reasoning in a connected point of view. Upon appearance of danger, the liberties of the subject must be fuspended; upon difappearance of the peril, the fame arbitrary powers must be placed in the hands of Minifters; and thus, whether the State were, or were not, exposed to rifque, an individual might be committed under a warrant from the Privy Council, or Secretary of State, and denied the privilege of demanding his trial within a given time. "Farewell then, an eternal farewell, to the bleffings of that great charter of our perfonal freedom, the Habeas Corpus A&t!”—[“ Hear! Hear!" from the Opposition Bench.] It should also be remarked, that this argument was not quite confiftent with itfelf. It affumed that the danger was diminished, and yet fuppofed that it was only concealed, which, in fact, rendered it more formidable. Traitors, but for the measure now recommended, it was faid, would no longer lurk in their hiding places, but, on the first favourable opportunity, make the most daring exertions to accomplish the ruin of their country. What was this, but to contend that the fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus Act had produced only a hollow and delufive quiet, which was rather the fuppreffion of murmur and complaint, than a proof of content and happiness? Was not this a strange method of demonstrating its efficacy?

Mr.

Another argument which had been brought forward originated in fears of French Jacobinifm. Thofe deftructive principles, it was observed by an honourable gentleman on a former night (Mr. Buxton), were ftill prevalent in France, and attempts had been, and would again be made, to fpread the poifon in this country: nay, the minds of fome Englishmen had already taken the taint. Hobhouse here begged leave to remind the honourable gentleman of the time when Jacobinifm did not feem to be armed with fuch ftrong terrors. Did the dread of French principles restrain His Majesty's Minifters from offering three feveral times to negotiate with Jacobin France, when the laboured to excite anarchy in foreign countries, and, through luft of dominion, aimed at the most extenfive conquests? It had been faid by a right honourable gentleman in a former debate (the Secretary at War), that it was in the highest degree effential, in confidering whether the overtures of an enemy, should be received, to attend to the perfonal character of the Chief Ruler, which, if fo depraved as that of General Bonaparte, ought to bar the door against negotiation. Mr. Hobhoufe defired to bring to the recollection of the right honourable gentleman, that he and his colleagues in office had folicited peace from men, whom they had often and loudly reprobated for the murder of their Sovereign. The character of thofe regicides, though fo confiantly reprefented,

the table, the hinge of the prefent question feemed to turn, the Executive had been armed with fresh ftrength, and increafed power. In addition to the Treafon Act, introduced in January 1796, which multiplied the numbers of that offence; in addition to the Sedition Act paffed at the fame time, which almoft reduced to a nullity the right of the people publicly to affemble and difcufs political fubjects; in addition to two acts, which received the fanction of Parliament in the year 1797, the one inflicting heavy penalties on the guilt of inciting any of His Majefty's forces by fea or land to mutiny, the other for more effectually preventing the adminiftering, or taking of unlawful oaths; in addition to those feveral methods of increafing minifterial power, the strongest laws had been adopted. A brand was fixed upon the door of every houfe, where the peftilential breath of Jacobinism," according to the eloquent language of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on another occafion, had found an entrance; every perfon belonging to the Corresponding, Conflitutional, or any fuch fociety, was rendered liable to fine, imprisonment, nay, to tranfportation; and the door was now completely shut against all debating focieties, and even against all clubs, where any pecuniary confideration was given for admiffion. If coercion could accomplish its object, the laws were already fufficiently fevere for every fair purpose which Government could defire. Mr. Hobhoufe thought that the views he had taken muft furely fatisfy every unbiaffed mind, that fince April 1799, taking it for granted that the alarming account of the Secret Com mittee was exact in every particular, the ftate of circumstances was widely altered.

Mr. Hobhouse then adverted to another argument, ufed by a right honourable gentleman (the Secretary of War; in a former debate, and repeated this night by the honourable gentleman who fpoke laft, namely, that the danger was confiderably diminished, and that the present tranquillity was to be afcribed to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Both those gentlemen had faid, that if the fufpenfion were not continued, the traitors, fhould France once more become fuccefsful, would fhew themselves in fuli- force, and with renewed activity; and, in the language of one of them, a revolution might burst forth as suddenly, as characters inscribed with lemon juice upon paper, started into appearance upon being applied to the fire. This argument, Mr. Hobhouse obferved, was a little at variance with the former: That fuppofed the ground for alarm to be as ftrong, as when the panic-ftruck Committee made their Report; this gave a more favourable reprefentation of the present times. But it was curious to contemplate both those modes of

reafoning in a connected point of view. Upon appearance of danger, the liberties of the subject must be fufpended; upon difappearance of the peril, the same arbitrary powers must be placed in the hands of Minifters; and thus, whether the State were, or were not, expofed to rifque, an individual might be committed under a warrant from the Privy Council, or Secretary of State, and denied the privilege of demanding his trial within a given time. "Farewell then, an eternal farewell, to the bleffings of that great charter of our personal freedom, the Habeas Corpus A&t!”—[“ Hear! Hear!" from the Opposition Bench.] It should also be remarked, that this argument was not quite confiftent with itself. It affumed that the danger was diminished, and yet fuppofed that it was only concealed, which, in fact, rendered it more formidable. Traitors, but for the measure now recommended, it was faid, would no longer lurk in their hiding places, but, on the first favourable opportunity, make the most daring exertions to accomplish the ruin of their country. What was this, but to contend that the suspension of the Habeas Corpus A&t had produced only a hollow and delufive quiet, which was rather the fuppreffion of murmur and complaint, than a proof of content and happiness? Was not this a strange method of demonstrating its efficacy?

Mr.

