rapid strides to opulence and distinction; and if by any accident you should be compelled to take part in the present unhappy contest; if you should find it necessary to avenge insult, or repel injury, the world will bear witness to the equity of your sentiments and the moderation of your views, and the success of your arms will, no doubt, be proportioned to the justice of your cause!

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

25th November, 1795.

From the speech in support of Mr. Curwen's motion to postpone the discussion of the Treason and Sedition Bills. These Bills were for better securing the King's person and government, and more effectually preventing seditious meetings, in consequence of several indignities lately offered to his Majesty and various other disorders that had taken place.

I believe the time is not very distant, when those who have lent the minister, what I will call very honourable assistance, will not deny that they are become his personal slaves. I believe that some of them have felt it, and I think I have seen some symptoms of that fact already. Certain gentlemen smile at this: I do not mean to say anything that can be deemed a personal degradation to them, if they do not feel it for themselves. But when I see, day after day, and year after year, a system pursued, which tends to bring this country to that euthanasia predicted by Hume, I cannot say I am willing to be an assistant in its accomplishment. With regard to the mischief, which is dreaded from the junction of men who only want to reform abuses with those who wish the destruction of the constitution, I will apply the remedy proposed by Mr. Burke, in the case of America, who said on that occasion, that he would wish to separate the Americans not by separating the north from the south, not by separating the east from the west, nor by separating Boston from Philadelphia, but by separating those who were merely discontented with the abuses of the constitution, from those who had a hatred for it, and wished its total destruction.

The honourable and learned gentleman' has asked, in what manner we should enter into a negociation with these discontented persons? He believed there would be some difficulty in knowing with whom to treat. As to the question, how we should treat? my answer is, by conciliation. This will be done, as Mr. Burke said, by separating them. How are they to be separated? By setting about to correct abuses in earnest, as much as possible, whether in this House, or in any other part of the government. This will remove all ground of jealousy and discontent on the part of those who love the constitution, and who wish only to see the abuses eradicated; and this will destroy the alliance between them and those who really harbour a hatred for the constitution itself. This is the sort of separation which Mr. Burke recommended with regard to the Americans ; and this is the separation which I would recommend, of the discontented in the country, at this time. Strike out the bad part of our present system, add to the beautiful parts, if that be possible; but at all events, strike out the bad ones; and then, although, we shall not reconcile to our system, those who hate the constitution itself, we shall deprive them of their force, by taking away the arguments by which they prevail on good men to join them, and by which alone they can ever become formidable; namely, that of stating the abuses of our constitution as they subsist in practice at present. What are the arguments that these men make use of to gain to their party those who love the constitution, and which had been said by the honourable and learned gentleman to be so seducing? Topics of abuses in the constitution! Reform those abuses, and we take those seducing arguments away. It is, indeed, the whole of their argument; for as to their theory of government, that I am sure will not make any deep impression on the body of the people, who have too much good sense to be misled by such egregious fallacies.

The honourable and learned gentleman, in one part of his speech, and only in one, seemed to have a reference to the bill before the House. The honourable and learned gentleman admitted that the House was going to make a

1 Mr. William Grant, afterwards Master of the Rolls.

sacrifice by the measure before them; but contended that what was retained of the rights of the people was still of higher value. The history of governments is certainly better than theory; in this, therefore, I agree with the honourable and learned gentleman. I do not, however,

agree with him, that what we are to retain is superior to what we have to lose, if the bill is passed into a law. That which is to be taken away is the foundation of the building. It may, indeed, be said, that there are beautiful parts of the building still left. The same might be said of another building that was undermined: Here is a beautiful saloon, there is a fine drawing-room; here are elegant paintings, there elegant and superb furniture; here an extensive and well-chosen library.' But if the foundation was undermined, there could be nothing to rest upon, and the whole edifice must soon fall to the ground. Such would be the case with our constitution, if the bill should pass into a law. Our government is valuable, because it is free. What, I beg gentlemen, to ask themselves, are the fundamental parts of a free government? I know there is a difference of opinion upon this subject. My own opinion is, that freedom does not depend upon the executive government, nor upon the administration of justice, nor upon any one particular or distinct part, nor even upon forms so much as it does on the general freedom of speech and of writing. With regard to freedom of speech, the bill before the House is a direct attack upon that freedom. No man dreads the use of a universal proposition more than I do myself. I must nevertheless say, that speech ought to be completely free, without any restraint whatever, in any government pretending to be free. By being completely free, I do not mean that a person should not be liable to punishment for abusing that freedom, but I mean freedom in the first instance. The press is so at present, and I rejoice it is so; what I mean is, that any man may write and print what he pleases, although he is liable to be punished, if he abuses that freedom; this I call perfect freedom in the first instance. If this is necessary with regard to the press, it is still more so with regard to speech. An imprimatur has been talked of, and it will be dreadful enough; but a dicatur will be still more horrible.

