fpectfully. The crown, for inftance, moft abhorrence that words could might be reprefented as the power paramount to lords and commons, and totally, by right, independent of their controul; and the man that had made fuch an affeveration, might, instead of rebuke and punishment, meet with approbation and reward, while he, that dared to infinuate the contrary, would expofe himfelf to the wrath of government. A time, indeed, might come, when the principles that feated the houfe of Brunfwick on the British throne, might be reprobated, and held forth as proofs of disloyalty in thole who maintained them, while. thofe who pleaded the caufe of the preregative, would be abetted by the whole authority and strength of govern .ment. The duke of Bedford was particularly fevere on that claufe of the bill, which condemned, to a trauf portation for feven years, any perfon convicted of having offended, a fecond time, against the purport of the bill. He thought the penalty far exceeded the offence, and fpoke, he faid, as a man that felt himfelf liable to incur it. He took this occafion to condemn, in bitter termus, an exprethon that had fallen from bishop Horley in the warmth, of his antipathy to writings, publifhed on parliamentary reform. The bithop's reply to the duke's animadverfions was, that the bill referred only to thofe feditious meetings where the difcuffion of laws, was attempted by perlons incompetent to judge of their propriety; nor did he know, what the mats of the people, in any country, had to do with the laws, but to obey them.” An obfervation of this nature, drew, from the duke of Bedford, and the earl of Lauderdale, the ut3 utter. The earl, in particular, affirmed, that had a Turkish mufti made fuch a declaration, in his prefence, he fhould have imputed it to his ignorance; but to hear it from the mouth of a British prelate, excited his furprife, no lefs than his indignation. It may not be out of place to remark, that thefe words of the bifhop did him confiderable disservice, not only with the public, but with the minifterial party, who were abundantly fenfible how much their caufe was injured by fuch immodérate zeal, whether fincere or af fected. The bill, on the divifion; was carried by forty-five votes against three. The third reading of the bill tock place on the thirteenth of November, when the earl of Lauderdale propofed to extend the operation of it to Scotland, and to substitute it to the laws provided there against the like offences; obferving, in Tupport of his propofal, that more feverity could not be requifite in Scotland, where the people were peaceably inclined, than in England, where a frong party was formed against the exifting government. But his propofal was immediately negatived. The bill was again oppofed, with great vigour and animation, by the duke of Bedford. He felt, he faid, a folicitude and anxiety on this fubject, that compelled him to call forth every exertion, of which he was capable, to hear witnefs of his abhorrence of that bill, which he confidered as a mortal ftab to the English conftitution, given, in defpite of every remontirance, by a miniftry, determined to frike at every 1 Every thing that food in the way for its profecution against their repeated wifhies for its termination, in creating places and emoluments for the abettors of this ruinous fyftem, and in adopting the feverett and most unconfiitutional measures against all who had the fpirit to oppofe them: thefe and other inftances of obftinacy, arrogance, and contempt of the people's rights and interefts, fully juftified him in calling their conduct unconstitutional and corrupt. of their proceedings, however the Voice of the public might reprobate them, or experience prove them contrary to the welfare of the nation. It was become ufual, he faid, to draw precedents from France, by the fupporters of minifterial measures. He too could, with equal propriety, cite the example of that country in admonition to thofe who were become the rulers of this. What was it, he afked, that plunged France into thofe diforders and confufions that brought about the revolution? Surely not the field-meetings of the people, nor the difcuffions in private clubs, but the profligacy of a vicious court, and the licentious lives of the heads of the French nation, whofe immoral characters loft them the efteem and refpect of their countrymen; but the caufe which principally accelerated that event was the iniquitous conduct of their government, and the corrupt fubferviency of fucceffive miniftries to the wicked ambition of thofe who, unhappily for that kingdom, poffeed the confidence of weak fovereigns, and involved them in contefts and wars that drained the refources of the nation, and reduced the people to mifery. Thefe, to gether with the intolerable opprefLions exercifed upon the commonalty, excited that refentment of their wrongs, and that refolution to pofe tyranny, which produced the revolution. True, it was, that the perfonal character of the monarch, on the British throne, was highly refpectable and exemplary; but the perverfenefs of his minifters, in forcing his people into a war, neither of their choice nor to their intereft, in lavishing their money The duke was anfwered by lord Grenville, who went over the fame grounds of arguments already urged fupport of the bill. He did not deny the duke's affertions refpecting the corruption of the French