1

the king's person, and government, was formally read, and produced long and spirited debates on its various clauses. The duke of Leeds moved, that, instead of the word, government, in the second clause, the words, confifting of king, lords, and commons, should be substituted, as defining, more specifically, the constitution, than the word, govern

ment.

The lord chancellor, and lord Grenville, were of a different opinion; but lord Thurlow afferted the difficulty of defining, with exactness, the terms, government and conftitution; the penalties enacted by the second clause appeared to him unduly severe. Was it equitable to criminate a man for saying it was an abuse, that twenty acres of land, hear Old Sarum, should fend two members to parliament? The laws in existence were, in his judge. ment, amply sufficient to punish every crime, and misdemeanour, therein alluded to, without needing its assistance. He reprobated the system of adding new laws and penalties to those already enacted, and condemned the whole of this clause, together with the following one, by which minifters were empowered to profecute difcretionally.

Much surprize was expressed by the lord chancellor, at the opinion delivered by lord Thurlow. The enormity of the offences, at which this claufe was pointed, must, he faid, be acknowledged by all who read the publications of the day: they were, in every sense, directed against the existence of the government, and the conftitetion: they explicitly told the people, that they were in no wife bound to submit to their rulers: that monarchy was

aristocracy an oppressive institution: they boldly gave the public to understand, that both these branches of the constitution ought to be lopped away, and democracy alone to remain; threatening, at the fame time, to lose no opportunity of carrying those purposes into execution. Were such flagitious designs, faid the lord chancellor, permitted to be avowed, in the undisguised, infulting, manner they had fo long been, to the astonishment and indignation of the sensible part of the public, what must become of the authority of the state, and of the fafety of all its component members? Was it not evident, that all the evils which had afflicted this nation, in the last century, and all those experienced by France, at the present hour, would be renewed in this country, did not the legislature proceed with expedition and spirit to put put a stop to the dissemination of those principles that tended, so manifestly, to produce such calamities?

The lord chancellor was supported by lord Mansfield, and opposed by lord Lauderdale, who noticed, that instead of encountering the arguments of lord Thurlow, he had described the pernicious ten-dency of the writings circulated by the democratic faction, which had not been denied, and which were no less deprecated by the parliamentary opposition to ministry, than by minifters themselves. But the fact was, that we lived in times, when the partiality to one branch of the conftitution, was such, that revilers of the others might go unnoticed and unpunished, while that alone would be fenced and protected by clauses and penalties against those that spoke, or wrote, of it difrespectfully.

T

would never be refused an attentive hearing.

Mr. Sheridan severely animadverted on the motives affigned by Mr. Wilberforce for fupporting the bill. Instead of strengthening public liberty, it went directly to destroy it, by filencing every voice that might have heard in its defence. Minifters had boldly afferted, that one of the fortunate confequences of the war, was the eradication of French principles; but the false hood of this assertion was evident, from their gradual increase through out the multitude, The difcuffions of the people would now, he observed, be wholly at the disposal of minifterial dependants and agents, either to permit, or to forbid, as they thought proper, or, more probably, as they were directed. Thus, in fact, that liberty of speech, upon which Englithmen were wont to value themselves, they would hereafter hold barely upon fufferance. Were the bill to pass, he should confider the house of commons as no longer able to express the real fentiments of their conftituents, who, when restrained, by terror, from the manifeftation of their thoughts, would not have it in their power to lay them before their reprefentatives, between whom, and themselves, that free communication of ideas, on the national business, muft ceale, which conftituted the principal basis of English liberty.

The bill was opposed allo by Mr. Martin, who explicitly charged the minifter with having fcized the opportunity of the late riots, to raife an alarm throughout the nation, that might be converted to the fupport of the ruinous measures in which he was still refolved to perfift. War, alone, was now become the object

of ministers. They studied to propagate the like infatuation in every part of the country, which now exhibited endless scenes of military parade. The bill tended, as other minifterial meafures, to introduce an arbitrary system of government. This was evidently the project which he must have formed, by accompanying it with fo many reftrictions on the perfonal freedom of individuals. There was a time, when the people of this land would not have borne fuch an audacious attempt on their liberties, nor any minister have dared to try the experiment.