No man has been daring enough to say, that the press should not be free: but the bill before them does not, indeed, punish a man for speaking, it prevents him from speaking. For my own part, I never heard of any danger arising to a free state from the freedom of the press, or freedom of speech; so far from it, I am perfectly clear that a free state cannot exist without both. The honourable and learned gentleman has said, will we not preserve the remainder by giving up this liberty? I admit that, by passing of the bill, the people will have lost a great deal. A great deal! Aye, all that is worth preserving. For you will have lost the spirit, the fire, the freedom, the boldness, the energy of the British character, and with them its best virtue. I say, it is not the written law of the constitution of England, it is not the law that is to be found in books, that has constituted the true principle of freedom in any country, at any time. No! it is the energy, the boldness of a man's mind, which prompts him to speak, not in private, but in large and popular assemblies, that constitutes, that creates, in a state, the spirit of freedom. This is the principle which gives life to liberty; without, the human character is a stranger to freedom. If you suffer the liberty of speech to be wrested from you, you will then have lost the freedom, the energy, the boldness of the British character. It has been said, that the right honourable gentleman rose to his present eminence by the influence of popular favour, and that he is now kicking away the ladder by which he mounted to power. Whether such was the mode by which the right honourable gentleman attained his present situation I am a little inclined to question; but I can have no doubt that if this bill shall pass, England herself will have thrown away that ladder, by which she has risen to wealth, (but that is the last consideration,) to honour, to happiness, and to fame. Along with energy of thinking and liberty of speech, she will forfeit the comforts of her situation, and the dignity of her character, those blessings which they have secured to her at home, and the rank by which she has been distinguished among the nations. These were the sources of her splendour, and the foundation of her greatness

.. Sic fortis Etruria crevit,

Scilicet et rerum facta est pulcherrima Roma.1

We need only appeal to the example of that great city, whose prosperity the poet has thus recorded. In Rome, when the liberty of speech was gone, along with it vanished all that had constituted her the mistress of the world. I doubt not but in the days of Augustus there were persons who perceived no symptoms of decay, who exulted even in their fancied prosperity, when they contemplated the increasing opulence and splendid edifices of that grand metropolis, and who even deemed that they possessed their ancient liberty, because they still retained those titles of offices which had existed under the republic. What fine panegyrics were then pronounced on the prosperity of the empire!-Tum tutus bos prata perambulat. This was

3

flattery to Augustus: to that great destroyer of the liberties of mankind, as much an enemy to freedom, as any of the detestable tyrants who succeeded him. So with us, we are to be flattered with an account of the form of our government, by King, Lords, and Commons-Eadem magistratuum vocabula. There were some then, as there are now, who said that the energy of Rome was not gone; while they felt their vanity gratified in viewing their city; which had been converted from brick into marble. They did not reflect that they had lost that spirit of manly independance which animated the Romans of better times, and that the beauty and splendour of their city served only to conceal the symptoms of rottenness and decay. So if this bill passes you may for a time retain your institution of juries and the forms of your free constitution, but the substance is gone, the foundation is undermined;—your fall is certain and your destruction inevitable. As a tree that is injured at the root and the bark taken off, the branches may live for a while, some sort of blossom may still remain; but it will soon wither, decay, and perish: so take away the freedom 1 Thus Etruria grew strong, and Rome became the most glorious thing on earth.'-VIRGIL, Georgics, ii. 533-34.

6

2 HORACE, Odes, IV., v. 17.- For safe the herds range field and fen.'SIR THEODORE MARTIN.

3 Domi res tranquillæ, eadem magistratuum vocabula. -TACITUS, Annals, I. 3. At home all was quiet; the titles of the magistrates were unchanged.'