the manner of forming the committee. It was said to be by ballot: he wished it similar to those for elections, and not composed merely of members on one side of the house. The country would then confide more in it. No names were now to be found but what were connected with the former ministers. He feared that Mr. Addington would be advised to imitate his predecessor; but he reminded the house that the acts of the late administration were violent and undeserving of confidence; at least, the house should pause till all the evidence admitted by the committee were before it. It was, at best, only the opinion of twenty-one gentlemen: and, supposing matters ever so bad, why arm ministers with such power? Might not suspected persons be apprehended without it? Yes; but then they must be brought soon to trial. But they wish to detain persons beyond the legal period. This has been done for two or three years, and then the prisoners have been admitted to bail, with no charge against them. When responsibility should be moved for, the house would be told that this should be granted when convenient. There were persons now confined for certain publications, &c., Why not lay them before the house? The evidence was detailed in the Irish committee, Why not here? The house would then see on what grounds they acted. Besides, many members were absent, and not aware of so sudden a measure. As for the other bills proposed, he would only say that their real object was to intimidate those who wished their constituents to consider their country's grievances. By these bills, any one magistrate might prevent meetings for that purpose. They

might coerce, but not conciliate; yet conciliatory measures were now absolutely necessary. The house was indebted to the country for its firmness and perseverance under its hardships, and its love still evinced to the king and constitution. The house, then, had no right to consign the people to any minister's mercy. He would consent to no such measure without full proof of its necessity.

Mr. Curwen affirmed, that he would not assent to this measure without the clearest grounds of its necessity. The constitution ought not to be wantonly violated. This was the first act of the new administration, whose conduct would show whether the change was of men or measures. This act was quite in the spirit of the late administration, however the new ministers might otherwise swerve from their predecessors. If the danger was as great as insinuated, why suffer the house to adjourn? Had the danger so rapidly increased in eight days as to make that measure necessary which was needless before the recess? He said, he never witnessed more patience than what now marked the poorer classes. Until proofs of the country's danger should appear, he would not surrender the best rights of the people. He therefore called upon Mr. Addington to come forward and state why the house ought to agree to the motion.

The chancellor of the exchequer said, that the honourable gentleman had referred to him so pointedly, that he thought it absolutely neces sary for him to rise. The honourable gentleman had asked, whether any great danger was to be feared from the papers before the secret committee? He certainly thought the danger was very great: and

what

what inference was to be drawn from that circumstance? Ought it to be a matter of charge against him, that he did not propose then to the house so weighty a measure, which gave to the executive power an authority which urgent necessity alone could defend? or that he was unprepared (without inquiry) for a measure affirmed to be fatal to the liberty of the country, and which had been often stated, on the other side of the house, as inimical to a free constitution? Was it not more parliamentary and becoming, first to submit such papers to a secret committee, and afterwards to call the house to the consideration of the subject? Great dangers existed not only then, but also daily circumstances convinced the committee of the prudence and necessity of the present measure. Mr. Taylor had noticed an opinion of the house respecting a material branch of the constitution; viz. choosing a committee by ballot. This was certainly the best plan for a free choice. A committee by open nomination was attended with inconveniences, without the same advantages. In open nominations, persons were unwillingly objected to, though some objections might be proposed from public duty. But here any member might enlist what name he pleased, and erase it at his option. That fact was well known. Thus, every member might strike out any name he disliked, and insert any other instead, without detection. This measure was condemned by the opposition, till they were in administration; and those who had sometimes strong ly objected to this mode adopted it as expedient at others. He therefore insisted on this, as the best mode of choosing such a committee. He

freely acknowledged his regret and disappointment in producing those papers so near to the conclusion of the session. He had hoped that there would be no need of them at this

time. He once believed that so little disaffection remained, that the measures of former parliaments (which, being weighty, should not be brought before the house, until examined by a committee) would have been now unnecessary. But he now felt that necessity, not because disaffection, but the occasion of it, had increased. That spirit of malignity, ruinous to all orderly systems, was strengthened by public calamity, and therefore the disaf fected had been endeavouring to turn the popular distresses (occasioned by the high price of provisions) into discontent towards the state. The people were not discontented, but deluded, by being taught that their distresses arose from their rulers, and that relief was alone to be obtained by a violation of the laws. Ministers had no distrust of the people's loyalty. Unless they were loyal, a measure like this, or any other, would be useless, as it must be sustained by the good opinion of the virtuous part of the nation, without which the constitution itself were useless. But he asserted that the constitution, and such measures to preserve it, had that support; and, being resolved to protect the majority of the people and the constitution against a few men ready to subvert it, these measures were necessary. It was said, that the people had borne their difficulties well. He admitted it, and rejoiced at it. It was now asked, if these measures were not an ill return for such conduct, and whether conciliatory were not preferahle to coercive means? He

