existence of the treason and sedition bills formed another ground why this publication should not be passed by; for if it was found that arbitrary doctrines were recommended, and if arbitrary measures were in the course of being adopted by ministers, he then thought it of consequence that the House should not subscribe to the opinion of the right honourable the secretary of war, that the passage in that publication, which had been particularly referred to, appeared to be innocent. A learned gentleman (Mr. Adair) admitted it to be a libel on the constitution, and yet was an advocate for delay. Why did he not narrow his condemnation to the doctrines contained in that particular passage? Notwithstanding all the partiality of ministers for arbitrary power, he did not conceive that many of their advocates would be found to come forward to support those doctrines. A delay, then, was on their part desirable, in order that they might concert, in the interval, whether any defence could be set up for this passage, in all probability the production of one of their own agents. But, he asked, was this exceptionable passage so long, was it so doubtful, that after having heard it once read, the House could have any hesitation with respect to its tendency? Did ministers wish for the delay of a few days, in order to give notice to the author of the libel, to get out of the way? Did they wish for time in their distressed situation, in order to palliate the atrocity of the libel by some straining and twisting of the other parts of the pamphlet, and justify the declaration set up by the right honourable the secretary at war, that it was perfectly innocent? It was, Mr. Fox declared, a libel of a more dangerous nature, and a worse tendency, than any that had been issued by the Constitutional and Corresponding Societies, It was not difficult, however, to perceive the tenderness of ministers for this libeller on the House of Commons, nor to penetrate into the motives of their conduct; and he thought it a bad omen for the country, that while such dispositions were manifested, it should be urged, that not a moment was to be lost in coming to a decision on bills, which, under the pretence of giving greater security to his majesty's person, were, in reality, calculated to strengthen the hands of government, and overturn the privileges of the constitution.

The question for adjourning the further consideration of the pamphlet till Thursday was carried without a division.

November 26.

The debate on Mr. Sheridan's motion being resumed, it was strongly opposed by Mr. Windham, who defended the pamphlet in a speech of considerable length.

Mr. Fox asked, whether the right honourable secretary at war would have taken the same pains to find out a different meaning had any other pamphlet been the subject of discussion? Supposing it had been from Mr. Paine's? If so, he would then, indeed, pronounce him impartial. Or, if he, (Mr. Fox,) had endeavoured to explain any pamphlet coming from a member of the Corresponding Society, whether that right honourable gentleman would have exculpated him from the charge of partiality towards that body; then, indeed, he would give him credit for impartiality on the present occasion: but when he saw him employing his ingenuity in order to give a sense to the pamphlet different from what it would obviously bear, he could not help thinking that the right honourable gentleman entertained some lurking partiality towards the principles asserted in that pamphlet. Would any gentleman venture to declare, that there did not appear as settled a design in Reeves's association to attack the constitution, as in any of the corresponding societies? To the pamphlet of Mr. Arthur Young, an express vote of thanks, signed by Mr. Reeves, as chairman of the association, and an approbation of the doctrines contained in Mr. Young's pamphlet were subjoined. The principles which Mr. Reeves's association wished to adopt were, that rotten boroughs, extravagant courts, selfish ministers, and corrupt magistrates, formed the security for the constitution of England. What could such doctrines proceed from but a settled design in that society to destroy the constitution of this country? If they analized the pamphlet minutely, they would find the doctrine contrary not only to fact, but to the language of the statute-book, which declared, that the government of this country was not simply a monarchy, but a government in king, lords, and commons. My own difficulty (said Mr. Fox) is what the conduct of the House should be on this occasion. I profess myself an enemy to prosecutions for libellous attacks; and yet, at such a time as this, when Mr. Reeves's association are spreading their pernicious doctrines abroad, I am anxious that the House of Commons should express their disapprobation of principles recommended by that association. I wish to get at the author of this pamphlet; and this is so material an object, that I think the better way would be, for the House to keep this business in its own hands.

The motion was carried, and a committee was afterwards appointed to enquire who was the author of the said libel.

December 14.

The reports of the committee appointed to enquire who was the author of the pamphlet, entitled "Thoughts on the English Government," being this day taken into consideration, Mr. Sheridan moved, "That one of the said printed books be burnt by the hands of the common hangman in the New Palace-yard, Westminster, on Monday, the 21st day of this instant December, at one of the clock in the afternoon; and that another of the said printed books be burnt by the hands of the common hangman before the Royal Exchange in London, on Tuesday the 22d day of this instant December, at the same hour; and that the sheriffs of London and Middlesex do attend at the said time and places respectively, and cause the same to be burnt there accordingly." As an amendment to this motion, Mr. Secretary Dundas moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, humbly to desire his majesty that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to his attorney-general to prosecute John Reeves, esquire, as the author or publisher of a printed pamphlet, entitled "Thoughts on the English Government, &c." After the amendment had been supported by Lord Sheffield and Mr. Sylvester Douglas,

