dency to disturb the peace of the kingdom." Mr. Fox hoped that the people would perceive the danger that threatened their freedom, and meet together, while it ftill remained lawful, to confult in what manner to preserve it from the infringement designed in the bill propofed, and to express their detestation of it. He had feen and heard of revolutions, but experience had fhewn they were not owing to the freedom of popular meetings, but to the tyranny exerted to enflave men. The French revolution arofe from minifterial oppreffions, and the arbitrary proceedings of a despotic government that held the people in continual dread, and filenced their very fears by the terror of those punishments fufpended over those who dared to utter their fentiments. If the people's complaints were groundless, the less they were noticed, the fooner they would cease, as false furmises would very foon be difcovered and lofe their effect; but, if well-founded, the efforts made to repress them must terminate, either in a bafe minded fubmiffion of the people, or in a resistance fatal to their rulers as well as to themselves. Were the introduction of fuch a bill infifted on, he thought himself bound, previously to any farther difcuffion, to move for a call of the houfe.

Mr. Fox was supported by Mr. Stanley, who explicitly affirmed, that if the bill should pass, he should confider this country as on the eve of a revolution. He reminded ministers of the well-known affertion of Montesquieu, that a numerous increase of penal laws was a fure prognostication of a flate's verging to its decline. This alone

appeared to him a fufficient motive for opposing so oppressive a bill. There existed laws adequate to the fuppreffion of unlawful meetings; but the bill was, in fact, the feverest libel on the good sense and attachment of Englishmen to their constitution; it represented them as insensible of its worth, incapable of enjoying liberty, and deferving, for that reason, to be deprived of it.

In answer to these arguments, fir William Pulteney admonished the opposers of the bill to confider it impartially, before they described it in such odious colours. It by no means prevented free difcufion, that of the press particularly, which he viewed as fully adequate to the support of that public spirit, and those popular maxims on which the constitution rested. The press was the strongest pillar of liberty, by the latitude with which every political subject was allowed to be treated: while this remained untouched, the public was in no danger of ever feeing the conftitution fubverted, and it was a privilege which he would never confent to part with; but it could not exist in a democracy any more than under an arbitrary government, nor, in truth, any government but a limited monarchy ike our own. The great danger of popular meetings was, that they heard only one fide of the question. Uninformed multitudes were easily deluded by the specious and inflammatory speeches of defigning perfons, who well knew, that in fuch meetings they would have little, or rather no contradiction, to encounter, and find their audience ready prepared to acquiesce in whatever they might think proper to deliver. ver. Times [C4] and and circumstances called for regulations appofite to the dispositions of men at different periods. The prefent temper of men was matked by precipitation and temerity, and ought to be reprefled accordingly. Proceedings that bordered on fedition ought certainly to be opposed with firmnefs and diligence. Were magiftrates, in fuch cafes, to exceed their powers, they would certainly be called to a fevere account, in a country where juries had thewn themselves so tenacious of the liberties of their fellow-fubjects, and where the spirit of liberty animated, so manifeftly, the legiflature itself, as to induce it to declare those very juries competent judges whether a publication should be deemed a libel.

Mr. Halhed acknowledged the propriety of the first proclamation, offeing an ample reward for the difcovery of those who had infulted the king, but totally difapproved of that proclamation, in coincidence with which the bill had been brought into the house. The mifbehaviour of the populace, he affirmed, proceeded from the fenfe of their feelings, and ought not, in equity, to be attributed to that meeting of the people, three days before, which had not exhibited the leaft fign of a ris tous difpofition, and had parted as peaceably as it had met. The miferable fituation of the rioters, though not a juflification, ought to weigh with those who reflected to what irregularries men might be driven, when they wanted bread. But the inveteracy of minifters to men who had oppofed their measures, with fuch conftan

cy and determination, was the real motive that prompted them in the formation of this bill. They pro

posed by it to infufe fuch terror into the societies so long obnoxious to them, as would deter them, at once, from ever daring to refiume the profecution of their defigns, and thus to crush, at one blow, all attempts and ideas to effect any reform in parliament, or to remedy any of the abuses and grievances fo long complained of by the nation at large.

The bill was opposed by Mr. Maurice Robinson, as separating the interests of the king from those of the people, and fetting them, as it were, in oppofition to each other. The king, as father of his people, was in justice bound to treat them with paternal care, and not to permit minifters, on the pretext of confulting his personal dignity, to render their condition worfe than ever it had been, by punishing the many for the offences of a few, hurried into the commiffion of their delinquencies by the preflures of hunger and want. No evidence had been produced to countenance the minifterid affertion, that the riots were caused by the popular affemblies, held in the vicinity of the metropolis. The clear and well-known purpose of these meetings was to petition for peace and reform, the endeavours to obtain which could not, by any legal conftruction, be deemed acts of feditien.

