صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

spectfully. The crown, for instance, most abhorrence that words could might be reprefented as the power utter. The earl, in partionlar, af

paramount to lords and commons, and totally, by right, independent of their controul; and the man that had made fuch an asseveration, might, instead of rebuke and punishment, meet with approbation and reward, while he, that dared to infinuate the contrary, would expose himself to the wrath of government. A time, indeed, might come, when the principles that feated the house of Brunfwick on the British throne, might be reprobated, and held forth as proofs of disloyalty in those who maintained them, while those who pleaded the cause of the preroga tive, 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 tranfportation for seven years, any per fon convicted of having offended, a second time, against the purport of the bill. He thought the penalty far exceeded the offence, and spoke, he faid, as a man that felt himself liable to incur it. He took this occafion to condemn, in bitter terms, an expression that had fallen from bishop Horfley in the warmth of his antipathy to writings published on parliamentary reform. The bishop's reply to the duke's animadverfions was, that the bill referred only to those feditious meetings where the difcuffion of laws was attempted by perfons incompetent to judge of their propriety; nor did he know, "what the mafs of the people, in any country, had to do with the laws, but to obey them."

An observation of this nature, drew, from the duke of Bedford, and the earl of Lauderdale, the ut

3

firmed, that had a Turkish mufti made fuch a declaration, in his prefence, he thould have imputed it to his ignorance; but to hear it from the mouth of a British prelate, excited his surprise no less than his indignation.

It may not be out of place to remark, that these words of the bishop did him confiderable differvice, not only with the public, but with the minifterial party, who were abundantly sensible how much their cause was injured by fuch immoderate zeal, whether fincere or affected.

The bill, on the division, was carried by forty-five votes againft

three.

The third reading of the bill took place on the thirteenth of November, when the earl of Lauderdale proposed to extend the operation of it to Scotland, and to fubftitute it to the laws provided there againft the like offences; obferving, in fupport of his proposal, that more feverity could not be requifite in Scotland, where the people were peaceably inclined, than in England, where a ftrong party was formed against the exifting government. But his proposal was immediately negatived.

The bill was again opposed, 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 witness of his abhorrence of that bill, which he confidered as a mortal ftab to the English constitution, given, in defpite of every remonftrance, by a ministry, determined to strike at every

:

every thing that stood in the way 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 usual, he said, 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 those who were become the rulers of this. What was it, he asked, that plunged France into those diforders and confufions that brought about the revolution? Surely not the field-meetings of the people, nor the discussions in private clubs, but the profligacy of a vicious court, and the licentious lives of the heads of the French nation, whose immoral characters loft them the efteem and respect of their countrymen; but the cause which principally accelerated that event was the iniquitous conduct of their government, and the corrupt subserviency of fuccessive ministries to the wicked ambition of those who, unhappily for that kingdom, poffessed the confidence of weak sovereigns, and involved them in contests and wars that drained the refources of the nation, and reduced the people to misery. These, together with the intolerable oppref fions exercised upon the commonalty, excited that resentment of their wrongs, and that resolution to oppose tyranny, which produced the revolution. True it was, that the perfonal character of the monarch, on the British throne, was highly respectable and exemplary; but the perverseness of his minifters, in forcing his people into a war, neither of their choice nor to their interest, in lavishing their money

for its profecution against their res peated wishes for its termination, in creating places and emoluments for the abettors of this ruinous fyftem, and in adopting the feverest and most unconftitutional measures against all who had the spirit to op pose them: these and other instances of obstinacy, arrogance, and contempt of the people's rights and interests, fully justified him in calling their conduct unconftitutional and corrupt.

The duke was answered by lord Grenville, who went over the fame grounds of arguments already urged in support of the bill. He did not deny the duke's affertions respecting 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 enjoy the happiness of a constitution fimi lar to their own. But the horrible events that ensued owed their caufes to the lawless principles maintained in the clubs and diforderly associations 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 same plan as those in France. Like them, they taught principles utterly fubverfive of ancient laws and conftitutions, and inimical to the moral and religious order of things established for centuries. These were certainly most dangerous innovations, and tended evidently to throw this, and any country, into the most satal diforders. They ought, therefore, to be refifted, and it would argue fear or imbicillity not to oppose them in the firmest and most effectual manner, by holding out the severest chasti'ements to those who endeavoured to diffeminate principles of so pernicious and destructive a tendency.

ner,

It was with much animal vehemence infifted on by the earl of Lauderdale, that the safety of ministers was much more confulted by this bill than that of the king. They were conscious, that if the people were fuffered to meet together, their reiterated remonftrances could not fail, at last, to make fome impreffion to their prejudice. The privilege of difcuffing parliamentary transactions had never yet been called in question or thought dangerous. The more important the question brought before the legiflature, the greater was the propensity as well as the interest of the public to examine and fcrutinize it. If this privilege was allowed in matters of little importance, it ought, indubitably, to hold good in affairs of great and weighty concern to the nation. Minifters had tried how far the law would bear them out in their endeavours to establish the doctrine of constructive treason; but the attempt was so odious, that it failed; the present, 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 themselves so powerfully as to fruftrate it, notwithstanding all ministerial arts and efforts in its favour. The debate finally concluded by fixty-six votes for the paffing of the bill and seren against it. The duke of Bedford and the earls of Derby and Lauderdale entered very folemn and spirited protest in opposition

to it.

10

a

In the house of commons, the fame influence prevailed as in the house of lords. A message 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 requesting their concurrence. Pitt, in consequence, moved its first 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.

