HISTORY OF EUROPE. [127 



of their privileges, and the most 

 flagrant infringement of their rights. 

 If one set of causes had operated, 

 why might not another ? The pre- 

 rogative had less to fear at present 

 than at any former periods. As to 

 the mildness of ministers, granting 

 that their conduct had been mild 

 and lenient, yet, to keep up a no- 

 tion that security is owing not to 

 the protection of the law, but to 

 the mercy of a few individuals, 

 must be attended with the most 

 unhappy consequences. Men, owing 

 no obligations to the constitution, 

 must cease to admire, must lose all 

 affection for it, and see, without 

 regret, another erected in its stead. 

 These were his reasons for oppos- 

 ing the bill. 



Lord Mulgrave defended the bill. 

 Was it not wise and lenient, by 

 prudentprecautions, to preclude the 

 necessity of other and more vigorous 

 measures? The circumstances of the 

 country had not been so changed as 

 to preclude the necessity of the pre- 

 sent measure. Positive proofs of 

 conspiracies were actually on their 

 lordships table. The noble lord, 

 who spoke last, might, if he pleased, 

 talk of the French revolution as the 

 effects of rational freedom ; but this 

 rational liberty had shewn itself in 

 the murder of the sovereign, in the 

 bloody and detestable tyranny of 

 Robespierre ! The five directors had 

 trodden the same ground with the 

 bloody Robespierre, with this dif- 

 ference, that their tyranny was more 

 veiled, his more avowed. And were 

 there no proofs, even in this coun- 

 try, of a predilection in favour of 

 this rational liberty ? Had not a noble 

 lord (Stanhope) within these walls, 

 in his place, disclaimed his quality, 

 and, in preference, assumed a title, 

 which, as it had been applied in 



France, ought to be held In just dis- 

 grace? Could that noble earl have 

 arrogated to himself the term citi- 

 zen, unless there were, at the same 

 time, a disposition in the country to 

 flatter such freaks and prejudices ? 

 He wished that citizen Stanhope, 

 since that was the title in which 

 he gloried, had been present in his 

 place, to hear of his express disap- 

 probation of his conduct. 



Lord Eldon said, he could have 

 wished to have given a silent vote, 

 if he had not felt it inconsistent 

 with his duty, as a member of that 

 house, and, in a peculiar degree, as 

 being a member of a profession 

 which was connected with the laws 

 of the country. He could not avoid, 

 therefore, taking notice of some of 

 the topics which had been touched 

 upon by the noble lords who had 

 opposed the motion, especially as it 

 had fallen to his lot to discharge 

 his duty to his country at a critical 

 period. The noble lord (Holland) 

 had argued, that there was only one 

 solitary conviction, and that, in that 

 person's case, there was no treason 

 produced against this country. But 

 the fact was, that the person con- 

 victed was proved to have been 

 planning with disaffected bodies of 

 men in this country, with certain 

 affiliated and corresponding societies 

 in Ireland; and surely the noble lord 

 needed not to be told, that a person 

 attempting to sever the crown of 

 Ireland from that of England is 

 guilty of an overt act of treason 

 against the king of this country ? 

 The noble lord had represented that 

 man, Coigley, as an unconvicted 

 traitor ; but subsequent events had 

 proved, that, though the law of 

 evidence would not permit persons 

 to be convicted on the record, yet, 

 in point of prudence, they might 



