statue-book, but the denunciations of the decalogue itself must be held to be ungenerous insinuations, involving the innocent with the guilty, and calumniating the character of human kind.

From the enactments and debates of the last session, the honourable gentleman (Mr. Rushton) has gone back still farther, to the discussion of a former session; and has taxed me quite fairly I allow, and not uncivilly, though with all the vehemence with which it was natural that he should insist upon a topic which has been made, for some years, a subject of calumny against me; he has taxed me with certain expressions of mine, respecting the case of an individual taken up under the suspension of the habeas corpus I will state to the honourable gentleman, for he seems to be altogether uninformed of it, the course of my argument on that occasion. I was exposing the frauds and falsehoods which had been palmed upon the House of Commons in certain statements which had been made to them, and in certain petitions which had been presented from individuals, complaining of the treatment which they had endured under the suspension act. Of these falsehoods I selected three, as peculiarly gross and unjustifiable, and as, fortunately, susceptible of being brought to the test of the most decisive contradiction. The first, I recollect, related to a supposed spy, of the name, I think, of Dewhurst, who was represented to have been seen in a gig of Sir John Byng's, at some specific time and place; the object of the falsehood being to implicate the military commander, and through him the Government, in the transactions imputed to this man. On further examination it turned out, that of the two elements of this falsehood neither existed; that there was no such man as Dewhurst, and that Sir John Byng had no gig. And I did humbly exhibit to the House of Commons the direct and complete falsification of this story, as a specimen of the devices by which the conduct of Government and its agents had been belied. The second of the instances which I selected is not at this moment immediately present to my recollection. But the third is that to which the gentleman has alluded; and the particulars of which were as follow: A petition had been presented from a man whose name he has mentioned, stating, that the irons with which he had been loaded, when taken into custody, had brought on that complaint under which he described himself as labouring. It was distinctly

stated in that petition, not that, having such a complaint upon him he was nevertheless taken up, (as the gentleman seems to imagine,) but that the apprehension and restraint had PRODUCED on this poor man so terrible a calamity. The petition went on to describe the process of an operation, rendered necessary in this case, with all the disgusting detail of chirurgical particularity. It was quite obvious, that this description was intended to inflame the minds of all who should hear it against the supposed authors of the calamity under which the poor man laboured, and, by necessary inference, of the sufferings incident to the treatment of it. I made inquiry into the matter of this petition, and communications were voluntarily made to me, from which I learnt, to my infinite astonishment, that, so far from its being the effect of his irons, and the immediate consequence, therefore, of his confinement, the man had been afflicted with his complaint for about twenty years; and that, so far from being aggravated by his imprisonment, he had, during that imprisonment, been cured at the public expense. Nay, I learnt, on what I believed, and still believe, to be incontestable authority, that, in the first moments of his liberation, he had expressed his gratitude for the care which had been taken of him; and that it was not till some time afterwards and upon mature reflection of advice, that he was induced to accuse the Government as the author of this long standing disease. Could any thing be more gross than such an imposture? The calamity . was itself grievous enough; but was it not shameful to ascribe to harsh and cruel treatment the result of natural infirmity? And if I indignantly exposed the baseness of such a fraud, is it to be inferred that I was, more than any man who heard me then, or who hears me now, insensible to human suffering? Those who draw such an inference, are guilty of a gross calumny against me. If, in expressing a just indignation at such a fraud, any words escaped me which could, in any fair mind, be liable to a misconstruction, I am sorry for it; but I bate no jot of the indignation which I then expressed. I think now, as 1 thought then, that this case, in the shape in which it was brought before the House of Commons, was a foul and wicked attempt to mislead and to inflame. To that statement I immoveably adhere.

Sir, I am not aware that there remains any other point upon which I have been required by any gentleman present to give a categorical answer.

L

6

:

My new antagonist, indeed has touched upon a variety of topics, into which I am not disposed to follow him; but he has addressed nothing personally to me, except some vague and, I do assure him, most exaggerated apprehensions of the treatment which he may expect at my hands. I have already assured you, Sir, that, on the present occasion, I had no intention of saying any thing but even my silence was not safe from the scrutinizing jealousy of the worthy Doctor; for it seems he discerned something in my looks, while the honourable Colonel was speak. ing, which alarmed him for the Colonel's safety and his own. I smiled. If I did so, I assure him it was a smile of complacency, or perhaps, of amusement, but in no degree of contumely or evil intention. The honourable Doctor, indeed, has tempted me somewhat high with his references to ancient history, with his allusion to the conflagration of Rome, and to the Emperor Nero's musical accomplishments. Of that allusion I have not, to this moment, made out the application; but if he intended (which seems the most probable solution of it) to compare the honourable Colonel's eloquence to a conflagration, and his own to a musical instrument, I have only to hope, that if I offended by smiling at the Colonel's fire, I may have made atonement by looking grave at the Doctor's fiddling.

