hearers, besides the efficacy of fair and candid reasoning, a man ought always to be in temper and unison with his audience. He ought to show, that however they may differ upon points, they are still pursuing in reality the same object, namely, the love of truth. With this object in view, I shall, Sir, state explicitly what are my sentiments on the subjects now presented to our notice by the speech from the throne. And first, I state it to be my conviction, that we are assembled at the most critical and momentous crisis, not only that I have ever known, but that I have ever read of in the history of this country-a crisis not merely interesting to ourselves but to all nations; and that on the conduct of parliament at this crisis depends not only the fate of the British constitution, but the future happiness of reankind. His majesty's speech, Sir, is full of a variety of assertions, or perhaps I should not make use of the word assertions, without adding, that it has also a variety of insinuations conveyed in the shape of assertions, which must impress every man with the most imminent apprehensions for the safety of every thing that is justly dear to Englishmen. It is our first duty to inquire into the truth of these assertions and insinuations so conveyed to us from the throne. I am sure I need not recur to the old parliamentary usage of declaring, that when I speak of the king's speech, I mean to be considered as speaking of the speech of the minister, since no one, I trust, will impute to me a want of due and sincere respect for his majesty. It is the speech which his majesty has been advised, by his confidential servants, to deliver from the throne. They are responsible for every letter of it, and to them and them only, every observation is addressed. I state it, therefore, to be my firm opinion, that there is not one fact asserted in his majesty's speech which is not false-not one assertion or insinuation which is not unfounded. Nay, I cannot be so uncandid as to believe, that even the ministers themselves think them true. This charge upon his majesty's ministers is of so serious a kind, that I do not pronounce it lightly; and I desire that gentlemen will go fairly into the consideration of the subject, and manifest the proper spirit of the representatives of the people in such a moment. What the noble earl said is most strictly true. The great, prominent feature of the speech is, that it is an intolerable calumny on the people of Great Britain; an insinuation of so gross and so black a nature, that it demands the strictest inquiry, and the most severe punishment. The next assertion is, that there exists at this moment an insurrection in this kingdom. An insurrection! Where is it? Where has it reared its head? Good God! an insurrection in Great Britain! No wonder that the militia were called out, and parliament assembled in the extraordinary way in which they have been. But where is it? Two gentlemen have delivered sentiments in commendation and illustration of the speech; and yet, though this insurrection has existed for fourteen days, they have given us no light whatever, no clue, no information where to find it. The right honourable magistrate tells us, that, in his high municipal situation, he has received certain information which he does not think proper to communicate to us. This is really carrying the doctrine of confidence to a length indeed. Not content with ministers leading the House of Commons into the most extravagant and embarrasing situations, under the blind cover of confidence, we are now told that a municipal magistrate has information of an insurrection, which he does not choose to lay before the Commons of England, but which he assures us is sufficient to justify the alarm that has spread over the whole country! The hon. seconder tells us, that the "insurrections are too notorious to be described." I will take upon me to say, Sir, that it is not the notoriety of the insurrections which prevents those gentlemen from communicating to us the particulars, but their non-existence.-The speech goes on in the same strain of calumny and falsehood, and says, "the industry employed to excite discontent on various pretexts and in different parts of the kingdom, has appeared to proceed from a design to attempt the destruction of our happy constitution, aud the subversion of all order and government." I beseech gentlemen to consider the import of these words, and I demand of their honour and truth, if they believe this assertion to be founded in fact. There have been, as I understand, and as every one must have heard, some slight riots in different parts of the country, but I ask them, were not the various pretexts of these different tumults false, and used only to cover an attempt to destroy our happy constitution? I have heard of a tumult at Shields, of another at Leith, of some riot at Yarmouth, and of something of the same nature at Perth and Dundee. I ask gentlemen if they believe that in each of these places the avowed object of the complaint of the people, was not the real one-that the sailors at Shields, Yarmouth, &c. did not really want some increase of their wages, but where actuated by a design of overthrowing the constitution? Is there a man in England who believes this insinuation to be true? And in like manner of every other meeting, to which, in the present spirit, men may give the name of tumultuous assembling. I desire to know if there has been discovered any motive other than their open and avowed one. And yet, with this conviction in our minds, we are called upon to declare directly our belief and persuasion that these