The whole question is on the reality of the danger.  Is it such a danger as would justify that fear qui cadere potest in hominem constantem et non metuentem?  This is the fear which the principles of jurisprudence declare to be a lawful and justifiable fear.  When a man threatens my life openly and publicly, I may demand from him securities of the peace.  When every act of a man’s life manifests such a design stronger than by words, even though he does not make such a declaration, I am justified in being on my guard.  They are of opinion that they are already one fifth of the kingdom.  If so, their force is naturally not contemptible.  To say that in all contests the decision will of course be in favor of the greater number is by no means true in fact.  For, first, the greater number is generally composed of men of sluggish tempers, slow to act, and unwilling to attempt, and, by being in possession, are so disposed to peace that they are unwilling to take early and vigorous measures for their defence, and they are almost always caught unprepared:—­

    Nec coiere pares:  alter vergentibus annis
    In senium, longoque togae tranquillior usu. 
    Dedidicit jam pace ducem;... 
    Nec reparare novas vires, multumque priori
    Credere fortunae:  stat magni nominis umbra.[1]

A smaller number, more expedite, awakened, active, vigorous, and courageous, who make amends for what they want in weight by their superabundance of velocity, will create an acting power of the greatest possible strength.  When men are furiously and fanatically fond of an object, they will prefer it, as is well known, to their own peace, to their own property, and to their own lives:  and can there be a doubt, in such a case, that they would prefer it to the peace of their country?  Is it to be doubted, that, if they have not strength enough at home, they will call in foreign force to aid them?

Would you deny them what is reasonable, for fear they should?  Certainly not.  It would be barbarous to pretend to look into the minds of men.  I would go further:  it would not be just even to trace consequences from principles which, though evident to me, were denied by them.  Let them disband as a faction, and let them act as individuals, and when I see them with no other views than to enjoy their own conscience in peace, I, for one, shall most cheerfully vote for their relief.

A tender conscience, of all things, ought to be tenderly handled; for if you do not, you injure not only the conscience, but the whole moral frame and constitution is injured, recurring at times to remorse, and seeking refuge only in making the conscience callous.  But the conscience of faction,—­the conscience of sedition,—­the conscience of conspiracy, war, and confusion....