The bill was fupported by Mr. alderman Lumington, as a measure, without, which the, perfon of the fovereign would be continually exposed to the insults of the vileft populace, who would become, the more daring and outrageous when they taw that parliament pasied by unnoticed the criminal infolence of which they had been guilty. Were

the

the bill to be rejected, the confequences would quickly prove how necellary it was for the prefervation not only of the king but of every well-affected fubject, as well as of the good order and peace of the community.

The attempt of ministry to enact fuch a law as that, purported by the bill, was represented by Mr. Cure en as the most flagicious innovation. Its direct and visible aim wis to strip the fubject of his most valnable privilege, that of speaking his mind on every matter relating to the public. Herein confifted, in fact, the very effence, not only of English, but of all real liberty. The movers of the bill had reafon to with themfelves authorized to impose filence on the people, who had fo much reason to be difpleated at their conduct. The voice of that people had occсаfionally prevented them from profecuting their imprudent fchemes, and constrained them to listen to dilagrecable admonitions. So refolutely was he determined to prefer this voice to that of minifters, that he did not fcruple to avow himself ready to fupport it at the risk of his property and his life, It appeared to him immaterial, whether the constitution fell by infurrection or by defpotifm. The bill proposed would effect it as certainly as any of the tumultuous proceedings of an enraged people. But this fatal bill was obviously dictated by ministerial refentment at the oppofition it had met with, both in and out of parliament. He did not, however, imagine, that, when the inimical intentions it difplayed against public liberty were duly perceived, the people of England would remain so heartless and

fupine as not to resist it with the vigour and spirit of their anceftors.

The principle of the bill was decidedly approved by Mr. Wilberforce, as tending to check the licentious difpofition, among the common people, introduced by the doctrines imported from France, The ideas of that people, on religious as well as political matters, had lately made an alarming progress in this country, and it was the duty of the legiflature to difcourage them by all prudent and legal methods. He did not comfider the bill as an invafion of public liberty, which, he was perfuaded, would rather be strengthened, when popular difcuffions upon national affairs, and meetings called for that purpose, were duly regulated. He concluded, however, by acknowledging, that he fincerely wished there had been no occafion för fuch a bill, to which his affent was extorted by the necefity of choofing, among a variety of difficulties, that which appeared the least productive of evil. meetings of individuals, to debate upon national affairs, had certainly been attended with fuch improper freedoms, that they well delorved to be reftrained. The only affembh, to which the people could refort with well-grounded confidence of meeting with friends to liften to their grievances and to redrefs them, was the house of commons; it was the shield of public liberty, it was traly a popular meeting, wherein the nation would alway find able and refolute defenders of its conftitutional rights; it was a tribunal, before which its caufe would be pleaded with efficacy, and where its complaints, when juitly founded, would

The

would never be refused an attentive hearing.

Mr. Sheridan severely animadverted on the motives afsigned 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 asserted, that one of the fortunate consequences of the war, was the eradication of French principles, but the falfehood of this assertion was evident, from their gradual increase through out the multitude, The difcuffions of the people would now, he obferved, be wholly at the disposal of ministerial 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 Englishmen 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 sentiments of their conftituents, who, when restrained, by terror, from the manifestation 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 cease, which conftituted the principal basis of English liberty.

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

of ministers. They studied to pro pagate the like infatuation in every part of the country, which now exhibited endless kenes of military parade. The bill tended, as other ministerial meafures, to introduce an arbitrary fyftem of government. This was evidently the project which he must have formed, by accоmpаnying 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 observed, 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 manifest 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 moft likely to embarrass and fubvert the present government, and to substitute 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 fuccess against the machinations of fo dangerous a party, exifting in the bosom, as it were, of the nation, and striving, with indefatigable efforts, to infule into it the poifon of their deteftable opinions. Was it not the duty, as well as the intereft, of the legislature, to arm itfelf with every precaution? Every man that valued his country, and its conilitution, would, on this occafion, come forward, and join, with heart and hand, in its preservation from the calamities that must be fail it, were the French, and their English adherents, to fucceed in their defigns against this country. It was againft 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 mifchiefs meditated by our foes abroad and at home, who, if not impeded in their plans, by the measures so judiciously proposed, 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 aflerted 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 affuming and arrogant a people, or to frame acts for the counter-acting of those among ourselves, who were 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 freatment. Enormities, uncommonly a'rocious, must be encountered by laws adequately fevere. Such was the rage that actuated the enemies

to government, that they had circulated opinions and fentiments tending, unequivocally, to affect the king's life. Could the legiflature, confiftently with its profesled attachment to the fovereign, and, with its own reputation and dignity, pass by, unpunished, so execrable a violation of ail principles on which the constitution of the land, and the peace of the public, was founded? Did ever any government suffer individuals, 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 mect 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.

ex

In reply to these allegations, it was observed, by Mr. Gray, that ministry, after exulting in the tinction 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 these assertions 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 proposed to pafs against them originated from other motives; and thole could be no other, than to filence the complaints of the people, enraged at their misconduct, and, chiefly, at their perfifting in it, notwithstanding