things are so. We are called upon to join in the libel upon our constituents. The answer to the speech says, that we know of the tumult and disorder, but as to the actual insurrection, it more modestly make us say, "that we are sorry to hear there is an insurrection:" Of the tumults and disorders, then, we have personal knowledge; but the insurrection we learn from his majesty's speech! my spirits drooped, and I was dejected. What, Sir, could any man who loves the constitution of England, who feels its principles in his heart, wish success to the duke of Brunswick, after reading a Manifesto* The following is a Copy of the Duke of Brunswick's Manifesto: "When their majesties the emperor and the king of Prussia entrusted me with the command of their armies, which have since entered France, and rendered me the organ of their intentions, expressed in the two declarations of the 25th and 27th of July 1792, their majesties were incapable of supposing the scenes of horror which have preceded and brought on the imprisonment of the royal family of France. Such enormities, of which the history of the most barbarous nations hardly furnishes an example, were not, however, the ultimate point to which the same audacious demagogues aspired. which had been reserved to him by the con"The suppression of the king's functions, stitution (so long boasted as expressing the national wish) was the last crime of the national assembly, and which has brought on France the two dreadful scourges of war and anarchy. There is but one step more necessary to perpetuate those evils; and a thoughtless caprice, the forerunner of the fall of nations, has overwhelmed those who qualify themselves the substitutes of the nation, to I do not wish to enter at length into the solid basis. The first decree of their convenconfirm its happiness and rights on the most affairs of France, which form the next tion was the abolition of royalty in France; prominent passage in his majesty's speech; and the unqualified acclamations of a few inbut though I do not desire to enter at dividuals, some of whom are strangers, has length into this part, 1 cannot conceal my been thought of sufficient weight to overbasentiments on certain doctrines which I lance the opinions of fourteen centuries, duhave heard this night. The honourable ring which the French monarchy has existed. seconder thought proper to say, as a proof mies of France could rejoice, if they could "This proceeding, at which only the enethat there existed a dangerous spirit in suppose its effects lasting, is directly contrary this country, that it was manifested by to the firm resolution which their majesties the drooping and dejected aspect of many the emperor and the king of Prussia have persons, when the tidings of Dumourier's adopted, and from which they will never desurrender arrived in England. What, part,-that of restoring his most christian Sir, is this to be considered as a sign of majesty to his liberty, safety, and royal digdiscontent, and of a preference to repub-nity, or to take exemplary vengeance on lican doctrines? That men should droop and be dejected in their spirits, when they heard that the armies of despotism had triumphed over an army fighting for liberty; if such dejection be a proof that men are discontented with the constitution of England, and leagued with fo reigners in an attempt to destroy it, I give myself up to my country as a guilty man, for I freely confess, that when I heard of the surrender or retreat of Dumourier, and that there was a probability of the triumph of the armies of Austria and Prussia over the liberties of France, those who dare to continue their insults. clares to the French nation in general, and to "For these reasons, the undersigned deevery individual in particular, that their majesties the emperor and the king of Prussia, invariably attached to the principle of not interfering in the internal government of France, persist equally in requiring that his most christian majesty, and all the royal family shall be instantly set at liberty by those insist also, that the royal dignity shall, withwho now imprison them.-Their majesties out delay, be reestablished in France in the person of Louis 16th and his successors; and that measures may be taken in order that the royal dignity may not again be liable to which violated every doctrine that Englishmen hold sacred, which trampled under foot every principle of justice and humanity and freedom and true government; and upon which the combined armies entered the kingdom of France, with which they had nothing to do; and when he heard, or thought that he saw a probability of their success, could any man possessing true British feelings be other than dejected? I honestly confess, Sir, that I never felt more sincere gloom and dejection in my life; for I saw in the triumph of that conspiracy, not merely the ruin of liberty in France, but the ruin of liberty in England; the ruin of the liberty of man. But, am I to be told that my sorrow was an evident proof of my being connected with the French nation, or with any persons in that nation, for the purpose of aiding them in creating discontents in England, or in making any attempt to destroy the British constitution? If such a conclusion were to be drawn from the dejection of those who are hostile to the maxims of tyranny, upon which the invasion of France was founded, what must we say of those men who acknowledge that they are sorry the invasion did not prosper? Am I to believe that the hon. gentleman, and all others, who confess their sorrow at the failure of Prussia and Austria, were connected with the courts in