Mr. Fox said, that with respect to the danger to be apprehended from the pamphlet, he could not allow that the danger of an arbitrary government being established was wholly chimerical, though he was ready to admit that the recent feeling which had been excited by the two bills had, in a considerable degree, diminished his apprehension of such an event. In a mixed government like this, however, all publications were dangerous which tended to give to one of the parts of that government too great an ascendancy over the rest. It might be asked, why, if no prosecution were wished, all the facts had been stated? For this plain reason, to convince the House of the impropriety of the pamphlet. What was it that he desired? It was this, that as a pamphlet such as this had been brought before the House, the House should not content themselves with a mere vote of censure, but should make the pamphlet undergo, as it were, the ignominious punishment of burning. With regard to precedents, he contended that, with a very few exceptions, they ran in favour of the original motion. Early in the present reign, a pamphlet, called "Droit le Roi," had been complained of, censured, and burnt. At the commencement of the American war, another pamphlet, called "The Crisis," had also been complained of and burnt. Why, then, should it be for the honour of the House at present to shew such tenderness for the doctrine contained in the pamphlet, as to exempt it from the punishment which had been inflicted on similar doctrines?

An insinuation had gone forth, that a wish to oppose Mr. Reeves had existed, and a noble lord (Sheffield) had stated, that that gentleman was to be prosecuted because he had counteracted the views of gentlemen on his side of the House. Now, he would fairly own, that Mr. Reeves had counteracted his views. His views had been to put an end to all religious differences. Mr. Reeves's association, however, had tried to light up the flame of religious discord all over the king-. dom. His own object had always been to preserve the balance between all the parts of the government. Mr. Reeves, by the circulation of Mr. Soame Jenyns's doctrines, and other pamphlets, had tried to destroy that balance. He was, therefore, not ashamed to say say, that Mr. Reeves had counteracted his views. He had mentioned Mr. Soame Jenyns's pamphlet; he had read it when it first came out; he thought it ingenious and innocent. But though Mr. Jenyns wrote it innocently, did Mr. Reeves circulate it innocently? The material difference lay in that circumstance altogether.

Arguments had been used to shew that the House, if they adopted the motion, would, at the same time, be judge and jury. Was it not in the nature of things that it must be so? And in a case which related to its own privileges, how could it be otherwise? Could any of the courts below vindicate their privileges, in any other manner than by acting both as judge and jury? If he were asked, whether he would stop there, his reply would be, that he had no objection. He had no objection also to sending for Mr. Reeves to the bar. At the bar he might make his defence, and comment upon the evidence that had been adduced against him, in order either to disprove it or abate its force and application. About punishment he was little solicitous, and he should even have cared little about burning the pamphlet, if Mr. Reeves had not been at the head of these associations; and if this and other pamphlets, circulated by those associations, had not proceeded from the same shop. The removal from a place of trust was certainly a severe punishment; but was it not inflicted in cases where particular tests were not taken? Had it not been inflicted in similar cases to the present. In the case of the Bishop of Worcester, who had interfered in an election, did not the House petition the Queen to remove him from the office of almoner to her majesty?

Mr. Sheridan's motion was put and negatived; after which Mr. Dundas's motion for the attorney-general to proceed against Mr. Reeves was agreed to.

KING'S MESSAGE RESPECTING A NEGOCIATION WITH THE PRESENT GOVERNMENT OF FRANCE.

December 9.

N the 8th of December, Mr. Pitt presented the following message from his majesty :

"GEORGE R.

"His majesty relying on the assurances which he has received from his faithful Commons, of their determination to support his majesty in those exertions which are necessary under the present circumstances, recommends it to this House to consider of making provision towards enabling his majesty to defray any extraordinary expence which may be incurred for the service of the ensuing year, and to take such measures as the exigency of affairs may require. His majesty, on this occasion, thinks proper to acquaint the House, that the crisis which was depending at the commencement of the present session has led to such an order of things in France, as will induce his majesty (conformably to the sentiments which he has already declared) to meet any disposition to negotiation on the part of the enemy, with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect, and to conclude a treaty of general peace, whenever it can be effected on just and suitable terms for himself and his allies.It is his majesty's earnest wish that the spirit and determination manifested by parliament, added to the recent and important successes of the Austrian armies, and to the continued and growing embarrassments of the enemy, may speedily conduce to the attainment of this object on such grounds as the justice of the cause, in which this country is engaged, and the situation of affairs, may entitle his majesty to expect.'

On the following day the said message was taken into consideration, when Mr. Pitt moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, to return his majesty the thanks of the House for his most gracious message: To acknowledge, with the utmost gratitude and satisfaction, his majesty's condescension and goodness, in haying been graciously pleased to acquaint us, that the crisis which was depending at the commencement of the session, has led to such an order of things in France, as will induce his majesty, conformably to the sentiments which he has already declared, to meet any disposition for a negociation on the part of the enemy, with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect, and to conclude a treaty of general peace, whenever it can be effected on just and suitable terms for himself and his allies: To assure his majesty, that, until that desirable period shall arrive, it is our firm determination to continue to afford his majesty that vigorous support which we are persuaded is essential to the most important