HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
suspicions ought to be against.mi- 
nisters for undue compliances, of 
_ which, if guilty, they should not 
be suffered to escape the punish- 
ment annexed to their responsibility. 
It was equally absurd and uncon- 
-Stitutional to build any argument 
on the proclamations which were 
well known to be fabricated by 
ministers, and to deserve no more 
credit than the informers, reporters, 
and spies, employed by them in 
the prosecution of those whom they 
were compelled to release for want 
of better evidence. The doctrine 
of king-killing had been imputed 
to the~ meeting at Copenhagen~ 
house ; but, had such an imputa- 
tion been founded, ‘‘ prosecutions” 
said Mr. Sheridan, ‘‘ must have ta-~ 
ken place against the guilty, or else 
there must have been great neglect 
in the magistrates and the execu- 
tive government ;” but this being 
highly improbable, neither was the 
charge itself to be credited. On 
these premises he moved, “‘ that a 
committee should be appointed to 
“inquire into the existence and ex- 
‘tent of the danger of seditious 
Meetings, as referred to in the king’s 
proclamation.” 
_ The notoriety of the inflammato- 
ry and seditious language, spoken 
at the popular meetings, was such, 
‘answered Mr. Powis, that no other 
evidence could be needed to justify 
‘the strong measures in contempla- 
‘tion, which were evidently neces- 
sary to check the turbulent dispo- 
‘sitionthat had gone forth. It did 
“not amount to absolute treason, but 
‘it approached so neaily to it as to 
-call not only for immediate restric- 
} tion but for adequate punishment ; 
“none being provided by any law in 
“force, an act ought to be passed, 
both to restrain and punish the of- 
‘fenders in future. The proceedings of 
Vou. XXXVIII. 
[33 
the various assemblies of the people, 
both in England and Scotland, were 
invariably conformable to those of 
the clubs in France, and breathed a 
decided enmity to the constitution 
of this country. 
Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. 
Curwen, and Mr. Jekyl, vigour- 
ously supported the motion for an 
inquiry, and asserted the sufficiency 
of the existing laws for the sup- 
pression of Conspiracies against the 
state, and that if they were not 
enforced the ministers themselves 
were to blame. Their representa- 
tions of the state of things meriied 
no attention; they were framed 
to deceive the public, and had 
neither truth nor even plausibility 5 
they contradicted each otherin the 
most perceptible manner, and could 
not therefore be relied on ; the loy- 
alty of the people and their attach- 
ment to government were one day 
insistéd upon, and the next they 
were charged with factiousness and 
democratic principles. Was thisa 
style of speaking becoming men at 
the head of the nation, and who 
were bourd, by the exaltedness of 
their situation and the means of in- 
formation it afforded, to be well ac- 
quainted with the temper of the 
nation, and ought ‘therefore to be 
‘above the meanness of misrepre« 
senting it to the sovereign, or of 
endeavouring to conceal it from 
the legislature? Mr. Fox, on this 
occasion, expressed particular ine 
dignation at the behaviour of some 
individuals employed by administra 
tion in the capacity of spies. Ina 
order to discover the designs of 
those they were commissioned to 
watch over, they affected to enter 
into their sentiments, and excited 
them to use words and to adopt 
proposals far more reprehensible . 
than they first intended. What 
(Di name 
