223] 33 GEORGE II. think that it was in a great measure ow- Having thus pointed out the internal 1 gust at ill success, and indignation at would dispose the minds misconduct, of men to receive doctrines and impressions unfavourable to the constitution? Even all this he hoped they would resist ; On these ocbut it would be putting them to a severer trial than he wished to see. casions it was not necessary for him to say, that he, who loved the constitution, disapproved of the opinions of those who said that we had no constitution. His love of the constitution was to the constitution on its old form, which had subsisted by constant reformation, and was of such a nature, that if it was not improving, it was in a state of decay. He was happy to find by the resolutions from various parts of the country, that in his opinion, he was not singular. Like every human production, the constitution was not perfect, and if it were, it would not long continue so, unless the practice of it was carefully watched, and if that spirit of vigilance on the part of the people, which was its best security, were lulled to sleep. Melancholy, therefore, as the present prospect was, he saw more from danger than ever from that prospect pushing the present alarm too far, and making the people see the picture all on one side-the dangers of anarchy only, while they were inattentive to the abuses and encroachments of the executive power on the other. If the bill was intended to guard us against internal danger, while we were at war with France, we knew that in 1715 and 1745 the French had not been sparing of attempts to sow dissentions and excite rebellion in the country; and yet we had, by the commercial treaty, provided for the protection of the Did it guard aliens of both countries, even after an actual declaration of war. against the introduction of opinions? No. We had not yet come to the measure of prohibiting all French books and papers, which Spain had adopted about a year ago; nor was the policy or the wisdom of it so much applauded as to induce us to follow the example. But these opinions were propagated by conversation! What, then, did a Frenchman, when he landed, find an audience to understand the terms of his philosophy, and immediately open a sort of Tusculan disputation? Were they disseminated in clubs and convivial meetings, where men were disposed to approve rather of what was animated than what was proper? The very idea of a Frenchman getting up to harangue in his broken English, at such a meeting, was too ridiculous to be mentioned. If they were propagated at all, it must be by English agents, and these, if any such there were, which he did not much believe, would remain in the kingdom if every foreigner were sent out of it. The horrors of that day ought not to be mentioned as the act of the French government, or the French people, for both disclaimed it; but to disclaim was not enough. That the crime was not prevented or followed up by striking examples of punishment, would be an indelible disgrace to Paris and to France. But, were we to go to war on account of these inhuman murders? No war could be rational that had not some object, which being obtained, made way for peace. We were not, he trusted, going to war for the restoration of the old French government, nor for the extermination of the French people. What, then, had the horrors committed in France to do with the reasons of war? But they had to do with the passions of men, and were held out to blind their judgment by excit The preamble of the bill was a complete delusion; for it stated the extraordinary resort of aliens to this country, as the pretence of the bill, while every body knew that extraordinary resort to be occasioned by circumstances that had no connexion with it. At the time of the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when so many Frenchmen came over to this country, would such conduct have been adopted? If it had been, it would have deprived us of some of the best commercial advantages that we enjoy at the pre-ing their indignation. That we might sent day. The spirit of the bill was kept up in the mode of the defence; for it was said by one gentleman, that 400 aliens had marched into London in one day, while another gentleman (Mr. Burke), said he had examined these aliens and found that they were not dangerous. Surely, where that right hon. gentleman saw no danger, every body else might be perfectly at ease! Were an office to be instituted for the purpose of examining the opinions of individuals, and how they stood affected to the constitution of the country, no person could be better qua. lified than the right hon. gentleman to conduct the inquiry. Those who should stand this test, and meet with his approbation, might be reckoned sound indeed. With respect to the emigrants, among whom it was meant to make a distinction by the bill, he would protect those who had fallen a sacrifice to their opinions in favour of the old government of France; not because he approved of their principles, but because he respected their misfortunes. With respect to those who suffered for their attachment to the new constitution, he had heard it said by a person In answer to lord Mulgrave, Mr. Fox of high rank, that if La Fayette were paid a handsome compliment to his learn. here, he ought to be sent out of the