My worthy antagonist will, I am sure, see how vain are all his apprehensions of any hostile aggression on my part. Attacked, indeed, I might, possibly, think it my duty to show him that raillery is a game which two can play at. But, even without the solemnity of the adjuration which he has addressed to me, as one in the habit of sparing nothing, either sacred or human, I assure him he has nothing to fear. I do not, indeed, know that there is any thing sacred about the Doctor, but, as merely human, I shall be contented to abstain from him, so long as that abstinence is mutual. And I assure him most seriously that if there is, as I trust there will not be, any want of courtesy and good humour between us in the course of our competition, that deficiency shall not be first shown on my side.

Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen, I have nothing more to say to you, sorry only to have been placed under the necessity of wasting so much of your time.

I present myself to your choice on the grounds of those very principles, and of that very conduct, which have been imputed to me as blame by my accusers; and particularly as one

who, in spite of all that we have heard to-day against statutes and legal establishments, venerate the statute as well as the common law of the land, and hold fast to the Constitution as by law established.

After Mr. CANNING's speech, Col. WILLIAMS again spoke as follows:

2

Sir, I claim the right of reply to the Right Hon. Gentleman, who in his defence has alluded to the chance of meeting me "in another place" upon the principle of that extensive suffrage, of which he knows me to be the advocate; and as he has dwelt upon, as an absurdity and a phantom, the absence of a nominee (for it cannot be called candidate) from standing on the hustings, I must take the liberty of expressing my entire difference of opinion on that head. With respect to my connection with the borough of Preston, alluded to, I certainly had, as he understood, an invitation, and that from nearly 600, (not 900,) but they were all electors; and done also like his own, in two days. I went thither to thank them for this proof of their great confidence, and approbation of my past conduct; but as my notions of a representative differed widely from those of the Rt. Hon. Gentleman, namely, in thinking that a nominee had no business whatever on the hustings: that in looking to the pure principles of representation, the representative ought not to be called upon, and had, in fact, nothing to do in the concern till he was installed. Yet, correct as I think this, they were not ripe for it, it was not so fitted to the times-so accordant to the wishes of the body of electors, or suited to the expediency of their actual views. So that I readily absolved them, not without some reluctance, I think, on their part, and we finally separated. But I can assure the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if I had met him in that other place, by means of that extensive and intelligent body of electors, I should not have availed myself of that channel to have sought for a pension for myself, or for any of " my near and dear relations."

The Rt. Hon. Gent. in his defence of himself, for his share of the coercive measures complained of, considers it unfair to ascribe severity to those laws, inasmuch as

all laws have a reference to guilt, and a protection only to innocence, and he asks whether any honest man feels himself aggrieved at the penalties awarded against felons.

He has also defended himself against the accusation of unfeelingness in the case of Ogden, by stating the cause out of which that case arose, which he says only occurred in the course of a plan he had adopted of detecting the fallacies then attempted to be palmed upon the Hon. House. I will not descend to the worthless or disgusting details of particular cases; but I will say, that the only fallacy of that time worth dwelling upon, was the fallacy of that whole transaction-the fallacy of Legislators presuming to think that freemen were to be trifled with at fast-and-loose-the fallacy of believing that Englishmen can be taken into custody by any other than by due course of law, or released without acquittal. If those men were guilty of treason, it was treason to send them forth again unpunished, if there was no ground of accusation, it was treason to the constitution to incarcerate them.

Sir,-There are some things which, the three estates combined, can not lawfully effect; and this amongst others, that Englishmen cannot be disseized of their freedom.

With regard to his defence of the new acts, the comparison he draws is another fallacy-these new laws are levelled against persons, and not against offences. Is the act lately past, by which meetings are virtually forbidden, and the right of petition, in fact, nullifiedIs that directed against criminals? Or does it not include the whole people of England?

Is the act which awards banishment for the publication of liberal and spirited, and consequently just and patriotic opinions, against bad governors, is that directed against the criminals? No, it is not only against the innocent, but the praise worthy; and the most exalted characters have already exemplified it-and what is the act which renders my sacred refuge and asylum, my own house, liable to be entered by night or by day, by a degraded and suspicious, because a hired informer, accompanied by ruffianly police-officers, and a stipendiary or