relating to treafon, certain offences had been omitted that ought to be confidered and punished as fuch, they ought in fich cafe to be de

It was alerted in reply by lord Grenville, that it was owing to the firmnefs of parliament, that the feditious principles imported from France, and indufirioufly propagated in Eng land, had been fuccesfully refifted, and the conftitution protected against the malevolent deigns of its domeftic enemies. When the provitions of the intended bill came into examination, the neceffity of adopting it would be rendered manifeft; nor would it prevent the people from holding legal meetings. None but evil-difpofed perfons could fuffer by the enacting of fuch a law.

In anfwer to thefe allegations, the duke of Bedford, after declaring his difapprobation of the bill, expreted in ftrong terms his perfuation, that while it fill remained in their power to meet together, the people would every where affemble to teftify their averfenefs to fo gla ring an infringement on their freedom, in to explicit and refolute manner, that he could not think the houte would confent to a bill fo vifibly repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen.

a

It was obferved on this occafion by lord Radnor, that if in the old ftatutes of the reign of Edward III.

that meaning, in order to put men on their guard, and prevent them from committing what they would then know to be criminal. The question was then put, and carried for the printing of the bill.

On the tenth of November, the fecond reading of the bill was moved by lord Grenville, who obferved, that the feditions fpeeches and treafonable libels, circulated in the meeting that had been held near Copenhagen-house, three days only before the opening of the prefent feflions, had, in the opinion of all reflecting people, prompted that audacious fpirit which infulted the perfon of the fovereign, and bid defiance to the legiflature. The purpofe of the bill, he faid, was to prótect the king from fimilar outrages, and to punih treafonous proceedings. No punishments would be enacted by the bill for crimes not already acknowledged deferving of them; its fole intent was to include treafonable publications and difcourfes among them, as being no lets criminal in their confequences. It was high treafon to devife the king's death; to confpire against his perfon and government, as fpecified in the bill, amounted therefore to a degree of criminality that evidently merited the fevereft cháftilement, whether fuch confpiracy confifted in levying civil war against him, or in encouraging foreign enemies, by publications, writings, or fpeeches. The provifions of the bill were conformable to the principles admitted in the acts of Elizabeth and Charles II. and were as

fimilar

Emilar as circumftances would pera. Difficulties having arifen in the construction of the laws relating to treafon already in force, the intent of this bill was to explain and fix the meaning of thofe laws. It would not prohibit any act or meeting, allowed to be legal, but only provide a more fuitable punishment according to the degree of crimialty, than that ordained by the laws in force, as in various cafes, otwithstanding criminalty was evidently proved, an appofite punishment had not been enacted. On Lefe grounds he moved the fecond reading of the bill.

It was acknowledged by the duke of Bedford, that every man caght, in duty, to abhor the treatment offered to the king, and earneftly defire the punishment of the guilty; but the bill before the houfe did not tend to procure more fafety to the perfon of the fovereign, than the laws already exifting. There was no fufficient proof that the outrages committed were connected with the meetings to which they were attributed; and though minifters declared themfelves convinced of this connection, that was not fufficient to induce the huufe implicitly to coincide with Leir conviction. When the habeas corpus-act was fufpended, a felect Committee was appointed to inveftigate the neceffity of fuch a mear fure, and the proceedings on that occafion gave them at leaft an appearance of deliberation; but the prefent meafure required certainly much more confideration. It was not the temporary fufpenfion of an act. It was the enacting of a law entirely new to the fpirit of the conftitution, and which was undeniably an abridgement of the

liberty of the fubject. Before fo dangerous an innovation fhould be fuffered to pafs, parliament ought ferioufly to weigh its certain confequences against the mere allegations of its neceffity. The pretence of the bill was the security of the king's perfon; but, were the laws in being any ways deficient in that refpect? The duke then adverted to the times, from which the miniftry had borrowed their prefent proceedings, the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles II. but was it not an infult to the understandings of Englifhmen, to fpeak of fuch times as models fit to be copied; but even the precedents alluded to in those times would not authorife minifters to follow them. Thofe enacted in queen Elizabeth's reign were directed against the bulls iffued by the Pope, and thofe that were adopted under Charles II. paffed immediately after the refloration, when it was thought indifpenfible to protect him by the ftrongest fences against the fanatic rage of thofe who had oppofed it.