Mr.

It being observed by lord Eardley, that a public meeting had been held on Sunday by perfons who opposed the bill, a transaction which he looked upon as too much in the style of French principles, Mr. Sheridan observed, that the meeting was justified by its object. which was to prepare a hand-bill to dissuade the people from tumult and riot.

In conjunction with Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Lambton, Mr. Sheridan proposed, that, previously to the discussion of the bill, a committee should be appointed to inquire into the particulars of the insult offered to the king. This was oppofed by ministry as disrespectful in the first stage of a bill, framed for the security of the sovereign, and laid before them by the house of lords; but Mr. Sheridan insisted, that no proofs had been adduced to authorize so harsh a measure, and that ministers had no right to bring forward such a bill without the clearest proofs of its necessity. Ministers were bound, in their own justification, to make it appear to the public that they acted ingenuously and upon fair grounds, the cafe being of such im portance and magnitude, that no fufpicions fufpicions ought to be against minifters for undue compliances, of which, if guilty, they should not be fuffered to escape the punishment annexed to their responsibility. It was equally abfurd and unconstitutional to build any argument on the proclamations which were well known to be fabricated by minifters, and to deserve no more credit than the informers, reporters, and spies, employed by them in the profecution of those whom they were compelled to release for want of better evidence. The doctrine of king-killing had been imputed to the meeting at Copenhagenhouse; but, had fuch an imputation been founded, "profecutions" faid Mr. Sheridan, "must have taken place against the guilty, or elfe there inuft have been great neglect in the magiftrates and the executive government;" but this being highly improbable, neither was the charge itself to be credited. On these premises he moved, "that a committee should 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, spoken at the popular meetings, was such, anfwered Mr. Powis, that no other evidence could be needed to justify the strong measures in contemplation, which were evidently neceffary to check the turbulent difpofition that had gone forth. It did not amount to abfolute treason, but it approached so nearly to it as to call not only for immediate restriction but for adequate punishment; none being provided by any law in force, an act ought to be passed, both to restrain and punith the of fenders in future. The proceed VOL. XXXVIII.

ings of the various assemblies of the people, both in England and Scotland, were invariably conformable to those 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 füpported the motion for an inquiry, and afferted the fufficiency of the exifting laws for the fuppression of confpiracies against the ftate, and that if they were not enforced the minifters themselves were to blame. Their reprefentations of the state of things merited no attention; they were framed to deceive the ublic, and had neither truth nor even plausibility; they contradicted each other in the most 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 factioufness and democratic principles. Was this a style of speeking 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 meanness of mifreprefenting it to the fovereign, or of endeavouring to conceal it from the legiflature? Mr. Fox,, on this occafion, exprefied particular indignation at the behaviour of fome individuals employed by adminiftration in the capacity of spies. In order to discover the defigns of those they were commiffioned to watch over, they affected to enter into their fentiments, and excited them to ufe words and to adopt proposals, far more reprehenfible than they first intended. What [D]

naine

the propriety of the bill in question,
which, be faid would, at the worst,
prove the adoption of a lesser evil,
to prevent a greater. The present
laws of the land were, in his opi-
nion, inadequate to prevent the ap-
pearance of fuch publications as he
had read, and of fuch meetings as
had been held; new laws were of
consequence necessary. The de-
bate closed by twenty-two votes
for Mr. Sheridan's motion, and one
hundred and fixty-seven against it.
The fecond reading of the bill
took place on the seventeenth of
November. The liberty of speech
was acknowledged by the folicitor-
general to be a peculiar blessing of
lately been perverted by ill-defign-

name could be affixed fufficiently at the late trials: he infisted στα
defcriptive of so vile a character?
He cited the cafe of those informers
at the Old Bailey, who fall under
this defcription, and he reminded
the house 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 mi-
nifterial agents required indubitably
to be checked, no less than the mif-
demeanours of those whose conduct
they were employed to inspect.
With forrow, faid Mr. Fox, he
found himself compelled to bear
witness to a melancholy truth,
which was, that the freedom of
the fubject had been confiderably the English conftitution, but it had
abridged fince the commencement
of the prefent reign. It was vain ing men, in so glaring a manner,
to deny the difcontent of the people
at the conduct of minifters: where-
ever popular meetings were held,
this conduct was warmly and una-
nimoufly 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 allembly in Westminster,
confifting of thirty thousand indivi-
duals at least, whom he had addrefied
to the fame intent for which he was
now speaking to the house, and who
were apparently, almost to a man,
convinced that he fpoke 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 prompteit meafures. The latter exprefied great folicitude in vindicating his conduct

that the fafety of the state required
it should be so regulated, as to pre-
vent the mischiefs wherein they
were aiming to render it inftru-
mental. So far, in his judgement,
were the provifions of the bill fuf-
ficiently reftrictive, for the purpose
of curbing the licentioufnefs of the
people, that they demanded ad-
ditional reftraints on the intemper-
ance of speech, daily increating
among the commonalty. The pro-
vifions enacted by the bill would,
he afferted, confine the people with-
in the falutary limits of lawful dif-
cuffions, and effectually obviate
thofe riotous proceedings, that were
the inevitable refult of afsemblies
held by the vulgar clafles, without
fome reftraint to keep them in or-
der. The prefence of a magiftrate
would completely effect this, with-
out entrenching on their privilege
to meet for the purpose of laying
their grievances before the legif.
lature, and petitioning for redress.
While this right remained untouch-
ed,

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »