Provence, parceque ma maudite mémoire a laissé échapper les Nos. ; mais cette omission sera bientôt réparée.

L'affaire des nègres n'est pas mûre, mais je vous assure qu'elle n'est point négligée; et il me paroît encore probable qu'elle sera traitée même dans cette session. Le Duc de la Rochefoucauld est très-instant là-dessus. Nous avons les papiers dont vous parlez entre les mains, et ils iront à leur destination première, ou retourneront dans les vôtres.

L'Evêque de Chartres et l'Abbé Sieyes m'ont prié de vous faire leurs amitiés.

LETTER LIX.

TO MADAME D—.

ET. D.

London, Oct. 20. 1789.

It was with great concern and anxiety, Madam, that I learned the events which passed at Paris and Versailles, soon after I left them. Those events were related here with circumstances so alarming, that it was impossible not to feel great uneasiness for those dear friends whom I had left

cause my confounded memory has allowed the numbers to escape me; but the omission shall be soon repaired.

The question of the negroes is not yet ripe, but I assure you that it is kept alive; and I still think it likely that it will be discussed even this session. The Duke de la Rochefoucauld is very earnest about it. The papers of which you speak are with us, and they shall either go to their original destination, or be returned into your hands.

The Bishop of Chartres and the Abbé Sieyes have begged that 1 would remember them to you.

ET. D.

at Paris, and of whom none are so near to my heart as your family. It is astonishing how formidable dangers appear at the distance of above two hundred miles, and when one sees them through that cloud of uncertainty which attends all the early accounts we have from Paris. I endeavoured to comfort myself with supposing that those accounts must be greatly exaggerated; and so they have proved to be. Still, however, I own that I am much concerned at what has passed. I cannot but think that the removal of the National Assembly to Paris may be a source of great mischief; and I fear for the freedom of debate in the midst of a people so turbulent, so quick to take alarm, and so much disposed to consider the most trifling circumstances as proofs of a conspiracy formed against them as the Parisians seem to be, and, indeed, as it is natural to suppose a people, so new to liberty, would be. At any rate, I am vexed at seeing even the possibility of new obstacles arising to the establishment of a free constitution in France; not that I suppose it possible that any obstacles can prevent such a constitution being established; but they may delay it, and that alone, under the present circumstances of France, would be a dreadful evil.

I find the favour with which the popular cause in France is considered here, much less than it was when I quitted England. We begin to judge you with too much severity; but the truth is, that you taught us to expect too much, and that we are disappointed and chagrined at not seeing those expectations fulfilled.

Our ministers have lately held a council on the affairs of France, the result of which was, that England should in no way interfere in them.

LETTER LX.

S. ROMILLY.

Dear Dumont,

TO M. DUMONT.

Gray's Inn, Oct. 23. 1789.

I this morning received Trail's letter, in which he says that you desire to be informed of our law respecting the suppression of riots; and I sit down immediately to comply with your request, though I believe Trail could have given you a better account of it from his memory, than I can from books. The Riot Act, he says, he believes you have, and that Mirabeau has in some degree taken it for his guide. I am much surprised that he has, for that act has always appeared to me to be a very useless law. It makes the offence of persons being riotously assembled together for the space of an hour after proclamation has been made for them to depart, punishable with death. This severity was certainly never meant to be executed against all who should expose themselves to it: the only object was to hold out a terror; although it ought to have been foreseen that the circumstance of the law not being executed would prevent its inspiring terror. The effect of the law, certainly, has not been to prevent riots, which have been at least as frequent and as mischievous since as before the

passing of it. One great absurdity in the act is, that it is not calculated to disperse a mob immediately, and that nothing can be done under it for an hour, although in that space of time the mischief may have increased a hundred times. It is true that the magistrates in England do not wait patiently for an hour before they take any steps to suppress a riot; but every thing which they do before that time, they do by virtue of the powers which they derive from older statutes, or from the common law, and not from the Riot Act.

The powers which the justices have, independent of the Riot Act, are these. Two justices of the peace and the sheriff may, in order to suppress riots which happen in their own county, either within their own view or of which they have credible information, raise the power of the county; that is, they may command all persons whatever within the county, except women, clergymen, and children under fifteen, to attend them and assist in dispersing the rioters, arresting them and conducting them to prison: and all persons who refuse or neglect to give such assistance are punishable by fine and imprisonment. And if the justices or the sheriff neglect to call for such assistance, when it is necessary, they too are punishable in the same The persons so called on to assist are to arm themselves; and if they kill any of the rioters who make resistance, they are justifiable. Besides this, all persons whatever may act of their own accord, and without the authority of any magistrate, to suppress riots which they are themselves witnesses of. Neither the Riot Act nor any other

manner.

statute declares on what occasion the magistrates may call military force to their assistance; nor, indeed, is it anywhere said that the magistrates may upon any occasion call in military force; which I mention, because it is generally supposed that the justices have a right to call in the soldiers, after they have made proclamation for people to depart. The fact is, that the justices have power to command the assistance of all the king's subjects, and consequently they may command the assistance of soldiers, who are subjects like the rest; and this they may do after proclamation by the Riot Act, and before it by the older statutes.

This doctrine of soldiers being to be considered as other subjects was heard by many persons with great dissatisfaction when it was advanced by Lord Mansfield and the Chancellor, in 1780. During the riots of that time no proceedings whatever were had under the Riot Act; proclamation was not anywhere made for the people to disperse, and the soldiers acted without the direction of any magistrate. Lord Mansfield and the Chancellor asserted (and there can be no doubt that the law is) that all persons might act to suppress riots, and that, where felonies were being committed, such as the burning of houses, &c., it was the duty of all persons to do every thing in their power to prevent those felonies, and to resist the persons committing them, and that soldiers had this power and were bound by this duty as well as other men. I do not send you a copy of their speeches,

because they are long, but they amount to no more than what I have told you.