for bringing this charge against Mr. Reeves, was, that he had set those associations on foot. It was superfluous for him, therefore, to confess, that the associations were the true objects of his attack. Every body would give him full credit for the fact, without the proof of his own confession. Having made many more pointed and pertinent observations on the subject, Mr. Dundas moved, as an amendment—“That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, beseeching his Majesty to direct his Attorney-general to prosecute Mr. John Reeves, as author or pub lisher of the pamphlet, called 'Thoughts on the English Government;' and the printers of the said pamphlet."

the twentieth of May following, at Guildhall, when the verdict of the jury negatived the assertion of the House, by finding him not guilty.

"This discussion forms a kind of epoch in the history of these times, as it served to display the sentiments of Opposition, on the Loyal Associations; and to shew their disposition to persecute all who opposed their sentiments, and counteracted their views, even at the expense of their own consistency, and by the sacrifice of many of the principles which they had so frequently avowed. By exhibiting, too, the acknowledgment of a party motive, as the ground-work of a criminal process, it supplies a strong confirmation of the opinion of those, who think judicial powers should never be vested in a popular assembly. The recorded declaration of the House, opposed as it was by the sentence of a jury, serves still further to strengthen that opinion. The decision of Parliament by no means satisfied the country. The subject was discussed in various tracts, written with considerable ability, in which the principles of Mr. Reeves, and the condemued metaphor, were openly justified. While not one of the Whigs dared take their stand in the field of argument, unprotected by the shield of prejudice, and the armour of Parliament.

"In seconding the motion, Lord Sheffield avowed the most honourable and independent sentiments. He thought it a loss of time to notice the extra ordinary expressions, or episodes, introduced by Mr. Sheridan into his speech; yet he could not but condemn the shameful proposition, of condemning a man before he was proved to be guilty. In opposition to the opinions which had been advanced, his Lordship conceived the House of Commons to be the worst place for passing sentence on the author of an objectionable pamphlet; and he was apprehensive, that his reasons for expressing that opinion would not prove very flattering to either side of the House. He observed one set of men, instead of prosecuting a libel on the Constitution, intent on prosecuting a man whom they considered as having counteracted their views; and on the other side, he perceived a disposition to shrink from, and withhold, the common protection due to a man, whom it was evidently intended to oppress, although they did not consider him as guilty. There was but too much truth in these observations. Mr. Jekyll, how ever, and Mr. Fox, the former by the most despicable quibbles, and the most shallow sophistry, supported the origimal motion, for depriving Mr. Reeves of a trial by jury. But the House over-lution by the means of rebellion, he ruled the inconsistent arguments of the Whig Party, and, ultimately, adopted Mr. Dundas's amendment, omitting only the proposed prosecution of the printer.

Thus was it decided, by the House of Commons, that a metaphorical expression was a fit subject for a criminal prosecution!!! Mr. Reeves was, in consequence, brought to trial, on

"Posterity will with difficulty believe, that the Opposition attempted to justify their prosecution of Mr. Reeves, by the proceedings instituted by the Government against persons guilty of treasonable designs to subvert the Constitution. It will not be supposed, that it could possibly have escaped their attention, that the professed object of the persons to whom they alluded, was to overturn the existing order of things, whereas it was the declared object of Mr. Reeves to preserve it. While they addressed themselves to all the bad passions of the people, with a view to produce a revo

appealed to their quiet good sense, pointing out the excellencies of the existing Constitution, shewing them what reason they had for content and ́ satisfaction, and deprecating every idea of a change. Their measures could only lead to the destruction of that Constitution. But, however illogical his arguments, however false his positions, no mischief could possibly accrue from

what nothing could justify. The crime of Mr. Reeves was not that of writing and printing a discourse upon government, but of having instituted those societies, which, in a season of immi nent danger, had essentially contributed to save the Constitution. On this account alone did Mr. Sheridan and his political friends endeavour to bring down upon him the vengeance of the House, by moving that one of the books should be burnt by the hangman in New Palace Yard, and another at the Royal Exchange; but this was not the worst, for the motion went in express terms to call the author to the bar of the House, and for an application to his Majesty to remove him from any place of trust that he might then hold. This extraordinary demand, which went to punish an author without enquiry, and to pronounce his book a libel without any trial, came from the very quarter which had on all occasions most strenuously advocated the liberty of the press, even when that liberty had exceeded the bounds of all decorum. Mr. Erskine, who had not long before defended the publication of Paine's Rights of Man with his wonted eloquence, and in the speech which he delivered on that trial contended ably for the privilege of investigating the origin of government, and the abuses of it, to the greatest extent, now supported a motion, which, if it had been carried, would have made all political enquiry dangerous to those who should enter upon it, without being previously assured of the protection of party. The House of Commons, however, was happily saved from the disgrace of assuming the power of an Inquisition, or Star Chamber; and the alleged libel, on the motion of Mr. Dundas, was remitted to the Court of King's Bench, on the prosecution of the Crown, where the author was acquitted, in spite of the prediction of Mr. Erskine, who said that the jury impannelled to try the cause would feel themselves involved as parties no less than the House of Commons who ordered the prosecution; which intimation was calculated for no other purpose than that of creating prejudice against the man who was to be put upon his trial. If any thing could add to the extreme absurdity and injustice of this transaction, it was that of calling the vindictive and summary mode of punishment, originally proposed, an

example of lenity and mercy, though this was nothing less than fixing a public brand upon an author, without giving him an opportunity of defending himself, and depriving him of his bread, by a vote of the House of Commons, for no other offence than that of writing parabolically upon so grave a subject as the origin of government. Mr. Sheridan might well justify the proceeding which he recommended by the anomalous case of Dr. Sacheverel, whose impeachment for two foolish sermons, which nobody would otherwise have read, stands an everlasting monument of national folly, and the mad ness of party.”