concert, and that a considerable body of persons in the insult to which it is now subject. If the French nation have not entirely lost sight of their real interests, and if, free in their resolutions, they wish to end the calamities of war, which expose so many provinces to the evils inseparable from armies, they will not hesitate a moment to declare their acquiescence with the peremptory demands which I address to them in the name of the emperor and king of Prussia; and which, if refused, must inevitably bring on this kingdom, lately so flour-, ishing, new and more terrible misfortunes. “The measures which the French nation may adopt, in consequence of this declaration, must either extend and perpetuate the dreadful effects of an unhappy war, in destroying, by the abolition of monarchy, the means of renewing the ancient connexions which subsisted between France and the sovereigns of Europe, or those measures may open the way to negociations for the re-establishment of peace, order, and tranquillity, which those who name themselves the depu ties of the national will are most interested in restoring speedily to the nation. "C. F. DUKE OF BRUNSWICK LUNENBURG." Hans, Sept. 28. 1792. [VOL. XXX. ] this country were actually in the horrid league formed against human liberty? Are we taught to bring this heavy charge against all those, whose spirits drooped on the reverse of the news, and when it turned out that it was not Dumourier, but the duke of Brunswick who had retreated? No; he would not charge them with being confederates with the invaders of France; nor could they believe, that the really constitutional men of England, who rejoiced at the overthrow of that horrid and profligate scheme, wished to draw therefrom any thing hostile to the established government of England. But what, Sir, are the doctrines that they desire to set up by this insinuation of gloom and dejection? That Englishmen are not to dare to have any genuine feelings of their own; that they must not rejoice but by rule; that they must not think but by order; that no man shall dare to exercise his faculties in contemplating the objects that surround him, nor give way to the indulgence of his joy or grief in the emotions that they excite, but according to the instructions that he shall receive. That, in observing the events that happen to surrounding and neutral nations, he shall not dare to think whether they are favourable to the principles that contribute to the happiness of man, or the contrary; and that he must take, not merely his opinions, but his sensations from his majesty's ministers and their satellites for the time being! Sir, whenever the time shall come that the character and spirits of Englishmen are so subdued; when they shall consent to believe that every thing which happens around is indifferent both to their understandings and their hearts; and when they shall be brought to rejoice and grieve, just as it shall suit the taste, the caprice, or the ends of ministers, then I pronounce the constitution of this country to be extinct. We have read, Sir, of religious persecutions, of the implacable oppressions of the Roman see, of the horrors of the inquisition of Spain; but so obdurate, so hard, so intolerable a scheme of cruelty, was never engendered in the mind of, much less practised by, any tyrant, spiritual or temporal. For see to what lengths they carry this system of intellectual oppression!" On various pretexts there have been tumults and disorders, but the true design was the destruction of our happy constitution." So says the speech, and mark the illustration of the right hon. i [C] magistrate: "There have been various so- "O but man, proud man! Drest in a little brief authority, it is impossible! Away with all further amelioration of the state of man in society, for it is needless! Let no man touch this work of man; it is like the work of heaven, perfect in all its parts, and, unlike every other work of man, it is neither capable of perversion nor subject to decay! Such is the presumptuous language that we hear; and, not content with this haughty tone, they imitate the celebrated anathema of brother Peter, in the tale of a tub, and exclaim, "G-d confound you both eternally if you offer to believe otherwise." Now this, Sir, is the crisis which I think so truly alarming. We are come to the moment, when the question is, whether we shall give to the king, that is, to the executive government, complete power over our thoughts; whether we are to resign the exercise of our natural faculties to the ministers for the time being, or whether we shall maintain, that in England no man is criminal, but by the commission of overt acts forbidden by the law. This I call a crisis more imminent and tremendous than any that the history of this country ever exhibited. I am not so ignorant of the present state of men's minds, and of the ferment artfully created as not to know that I am now advancing an opinion likely to be unpopular. It is not the first time that I have incurred the same hazard. But I am as ready to meet the current of popular opinion now running in favour of those high lay doctrines, as in the year 1783 I was to meet the opposite torrent, when it was said, that I wished to sacrifice the people to the crown. I will do now as I did then.