and that, he was convinced, could only be attained by the means recommended in the amendment. His grace pointedly noticed the phrafeology of lord Grenville, who had faid that we ought to follow up with vigour the generous exertions of war. He was at a lofs

how

how to conftrue these words: they reminded him of that jumble by which fome poets of antiquity confounded the elements of things. Minifters might at their leifure devife the means of supporting what they pleafed to call generous exertions, not with their own, but with the blood and treasure of a gallant people. They knew nothing of the diftreffes it occafioned, to be torn from their families, to leave them deftitute and miferable, and to endure all the cruelties and horrors of a military life. Such generous exertions would, however, never procure them the thanks of the widow, or the gratitude of the

fatherlefs.

Lord Darnley made a fhort speech in favour of the addrefs; and lord Grenville rofe to fay, that the fpeech which had been underftood in the courfe of the debate as importing that Great Britain would not make peace with France while the continued a republic, did not warrant fuch a conftruction. On the question for the amendment, it was rejected by a majority of 107 againft 12, and the addrefs was confequently carried.

As it is the uniform practice of the houfe of commons to read the bill for the "profecuting of clandeftine outlawries," previous to moving the addrefs in reply to his majefty's fpeech, the fpeaker, as ufual, prefented that bill.

Mr.

Sheridan rofe to oppofe the reading he faid he understood this bufinefs to be a cuftom for the purpofe of expreffing the right of the houfe of commons to proceed to any bufinefs they thought proper previous to the taking of his majefty's fpeech into confideration. This he thought not a ufelefs, barren right, but a right to be infifted upon for any practical good pur

pose. He thought the opportunity was come for afferting that right, and with this view he muft object to the propofed reading of the bill, in order to introduce a motion upon another fubject. The house was called upon to advise his majefty, at a feafon the most critical, and upon a business of the utmost importance: but before they could fay they were in a fituation to advife his majefty in a free and impartial manner, it was neceffary they fhould themfelves be free, which could not be the cafe while the Habeas Corpus act was fufpended. His object, therefore, was, after this question was negatived, to move for a repeal of the bill for the fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus act. The argument, that the bill had a very fhort time to run, had no weight with him he would not wait a moment after the meet✩" ing of parliament to call upon the houfe to act as fair and independent agents for the people, who, if fairly left to the exercise of their rights, would never abuse them.

The prefent mode of proceeding was objected to by Mr. Dundas, who thought, from all he had heard, that the fufpenfion, inftead of being removed, ought to be renewed. Mr. Jekyll was very folicitous for the repeal of the fufpenfion, which was oppofed by the folicitor-general in a long fpeech, in which he was repeatedly called to order. This gentleman declared that the evidence on the late trials for treafon proved, beyond a poffibility of doubt, the exiftence of a confpiracy, and that the verdicts only amounted to this, that the perfons tried could not be tried again for the fame offence. The evidence proved every fact alleged in the report of the committee; and feveral other perfons befide himself

viewed the exiftence of the confpiracy in the fame light that he did. The jury did not fee it in that light. What appeared fo clear to him, did not feem fo to thofe who were not fo well informed of the facts as he was. He gave a detailed account of the proceedings of the different focieties, and ftrongly reprobated the doctrine of univerfal fuffrage.

In attending to the arguments of the preceding fpeaker, Mr. Fox faid he had conceived that he had not believed there was a plot exifting; but as he afferted the contrary, it ought not to be denied as his opinion. The learned gentleman had given his own opinion on the trials, and had noticed that of the jury; he certainly had a right to give his own, though his arguments fhould make against it; but it did not appear that the jury had given him authority to fay any thing for them. He had thought the verdict of acquittal, in the language of this conftitution, was an establishment of the innocence of the accufed; but the definition of law he had just heard, tended to annihilate a privilege which was the fureft bulwark of our conftitution, and to confound every distinction between guilt and innocence. The learned gentleman had infifted upon the existence of a treasonable plot, because fome of the perfons tried held opinions upon political fubjects different from his own. Thus was the doctrine of conftructive treafon to be maintained, -a doctrine which, if permitted to pafs in any place where the publication of opinion was important, might in time be infifted upon as the law of the land. Whatever he might think of the existence of a plot being proved by the evidence on the trials, did the jury