Thus it appears, that the biographers of Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Sheridan, whose design it was to set the actions of those two public men in the most advantageous light, felt themselves bound to disapprove what they had joined in doing, on this occasion, for stigmatizing Mr. Reeves, and his publication.

The same author has also spoken in approbation of the time and manner of instituting the Loyal Association, as appears by the following extract from his Memoirs of Mr. Sheridan.

"Such was the heavy and portentous appearance of things at the close of this year, when a small body of private gen tlemen, totally unconnected with Government, became alarmed at the magnitude of the danger, and astonished at the apathy with which it seemed to be contemplated, though every day gave convincing proof that the pestiJence was working its baneful course to the destruction of those principles of sacred duty which alone constitute the vital security of a state.

66

To preserve public and private happiness, by counteracting the contagion, which was then preying like a canker upon the ligaments of society, an Association was formed, at the instance of Mr. John Reeves, an eminent Counsellor, and well known by his various publications on the laws of his country and other subjects. This society, which met at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, was quickly enlarged by subscribers in the metropolis, and gave an example that was followed shortly after in the establishment of similar institutions throughout the kingdóm. The simple object of these Loyal Associations was merely to cor rect the evil produced by seditious

publications; and the means adopted
for this purpose consisted solely in
employing the press for the circula-
tion of truth, with the same activity
that it had of late been prostituted
in the propagation of falsehood. As
talents of various descriptions were
thus brought into combined exertion,
and the funds supplied were judiciously
directed in the printing of numerous
editions of cheap tracts, the good effects
of the scheme soon became apparent,
by the decided turn which the public
sentiment took against the adoption
of revolutionary doctrines, and the
horror generally excited against the
crimes to which they invariably lead.
It was not in the nature of things, that
an association formed on such grounds,
and acting with so much energy, could
pass without experiencing much abuse,
and having its real character misrepre-
sented. They who were engaged in
pulling down what this society thought
it their bounden duty to defend, were
enraged at the vigilance employed in
countermining the work of sedition;
and no language was deemed too contu-
melious for the institution and its mem-
bers. Yet it was passing strange and
unaccountable, that public men, who
boasted their zeal for individual liberty,
for the right of discussing political sub-
jects, and for the unlimited freedom of
the press, should, at such a period, pour
obloquy upon a particular class of per-
sons, whose only offence lay in assuming
that privilege which their calumniators
While the
claimed for themselves.
Friends of the People, the Constitu-
tional Society, and other bodies of a
like character, were eulogized on ac.
count of their principles, and recom-
mended as models deserving of imita
tion for disseminating with great zeal
one set of political opinions, the Loyal
Association was reprobated and held
up as an object of execration, and even
prosecution, for presuming to combat
those opinions, and endeavouring to
shew their pernicious tendency. Now,
whatever may be thought of the pro-
ductions of this institution, whether
the witty were dull in point, or the
serious were deficient in argument, it
cannot be said that, like its rivals,
the society was indefinite in its ob-
jects, covering with the grave mantle
of reform designs, of which no idea
could be formed from the specious pro-
fessions with which they were disguised.
At a meeting, however, of the Whig

Club, on the fourth of December, the
Loyal Association was strongly cen-
sured by Mr. Fox, in an elaborate ex-
position of his political principles; and
he took the earliest opportunity after
the opening of Parliament to bestow
the most marked contempt upon the
Mr. Fox
society and its chairman.
concluded his speech at the club by
proposing the health of Mr. Sheridan.'

The trial was at Guildhall, on 20th May 1796. There was a verdict of acquittal; but there was added to this an expression of disapproba tion as to the pamphlet. This arose from the determination of one juryman, who would not consent to the verdict of acquittal, unless it was acThis companied with such a censure. juryman was known to be hostile to the defendant; and it was by a mistake, at the striking of the jury, that his name was left on the pannel.

This circumstance (together with another) has been mentioned in print It is in the Sexagenarian, where there is a sketch of the defendant's character.

"One incident occurred on the occasion of this memorable trial, which is related in our notes, and which, if the subject of this article should survive to peruse these Recollections, he will probably not forget.

66

Our Sexagenarian called upon him one morning, previous to the trial, when he had before him a list of the persons who were summoned on the jury. He accordingly asked our friend if he knew any thing of the private characters, or political opinions, of any of these individuals. On examining the names, the writer of these notes fixed on

one,

to which, for reasons that he stated at length, he recommended him to desire his counsel to object.

"This, however, he either forgot, or was perhaps too indifferent as to the event, or did not think the cause of objection on the part of the Sexagena rian valid. The result was, that this person was allowed to sit on the jury; but it afterwards appeared, that the only obstacle to an immediate dismissal of the charge, arose from the persevering and determined obstinacy of this individual, against whose prejudices he had been timely, but vainly, forewarned.

"How much he disregarded, and indeed despised, this attempt to lessen his value in the estimation of the public, was sufficiently evident, indeed some.

It is remarkable, that on the day of the trial, 20th May 1796, came out the proclamation for dissolving the Parliament: thus co-incident was the verification of the expression of " 'lopping off," and the acquittal of any libellous intention in the using of it.

Before the trial at Guildhall, the matter of the charge was discussed in some publications, that entered fully into the subject. There is a pamphlet by Mr. George Chalmers, which he intitled "A Vindication of the Privilege of the People, in respect to the Constitutional Right of Free Discussion; with a Retrospect to various Proceedings relative