His answer was, certainly not, but the evil tendency must be proved. Sometimes the evil tendency might be evident from the book itself; sometimes it might not, without being coupled with extrinsic circumstances; and where this was the case, the extrinsic circumstances must be proved to the satisfaction of the jury before they were warranted in pronouncing guilty. The alarm then on the propagation of opinions could not justify the remedy which ministers had adopted, especially when it was coupled with a false assertion of insurrections; and therefore, if it did not create, it certainly augmented the alarm.

Another ground of alarm was the progress of the French arms. They who represented him as indifferent to that progress, did him great injustice. He was by no means so. He thought the same national spirit that under Louis XIV. had threatened the liberties of all Europe, might influence, and actually had influenced, the conduct of the French at present; and he might perhaps think that this national spirit was more likely to collect and act now than at the time to which he alluded.

He was clearly of opinion, that the navigation of the Scheldt, if not guaranteed to the Dutch, by the letter of the treaty of 1788, was virtually guaranteed to them by that treaty; and, if they insisted upon it, would be a good casus fœderis for going to war. Nor did he hesitate to declare, that, however he might disapprove any treaty at the time it was negotiating, when it was to be as religiously adhered to by those who disapproved of it as by those who made it. Hav

ing discriminated the internal and external danger, he would ask how the measures that had been adopted were the proper remedy? If considered distinctly, either the measure or the mode did not apply. If connected, the remedy for the one was no remedy for the other. If France threatened to invade Holland, or refused an explanation of the offensive decree, calling out the militia would be right; but for crushing objectionable opinions or doctrines, assuredly not. He knew not how to fight an opinion, nor did history furnish him with instruction. The opinions of Luther and of Calvin had been combated by arms; there was no want of war, no want of blood, no want of confederacies of princes, to extirpate them. Were they extirpated? No; they had spread and flourished by bloodshed and persecution.

Melancholy, however, as the prospect was, Mr. Fox declared, that he saw more danger from pushing the present alarm too far, making the people see the picture all on one side, the danger of anarchy only, while they were inattentive to the abuses and encroachments of the executive power on the other. If the bill was intended to guard us against internal danger, while we were at war with France, we knew that in 1715 and 1745, the French had not been sparing of attempts to sow dissentions and excite rebellion in the country; and yet we had, by the commercial treaty, provided for the protection of Aliens of both countries, even after an actual declaration of war. Did it guard against the introduction of opinions? No. We had not yet come to the measure of prohibiting all French books and

papers,

papers, which Spain had adopted. But these opinions were propagated by conversation. What then, did a Frenchman when he landed, find an audience to understand the terms of his philosophy, and immediately open a sort of Tusculan disputation? In short, if they were propagated at all, it must be by English agents, and these, if any such there were, would remain in the kingdom, if every foreigner was sent out of it.

The preamble of the bill was a complete delusion, for it stated the extraordinary resort of aliens to this country as the pretence of the bill, while every body knew that extraordinary resort to be occasioned by circumstances that had no connection with it. With respect to the emigrants, among whom it was meant to make a distinction by the bill, he would protect those who had fallen a sacrifice to their opinions in favour of the old government of France; not because he approved of their principles, but because he respected their misfortunes. With regard to those who suffered for their attachment to the new constitution, he had heard it said by a person of high rank, that if La Fayette were here, he ought to be sent out of the country. Was this to be endured? Was it fit to vest any ministers with such a power, merely in the hope that they would not abuse it? The third description, those who had fled for fear of punishment, for being concerned in the detestable massacre of the 2d of September, all men would wish to see removed; but this was a sufficient ground for a particular law. The horrors of that day ought not to be mentioned as the act of the French go

vernment, or the French people, for both disclaimed it: but to disclaim was not enough. That the crime was not prevented or followed up by striking examples of punishment, would be an indelible disgrace to Paris and to France: but were we to go to war on account of these inhuman murders? No war could be rational that had not some object, which being obtained, made way for peace.

