152} 
the innocence of the party ac- 
cused; but the speech he had 
now heard tended to overturn the 
validity of a jury’s verdi€t, which 
was the stronges: fence of the con, 
stitution, by securing the personal 
freedom of the subject, The in- 
tent of that speech was to maintain 
the doctrine of constructive trea. 
son: which, if it were not vigo- 
rously opposed by the house, might, 
in time, be held out as the law of 
the land. If the solicitor-general 
thought himself better om sisal 
than the jury, why did he not com, 
municate this superior information 
to them onthe trial, or tothe house 
at present? but the truth was, that 
jury consisted of disinterested men, 
who had no favours to ask, nor to 
expect from government, Was it the 
opinion of a crown-lawyer, or of 
an English jury, that would have 
the greatest weight in deciding the 
charaéter of an individual? — 
In answer to Mr. Fox, Mr. ser- 
eant Adair reviewed the proceed. 
ings of the societies, and demanded 
whether it were probable that their 
designs did not aim at the destruc. 
tion of the monaych, or the consti- 
tution? The guilty were often ac- 
quitted in courts of justice; not be- 
cause they were considered as inno- 
cent, but merely because there was 
no striétly legal evidence produced 
against them. A doubt of their 
guilt was sufficient, in the breast 
of the jury, for their acquittal; 
but that did by no means clear the 
charaéter of the accused. 
There was no reason, Mr. Pitt 
alleged, for repealing the bill, un- 
less it were proved that it had been 
enaéted upon errqneous grounds, 
and without sufficient deliberation ; 
or that government had abused the 
power it had entrusted to them, 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1795. 
Those causes of alarm that had oc.. 
casioned it had not been disproved, 
nor that the accused were involved 
in a conspiracy as dangérous as 
treason itself. The verdict in their 
favour could not, therefore, operate 
as a motive for repealing the att, 
even admitting that their inditt- 
ment for high-treason had not been 
supported by legal proofs; and if 
the judicious and unbiassed public 
looked upon them as guilty of an 
attempt, for which the law had not 
provided a due punishment, it was 
the duty of parliament to make 
such provision. ; 
In reply to Mr. Pitt, it was as. 
serted, by Mr. Sheridan, that the 
bill had been hurried through the 
house in two days, without the usual 
notice, a circumstance far from im- 
plying requisite deliberation. He 
was convinced, by what he had 
heard, that a farther suspension of 
the bill was determined upon ; but 
he was resalved to oppose it with 
every argument he was able to ad- 
duce, that ministers might have no 
opportunity of grounding it on ap- 
prehensions of their own creating, 
and reasons which, if not combated, 
they might represent as unanswer- 
able. ‘ 
Mr. Sheridan proceeded next to 
call in question the propriety of 
Mr. Dundas’s appearing in the 
house as amember. By Mr. Burke’s 
bill of reform, the office of third 
secretary of state had beenabolished, 
and an aét passed, that if it should 
be revived, and conferred on.a mem- 
ber of parliament, his seat should 
thereby be vacated. Mr, Pitt an- 
swered this obje€tion, by intimating 
that the duke of Portland was the 
third secretary of state; an ex. 
planation that Mr. Fox and Mr. 
Sheridan thought disrespeétful Re 
yi that 
