[918] Compare Belsham's Hist. of Great Britain, vol. viii. p. 490, with Tomline's Life of Pitt, vol. ii. p. 548. The letter to Lord Gower, the English minister in Paris, is printed in Parl. Hist. vol. xxx. pp. 143, 144. Its date is 17th August, 1792.
[919] Just before the Revolution, Robert de Saint-Vincent pertinently remarked, by way of caution, that the English ‘have dethroned seven of their kings, and beheaded the eighth.’ Mem. of Mallet du Pan, vol. i. p. 146; and we are told in Alison's Europe (vol. ii. pp. 199, 296, 315), that in 1792 Louis ‘anticipated the fate of Charles I.’ Compare Williams's Letters from France, 2nd edit. 1796, vol. iv. p. 2.
[920] Belsham (Hist. of Great Britain, vol. viii. p. 525) supposes, and probably with reason, that the English government was bent upon war even before the death of Louis; but it appears (Tomline's Pitt, vol. ii. p. 599) that it was not until the 24th of January 1793, that Chauvelin was actually ordered to leave England, and that this was in consequence of ‘the British ministers having received information of the execution of the king of France.’ Compare Belsham, vol. viii. p. 530. The common opinion, therefore, seems correct, that the proximate cause of hostilities was the execution of Louis. See Alison's Hist. vol. ii. p. 522, vol. v. p. 249, vol. vi. p. 656; and Newmarch, in Journal of Statist. Soc. vol. xviii. p. 108.
[921] Lord Brougham (Sketches of Statesmen, vol. i. p. 79) rightly says of this war, that ‘the youngest man living will not survive the fatal effects of this flagrant political crime.’ So eager, however, was George III. in its favour, that when Wilberforce separated himself from Pitt on account of the war, and moved an amendment on the subject in the House of Commons, the king showed his spite by refusing to take any notice of Wilberforce the next time he appeared at court. Life of Wilberforce, vol. ii. pp. 10, 72.
[922] In 1793 and subsequently, it was stated both by the opposition, and also by the supporters of government, that the war with France was directed against doctrines and opinions, and that one of its main objects was to discourage the progress of democratic institutions. See, among many other instances, Parl. Hist. vol. xxx. pp. 413, 417, 1077, 1199, 1200, 1283, vol. xxxi. pp. 466, 592, 649, 680, 1036, 1047, vol. xxxiii. pp. 603, 604; Nicholls's Recollections, vol. ii. pp. 156, 157.
[923] Lord Campbell (Lives of the Chancellors, vol. vi. p. 449) says, that if the laws passed in 1794 had been enforced, ‘the only chance of escaping servitude would have been civil war.’ Compare Brougham's Statesmen, vol. i. p. 237, vol. ii. pp. 63, 64, on our ‘escape from proscription and from arbitrary power … during the almost hopeless struggle from 1793 to 1801.’ Both these writers pay great and deserved honour to the successful efforts of Erskine with juries. Indeed the spirit of our jurors was so determined, that in 1794, at Tooke's trial, they only consulted eight minutes before bringing in a verdict of acquittal. Stephens's Mem. of Horne Tooke, vol. ii. p. 147; see also, on this crisis, Life of Cartwright, vol. i. p. 210. The people sympathised throughout with the victims; and while the trial of Hardy was pending, the attorney-general, Scott, was always mobbed when he left the court, and on one occasion his life was in danger. Twiss's Life of Eldon, vol. i. pp. 185, 186. Compare Holcroft's Memoirs, vol. ii. pp. 180, 181.
[924] ‘Five days at least.’ Stat. 36 George III. c. 8, § 1. This applied to meetings ‘holden for the purpose or on the pretext of considering of or preparing any petition, complaint, remonstrance, or declaration, or other address to the king, or to both houses, or either house, of parliament, for alteration of matters established in church or state, or for the purpose or on the pretext of deliberating upon any grievance in church or state.’ The only exceptions allowed were in the case of meetings called by magistrates, officials, and the majority of the grand jury.
[925] The insertor of the notice in the newspaper ‘shall cause such notice and authority to be carefully preserved, … and cause a true copy thereof (if required) to be delivered to any justice of the peace for the county, city, town, or place where such person shall reside, or where such newspaper shall be printed, and who shall require the same.’ 36 George III. c. 8, § 1.
[926] C. 8, §§ 6 and 7, referring to ‘meetings on notice;’ and to persons holding language which shall even ‘tend to incite.’ These two sections are very remarkable.
[927] ‘It shall be adjudged,’ says the Act, ‘felony without benefit of clergy; and the offenders therein shall be adjudged felons, and shall suffer death as in case of felony without benefit of clergy.’ 36 George III. c. 8, § 6.