court and government previous to the revolution, the commencement of which had excited the expectation of the people of this country, that the French would henceforth enjov the happiness of a conflitution fim:lar to their own. But the horrible events that enfued owed their cafffus to the lawlefs principles maintained in the clubs and diforderly aflociations that took place in that unhappy country, and filled it with murder and defolation. Clubs, it was well known; had been inftituted in England, in imitation and upon the fame plan as thofe in France. Like them, they taught principles utterly fubverfive of ancient laws and conftitutions, and inimical to the moral and religious order of things eftablished for centuries. Thefe were certainly moft dangerous innovations, and tended evidently to throw this, and any country, into the moft fatal diforders. They ought, therefore, to be refifted, and it would argue fear or imbicillity not to oppofe them in the firmest and moft effectual man ner, ner, by holding out the feverest chiaftifements to thofe who endeavoured to, diffeminate principles of fo pernicious and deftructive a tendency. It was with much animal vehemence infifted on by the earl of Lauderdale, that the fafety of minifters was much more confuited by this bill, than, that of the king, They were confcious, that if the people were fuffered to meet toge, ther, their reiterated remonstrances could not fail, at laft, to make fome impreffion to their prejudice. The privilege of difcuffing parliamentary tranfactions had never yet been called in queftion or thought dangerous. The more important the queftion brought before the legiflature, the greater was the propentity as well as the intereft of the public to examine and feruti, nize it. If this privilege was allowed in matters of little importance, it ought, indubitably, to hold good in affairs of great and weighty concern the nation. Minifters had tried,how far the faw would bear them out in their endeavours to cftablish the doctrine of conftructive treafon; but the attempt was fo odious, that it failed; the prefent, however, was an attempt far more invidious, and he doubted not, that if the people of England viewed it in that light, they would exert themfelves fo powerfully as to fruftrate it, notwithstanding all minifterial arts and efforts in its favour. The debate finally concluded by fixty-fix votes for the pafling of the bill and feven againft it. The duke of Bedford and the carls of Derby and Lauderdale entered a very folemn and fpirited proteft in oppofition to it. 10 In the house of commons, the fame influence prevailed as in the houfe of lords. A meffage from these was brought to the commons, on the 16th of November, informing them, that they had passed the bill for the king's better safety, and requefting their concurrence, Mr. Pitt, in confequence, moved its firft reading, which was carried by one hundred and feventy votes against twenty-fix; the fecond reading was voted by one hundred and fifty-one against twenty-five. It being obferved by lord Eardley, that a public meeting, had been held on Sunday by perfous who oppofed the bill, a tranfaction which he looked upon as too much in the fiyle of French principles, Mr. Sheridan obferved, that the meeting was juttified by its object, which was to prepare a hand-bill to diffuade the people from tumult and riot. In conjunction with Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Lambton, Mr. Sheridan propofed, that, previously to the difcution of the bill, a committee fhould be appointed to inquire into the particulars of the infult offered to the king. This was oppofed by miniftry as difrefpectful in the firfl ftage of a bill, framed for the fecurity of the fovereign, and laid before them by the houfe of lords; but Mr. Sheridan infifted, that no proofs had been adduced to authorize fo harth a meafure, and that minifters had no right to bring forward fuch a Lil without the clearest proofs of its neceffity. Minifters were bound, in their own juftification, to make it appear to the public that they acted ingenuoufly and upon fair grounds, the cafe being of fuch importance and magnitude, that no fufpicions. fufpicions ought to be againft minifters for undue compliances, of which, if guilty, they thould not be fuffered to efcape the punithment annexed to their refponfibility. It was equally abfurd and unconftitutional to build any argument on the proclamations which were well known to be fabricated by minifters, and to deferve no more credit than the informers, reporters, and fpies, employed by them in the profecution of those whom they were compelled to releafe for want of better evidence. The doctrine of king-killing had been imputed to the meeting at Copenhagenhoufe; but, had fuch an imputation been founded, "profecutions" faid Mr. Sheridan, "must have taken place against the guilty, or elfe there must have been great neglect in the magiftrates and the executive government;" but this being highly improbable, neither was the charge itfelf to be credited. On thefe premifes he moved, "that a committee fhould be appointed to inquire into the existence and extent of the danger of feditious meetings, as referred to in the king's proclamation." The notoriety of the inflammatory and feditious language, fpoken at the popular meetings, was fuch, anfwered Mr. Powis, that no other evidence could be needed to juftify the ftrong measures in contemplation, which were evidently neceffary to check the turbulent difpofition that had gone forth. It did not amount to abfolute treafon, but it approached fo nearly to it as to call not only for immediate reftriction but for adequate punishment; none being provided by any law in force, an act ought to be paffed, both to reftrain and punith the of fenders in future, The proceeds ings of the various affemblies of the people, both in England and Scotland, were invariably conformable to thofe of the clubs in France, and breathed a decided enmity to the conftitution of this country.. Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Curwen, and Mr. Jekyl, vigouroufly fupported the motion for an inquiry, and allerted the fufficiency of the exifting laws for the fuppreffion of confpiracies against the ftate, and that if they were not enforced the minifters themselves were to blame. Their reprefentations of the ftate of things merited no attention; they were framed to deceive the public, and had neither truth nor even plaufibility; they contradicted each other in the moft perceptible manner, and could not therefore be relied on; the loyalty of the people and their attachiment to government were one day infifted upon, and the next they were charged with factioufnefs and democratic principles. Was this a ftyle of fpeeking becoming men at the head of the nation, and who were bound, by the exaltedness of their fituation and the means of information it afforded, to be well acquainted with the temper of the nation, and ought therefore to be above the meannels of mifreprefenting it to the fovereign, or of endeavouring to conccal it from the legiflature? Mr. Fox, on this occafion, expreffed particular indignation at the behaviour of fome individuals employed by adminiftration in the capacity of ipies. In order to difcover the defigns of thofe they were commiffioned to watch over, they affected to enter into their fentiments, and excited them to ufe words and to adopt propofals, far more reprehenfible than they firft intended. What [D] name the propriety of the bill in queftion, which, he faid would, at the worst, prove the adoption of a lefler evil, to prevent a greater. The prefent laws of the land were, in his opinion, inadequate to prevent the appearance of fuch publications as he had read, and of fuch meetings as had been held; new laws were of confequence neceffary. The debate clofed by twenty-two votes for Mr. Sheridan's motion, and one hundred and fixty-feven against it. name could be affixed fufficiently at the late trials: he infifted on defcriptive of fo vile a character? He cited the cafe of those informers at the Old Bailey, who fall under this defcription, and he reminded the houfe of the cruel treatment of Mr. Walker, of Manchester, who, though liberated on the proof of perjury in his accufer, received however no compenfation for his fufferings. The depravity of minifterial agents required indubitably to be checked, no less than the mifdemeanours of thofe whofe conduct they were employed to infpect. With forrow, faid Mr. Fox, he found himself compelled to bear a melancholy truth, which was, that the freedom of the fubject had been confiderably abridged fince the commencement of the prefent reign. It was vain to deny the difcontent of the people at the conduct of minifters: whereever popular meetings were held, this conduct was warmly and unanimously reprobated, as the caufe of public calamities. He had, Mr. Fox faid, been ftrongly impreffed with the reality of this perfuafion throughout the generality, by the unanimous marks of approbation he had met with that very morning from an affembly in Weftminfter, confifting of thirty thousand individuals at leaft, whom he had addreffed to the fame intent for which he was now fpeaking to the houfe, and who were apparently, almost to a man, convinced that he spoke the fenfe of the nation at large. The motion for an inquiry was oppofed by Mr. Pitt and the attorney-general, as creating a delay that might be productive of much danger. The tranquillity of the public required the prompteft meafures. The latter expreffed great folicitude in vindicating his conduct The fecond reading of the bill took place on the seventeenth of November. The liberty of fpeech was acknowledged by the folicitorgeneral to be a peculiar bleffing of the English conftitution, but it had lately been perverted by ill-defigning men, in fo glaring a manner, that the fafety of the ftate required it fhould be fo regulated, as to prevent the mifchiefs wherein they were aiming to render it infirumental. So far, in his judgement, were the provifions of the bill fufficiently reftrictive, for the purpose of curbing the licentioufnefs of the people, that they demanded additional reftraints on the intemperance of speech, daily increasing among the commonalty. The provifions enacted by the bill would, he afferted, confine the people within the falutary limits of lawful difcuffions, and effectually obviate thofe riotous proceedings, that were the inevitable refult of affemblies held by the vulgar claffes, without fome reftraint to keep them in order. The prefence of a magiftrate would completely effect this, without entrenching on their privilege to meet for the purpose of laying their grievances before the legiflature, and petitioning for redress. While this right remained untouch ed, |