The duke of Bedford was warmly feconded by the earl of Lauderdale, who reprefented the actual fufferings of the people, as the causes of the outrage offered to the king. It was not aftonishing, he faid, that, among a hundred thoufand individuals cafually affembled, forty or fifty of them fhould be prompted, by the feelings of diftrefs, to exprefs them in that outrageous manner. Oppreffive and cruel laws were contrary to the difpofition of the people of this country, and tended to render them averfe to the government that framed them. The ftatutes of Edward III. were made at a time when the power of the crown was very great; yet the de [C2]

finition

finition of what was to be accounted treafon, was much clearer and precife than in the words of the prefent bill, which contained words and phrases, the meaning of which might be fo conftrued as to create new crimes at the option of minifters. There were times, he said, when refiftance on the part of the people was juftifiable, and even confidered as a duty, by great and well-known authorities. The heads of the law fhould not therefore be entrusted with a difcretionary power of extending, or interpreting the laws, as thereby the freedom of individuals could never be fecure; and as the fenfe of fuch a ftate of infecurity might juftly roufe them to fuch exertions, for the recovery of their rights, as might throw the realm into the most fatal diforders.

The ftatute of Edward III. was reprefented by lord Mansfield, in reply, as too lax and imperfect; it was not explanatory in various cafes fimilar to that which was now under confideration; it was not fufficient therefore to prevent or to punish adequately delinquencies of this nature. The ftatute against treafon in the reign of Elizabeth ferved as a precedent to that under queen Anne, and ought not to have been spoken of as unfit to be imitated. The laws enacted to the fame purpofe under Charles II. were pointed at the republican party at that day, which, like the fame party at the prefent, confifted of fworn enemies to monarchy, and of confequence to the fovereign that wore the crown: if it was deemed neceffary then to protect him from their fury, it was no lefs indifpenfible now, that principles of the most rebellious nature were openly circulated in

defiance of all law and government. He juftified the wording of the bill as fufficiently clear and intelligible, and was of opinion that seven years tranfportation was not too fevere for the offence on which the bill inflicted it.

The duke of Norfolk took this occafion to affert, that to the principle of refiftance the family of Brunfwick owed its exaltation to the British throne; this principle ought therefore never to be for-. gotten by the friends of liberty. Though they fhould be careful not to mifapply it, yet occafions might arife, as they had formerly arifen, when the application of it would become as neceflary as at the periods to which he alluded. From the evidence relating to the infult offered to the crown, he was perfuaded that meafures might cafily be adopted to prevent fuch outrages in future; but he thought himself bound to reject the bill produced by minifters in its prefent form, as invading the liberty of the fubject in a variety of refpects, and placing it too much at their dif pofal.

After other peers had delivered their opinions on the fubject, the duke of Bedford concluded it, by faying, that the reafonings against the bill had met with no adequate anfwers; they flood upon conftitutional ground, and though they might be out voted, they could not be refuted. The bill added nothing to the perfonal fafety of the king, but increased the power of the crown in a moft unconftitutional degree; he would therefore oppofe it, as a direct attack on the liberty of Englishmen. Should it unhappily pafs into a law, it would prove fo fatal an infringement on the consti

tution,

tution, that the public would foon be fenfible of the change effected in its condition, and lament, when too late, the fpiritlefs acquiefcence of thote who, forgetting their own dignity and intereft, as well as that of the nation, had facrificed it to unjuftinable motives, or personal views. On putting the queftion, it was carried in favour of miniftry by feventynine votes against eight.

On the fame day, Mr. Pitt moved in the house of commons, that the royal proclamations, in confequence of the late riot, fhould be taken into confideration. He groanded his motion on the neceffity of prevent ing fuch infults being offered to the fovereign, as he had experienced on the opening of the feffion. He prefamed every loyal fubject would unite with him on this occafion, and that methods would be taken to obviate thofe caufes from whence the outrages proceeded, which were the factious meetings of difaffected people, wherein feditious difcourfes were conftantly held, and principles maintained utterly fubverfive of good order and obedience to governiment. The pretence of thefe meetings was to-petition the legiflature for rights withheld from the people; but the real motive was, to promulgate opinions inimical to government, and calculated to bring it into contempt. If the executive power were not invested with fufficient authority to controul thefe meetings, they would finally endanger the exiftence of the state. It was, he acknowledged, the indubitable right of the people to país their judgement upon minifters and their measures, and freely to exprefs their fentiments on all political fubjects, as alfo to petition the different branches of the legiflature; but