think fo? Yet they had the advantage of hearing the folicitor's fpeech, but it did not convince them; nor would it, Mr. Fox faid, have, he believed, convinced him. He had reported himself to be better informed than the jury; but it did not appear that he had communicated that fuperior knowledge either on the trials on that occafion, or to the houfe on this. The jury were not men who had favours to afk from government; they had neither penfions nor peerages in profpect. After beftowing a warm eulogium opon thofe juries, Mr. Fox afked whether it was the opinion of a crown lawyer, or of an Englifh jury, with regard to the character of an individual, whofe conduct had come under judicial inveftigation, that the house would prefer? He thought much of the doctrine maintained in the late trials was contrary to the letter and fpirit of the 25th of Edward III. For himself, if he differed at all from the opinion of the jury, it was in thinking it unneceffary to put the prifoners upon their de fence, as the evidence for the crown had certainly failed in every proof of their guilt.

Mr. fergeant Adair recapitulated the different acts of the focieties, and afked whether it could be conceived fuch measures should be adopted, and no defign have been concerted against the life of the king, or against the conftitution of the country? Every man accuftomed to attend courts of justice knew that many guilty men were acquitted, not becaufe doubts were entertained of their guilt, but because they were ertitled to that acquittal by the ftrict rules of legal evidence. The jury need not be clearly fatisfied of the entire innocence of the party accufed, in

order

order to acquit him: if there was a doubt on their mind, that was a fufficient ground for acquittal; but could it be therefore said that there was no ground for the charge, or that the party was entirely innocent?

Mr. Pitt faid there could be no occafion for repealing the bill, unlefs it was meant to be alleged that what parliament had acted upon after due deliberation had been difproved, or that government had abufed the difcretion entrusted to them. The jury had not difproved the existence of the ferious grounds of alarm, or negatived that part of the charge which had caufed the fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus act, namely, that thefe perfons were parties to a confpiracy, if not of treafon, to a crime as great in moral guilt, and as dangerous as treafon could be. The verdict was therefore not to be confidered as a ground for the repeal. Should it even appear that the indictment for high treafon had not been fo fupported as to lead to the proof of legal guilt, yet if the perfons have been, in the opinion of the public, guilty of a defign as dangerous as ever was attempted which did not come within the degree of punishment that the law at prefent provides; parliament would then do wifely to confider whether more or lefs precautions to prevent fuch mifchief fhould be adopted.

Mr. Sheridan profefied he had no objection to the reading of the outlawry bill; all he was folicitous for was, that the Habeas Corpus act might not be outlawed. When the gentleman who fpoke laft had faid that the fufpenfion had been voted on folemn deliberation, he was not in the highest form of memory, it was hurried through the 8

houfe in two days, without even the formality of a previous notice. By the trials for treafon, and the declaration of a learned gentleman, there were at leaft two culprits, the attorney and folicitor-general, who had either profecuted perfons not engaged in the fuppofed confpiracy, or neglected to produce the evidence to convict them, though they were in poffeffion of it. As, from all he had heard that day, he did not doubt but a further fufpenfion of the bill was intended, he should take the earliest opportunity of renewing the difcuffion, that minifters might not concert new plans of alarm.

After the bill for preventing clandeftine outlawries had been read, the bufinefs of the addrefs was further impeded by Mr. Sheridan, who apologited for the interruption, as neceifary, on account of a point of order. He thought he faw an illuftrious "ftranger," Mr. Dundas, in the body of the house, to whom, whatever were his mes rits, it was irregular to pay any greater attention than to other

rangers. Mr. Burke's bill, which abolithed the office of third fecre tary of fate, enacted, that if his majefty, at any future period, fhould revive the oflice, the perfon appointed to it should, if a member of that houfe, vacate his feat. He therefore apprehended Mr. Dundas was no longer a member. Lord Grenville was fecretary for the foreign department: he wished to know whether the duke of Portland and Mr. Dundas were one or to fecretaries of ftate: if they were two, he conceived the latter muft be third fecretary. Mr. Pitt, in a fhort reply, intimated that the duke of Portland was the third fecretary, which was confidered by Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Fox as not a very refpe&tful