fufpicions ought to be against minifters for undue compliances, of which, if guilty, they thould not be faffered to efcape the punifhment 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 thofe 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 exiftence 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 justify the frong measures in contempla tion, which were evidently neceffary to check the turbulent difpofition that had gone forth. It did not amount to abfolute treafon, but it approached so 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 proceed VOL: XXXVIII. 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 afferted 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 fate of things merited no attention; they were framed to deceive the public, and had neither truth nor even plausibility; they contradicted each other in the moft perceptible manner, and could not therefore be relied on; the loyalty of the people and their attachment to government were one day infifted upon, and the next they were charged with factiousness and democratic principles. Was this a ftyle of fpecking 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 meannefs of mifreprefenting it to the fovereign, or of endeavouring to conceal 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 fpies. 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 use words and to adopt propofals, far more reprehenfible than they firft intended. What [D] name name could be affixed fufficiently at the late trials: he infifted on defcriptive of fo vile a character? He cited the case 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 Manchefter, 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 witnefs to 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 cause 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 aflembly in Weftminfter, confifting of thirty thousand individuals at least, whom he had addrefled to the fame intent for which he was now fpeaking to the houfe, and who were apparently, almoft to a man, convinced that he spoke the fenfe of the nation at large. the propriety of the bill in queftion, which, he said would, at the worst, prove the adoption of a leffer evil, to prevent a greater. The present 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 neceflary. The debate clofed by twenty-two votes for Mr. Sheridan's motion, and one hundred and fixty-feven against it. 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 promptest meafures. The latter expreffed great folicitude in vindicating his conduct The second reading of the bill took place on the feventeenth 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 inftrumental. 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 fpeech, 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 magistrate would completely effect this, without entrenching on their privilege to meet for the purpose of laying their grievances before the legil lature, and petitioning for redrefs. While this right remained untouch ed, ed, and was only fubjected to regulations for its more beneficial exercife, it was unreafonable to coinplain of its being extinguifhed. The folicitor, fpeaking of the purity and independence of the British parliament, took this occafion to condemn the fyftem adopted by the French, of allowing falaries to the reprefentatives of the nation. Hence, he afferted, arose the calamities of France. It was a practice which had long been relinquished by this country, and which denoted the prudence of the people and government. He alfo advanced another maxim, which was, that revolutions were always the work of minorities: thefe ufually confifted of fpirited and active individuals, who were not deterred by difficulties, and whofe refolution and perfeverance rendered them indefatigable, and enabled them finally to overcome the majorities that oppofed their defigns. Thefe majorities being compofed of the peaceable and well-affected to government, though acting with loyalty, did not exert themfelves with a fervour equal to that of their anlagonifts, whofe vigour and anination in purfuing the objects for which they were contending, infpired them with exertions too violent to be refifted by men, who had only ordinary motives to influence them, while the others were prompted by that multiplicity of paffions which actuate men who are ftriving to exalt themselves above others, and to expel them from the feat of power, in order to occupy it themfelves. From the various reafonings that had been ufed in fupport of the bill, he inferred, that as the laws in force did not fufficiently apply to the numerous meetings and affociations, where the feditious principles complained of were encouraged, laws that might clearly be directed against them, ought of courfe to be enacted. In reply to the folicitor-general, Mr. Erikine pofitively denied the bill's confiftency with the principles of the British conftitution. Neither in the reign of Charles II. nor of William III. nor in those that followed, though two of them were marked by rebellions, had the miniftry dared to attempt fuch an infringement on the liberty of the fubject; and yet the firft of thefe reigns was immediately after thofe commotions that had brought a king to the fcaffold: the fecond was noted for the obftinacy with which the adherents to a dethroned momarch exerted themfelves in his caule, even to the attempting the very life of the prince upon the throne: In the height of the rebellion of 1745, no minifter had ventured to fetter the nation in the manner propofed by the prefent bill. Even the very framers of it, when they futpended the habeas-corpus-act, and were preparing their materials for the late trials, had abstained from this glaring invafion of national freedom. No plots had fince arifen, corroborated with any proofs, to arm minifters with a juft pretence for fo outrageous an attack on the confitution; the fundamentals of which were fo materially affected by it, that the right to petition, on which the fecurity of the people against oppreflion effentially depended, would be utterly deftroyed. The bill forbad all difcuflion that was not fanctioned by a magiftrate. Did not fuch a claufe empower migiftrates appointed by, and removable at the will of the crown, to be judges of the nature of the petitions [D2] of of the people? was it prefumable that fuch perfons would permit a petition, militating against any minifterial measure, to be brought forward in a popular meeting? but whatever the