Mr. Windham sharply contended in favour of the bill. He obferved, that loud affeverations, of the lofs of liberty, were heard from the oppofition in the house, and the popular meeting: a marked unanimity of sentiments fubfifted between them. But it was time to fupprefs these fentiments, wherever they took occafion to manifeft themselves, by punishing, with merited feverity, their propagators and abettors. It was abfurd to affect an ignorance of the designs in agitation at the meetings of the commonalty, and of the focieties, that pretended to have no other object in view, than peace and reform. Their object was to concert the methods that were most likely to embarrass and fubvert the present government, and to fubftitute another more confiftent with their own notions, which were, in fact, those adopted in France. This was the country of their predilection, and to the arms and councils of which they notorioufly wished every possibe fuccefs against the machinations of so dangerous a party, exifting in the bofom, as it were, of the nation, and ftriving, with indefatigable efforts, to infule into it the poifon poison of their detestable opinions. Was it not the duty, as well as the interest, of the legislature, to arm itself with every precaution? Every man that valued his country, and its conftitution, would, on this occafion, come forward, and join, with heart and hand, in its preservation from the calamities that must be fall it, were the French, and their English adherents, to fucceed in their defigns against this country, It was against those united enemies the present bill entirely militated: it was inimical to no Englishman that loved his country. In the actual circumstances of affairs, it was the only remedy applicable to the mif chiefs meditated by our foes abroad and at home, who, if not impeded in their plans, by the measures so judicioufly propofed, would continue to carry them on, till it might become highly difficult to frustrate them. These plans were, undeniably to overturn every political inftitution differing from that established in France, which they boastingly afserted was the only just and lawful one in Europe. He would ask every man of fpirit and patriotism in that house, and in the whole nation, whether fuch presumption were fupportable? Could it be deemed unjust to take up arms against so af fuming and arrogant a people, or to frame acts for the counter-acting of those among ourselves, who were either fo weak, or fo wicked, as to abet them? The bill he allowed to be of a nature hitherto unknown, and new to the ideas of the people of this country; but extraordinary cafes required extraordinary treatment. Enormities, uncommonly atrocious, must be encountered by laws adequately fevere. Such was the rage that actuated the enemies

to government, that they had cir culated opinions and fentiments tending, unequivocally, to affect the king's life. Could the legislature, confiftently with its profesled attachment to the fovereign, and, with its own reputation and dignity, pass by, unpunished, fo execrable a violation of all principles on which the constitution of the land, and the peace of the public, was founded? Did ever any government fuffer indiviquals, of this character, openly to meet and confult together in the face of day? They had too long been tolerated, and it were a difgrace to parliament, and would argue pufillanimity, to allow them to meet any more. No fuch meetings were permitted by the new conftitution lately adopted in France, however the rulers, in that country, might be ready to avail themselves of our imprudence, in having fo long, and so unpardonably, connived at them.

In reply to these allegations, it was observed, by Mr. Gray, that ministry, after exulting in the extinction of democratic principles, operated by their vigilance, now came forward with a bill, which they founded on the neceffity of obviating the alarming progress they had made, and were daily making, throughout the nation: to which of thefe affertions were we to give credit? If those principles were not extinguished, miniftry had been deceived, or had endeavoured to deceive the public. If they were, in reality, extinguished, the bill they propofed to pass against them origipated from other motives; and those could be no other, than to filence the complaints of the people, enraged at their misconduct, and, chiefly, at their perfifting in it, notwithstanding

withstanding the admonition of constant experience, daily proving, in the face of Europe, that they had undertaken what was impracticable, or, at least, what they had not abilities to execute. The connection between the meetings, and the infult offered to the king, instead of being fupported by the least evidence, was totally disproved by every circumstance. But ministers wanted a pretence for depriving the people of that privilege which they moft dreaded, that of expofing their incapacity, their imprudence, or their evil designs. Which of those imputations lay heaviest on ministry it was hard to decide; but the public, at large, loudly charged them with every one of them. The standing laws were of fufficient energy to reach and to punish conspiracy and sedition. To what end were additional ones to be enacted, unless to arm ministry with powers unknown to the conftitution; and which, from their incompatibility with its nature, muft unavoidably affect its deftruction. It was, therefore, incumbent upon every friend to the conftitution to oppose the bill with the firmest perfeverance, as the paffing of it would prove the fureft ftep towards that uncontroulable fituation, wherein ministers had fo long, and so visibly, made every effort to place themselves. After a few other remarks, on each fide of the question, the motion for bringing in the bill was carried by two hundred and fourteen against forty

two.

