habitants were terrified into a subscription by the appearance of the collectors of rates and taxes, and the public-houses by the appearance of a magistrate, who, at the next quarter sessions, might otherwise refuse a license. In the meantime it was a notorious fact, said Mr. Sheridan, that a week had been employed on this occasion.

Lord W. Russell presented a petition from the noblemen, gentlemen, clergy, freeholders, and other undersigned inhabitants of the county of Surrey, against the convention bills. The petition was subscribed by 6091 persons; regular notice had been given of the meeting, gentlemen of great ability on both sides of the question attended. There had been a minority at the meeting, which minority had entered into several resolutions, and had drawn up a petition which had been signed by about 2000 persons. Mr. T. Onslow conceived, that there were some floating particles in the atmosphere of the house, which, coming in contact with some gentlemen, produced in them a disorder called the cacoethes loquendi. These particles, he was happy to say, had not come in contact with him, and, therefore, he could assure the house that he would not trouble them with a long speech upon the subject. The petition that had been presented had been signed by above 6000 persons: 'the petition in favour of the bills by about 2000 perBut he wished to know how many of those 6000 persons were freeholders of the county, and how much of the property of the county they represented?

sons.

Mr. Sheridan could not help being of opinion, that though Mr. Onslow had rebuked the practice of the cacoethes loquendi, he had not wholly refrained from it. To the wit of the hon. gentleman he had nothing to object, except that it seemed not to be without preparation. The joke about the dismissal of ministers the house had heard before. Though, therefore, the repetition of signatures to a petition might be a good thing, he never heard that the repetition deserved that praise. He was happy to hear it now avowed by the staunchest friends of the minister, that the surest way to procure the signatures and the suffrages of the people, was to represent that they would tend, in their consequences, to remove him from his situation. This was a truth which the minister himself had for some time been in the habit of hearing, but hearing with affected incredulity, from the opposition side of the house. Now, however, he could not well resist the conviction that flashed upon him, from the testimony of those adherents who were most tender of his interests. petitions, the hon. gentleman seemed to think that the sole excellence consisted in the weight of property which they represented. As to the system of measuring the value of a man's opinion by

Of

the size of the freehold he possessed, it seemed founded on the philosophy of Sergeant Kite, who held in contempt "the opinion of any man that was not six feet high"-a doctrine which he supposed that hon. gentleman would be unwilling to subscribe to. In regard to this petition, it was certainly three times higher in the strength of its opinion than the other, because it contained three times the number of signatures, having 6000 to 2000. An hon. gentleman opposite had wished for accurate descriptions; he supposed he had taken the hint from a foreigner, whose name he observed in the petition in favour of the bills, which he begged the clerk to read.

The clerk read, " Alexander Dupont, proprietaire et fidele sujet du Roi d'Angleterre."

This person, Mr. Sheridan remarked, could not be a very disinterested petitioner, as, if he had refused to sign, he might have been liable to have been that moment turned out of the kingdom. Alderman Harley presented a petition from Aldersgate ward in favour of the

bills.

Mr. Le Mesurier said, he was rather an old inhabitant of the ward, and from the contrariety of opinions in it there was fear of tumult. He urged that this petition was signed by the greatest number of persons of property, while muny of the signatures to the other were subscribed by persons who had tasted the hon. alderman's bounty during the hard frost.

Mr. Sheridan rose to allude to the speech of Alderman Le Mesurier. Many persons ought not, it had been said, to have signed that petition, because they had tasted the bounty of Mr. Anderson. Was this principle to be tolerated? Was this a condition to which the people of England ought to be reduced? Was humanity to be exerted for such purposes? Were the people, as soon as they tasted the bounties of the rich, to surrender from that moment all right of judgment and decision? There was, he hoped, but one man in the kingdom who would maintain such a doctrine.

Alderman Le Mesurier complained of misrepresentation; he had meant only that the persons who had partaken of Mr. Anderson's bounty ought not to have signed a petition against him. An alderman, Mr. Le Mesurier lamented, could not open his mouth, but he must be cavilled at.

Mr. Sheridan could not conceive why Mr. Le Mesurier should suppose him to be so great an enemy to aldermen.

The order of the day for the third reading of the bill for more effectually pre

venting seditious assemblies was read. Mr. Harding spoke at considerable length in favour of the bill. Mr. M. Montagu followed.