coun-ed friend Mr. Erskine, to whose abilities try. Was this to be endured? Was it fit to vest any ministers with such a power merely in the hope that they would not abuse it? The third description of those who had fled for fear of punishment, for being concerned in the detestable massacre of the 2nd of September, all men would wish to see removed; but this was a sufficient ground for a particular law. [VOL. XXX. ] have a rational and intelligible account of the object for which we were going to war, he had made the propositions on which the House had already decided: and notwithstanding their ill success, he should not desist till such an account was obtained. The prerogative of the crown to send foreigners out of the kingdom, said to be left untouched by the bill, ought not to remain in doubt. The single instance produced from the reign of Henry 4th was counterbalanced by another in the same reign, when the king did the same thing by the authority of parliament which he had done before by his own power. He believed that the prerogative did not exist, and if it did, that it was too dangerous to be suffered to remain. If, on the other hand, it was a prerogative for the good of the people-if, indeed. the word "people" was not expunged from our political dictionary-the good of the people being the only foundation that he knew for any prerogative, it was fit that it should be clearly defined and understood, either by an enacting or a declaratory law. and perseverance it was owing, that the verdict of a jury could now be had on the guilt or innocence of any writing charged as libellous. He said, that his learned friend would have been guilty of a breach of honour in his profession if he had shrunk from the defence of Mr. Paine, or showed that any man prosecuted in this country could be deprived of the advan [Q] tage of counsel, where counsel was allowed by law. To the charge of inconsistency in having signed the declaration of a society against seditious writings, while he thought such societies illegal, he said he did not understand the declaration as meaning to prosecute any writings by subscription; he had by what he said at the meeting expressly guarded himself in this particular, and was told that the money subscribed was not for any such purpose, but to pay for papers and advertisements. If he had misunderstood the one, or been misinformed in the other, he would withdraw his name. He had signed a declaration of attachment to the constitution, because he thought it of importance at the present moment to let foreigners, and especially the French, see that men of all descriptions were firmly attached to it; that they had been grossly deceived by the addresses from this country, which told them that their doctrines were very generally adopted here; that they had been deceived by the minister's proclamations, stating that there was great danger from their doctrines; that they had been deceived by the alarms expressed by some of his own friends. This he had done, and every thing consistent with honour he would still do to prevent a war with France; more especially a war on false hopes, on one part, and false grounds on the other. On the subject of party-connexions it was seldom proper-at all times difficult -to speak, and he was not called upon to do it. He would only just show his hon. friend a few of the consequences arising from the doctrine he had laid down. His hon. friend would oppose a ministry where he had hopes of turning them out, and seeing his friends get into their places: but when those hopes were at an end he would join them. Many of those who had formerly opposed ministers had done so; more would follow their example; but they had never dreamt that they should have so good a defence for their conduct as the system of his hon. friend-a doctrine much more convenient for others than he was sure it would be for himself. Did his hon. friend see the consequences of this doctrine? Could he, upon reflection, reconcile it with his high notions of honour? Was it a fit lesson to teach ministers, that, if by their misconduct the public safety was brought into danger, then they should have the support of those who had Was it proper before opposed them? thus to hold out a reward to misconduct? Would it curb the inordinate and selfish ambition of men in power to say, that if he thought them so good as to resign their places rather than their country should suffer, he would oppose them: but if he thought them so bad as to sacrifice their country to their own love of peace, he should feel himself bound not only to withdraw his opposition, but to join them? Thus his hon. friend held out a premium to a wicked and pernicious ambition, and, in fact, said to ministers, in order to retain your places, and ensure our support to your power, you have only to bring the country to the brink of ruin. If his hon. friend did join ministers, they would not have much reason to be proud; for, on his own principle, in proportion to the support he gave them, would be his bad opinion of those to whom he went, and his good opinion of those whom he had left. Mr. Fox concluded with moving, "That the farther consideration of the bill be postponed to that day three weeks," in order, he said, to give time for inquiry into the grounds of the necessity alleged for adopting it. Mr. Pitt said, that he