HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



277 



preparations for encounterino; and 

 destroying the British government. 



Mr. Lambton \\as scco:idcd by 

 Mr. Robinson and Mr. Martin, and 

 opposed by Mr. Serjeant ^Vatsoii, 

 Sir Watkin Lewis, Mr. Alderman 

 Newnham, and Mr. Burden. 



The address was opposed by Mr. 

 Fox. He thought it unnecessary 

 in the present case, and tending to 

 make it appear of more importance 

 than it really was. No motive ex- 

 isted to prompt government to the 

 extraordinary exertions of power, 

 recommended by ministers : — the 

 courts of law wc re amply compe- 

 tent to punish the individuals ar- 

 rested on treasonable charges, it 

 .they were found guilty. Tlit: loy- 

 alty of tl;e House could not be 

 questioned on this or any other 

 occasion, and its advice was not 

 called for. What could therefore 

 be the purport oi an address at 

 present, unless to assure the ILing 

 ot their persuasion that a conspiracy 

 existed, the reality of which had 

 not however been legally proved ? 

 Was this a matter worthy of an 

 address, which was solemnly to de- 

 clare the constitution in danger ? 

 lie strongly reprobated the attiicted 

 alarm at tUe term Convention, as if 

 tiie thing itself were necessarily 

 pregnant with evil. He i-eininded 

 the House that a convention had 

 called the King's ancestors to the 

 succession of the British crown. 

 This ali^nc proved the utility of 

 conventions, and that popular 

 nvetiiigs ought not to be held in 

 au odious light. Were people oiice 

 debarred from assembling in order 

 to discuss pcilitical subjects, it would 

 intaliibiy provs a mortal wound to 

 the constitution, of which it mig-lit 

 linger a «hi!e, b'lt would ultimate;}/ 

 die. Tiie old Tory faction, he said, 



was fast reviving in this country, 

 and zealously striving to destroy 

 the only fence to the constitution, 

 in cases of extremity. This only 

 effectual fence was the lawful re- 

 sistance to lawless procecdmgs, au- 

 thorized both by the theory and 

 practice of the constitution. V/as 

 it impossible to suppose a case 

 wherein the people might legally 

 assemble b;. th^ir delegates, and call 

 upon parliament to do that which of 

 its own accord and motion would 

 cever have been done ? Why, 

 therefore, countenance doctrines 

 and measures that would necessarily 

 establish passive obedience and nooT 

 resistance, and rob us at once of 

 that constitution which some per- 

 sons invested, in an evil hour for 

 this country, with high credit and 

 authority, durst not asperse with 

 their words, but were iiidefatigably 

 striving to suljvert by t'leir actions? 

 When we viewed with a dispassion- 

 ate eye the persons implicated in 

 the supposed plot, they appcred 

 to be men who might co-operate 

 in a i-evolution, but could never 

 produce one. Such men the law 

 could easily reach, ii guilty of whftt 

 tlii'Y were accused. They might 

 have held imprudent and even se- 

 ditious language ; but that was 

 punishable without recurring to se- 

 verities to terrify the whole com- 

 munity, and Vv'itlijut anticipating 

 the declaration of their j/uilt in a 

 court of justice after a regular trial. 

 Such an anticipation parliament 

 could nunrifestly bu charged with, 

 by declaring its belief in the ace • 

 si'itioiis brought against them. He 

 acknowledged, that in states where 

 the destruction of a few persons 

 subverted the order of things, a. 

 small number of obscure individuait. 

 might clfcct 9 revolution j but in 



T 3 



thi 



lo 



