SPEECH OF Mr. FRANCIS, ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE HABEAS CORPUS ACT, FRIDAY, JANUARY 23, 1795.

There were ſome material paſſages in the ſpeech of the learned gentleman oppoſite to me, which I think myſelf called upon to take the earlieſt opportunity to anſwer, while they are yet freſh in my memory and in the recollection of the Houſe. They were not ad⯑dreſſed to me particularly; but, as they conveyed a charge againſt the principles and proceedings of a Society, to which I belong, and from whoſe cauſe I am not at all diſpoſed to ſeparate my own, I conſider myſelf as a perſon put upon his defence, and therefore in⯑titled for a ſhort time to the attention of the Houſe. No man is leſs likely to abuſe it than I am. Sir, I am not going to find fault with the honourable gentleman's perſonal deportment in this Houſe, or to the language he makes uſe of. They are always civil and conciliating, and therefore he may be ſure that nothing is farther from my thoughts than to offer him any offence. It is to his aſſer⯑tions and to his doctrines that I mean to oppoſe contradiction and [2] reſiſtance. But, firſt of all, allow me to clear my honourable friend near me of a very unjuſt imputation thrown upon his con⯑duct this day, as if he had irregularly taken the opening of the de⯑bate out of the hands of the learned gentleman, to whom, as mover of the queſtion, it did undoubtedly belong. Now, Sir, on this point I ſhall content myſelf with appealing to your teſtimony, when I affirm that the learned gentleman moved the ſecond reading of the bill, without offering to ſay one word even of introduction to that motion, and that you were going to put the queſtion, and muſt have done ſo, if my honourable friend had not then riſen to oppoſe it. The learned gentleman ſays, he underſtood it was agreed that the debate ſhould be taken on the ſubſequent motion for your leaving the chair. If ſo, he purpoſely reſerved himſelf for a later ſtage of the bill, and has clearly acquitted my honourable friend of taking the debate out of his hands. But I know of no ſuch agree⯑ment. On the contrary, I perfectly recollect it was ſtated to him, from this ſide of the Houſe, that it was intended to debate the principle of the bill, which could not be done at any time ſo properly as on the motion for the ſecond reading.

I find, Sir, that the Society of Gentlemen, aſſociated for the purpoſe of obtaining a Parliamentary Reform, of all of whom in⯑vidually he ſpeaks with great civility, are no favourites of his in their collective capacity. It is very difficult for us to give him ſa⯑tisfaction. If we continue our proceedings, it leads to dangerous conſequences, though poſſibly our intentions may be innocent. We are exciting diſcontent and faction among the people, and encou⯑raging others to go lengths, to which we perhaps may not be deter⯑mined to follow them. We ſhall be anſwerable then as, in fact, the abettors and promoters of miſchief, in which at firſt we do not partake, and which afterwards we might be determined to reſiſt. If we reſolve to ſuſpend our proceedings, that's ten times worſe; that's a reſolution, which fills the learned gentleman with horror and diſmay! The moment we leave off acting at all, we excite and exhort the people to have recourſe to the moſt dangerous and crimi⯑nal exceſſes! It is difficult to conceive, by what medium in our con⯑duct we could thoroughly have ſatisfied the learned gentleman. All I ſhall ſay is, that his judgement of our conduct is not quite im⯑partial, and that I am happy in being able to appeal to a judge⯑ment and authority, even in his own profeſſion, much higher than his, though I am far from meaning to undervalue his cenſure: I mean that of the eminent Magiſtrate, who preſided at the late trials. The Chief Juſtice took more occaſions than one to ſpeak of our Society in terms of diſtinction and approbation, and to inti⯑mate [3] his opinion that our proceedings furniſhed an example, which might be followed with innocence and ſafety, if not with advantage. I am fearful of overſtating any thing ſaid by the learned Judge; but I believe it is in the memory of every one who had the happineſs of hearing him, that he ſtated it as an aggravation of the miſconduct imputed to other Societies, that, in ours, they had an example of prudence and moderation, by which they might have been inſtruct⯑ed, and ought to have been guided. But, Sir, whether we are favourites with the learned gentleman or not, we have a right to demand juſtice from him, and from all men. If he came to this Houſe prepared to bring a charge of any kind againſt us or our pro⯑ceedings, he was bound in common equity to give us notice of his intention. With all his books, and his papers, and his memoran⯑dums before him, it is not fair to expect that we ſhould be able to anſwer him, upon the inſtant, on dates, on circumſtances, and ex⯑preſſions, belonging to tranſactions which took place a year or two ago. Yet, with all