The prerogative of the crown to send foreigners out of the kingdom, said to be left untouched by the bill, ought not to remain in doubt. The single instance produced from the reign of Henry the Fourth was counterbalanced by another in the same reign, when the king did the same thing by the authority of parliament which he had done before by his own power. He believed that the prerogative did not exist, and if it did, that it was too dangerous to be suffered to remain. If, on the other hand, it was a prerogative for the good of the people: if, indeed, the word people was not expunged from our political dictionary: the good of the people being the only foundation that he knew for any prerogative, it was fit that it should be clearly defined and understood, either by an enacting or a declaratory law.

Mr. Pitt considered the present bill as a measure of precaution, no less fair when there occurred an occasion that called for it, than an augmentation of the naval or military force of the country: it was founded in facts of notoriety, and the most evident deductions of reasoning. If he was called upon to state the particular grounds upon which the bill was founded, the

only

only difficulty which he should find was, that these grounds were in themselves far greater than the magnitude of the measure. If he should only state, that by some extraordinary occurrence, some unforeseen and inevitable calamity of nature, great numbers of foreigners had come into this country without the means of subsistence, without being brought for any purposes of commerce, or without any possibility of discrimination, even this he should consider as affording a sufficient object of jealousy and attention: but when it appeared that these came from a country whose principles were inimical to the peace and order of every other government; and though many of them, no doubt, had fled here in order to find a refuge from the sword of persecution, there was but too much reason to suspect, that among these had mingled emissaries for prey, regard for our own interests, and for the safety of the country, enforced the necessity of peculiar vigilance.

In addition to all these circumstances, we find, that, in the councils of that country, from which these persons had come, there had been adopted a system of propagating, by every means of art and force, principles inimical to the government of every country, and that they were now actually carrying on a war against the established governments of other countries, under the specious pretext of promoting the cause of freedom. When he had stated these circumstances, would it be said that the present bill had been brought forward without any evidence, or ground of danger. But he now came to the climax of all. In this

country itself there had been found persons who professed the same principles with those maintained in the councils of that neighbouring state, and held out the model of their government as an object of applause and imitation; nay, who had industriously propagated, and publicly avowed, that they acted with them in concert: they had held a correspondence with the affiliated societies of jacobins; they had presented addresses to the convention, and had there been received, encouraged, and cherished, and had, in return, met with offers of fraternity and succour. Was there then not reason to suppose, that persons might have been sent to this country with a view of carrying on that concert? Was not this obvious to the understanding and feelings of every honourable gentleman present ? He should state nothing from his own personal information, as he considered that there was, in the present instance, sufficient ground of action and decision without such information: he should only, in general, say, that, as far as he had opportunity of knowing, he had reason to be confirmed in every suspicion, which arose from that situation of affairs which he had now described.

Mr. Pitt expressed his surprise, that Mr. Fox, in the present instance, should separate domestic from external danger. He should have considered the domestic alarm as sufficient ground for the present bill; much more when the consideration of external danger was added to it; yet, after all that has been stated, there are soine who pretend to tell us, that they fear no internal alarm, that they see no cause of danger. Notwithstanding

the

the general sentiment of the country, and of that House, they have the hardihood to treat the whole as the effect of ministerial artifice. Had ministerial artifice made those who had hitherto acted upon a system of opposition, now concur in the opinion of this danger? Had it made all the members of that House, except ten or fifteen, agree in the same sentiment ? Had ministerial artifice excited but one opinion in the country with respect to this danger? But it was said, that the alarm had been produced by the measures of calling out the militia, and assembling parliament. He would ask whether the week before these measures had been adopted, the appearance of alarm had been greater or less than the week before, or at the present moment. He had expected that his exertions, on the present occasion, would be seconded by the efforts of the friends of order; but he could hardly expect that the effect could be so great, as that the alarm, which had lately prevailed in some places, to a degree of despondency, should be so completely annihilated, that even the existence of the danger should, in a short time after, be called in question. At the same time he hoped, that the effect produced would not be a sense of security, which must be fatal. While vigilance was maintained, he should consider the country to be in a state of safety. The Alien bill was now read a third time and passed.

