laid down, and I know that from that conftruction of the Law which he for the time dared to lay down,that monftrous position has since been maintained--but I say, that that is not according to the principles of the Constitution of England, nay that it is not according to the forms of that Constitution, which always when it suits their purpose they can easily get over--the Law of England--Then Gentlemen, I mean most distinctly and explicitly to say, that when I called Mr. Bowles a Libeller, I meant it according to the old term-the constitutional description of a Libel. I meant plainly to say that it was both false and malicious. Then Gentlemen, from this Mr. Bowles's own confeffion of being a Libeller-we have moreover two instances of Libels by him, one of which was proved before a Committee of the House of Commons-I mean that concerning the Nottingham Election, and the other on the late Duke of Bedford-Then he stands a libeller, by confeffion,--of two false and malicious Libels convicted;-and I say moreover, that he is a hired Libeller.-Now gentlemen, you will observe then, that the mere term Libeller, which Mr. Bowles takes up, is not the term of reproach that I meant to affix to him or to any man-because I know that in bad times the best men are the most liable to incur convictions of Libels, because the men who feel most strongly for the interests of their country and for the liberties of the people are most likely to feel the grievances of the people, to ftand up in defence of the people, and to maintain the Constitution.-Therefore, gentlemen, I again repeat, that it is not being a Libeller that I throw in the teeth of Mr. Bowles-for

he

he might have been an honorable Libeller-but it is being a hired Libeller which makes the weight of my charge.-Now, Gentlemen, it is reported strongly-it is a report to which I give complete credit-that I believe can be proved-that not many years ago this same Mr. Bowles, this very zealous Advocate for all those abuses which now exist, was a very few years ago upon the eve of despairing and of departing from this Country to go and take refuge from the then abuses, which were not a ten thousandth part of those which have been heaped upon the people since, in that Asylum of Freedom, across the Atlantic.-Now Gentlemen, I have never so far despaired of the Country. I am willing to remain and take my fate with it. Gentlemen, whether those reports and rumors are true or not, Mr. Bowles possesses the means of making clear to the public-observe whether he does it or not.-Gentlemen; as to the motives of Mr. Bowles's conduct; are they not the ordinary and commonthe most vulgar motives of self interest that can give impulse to human action ?-Was Mr. Bowles the great advocate of every existing abuse until he had tasted the honey of corruption-until he had tasted the sweets of Dutch Prizes ?-Mr. Bowles will explain that among many other things which it will not be for me but for him to detail to you.Gentlemen, with the same candor, with the same justice, with the same good sense, as upon all other occasions, and as I stated before, the Letter of yefterday was closed, is this Letter of to day closed, with calling upon me to disprove the accusa

tions it contains. Why, Gentlemen, it did not require being bred to the Bar to know that no man can be called upon to prove the negative of an accusation; but it is for those who have the effrontery to make a charge, to make it good, or they must stand dishonourably convicted of false and malicious Libel.---Gentlemen, there is an opinion that I have ventured to promulgate, which has met with no small opposition from persons of all factions and parties, which seems to have had an influence like that attributed to sympathy, to Galvanism, or rather to Animal Magnetism---which has touched, as it seems, the senfible part of every Placeman from one end of the Kingdom to the other---without any other connection they all seem to join in this one note, and with one accord we have Mr. Tierney in the Borough, and we have Mr. Windham in Norfolk, who both have places, and Mr. Whitbread, who would have a place---stating, that they think it something so nonsensical that no man can contend for a moment that it is unconftitutional or dangerous to the Country, that the men who hold lucrative Offices under the Crown fhould be also the representatives of the people:---They call it a principle of the new school, but I say it is a principle of the old school,-that those persons have forgotten it-like the fashions out of memory which have been so long disused, all the good old principles of England have been so long disused that persons get up and deny even that they ever exifted.---Gentlemen; according to the Constitution it was settled by Law, and if any thing can be called the Conftitution unquestionably the

A&

1

Act of Settlement must be---by that Law it is enacted, that no person fhall hold a seat in Parliament having at the same time a place under the Crown. That has since been departed from for corrupt purposes, and has been repealed by special Act of Parliament---but which at the same time so far acknowledges the principle, though it departs from it on the ground of expediency in practice, that as soon as a man accepts of a place he is obliged to go through the form and mockery of abandoning his seat and trying a second Election.---Then, do these Gentlemen think to persuade us out of our senses? do they hold the understandings of Englishmen so cheap that they can be imposed upon with such flimsy pretences, or are those men so blinded by self intereft, are their minds which upon other occafions appear to be clear and acute, so blinded when self-interest comes between them and the object of their ambition, that they cannot comprehend one of the plaineft and clearest propositions of the law of England?-Why, Gentlemen, it is no more consonant to the law than it is to common sense. The principle which I state is that on which they would always act in their private affairs; for what man on earth ever yet contended that it was fit the same Attorney fhould manage a cause for two contending parties? I say that the representatives of the people are the Attorneys of the people-they were so denominated according to the old forms of the Constitution, and when they were returned to Parliament they had Letters of Attorney to empower them to act for the persons they represented.-Why,

then

then, as it is impoffible for an Attorney honestly to conduct two opposite interefts with reference to private affairs, it is infinitely more so with regard to matters of a public and political nature, where private morality has so much to contend with, where the temptations are so much stronger, and where the consequences of misconduct are much less likely to fall on the persons who misconduct themselves.On public ground, therefore, with reference to public affairs, the principle acquires tenfold strength, and is more necessary to be adhered to.-I simply, then, ftate,and am ready to maintain at all times, that according to the Conftitution of England, which supposes no Utopian system of perfection, which supports in all cases the juft prerogatives of the Crown, there is eftablished a check and a control from abuse on the part of the Crown by the Representatives of the People. I do say, that that system goes on the idea of jealousy between the parts, and does not leave the people at the mercy of either the Minifters or the Crown, nor does it leave the Crown at the mercy of the Ministers or the people. Then, Gentlemen the only consideration is, Whether the same person shall be intrufted with the check and control upon his own conduct a proposition so absurd and ridiculous, that it would be unneceffarily taking up your time any further to argue upon it.-Gentlemen; I have been denominated an enemy to my Country-an enemy to its liberties and to its Conftitution.-Gentlemen; I am happy and proud to say-prouder than those Gentlemen who have juft taken their leaves with all the ribbands which fly about them-that I poffess