thefe rights ought to be kept within their intended limits, and it was the duty of parliament to prevent their becoming inftrumental in the fubverfion of the effablished government. The rights of the people doubtlefs ought to be refpected, but it was equally indifpenfible to obviate their abufe. The queftion before the houfe was, to ule Mr. Pitt's own words, "Whether the preffure of the moment did not require an inftant remedy?" A precife and acknowledged power was wanted in the magiftrate to difperfe fuch meetings as threatened diforders. This power indeed ought not to extend to meetings held for lawful purposes, but only to authorife him to watch over the proceedings of any large affembly, whatever might be the object of thofe who affembled. To this intent, notice thould be given to the magiftrate previoufly to the intended meeting; he fhould be empowered to be prefent, and if it appeared of a feditious tendency, ta feize the guilty on the fpot; to obftruct him fhould be made felony; and if the meeting did not difperfe at his command, the penalties provided in the riot-act should be in flicted on the refractory There was, added Mr. Pitt, another fpecies of meeting, confifting of perfons who attended public lectures on political fubjects; the lecturers were inen notorioufly difaffected to government, and the doctrines they delivered were calculated to inftil the rankeft principles of refiftance and rebellion to the established powers. In order to obviate this effectually, the act againfi diforderly houfes fhould be applied to meetings of this kind, whenever they exceeded, by a number to be flated [C3]

in

in the act, the real family of the houfe." So alarming a restriction occafioned an immediate cry of hear him, on the oppofite fide, but Mr. Pitt perfifted in his determination, and moved for leave to introduce a bill for the prevention of feditious meetings.

The motion being read, Mr. Fox began a long and animated fpeech, by declaring his abhorrence of the treatment offered to the king, but profeffed himself no lefs offended at the difcourfe he had just heard. An attempt had been made to found the necefity of framing the bill propofed on the proceedings of the aflemblies fo highly reprobated by minifters, who contended that they ftruck at the exiftence of parliament itself; but if fuch were the real cafe, were not those who broached these rebellious tenets amenable to the law, and liable, on conviction, to condign punishment? There was no evidence that the late outrages, though juftly complained of, originated in the meetings alluded to. Proclamations were no evidence; they were the fabrication of minifters, frequently to ferve the worft purposes. Public difcuffions, on national fubjects, were not only legal, but the very life of the English constitution; without these no liberty could fubfift. The hill, it was laid, would not prevent, but only regulate them. "But attend, faid Mr. Fox, to the regulation; I thought, he continued, that I knew the rights of men, and the rights of Englishmen." A great cry arifing of hear him: "What, faid he, do you fuppofe it a flip, and that the rights of man is a fentence without a meaning have men no natural rights? if fo, Englifhmen's rights

ני

can have no exiftence. The rights of man, I fay, are clear: man has natural rights, and he who denies it is ignorant of the bafis of a free government: he is ignorant of the firft principles of ours, for thefe rights are connected with the best parts of the hiftory of our country.' The people, Mr. Fox continued, had an inalienable right to deliberate on their grievances, and to demand redrefs from the legiflature, but were forbidden by this bill to exercise these rights without the attendance of a magiftrate, and previous notice to him of their intention. He was empowered to arrest any one prefent, whofe words he might think proper to call feditious, and even to diffolve the meeting at his own pleafure." Say then at once, Mr. Fox exclaimed, that a free conftitution is no longer fuitable to

us.

Conduct yourselves at once as the fenators of Denmark did: lay down your freedom, and acknowledge and accept of defpotifm, but do not mock the underftandings and the feelings of mankind, by telling the world that you are free. Can a meeting, under fuch reftrictions as the bill requires, be called a meeting of free people? is it poffible to make the people of this country believe that the plan is any thing but a total annihilation of their liberty."

After fome ftrictures on the number of perfons to whom the bill limited henceforth all meetings; "behold, purfued Mr. Fox, the ftate of a free Englishman; before he can difcufs any topic which involves his liberty, or his rights, he is to fend to a magiftrate, who is to attend the dif cuffion; that magiftrate cannot prevent the meeting, but he can prevent their fpeaking, because he can allege that what is faid has a ten

dency