While this bill was in its progress through both Houses of Parliament, another measure, which may be, in some measure, considered as connected with it, was brought before the House of Commons by the Attorney General, who moved,

December 26, for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the circulation of assignats, bonds, promissory notes, &c. issued under the authority of France; which, after some trifling opposition from Mr. M. A. Taylor, was passed into a law. About the same time, another bill was passed, to enable his Majesty to restrain the exportation of naval stores, particularly salt-petre, arms, and ammunition.

An order of council having been issued for preventing the exportation of corn to France, an act of indemnity, as is usual on such occasions, passed the Commons on the 26th of December, and afterwards received the royal assent.

We cannot be altogether inattentive to the official junction which Lord Loughborough now formed with his Majesty's ministers. January 26th, 1793, this nobleman was called by his Majesty to succeed Lord Thurlow on the Chancery bench.

The momentous business which next engaged the attention of parliament, was a message from his Majesty, presented to the House of Commons by Mr. Secretary Dundas, the 28th of January, 1793.

"GEORGE R.

"His Majesty has given directions for laying before the House of Commons, copies of several papers, which have been received from Mr. Chauvelin, late minister plenipotentiary from the most Christian King, by his Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, and of the answers returned thereto; and likewise copy of an order made by his Majesty in council, and transmitted by his Majesty's commands to the said Mr. Chauvelin, in consequence

of

of the accounts of the atrocious act recently perpetrated at Paris.

"In the present situation of affairs, his Majesty thinks it indispensibly necessary to make a further augmentation of his forces by sea and land; and relies on the known affection and zeal of the House of Commons to enable his Majesty to take the most effectual measures, in the present important conjecture, for maintaining the security and rights of his own dominions; for supporting his allies; and for opposing views of aggrandizement and ainbition on the part of France, which would be at all times dangerous to the general interests of Europe, but are particularly so, when connected with the propagation of principles which lead to the violation of the most sacred duties, and are utterly subversive of the peace and order of all civil society.

The House agreed to take the above message into consideration on the first of February. That business, however, was deferred to the following day, when Mr. Pitt commenced this important debate. He said, amidst the many important objects arising from the message of his Majesty, which now came to be considered, there was one which particularly called for their attention. That attention, indeed, could not fail to be separately directed to that calamitous event (the murder of the French King) that act of outrage to every principle of religion, justice, and humanity; an act which, in this country, and the whole of Europe, had excited but one general sentiment of indignation and abhorrence, and could not fail to excite the same sentiments in every civilized nation. He should, indeed, better consult his own feel

ings, and those of the House, could he draw a veil over this melancholy event. It was, in all its circumstances, so full of grief and horror, that it must be a wish, in which all united, to tear it, if possible, from their memories, to expunge it from the page of history, and remove it for ever from the observation and comments of mankind.

Excidat ille dies avo, neu postera credant Secula! nos certe taceamus, et obruta

multa

Nocte tegi nostræ patiamur crimina gentis.

Such, he continued, were the words applied by an author of their own, to an occasion (the massacre of St. Bartholomew) which had always been deemed the standing reproach of the French nation, and the horrors and cruelties of which had only been equalled by those atrocious and sanguinary proceedings which had been witnessed in some late instances. But, whatever might be their feelings of indignation and abhorrence with respect to that dreadful and inhuman event, to which he had set out with calling their attention; that event now was past; it was impossible that the present age should not now be contaminated with the guilt and ignominy of having witnessed it, or that the breath of tradition should be prevented from handing it down to posterity. They could now only enter their solemn protestation against that event, as contrary to every sentiment of justice and humanity, as violating the most sacred authority of laws, and the strongest principles of natural feeling. Hence, however, they might derive an useful theme for reflection-a lesson of salutary warning. For in this dreadful transaction, they saw concentrated the effect of

those