favourers of abfolute powers might advance in fupport of fuch a bill, it took away at once the right inherent in the people to refift a tyrannical government. The public meetings had been charged with fpeaking bold language; but there were occafions that warranted the boldeft language. The people of England had inalienably the right to defend their liberties to the laft extremity fuch were the fentiments of the great lord Chatham, and fuch were his own. In no fituation would he defert that caufe, and was determined never to die a flave. It was, in the mean time, with the heaviest concern, that he obferved a circumftance pregnant with much calamity: this was the eftrangement of the higher claffes from the lower: this had been the radical caufe of the evils that had befallen France. Previoufly to the revolution there were but two orders of fociety in that country, a haughty and domineering nobility, and a wretched oppreffed multitude. Hence arofe the refentments of the lower claffes, who beheld themfelves tyrannifed over by a profligate court and government, to which, for that reafon, they did not conceive themfelves bound to fubmit. Arguing from this weighty precedent, Mr. Erkine warned the poffeffors of power, and the owners of great property in this country, to be ware of the fatal examples before them, and not to abet a law by which the people's liberties muit neceflarily be abrogated, and a fpirit of revenge excited in them which would inevitably break forth foon or late. Compulfion, and the dread of for e might induce them to fubmit awhile to their oppreffors; but it would be a fullen fubmiffion, and though it might even laft a few years, the remembrance of liberty would ftill furvive, and prompt them in an evil hour for the deftroyers of their freedom, to refume it on fome aufpicious opportunity, and to take the moft fignal vengeance upon its enemies. In corroboration of his fentiments, Mr. Erfkine referred to the fpeech of the chief juftice, at the late trials for high treafon at the Old Bailey. "Among the objects of the attention of freemen, faid the chief juftice, the principles of government, the conftitutions of particular governments, and, above all, the conftitution of the government under which they live, will naturally engage their attention, and provoke fpeculation. The power of communication of thoughts and opinions is the gift of God, and the freedom of it is the fource of all science, the first fruit, and the ultimate happinefs of fociety; and therefore it seems to follow, that human laws ought not to interpose, nay, cannot interpofe to prevent the communication of fentiments and opinions in voluntary affemblies of men." So dangeroufly was the bill framed, that it was in the power of any one individual prefent at a meeting to occafion its diffolution, by fpeaking a few feditious words, that would inftantly authorise the prefiding magiftrate to put an end to it on that pretence; but was it not clear that for a paultry gratification, a hireling might be found to afford this pretence to a ministerial juftice for executing the mandates of his employer? It was falle that no law exifted to prevent feditious proceedings: a magiftrate had rican war. bad it always in his option to diffolve a diforderly affembly, when it was evidently accompanied by a breach of the peace; and by the riot-act he was explicitly empowered to difperfe meetings held on unlawful purposes. Mr. Erfkine next proceeded to expofe the change of fentiments in the English on matters of government. Mr. Burke had, he faid, already taken notice of this alteration fo long ago as the Ame"We begin, his words were, to acquire the fpirit of domination, and to lofe the relifh of honeft equality: the principles of our forefathers become fufpected to us, because we see them animating the prefent oppofition of their American defcendants. The faults which grow out of the luxuriance of freedom, appear much more fhocking to us than thofe vices which are generated from the ranknefs of fervitude." Thus, faid Mr. Erskine, neither the idea, nor the term of equality, were ftrangers to our language till lately, as fome time fervers would infinuate. It were wiler in the higher ranks to cherish this idea, than to affect a feceflion from the commonalty, and to hold it beneath their dignity to make one common caufe with them. The great ought ferioufly to weigh the confequences that muft certainly enfue from a conteft between them and the little. It would indicate a fpirit of difunion in this country, of which the French would not fail to avail themfelves; far worse would be the conditions of a treaty with them in fuch a cafe, than if they found us united in difpofition and interefts. Mr. Erkine, reverting to the motives alleged in fupport of the bill, faid, becaufe, while the fovereign was going to parliament, at a time when a complication of calamities had rendered the poor defperate, a few wretches were guilty of outrages to him, for which they might have been punished by ftatutes long exifting, the whole nation is at once to lose the privilege on which it juftly fets the highest value. The ftatute enacted in the thirteenth of Charles II. was, he obferved, the acknowledged precedent of the prefent bill: by the tenour of that ftatute one hundred thousand individuals might affemble in order to concert together a petition: the only prohibitions contained in that act, were, to hawke the petition about for thofe to fign, who might not know of the grievances complained of, and that more than ten perfons fhould prefent the petition to the king. It alfo empowered magiftrates to interpofe their authority when overt acts of tumult took place, and to require fecurity against any breach of the peace; but no meeting nor communication of thoughts were forbidden: tumultuously petitioning was the only thing forbidden. How different, exclaimed Mr. Erskine, was this act from the bill now depending, which even prevented men from petitioning. He concluded by animadverting on the language once ufed by Mr. Pitt himlelf, on the fubject of parliamentary reform. "We had loft America, were the minifter's words, through the corruption of an unreformed parliament, and we fhould never have a wife and honourable administration, nor be freed from the evils of unneceffary war, nor the fatal effects of the funding fyftem, till a radical reform was obtained." But the man who had fpoken thefe true and memorable words was the fame who now charged with fedition all [D3] thofe |