theſe advantages on his ſide, and taken by ſurpriſe as I am, and having nothing to rely on but my own im⯑mediate recollection of the terms of a letter, written by us in May 1792, and ſigned by Lord John Ruſſell, as Chairman, I meet the learned gentleman in direct contradiction upon his ſtatement of that letter. I affirm, that he has miſquoted our letter; that he has eſ⯑ſentially changed the terms of it, and attributed to us a declared ſpecific motive for declining, as we did, all future intercourſe with the Society for Conſtitutional Information, which I am ſure we did not expreſs, and which I am confident we never thought of. He ſays diſtinctly, and more than once, that we came to that reſo⯑lution, becauſe the other Society, by their acts and proceedings, had violated the conſtitution. If they had, we ought to have gone much farther, than barely reſolving to have no concern with them. I cannot recollect the exact terms of our letter, but I ſtand firmly and ſecurely upon the negative. I ſay the learned gentleman has done that which no accuſer ought to do; he imputes criminality to certain acts united to certain declarations of ours, and he changes materially the terms of thoſe declarations. On that point I am at iſſue with him: he has the books before him; let him confute me if he can ^*. He confeſſes, however, that we did right in declining [4] all intercourſe with that dangerous Society; but then he ſays, we ought to have acted in the ſame manner to the Sheffield Society, who, it ſeems, have written a letter to the other, full of exception⯑able language and matter. Agreed. I think ſo too; but then that letter ought to have been before us. It could be no motive of action to us, unleſs it had come by ſome means or other under our view, or in ſuch a way as to oblige us to take notice of it. Now, I do aſſure the Houſe, upon my honour, that, to the beſt of my know⯑ledge and belief, I never heard of that letter before. I hope I have ſaid enough to vindicate our Society from the imputations, to which ſome gentlemen have thought us liable, and to juſtify the fa⯑vourable opinion entertained of us, by perſons of greater judgement, as well as more elevated authority. If not, I deſire it may be un⯑derſtood that I ſhall hold myſelf ready, and forthcoming at all times, to anſwer any diſtinct charges that may be brought againſt us.

In this place, Sir, it may be neceſſary for me to obſerve, that neither this diſcuſſion, nor any other, that regards the principles and conduct of the different Societies, aſſociated for the purpoſe of ob⯑taining a Parliamentary Reform, is foreign from the queſtion now before the Houſe. The inſtitution and proceedings of thoſe Socie⯑ties have in fact been the real or pretended cauſe of all the alarms, which have been ſo induſtriouſly excited among us, for the ſafety of the conſtitution, and of all the meaſures which have been taken by Government for the peace and ſecurity of the country, and among the reſt, for the ſuſpenſion of the Habeas Corpus act. It is no digreſſion, therefore, to ſtate either my own opinion and prin⯑ciples, or thoſe of the Aſſociation in which I have acted, on the ſub⯑ject of Parliamentary Reform. But my honourable friend near me, in ſtating his principles and objects, has ſtated mine. I concur with him in every word he has ſaid, and adopt it as my own. Sir, I know the inconvenience of particular applications of general opi⯑nions, and I ſhall take care to avoid it. Without referring, there⯑fore, to this or that Parliament, I ſay generally, but with the deep⯑eſt conviction that can be impreſſed on the human mind, by long obſervation and daily experience, that, with a Houſe of Commons at the diſpoſal and command of the Crown, the liberty and pro⯑perty of this country are not ſafe. Under ſuch a combination and ſtewardſhip the liberty will go firſt, and the property will ſoon follow it. With reſpect to univerſal repreſentation, and all the dangers and all the reproaches attached to it, I muſt ſay that I think the [5] learned gentleman ought to be careful to diſtinguiſh thoſe, who pro⯑feſs to have ſuch a ſcheme in contemplation, from others who reject it with a diſapprobation as full and entire, though not, perhaps, with ſuch extravagant horror, as he does. He ought to have known that the idea of univerſal repreſentation was never encouraged or countenanced by any act or declaration whatever of our Aſſociation. If he knows any thing to the contrary, I call upon him now, I challenge him, to point it out. Of me, in particular, he muſt have known, and, in candour, he ought to have acknowledged, that it is not poſſible for any man to go farther than I have done, to reject, to reſiſt, and to explode every project of that nature, and every principle and argument ſet up to ſupport it; a project, however, ſo chimerical, and ſo utterly impracticable, that it is ſuperfluous to load it with charges of danger and malignity. But, let the charac⯑ter of ſuch projects be what it