felt himself called upon to speak on the present occasion, though from the circumstance of his absence on former debates, the ground of discussion had already been pre-occupied. He observed that a great variety of matter had been introduced into the present debate: and though he thought that the bill before the House might be justified upon much narrower ground, still he did not complain of any irregularity, as he considered that matter as connected with the situation of affairs from which arose the necessity for the present measure. The right hon. gentleman who spoke last had assumed as a principle, that no bill of this sort ought to be brought forward, except upon some ground of positive cir cumstances upon which it was founded being stated in the preamble. He must remark, however, that this objection came rather too late, after four or five discussions had already taken place, more especially with respect to a bill which was from its nature urgent, and which if it was proper to be passed at all, ought to be passed immediately. That the right hon. gentleman who had declared himself an enemy to the principle of the bill, should propose a delay of three weeks in In addition to all these circumstances, we find that in the councils of that country, from which these persons had come, there had been adopted a system of propagating, by every means of art and force, principles inimical to the government of every country, and that they were now actually carrying on a war against the established government of other countries, under the specious pretext of promoting the cause of freedom. When he had stated these circumstances, would it be said that the present bill had been brought forward without any evidence or ground of danger? But he now came to the climax of all. In this country itself there had been found persons who professed the same principles with those maintained in the councils of that neigh order to inquire into the circumstances upon which it was founded, was not surprising and as this delay would take place chiefly during the holidays, a season by no means favourable to the forwarding of such an inquiry, the proposition was almost tantamount to the rejection of the bill; but it was by no means probable that those who approved of the principle of the bill, who thought it called for by the circumstances of the time, would easily be brought to concur in such a delay. The only ground, indeed, upon which this delay could be justified, was, that the bill was an object of juridical and not of legislative deliberation. But would the right hon. gentleman deny, that the propriety of the executive government interfering in particular circumstances to send strangers out of the coun-bouring state, and held out the model of try, or to regulate their residence while they should remain in it, was a fair object of legislative deliberation? On different occasions, in the history of this country, the Habeas Corpus act had been suspended without any previous notice having been given. The present bill he considered as a measure of precaution, no less fair when there occurred an occasion that called for it, than an augmentation of the naval or military force of the country: it was founded in facts of notoriety, and the most evident deductions of reasoning. If he was called upon to state the particular grounds upon which the bill was founded, the only difficulty which he should find, was, that these grounds were in themselves far greater than the magnitude of the measure. If he should only state, that by some extraordinary occurrence, some unforeseen and inevitable calamity of nature, great numbers of foreigners had come into this country without the means of subsistence, without being brought here for any purposes of commerce, or without any possibility of discrimination, even this he should consider as affording a sufficient object of jealousy and attention; but when it ap-houring state, who were now in this coun peared, that these persons came from a country whose principles were inimical to the peace and order of every other government; and though many of them, no doubt, had fled here in order to find a refuge from the sword of persecution, there was but too much reason to suspect, that among these had mingled emissaries for prey, regard for our own interests and for the safety of the country, enforced the necessity of peculiar vigilance. their government as an object of applause and imitation; nay, who had industriously propagated, and publicly avowed, that they acted with them in concert: they had held a correspondence with the affiliated societies of Jacobins; they had presented addresses to the Convention, and had there been received, encouraged, and cherished, and had, in return, met with offers of fraternity and succour. Was there, then, not reason to suppose, that persons might have been sent to this country, with a view of carrying on that concert? Was not this obvious to the understanding and feelings of every gentleman present? He should state nothing from his own personal information, as he considered that there was, in the present instance, sufficient ground of action and decision without such information: he should only, in general, say, that, as far as he had opportunity of knowing, he had reason to be confirmed in every suspicion, which arose from that situation