-I will act against the cry of the moment, in the confidence, that the good sense and reflection of the people will bear me out. I know well that there are societies who have published opinions, and circulated pamphlets, containing doctrines tending, if you please, to subvert our establishments. I say that they have done nothing unlawful in this; for these pamphlets have not been suppressed by law. Show Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven, me the law that orders these books to be As make the angels weep." burnt, and I will acknowledge the illega Now, it seems, the constitution is com- lity of their proceedings; but if there be plete-now we are to stand still. We are no such law, you violate the law in acting to deride the practice and the wisdom of without authority. You have taken upon our forefathers: we are to elevate our- you to do that for which you have no selves with the constitution in our warrant; you have voted them to be hands, and to hold it forth to a wondering guilty. What is the course prescribed by world as a model of human perfection. law? If any doctrines are published tendAway with all further improvement, foring to subvert the constitution in church and state, you may take cognizance of the fact in a court of law. What have you done? Taken upon you by your own authority to suppress them-to erect every man, not merely into an inquisitor, but into a judge, a spy, an informer-to set father against father, brother against brother, and neighbour against neighbour, and in this way you expect to maintain the peace and tranquillity of the country! You have gone upon the principles of slavery in all your proceedings; you neglect in your conduct the foundation of all legitimate government, the rights of the people; and, setting up this bugbear, you spread a panic for the very purpose of sanctifying this infringement, while again the very infringement engenders the evil which you dread. One extreme naturally leads to another. Those who dread republicanism, fly for shelter to the crown. Those who desire reform and are calumniated, are driven by despair to republicanism. And this is the evil that I dread! These are the extremes into which these violent agitations hurry the people to the gradual decrease of that middle order of men who shudder as much at republicanism on the one hand, as they do at despotism on the other. That middle order of men, who have hitherto preserved to this country all that is dear in life, I am sorry to say it, is daily lessening; but permit me to add, that while my feeble voice continues, it shall not be totally extinct; there shall at least be one man who will, in this ferment of extremes, preserve the centre point. I may be abused by one side, I may be libelled by the other; I may be branded at one and the same time with the terms of fireband and lukewarm politician; but though I love popularity, and own that there is no external reward so dear to me as the good opinion and confidence of my fellow citizens, yet no temptation whatever shall ever induce me to join any association that has for its object a change in the basis of our constitution, or an extension of that basis beyond the just proportion. I will stand in the gap, and oppose myself to all the wild projects of a new-fangled theory, as much as against the monstrous iniquity of exploded doctrines. I conceive the latter to be more our present danger than the former. I see, not merely in the panic of the timorous, but in the acts of the designing, cause for alarm against the most abhorrent doctrines. The new associations t have acted with little disguise. One of them, the association for preserving li berty and property against republicans and levellers, I must applaud for the sincerity of its practice. Mr. Chairman Reeves says, that they will not only prosecute, but they will convince men, and they recommend, among other publications, a hand-bill, intituled, "One pennyworth of truth from Thomas Bull to his brother John," in which, among other odd things, it is said, "Have you not read the Bible? Do you not know that it is there written, that kings are the Lord's anointed? But whoever heard of an anointed republic? Such is the manner in which these associations are to "convince" the minds of men! In the course of the present century, their recommendation would have been prosecuted as high treason. In the years 1715 and 1745, the person who dared to say that kings derived their power from divine right, would have been prosecuted for treason; and I ask if, even now, this is the way to inculcate the principles of genuine loyalty? No, Sir, thank God, the people of this country have a better ground of loyalty to the house of Brunswick than that of divine right, namely, that they are the sovereigns of their own election; that their right is not derived from superstition but from the choice of the people themselves; that it originated in the only genuine fountain of all royal power, the will of the many; and that it has been strengthened and confirmed by the experience of the blessings they have enjoyed, because the house of Brunswick has remembered the principles upon which they received the crown. It is rather extraor dinary, Sir, that such language should be held at this precise moment; that it should be thought right to abuse republics, at the very moment that we are called upon to protect the republic of Holland. To spread the doctrine that kings only govern by divine right, may indispose your allies to receive your proposed succour. They may not chuse to receive into their country your admirals and ge nerals, who being appointed by this king, in divine right, must partake of the same anger, and be supposed sworn enemies to all forms of government not so sanctified. Surely, independent of the falsehood and the danger of preaching up such doctrines at home, it is the height of impolicy at this time to hold them in regard even to our neighbours. It may be asked, would I |