may, there is one reflection on the conduct of Government towards the unfortunate perſons who have profeſſed them, which ought to ſtrike every man of honour or humanity with diſguſt and abhorrence. While they are perſecuting to deſtruction a number of perſons, whoſe unenlightened ſincerity deſerves inſtruction rather than puniſhment, for maintaining theſe miſchievous doctrines, obſerve with what guarded caution, with what profound ſilence, they paſs by the original author, the prime mover of all theſe doctrines; who, if theſe people are deluded, is the ſole cauſe of their deluſion; who, if they have erred, is an⯑ſwerable for their errors; who, if they are criminal, ſhould be pu⯑niſhed for their crimes. Sir, I ſpeak from poſitive knowledge on theſe points. I have converſed with ſeveral of theſe advocates for univerſal repreſentation, and I never met with one of them, who did not quote the Duke of Richmond for his authority; who did not take his arguments from letters written and publiſhed by the noble Duke, as they ſaid, for popular inſtruction. If the ſenſe of ſhame were left among men, is it a thing that could be endured for a moment, that, while the men, whom his writings have deluded, are proſecuted and puniſhed, the noble Duke himſelf ſhould not only go free and unnoticed, but continue a Member of that very Cabinet, by which theſe proſecutions are promoted and enforced, with all the influence of Government? I will not believe it poſſible that his Grace can take an active ſhare in theſe meaſures; I diſmiſs that thought the moment it occurs to me; ſuch conduct would ex⯑ceed the bounds of human depravity. I acquit the noble Duke of it; but ſtill he belongs to the Adminiſtration; and whether he op⯑poſes their meaſures in this inſtance or not, is unknown to the Pub⯑lic. But let the doctrine I allude to be ever ſo miſchievous, and [6] ever ſo dangerous, is it in fact, is it in truth, the real object of all the apprehenſions and terrors which are ſaid to be excited by it? I do not believe it; I do not believe that the enemies of reform are ſo much terrified by it as they pretend to be. They know as well as I do that it is nothing but a viſion, which can never be ſubſtan⯑tiated; a mere abſtraction, which can never be realized. No, Sir; whatever they may pretend, this is not the true ground of their uneaſineſs. It is the reaſonable, the moderate, the practicable plan, which really fills them with terror and anxiety. That, perhaps, might be accompliſhed; the other never can; nor, if it were even to obtain for a moment, could it poſſibly ſubſiſt; and I am con⯑vinced that, if it were poſſible to drive thoſe perſons to an option, they would prefer the ſecond to the firſt, becauſe they would foreſee that the miſchiefs inevitable in the execution of ſuch a ſcheme, or even in the attempt, would determine every reaſonable man in the country to revert and ſubmit to the preſent ſyſtem; that is, to ſuffer the conſtitution to languiſh and diſſolve in its corruption, or gradually to periſh by decay, rather than to encounter the direct and poſitive dangers of a change ſo violent and extreme, to which their minds would naturally unite the certainty of inſtant deſtruction.

It is now propoſed to the Houſe to renew the ſuſpenſion of the Habeas Corpus act, with as much eaſe and indifference, as if the ar⯑bitrary power of impriſoning any man, for any time, without bring⯑ing him to trial, were fit to be given to the King's Miniſters when⯑ever they deſired it, and continued in their hands as long as they thought fit. They do not come to us, as they ought to do, with a new caſe of conſpiracy and treaſon, ſupported by later diſcoveries, by freſh evidence, and by a report of the reſult of both to the Houſe. No, Sir; they content themſelves with affirming that it is ſo, and by calling upon us to prove the contrary, if we can; that is, they ſhift the burden of the proof from the aſſertion to the negative, and con⯑clude that the Houſe is ready to believe that every thing they affirm is true, unleſs we can bring evidence to prove that it is falſe. Theſe gentlemen contend, that the treaſons and conſpiracies of laſt year re⯑main in ſtatu quo, and in full force. Why, Sir, if that propoſition were ever ſo true, they ought to prove it now, by the adduction of freſh evidence, regularly examined by another Committee of In⯑quiry, and by them reported to the Houſe. Much more ought they to do ſo, if they pretended, which in truth they do not pretend, that they had diſcovered a new ſet of plots, and a new liſt of con⯑ſpirators. I have never ſaid, that a caſe may not exiſt, in which the rights of individuals, however important, ought to give way to the ſecurity of the Public. No reaſonable man, no friend of his [7] country, will deny it. What I contend for is, that when arbitrary powers are demanded, for the ſake of the common ſafety, the caſe that juſtifies the demand ſhould be made out, in every inſtance, by its own ſpecific evidence. Nothing