- Another argument which had been brought forward originated in fears of French Jacobinifm. Those deftructive principles, it was obferved by an honourable gentleman on a former night (Mr. Buxton), were ftill prevalent in France, and attempts had been, and would again be made, to spread the poifon in this country: nay, the minds of fome Englishmen had already taken the taint. Hobhouse here begged leave to remind the honourable gentleman of the time when Jacobinism did not feem to be armed with fuch ftrong terrors. Did the dread of French principles restrain His Majesty's Minifters from offering three feveral times to negotiate with Jacobin France, when the laboured to excite anarchy in foreign countries, and, through luft of dominion, aimed at the most extenfive conquests? It had been said by a right honourable gentleman in a former debate (the Secretary at War), that it was in the highest degree effential, in confidering whether the overtures of an enemy, fhould be received, to attend to the perfonal character of the Chief Ruler, which, if fo depraved as that of General Bonaparte, ought to bar the door against negotiation. Mr. Hobhoufe defired to bring to the recollection of the right honourable gentleman, that he and his colleagues in office had folicited peace from men, whom they had often and loudly reprobated for the murder of their Sovereign. The character of those regicides, though fo conftantly reprefented,

in the bitterest terms of execration, as the vileft and basest of mankind, did not stand in the way of an offer to negotiate on the part of this country; though the character of the Chief Conful would not now permit us even to listen to any terms of pacification. But, Mr. Hobhoufe added, it was rather too much to affume, that Jacobinifm was ftill prevalent in France. If he understood the nature of the last Revolution, it was this: The power of Bonaparte rose upon the deftruction of the Jacobin afcendancy. The Jacobins had a fuperiority in the Council of Five Hundred. That Council, urged by the most ambitious views, had paffed a refolution, declaring that France would never make a peace at the expence of any of thofe territories which now made a part of the Republic one and indivifible. That refolution the Council of Ancients, inclined to moderation, and ftimulated by a love of peace, had refused to ratify. With the Council of Ancients Bonaparte had co-operated to effect the overthrow of the Jacobinical influence in the other Council; and in that point he had completely fucceeded, for in the new Government he had reduced that Legislative body to a practical nonentity. Was it not then the intereft of Bonaparte to keep the Jacobins, who owed their fall to his elevation, in the lowest state of fubjection? Nay, the Jacobins, whofe numbers were now comparatively few, were juftly detefted by the reft of the French nation; and hence alfo it was incumbent upon Bonaparte, who wished fo much to recommend himself to the people, to neglect no measure which tended to prevent the revival of Jacobinical authority. But, notwithstanding thefe facts were fo obvious, an honourable gentleman (Mr. Canning) had, in a former debate, pofitively afferted, that Bonaparte was a concealed Jacobin. How did this appear? It was one of the principles of Jacobinifm to fpread war and defolation among other nations, and to attempt the fubverfion of the moft antient Monarchies. Did Bonaparte prove himself to be a Jacobin, because he had made overtures of peace to this country, and though they had been proudly and difdainfully rejected, had, without returning infult for infult, invited negotiation a fecond time? But should it be admitted that the destructive principles of Jacobinifm were ftill predominant in France, and had infected the minds of fome perfons in our own nation, ought coercion to be employed as a remedy? Had force ever been found to check the propagation of any tenet, however pernicious it might have been deemed? Quite the reverfe. Refiftance and oppofition, instead of impeding, accelerated the progrefs of opinions. Would it not then be better, would it not be wifer, to attack the baneful principles of Jacobinism, by reforming abuses, by addreffing the under

standing and good fenfe of the people, and fhewing them that the genuine British Conftitution afforded more bleffings, than could be enjoyed under any other form of Government? Such a method would prove an infinitely more effectual guard against the inroads of Jacobinical reformation, than an appeal to the God of battles.

Mr. Hobhouse then proceeded to comment upon another argument, by which an attempt had been made to juftify this bill. He alluded to what had fallen from an honourable gentleman on a former night (Mr. Wilberforce), who had contended that it was our duty to confide in Administration. His Majefty's Ministers, he had said, might have intelligence of evil and traitorous defigns, which, confiftently with the public safety, could not be made known to the House; that we ought, on that account, to place implicit faith in their affertions, and make them refponfible, if they abused their. powers. This doctrine of confidence in Adminiftration was, Mr. Hobhouse obferved, extremely convenient, and almost of univerfal application. If a ftrong measure, like the prefent, were propofed, a measure subjecting the personal liberty of every individual to the will and caprice of a Minifter, no evidence of its neceffity was to be given, because the communication might be dangerous: if inquiry were demanded into the causes of the failure of an expedition, the ill fuccefs of which had been pronounced to be difcreditable by an honourable Baronet who had been employed in that fervice, and had behaved most gallantly (Sir J. M. Pulteney), the answer was, the motion could not be granted, because the fafety of fome individuals would be expofed, and the inftructions of the officers who commanded might have been difcretionary. But supposing that, in fome instances, it might be attended with detriment, either to individuals or the public, to communicate to the House all the intelligence which Ministers might have received, ftill it was unneceffary to refort to this doctrine of confidence. A Secret Committee, fairly and impartially chofen out of gentlemen on both fides of the Houfe, might be appointed to examine into the grounds for suspecting that a confpiracy against the State was in existence, and their report would prove completely fatisfactory, though any part of their information were withholden from the House. Such a proceeding would be far preferable to a blind and implicit faith in His Majesty's Ministers. But it became the Houfe, before they came to a determination, to inquire, whether Ministers were deferving of the confidence which the honourable gentleman was fo willing to repofe in them. Was not their whole conduct a fyftem of raising falfe alarms, and exciting groundless panics, with a view to acquire continued acceffions of power? Had they not, at the close of the year VOL. X.

4 L