Mr. Sheridan (who had risen at the same time with Mr. Montagu, but had given way) said, "The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hardinge) made so many direct allusions to me, that it could not appear surprising that, immediately on his sitting down, I should have risen to present myself to your notice. I am not sorry, however, that I was interrupted, as the last hon. speaker has pursued nearly the same line of argument, and, by replying to both, I shall be able to save the time and trouble of the house. The hon. gentleman having insinuated a great deal of blame to the opposition against the bill, has, by way of preserving the appearance of candour, thought proper to admit, that ministers have not been sufficiently alert in checking the progress of the evil which it has now become necessary to oppose; and that the magistrates have not been altogether free from blame, in not properly enforcing the authority attached to their functions. If this statement be just-if the evil does proceed from the inactivity and negligence of magistrates-what remedy does this bill afford for checking the proceedings of seditious meetings, or the circulation of dangerous libels? Instead of anything in the bill which is calculated to call forth their energy, and aid their exertions, it destroys the reverence of their authority, and opposes an obstacle to the discharge of their functions, by placing them in a situation of odium and suspicion with respect to the people, the effect of which, I venture to affirm, will be such, that when once the nature of this bill is properly explained, there is not one magistrate of respectability in this country who will choose to retain the office. It has been stated, that in a former debate, I took occasion to throw reflections on the characters of magistrates. On the contrary, there are many who fill the situation, whom I regard with the highest respect; but my objection to the magistrates of Westminster-to whom at that time I referred -was, that they were paid by ministers, and removable at pleasure. I have to return my thanks to the learned gentleman for many things which he addressed to me in the way of personal civility, and which, coming from him, I confess have great weight. I have, secondly, to thank him for taking up the question exactly in the point of view in which I wish to consider itwhether the necessity of the case is such as to call for the

measure now proposed to be adopted? The learned gentleman took an opportunity to pay some compliments to the speech of another learned friend (Mr. Grant) on a preceding debate. That speech, in point of subtilty of discussion, lucid order, and neatness of language, I never heard surpassed within the walls of this house. But when I have paid to it this tribute, I must remark, that in this speech the two main points were omitted, and that amidst the abundance of other matter which the learned gentleman had introduced, he carefully avoided to touch either on the existence of the evil, or the fitness of the remedy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hardinge) said, that I thought I had done much to drive ministers from the grounds upon which they supported their present measure, when I called upon them to prove it. This appeal to proof he seems to consider as not at all entitled to have any weight as an argument. How the hon. gentleman, who, from his professional habits, is accustomed to receive nothing as fact which is not substantiated by evidence, should treat so lightly an appeal to proof, in the present instance, is, to me rather surprising. But the hon. gentleman thought proper to suppose himself in an extraordinary situation-that of arguing against himself and in favour of those who espoused the opposite side of the question. For my part, I regarded this as not in any matter extraordinary, since such I conceived to be the tenor of the hon. gentleman's arguments throughout the whole of his speech; and that, however they might be directed against us, they were in reality calculated to favour the side of the question which we espoused. I must remark, however, that when the hon. gentleman, in opposition to his own views, took up the defence of the societies-no doubt from the habit which professional men have of alternately supporting the two sides of a question-he pleaded their cause in such a manner that, with all due respect to his talents, he should be the last man to whom I would recommend them to apply as clients. The hon. gentleman objects to my short call upon ministers-" Prove it ;" but has himself, from the particular emphasis which he attaches to brief expressions, laid great stress on the phrase "revolutionary principle." He contends, that this revolutionary principle has made greater progress in the country since the repeal of the suspension of the habeas corpus; and when we deny the fact, and call upon ministers to prove it, he says that it is not to be

established by juridical proof. This is a sort of proof which we never required, nor expected in the present instance. I have only to refer him to what took place on the suspension of the habeas corpus; no juridical proof was then proposed; but ministers, by going into a secret committee, by bringing forward a mass of papers, and drawing up a report, attempted to establish that sort of prudential proof, which might serve as a ground for the measure which they then called on the house to adopt. It is not without good reason I call for proof. In the instance to which I now allude, and on other occasions, ministers have deceived me and the country, by reporting plots which were afterwards proved to have no existence, and circulating alarms which the event showed to be wholly unfounded. First, a rumour was spread over the country of an attempt to seize upon the Tower, &c., which those who were the most active in its circulation must have known to be untrue. Secondly, the existence of the plots, after the fullest legal investigation at the Old Bailey, was negatived by the verdicts of repeated juries. But, lastly, ministers had recourse to the miserable trumped-up plot to assassinate the king, by means of a poisoned arrow, which, though they must have been conscious had not the smallest foundation, they yet suffered to go abroad, in order to produce an impression on the country, and aid the purpose of alarm. I have been three times deceived, and they now call upon me to trust them without any show of proof whatever.

When the hon. gentleman asserts, that the danger arising from the propagation of certain principles has increased, I must remark, that he contradicts the express declaration of his Majesty's ministers at the commencement of the session. At that time, either ministers must have known that the danger had increased, or they must have since derived some new light upon the subject. What fresh information, I will ask, have they since acquired? In what manner do they get over the difficulty of having made his Majesty avow a sentiment, which they now come forward to contradict by a legislative proceeding? If we are to appeal merely to the grounds of general notoriety and observation, I will affirm that, so far from increasing, the danger has diminished. But I call upon a learned gentleman, high in the profession of the law. He stated, upon a former occasion, that his table was covered with libels, and that he knew not