of this kind has been done or attempted; the ground they take now, is the ſame as they took laſt year; the evidence they reſort to, is the ſame they have had before them above two years, and which hitherto they have made no uſe of, but by proſecutions and trials, in which they have utterly failed. Every one of the conſpirators, of whoſe guilt they pretended to be ſo confident laſt year, has either been acquitted by his country, or diſcharged by themſelves. If they have any other criminals to pro⯑duce, on the ground of the inquiries and reports made to us laſt year, for what reaſon have they neglected to uſe the power they had, and to ſecure and bring them to trial in this long interval? The evidence is the ſame that it was two years ago; the ſame docu⯑ments and letters were read to us laſt year, and may be ſo again this time twelvemonth. They do not pretend to ſay that they have any other; they muſt, therefore, confeſs that that evidence is inſuf⯑ficient, or that they themſelves are criminal in not having hitherto acted upon it. In demanding a renewal of power, they condemn themſelves; for, if they had done their duty, while they had it, a renewal now would be unneceſſary. Or are we to underſtand that they have left theſe urgent duties unperformed, on purpoſe to keep a pretence in reſerve for continuing in their hands a power to drag any man they pleaſe from his houſe, from his family, from his af⯑fairs; to have his papers ranſacked, to have all his private concerns expoſed, and to be continued in cloſe confinement, without trial, as long as they think proper? All this, they tell us, however, is no puniſhment! It is pure mercy intended for the ſecurity of the indivi⯑dual, and to prevent him from carrying his dangerous diſpoſitions into criminal effect. This language, Sir, would be very ſuſpicious at all times, but particularly when it comes from men, who will not allow that trial and acquittal are any ſatisfactory proof of inno⯑cence, and who affirm that, notwithſtanding the proſecutions and verdicts which have taken place in the laſt year, the ground they then took is not in the ſmalleſt degree altered; that the plots and conſpiracies ſtand exactly where they did; that theſe propoſitions are ſelf-evident, and require nothing but to be ſtated and affirmed upon their authority. The diſtinctions they have recourſe to on this ſubject, are indeed of a piece with the reſt of their conduct. If you truſt to the opinions of theſe gentlemen, you muſt conclude, as they do, that the finding of a bill by a grand jury, who have nothing before them but ſome ſelected evidence of the accuſer, amounts to [8] a ſtrong preſumption of guilt; but that the verdict of a petty jury, who hear both parties, and in whoſe preſence the whole of the evi⯑dence on both ſides is minutely canvaſſed, does not amount to any no, not the ſmalleſt, preſumption of innocence. I ſhall now con⯑clude, Sir, with ſubmitting two plain queſtions to theſe learned gen⯑tlemen, to which I hope and expect they will give me a plain, intel⯑ligible anſwer, ſuch a one as a Commoner of England, contending for his rights, though perhaps not qualified to defend them in the way in which they are attacked, by legal cunning or ſkilful arguments, has a right to demand from him who invades them. We have been repeatedly aſſured, that any hardſhip which the perſons con⯑fined laſt year might have ſuffered, from the length of their impri⯑ſonment, was not to be imputed to the ſuſpenſion of the Habeas Corpus act; becauſe, without the ſuſpenſion of that act, they would, or they might have been, confined juſt as long under the law as it ſtood. If ſo, I deſire them to tell me what they want, or what they will gain by the ſuſpenſion; or, in fact, what have they gained by ſuſpending it at all? On their own ſhewing they might have confined the ſame perſons, or any others, whom they ſuſpected, juſt as long as they did, and full as long as any man ought to be impri⯑ſoned, on bare ſuſpicion, and without trial. My ſecond queſtion is, for what reaſon, even admitting all their ground, and ſuppoſing all their ſuſpicions to be well founded, they think it neceſſary to take this dangerous power at the preſent moment; I mean, while Parlia⯑ment is ſitting? Without it, they can ſecure any perſon they ſuſpect; and if, at any given moment, they ſhould really want a farther power, what have they do but, as they did laſt year, to come to this Houſe, and paſs another act of ſuſpenſion in the courſe of a ſingle day? In the preſent circumſtances of the nation, I take it for grant⯑ed that they have no thoughts pf proroguing Parliament; but, as long as the Legiſlature is aſſembled, it is their proper office and duty, which they cannot delegate ſafely or honeſtly to the Miniſters of the Crown, to watch over the perſonal rights of the ſubject, while they are providing for the general ſafety of the community. To theſe queſtions, Sir, I demand and expect a plain, diſtinct, and rational anſwer.