The propriety of a call of the house, previously to the decifion of fso weighty a matter, being insisted on by Mr. Fox, he was told, by Mr. Dundas, that he had fo little objection to his demand, that, unless

it could be made apparent, that a plurality of the people fided with ministry on this occafion, the bill ought certainly not to pass, but he was fully fatisfied of its being generally approved. He had, he faid, " been befieged in his office, for months paft, with applications for fuch a bill." It was in concurrence with the defire of a great number of persons of weight with ministers, that they had been perfuaded to bring it into parliament.

The speech of Mr. Dundas gave occafion to Mr. Sheridan of making some pointed observations. Minilters, he said, had, in the first instance, grounded the necessity of the bill upon the outrageous behaviour of the populace; but the force of truth had now compelled them to acknowledge, however inadvertently, that this bill had long before been refolved upon: thus the profeffions of minifters were unworthy of credit, and their arguments ftood upon no justifiable grounds; they made the first in defiance of truth, and they used the second with undeniable confciousness of their impropriety. Mr. Sheridan concluded by intimating that minifterial refentment, at their disappointment in the trial of Hardy, and the other members of the corresponding fociety, had, ever fince, been brooding over the means of obtaining revenge.

Mr. Maurice Robinson, and Mr. Grey, feconded the motion of Mr. Fox for a call of the house, before a final decifion took place in a bufiness of fuch universal concern to the nation: the motion was agreed to accordingly, and the call appointed for that day fortnight.

In a committee of the whole house of peers, on the eleventh of November, the king's person, and government, was formally read, and produced long and spirited debates on its various clauses. The duke of Leeds moved, that, instead of the word, government, in the second clause, the words, confifting of king, lords, and commons, should be substituted, as defining, more specifically, the constitution, than the word, govern

ment.

The lord chancellor, and lord Grenville, were of a different opinion; but lord Thurlow afferted the difficulty of defining, with exactness, the terms, government and conftitution; the penalties enacted by the second clause appeared to him unduly fevere. Was it equitable to criminate a man for saying it was an abuse, that twenty acres of land, near Old Sarum, should fend two members to parliament? The laws in existence were, in his judge. ment, amply sufficient to punish every crime, and misdemeanour, therein alluded to, without needing its afsistance. He reprobated the system of adding new laws and penalties to those already enacted, and condemned the whole of this clause, together with the following one, by which minifters were empowered to profecute difcretionally.

Much surprize was expressed by the lord chancellor, at the opinion delivered by lord Thurlow.

The

enormity of the offences, at which this clause was pointed, must, he faid, be acknowledged by all who read the publications of the day: they were, in every sense, directed against the existence of the govern ment, and the conftitetion: they explicitly told the people, that they were in no wife bound to fubmit to their rulers; that monarchy was

aristocracy an oppressive institution: they boldly gave the public to understand, that both these branches of the constitution ought to be lopped away, and democracy alone to remain; threatening, at the fame time, to lose no opportunity of carrying those purposes into execution. Were fuch flagitious designs, faid the lord chancellor, permitted to be avowed, in the undisguised, infulting, manner they had fo long been, to the astonishment and indignation of the sensible part of the public, what must become of the authority of the state, and of the fafety of all its component members? Was it not evident, that all the evils which had afflicted this nation, in the last century, and all those experienced by France, at the present hour, wo would be renewed in this country, did not the legislature proceed with expedition and spirit to put a stop to the dissemination of those principles that tended, so manifestly, to produce such calamities?

The lord chancellor was fupported by lord Mansfield, and opposed by lord Lauderdale, who noticed, that instead of encountering the arguments of lord Thurlow, he had described the pernicious ten-dency of the writings circulated by the democratic faction, which had not been denied, and which were no less deprecated by the parliamentary oppofition to ministry, than by ministers themselves. But the fact was, that we lived in times, when the partiality to one branch of the constitution, was such, that revilers of the others might go unnoticed and unpunished, while that alone would be fenced and protected by clauses and penalties against those that spoke, or wrote, of it difrespectfully.