admitted

admitted that also. But whose interest would be consulted by following their course who inflamed their passions by prejudicing them against government? Were the rich to be conciliated, by telling them that they had preserved their loyalty, that they should not be aggrieved by any acts of parliament, but only left to the rapine of the most desperate among the discontented? Were the poor to be conciliated, by telling them that they had borne their difficulties and distresses most patiently, but were now left to the plots of those who endeavoured to ruin them? He said, that the duty of ministers was, first, to relieve them from some of their sufferings, and, next, to advise and direct them wisely; as, not to violate the laws, but chiefly to preserve and always support the constitution-the main object of the present measure. It was said by his honourable friend, that the present bill came recommended from other ministers. On that subject having already spoken, he should now be brief. He said, that it was by the wisdom and vigour of his majesty's late ministers, together with parliament, aided by the sense and virtue of the people of England, that any subject could be discussed in that house. They altogether fought the battle of the revolution, and obtain. ed, united, a glorious victory. The measure in question was very conducive to that victory. He had never thought of it however with out anxiety, having always felt that every restraint on the public was solely justified by necessity, which was proved by the country being endangered. He hoped that when that necessity ceased, parliament would be more ready to remove such restraints than impose them;

for our constitution could adapt itself to all circumstances, as neces sity should require an advantage peculiar to this empire. He perfectly knew how such measures were met by those against whom they were framed, who openly opposed the constitution when they were in abeyance; but, when under consideration, the same men pleaded the constitution against the measures: they attacked the constitution so as to render it necessary to repel such attacks; and then they pleaded the constitution so attacked against the system for defending it. The honourable gen→ tlemen opposite were pleading against a measure they thought unconstitutional, but which ministers judged necessary to preserve the constitution. The other mea sure hinted at by his honourable friend being not formally before the house, to discuss it then would be irregular; he was, however, as well convinced of the necessity of that as of this: he would enter upon the subject if gentlemen on the other side required it. He concluded by again repeating his full conviction of the necessity of the present measure.

Sir Francis Burdett said, that he saw no difference between the late and the present administration. He had watched their blood-tracked steps in Ireland. He had witnessed their wicked edicts,, all tending to destroy the remnant of the constitution. He knew not what term to apply to the conduct of ministers. There had already been a secret committee to examine the ground for martial law in England. A vote of credit was now asked by ministers, for destroying the people's liberties, upon the plea of necessity. This was a plea to

which every villain resorted. He would not assent to the committee's report, for committees had uttered the most false libels. [A loud cry of "Chair! chair !"]

The speaker told the honourable baronet, that such language could not be admitted.

Sir Francis proceeded, saying, that his allusion was to a former partiament, which had supposed that to be true that afterwards proved false. He wished the house to pause, and reflect on what coercion had done in Ireland. At the end of the American war, so little tendency to revolt appeared, that 9000 out of 12000 troops were sent from Ireland to America. The probability of an invasion was as strong then as now; but yet 60,000 volunteers, self-clothed, and selfpaid, rose against the threatened inyasion. But while she warded off a foreign invasion, Ireland presented the schedule of her claims, founded on a participation of equal rights. But since then she had sent delegates to France to invite an invasion. But what then could have affected such a change in the Irish? No less than the acts of the Irish parliament, supported by the wicked policy of the ministers here. The late minister of this country had spoken of the parliament in terms like his own, when he was for carrying the union. It had been said, that this change was the consequence of the spirit of Jacobinism; which term was now applied to all who asserted the liberties of Englishmen, performed their duty in the house, and kept an eye on the encroachments of ministers and of the crown. This was the Jacobinism of our old constitution, insufferable to ministers, who knew there was no choice between their country's slavery and

1801.

He told

their own punishment. them, that it would not be easy to make brave English soldiers torturers and executioners. They should remember that such acts as he complained of had ruined the whole family of the Stuarts, and were not the less oppressive, because they came from those who were bound to protect the people.

The solicitor general said, he was not surprised that the report of the committee had no effect on the other side of the house. He thought Jacobinism an immense evil, threatening excessive mischief to the civilised world. The honourable baronet considered all the measures of government as designed to overthrow the constitution: This, however, he was sure was not the language of the people, who considered them as barriers against that licentiousness, which would at once destroy the constitution and their liberties. The arguments on the other side the house were singular. Concerning the war, they entertained the house with long speeches to prove the evils of war, which no man ever yet denied. But they threw the odium of it, not on the restless ambition of the enemy, but on the government of this country. The rapine and murders committed in that country they styled the exertions of an oppressed people: and the nobility, gentry, and yeomanry, were considered as classes of men leagued against the people; and their exertions for their country were either unnoticed or misrepresented. When the question concerned measures of constraint, still all the odium was cast on the devisers. Whether these gentlemen were offended at the present, the last, or all government, it so happened that they had opposed every measure brought forward.