of affairs which he had now described. It had been asked, what were the number of those who had been concerned in enormities too shocking to relate in a neigh try? He trusted, however, that the progress of the bill would not be stopt to inquire, by a select committee, what was the number of these pesons, whether they were eighteen or nineteen; what was the degree of mischief which they might commit, or whether they had been sent here for the most horrid of all purposes, with respect to the royal family. In all such inquiries the evidence that could be ob.. tained was only by hearsay, which was always uncertain. The number of those persons, he could affirm, who had been concerned in such shocking enormities, and were now in this country, had been stated from good authority, and it was from a mistake that a noble person had been represented as having from no authority given any account of their number. But if he knew that there was one, that alone afforded sufficient ground of suspicion that there were more. And if there were more, it was to be recollected, that these were not to act upon their single strength, but in conjunction with those in this country, who entertained seditious views. In this point of view, it was to be remarked, that a mob, which might at any other time be disregarded, became in such a situation truly alarming, the smallest spark might produce an explosion, while there were a set of desperate individuals determined to take advantage of every public commotion, and convert it to their own purposes. The danger then arose not from individual strength, but from the consideration of the whole of the situation of the country. A great number of foreigners had come into it; there were no means of discriminating their characters; and as they valued the safety of the country, it became necessary that, at the present moment, these should be objects of prudence and vigilance. He was a little surprised how it was possible, in the present instance, to separate domestic from external danger. He should have considered the domestic alarm as sufficient ground for the present bill, much more when to it was added the consideration of external danger. If there were persons at home disaffected to the constitution, and desirous of overturning the established form of government, and if these were in concert with persons abroad, he should certainly consider this not as a less reason to guard against machinations at home, and to watch the conduct of those abroad. Was it not an evident consequence of this concert that the danger must be increased, as the domestic and external danger would mutually operate upon each other? Yet, after all that had been stated, there are some who pretend to tell us, that they fear no internal alarm, that they see no cause of danger. Notwithstanding the general sentiment of the country and of that House, they have the hardihood to treat the whole as the effect of ministerial artifice. Had ministerial artifice made those who had hitherto acted upon a system of opposition, now concur in the opinion of this danger? Had it made all the members in that House, except ten or fifteen, agree in the same sentiment? Had ministerial artifice excited but one opinion in the country with respect to this danger, from one end of it to the other? But it was said, that the alarm had been produced by the measures of calling out the militia, and assembling parliament: he would ask, whether the week before these measures had been adopted, the appearance of alarm had been greater or less than the week after, or at the present moment? He had expected his exertions on the present occasion to be seconded by the efforts of the friends of order; but he could hardly expect that the effect would be so great as that the alarm, which had lately prevailed in some places to a degree of despondency, should be so completely annihilated, that even the existence of the danger should in a short time after be called in question. But he should be sorry that the effect produced should be a sense of security, which must be fatal. While vigilance was maintained, he should consider the country to be safe. Those whom it was necessary to guard against were those who, in the moment of alarm, placed their hopes in obscurity, and waited till that alarm should have subsided in order to renew their machinations. He should now shortly point out what were the leading circumstances of the present time. What had they seen? They had seen within two or three years a revolution in France, founded upon principles which were inconsistent with every regular government-which were hostile to hereditary monarchy, to nobility, to all the privileged orders, and to every sort of popular representation, short of that, which would give to every individual a voice in the election of representatives. Was presentatives. Writings had been published in this country, holding out this government as an object of envy, and a model of imitation, decrying every other form of government as founded in injustice, and inconsistent with the unalienable rights of man; representing this new system as holding out relief to the poor, inculcating a more pure and simple system of morals, and enlarging the circle of social happiness. How far it deserved this character, its own practice would best prove. Societies had been formed in |