might be reprefented as the power paramount to lords and commons, and totally, by right, independent of their controu!; and the man that had made fuch an affeveration, might, instead of rebuke and punishment, meet with approbation and reward, while he, that dared to infinuate the contrary, would expofe himself to the wrath of government. A time, indeed, might come, when the principles that feated the houfe of Brunfwick on the British throne, might be reprobated, and held forth as proofs of difloyalty in those who maintained them, while those who pleaded the cause of the prerogative, would be abetted by the whole authority and ftrength of govern

ment.

The duke of Bedford was particularly fevere on that clause of the bill, which condemned, to a tranfportation for feven years, any perfon convicted of having offended, a fecond time, against the purport of the bill. He thought the penalty far exceeded the offence, and fpoke, he faid, as a man that felt himfelf liable to incur it. He took this occafion to condemn, in bitter terms, an expreffion that had fallen from bishop Horfley in the warmth of his antipathy to writings publifhed on parliamentary reform. The bishop's reply to the duke's animadverfions was, that the bill referred only to thofe 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 obfervation of this nature, drew, from the duke of Bedford, and the earl of Lauderdale, the ut

3

utter. The earl, in particular, affirmed, that had a Turkish mufti made fuch a declaration, in his prefence, he should have imputed it to his ignorance; but to hear it from the mouth of a British prelate, excited his furprise no less than his indignation.

It may not be out of place to remark, that thefe words of the bifhop did him confiderable diflervice; not only with the public, but with the minifterial party, who were abundantly fenfible how much their caufe was injured by fuch immoderate zeal, whether fincere or affected.

The bill, on the divifion; was carried by forty-five votes against three.

The third reading of the bill took place on the thirteenth of November, when the earl of Lauderdale propofed 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 propofal, that more feverity could not be requifite in Scotland, where the people were peaceably inclined, than in England, where a strong party was formed against the exifting government. But his propofal was immediately negatived.

The bill was again opposed, with great vigour and animation, by the duke of Bedford. He felt, he said, a folicitude and anxiety on this fubject, that compelled him to call forth every exertion, of which he was capable, to hear withefs of his abhorrence of that bill, which he confidered as a mortal ftab to the English conftitution, given, in defpite of every remonftrance, by a miniftry, 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 ufual, 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 thofe dif orders and confufions that brought about the revolution? Surely not the field-meetings of the people, nor the difcuffions in private clubs, but the profligacy of a vicious court, and the licentious lives of the heads of the French nation, whofe immoral characters loft them the efteem and respect of their country men; but the caufe which principally accelerated that event was the iniquitous conduct of their government, and the corrupt fubferviency of fucceffive miniftries to the wicked ambition of those who, unhappily for that kingdom, poffeffed the confidence of weak fovereigns, and involved them in contefts and wars that drained the refources of the nation, and reduced the people to mifery. Thefe, together with the intolerable oppref fions exercifed upon the commonalty, excited that refentment of their wrongs, and that refolution to oppose tyranny, which produced the revolution. True it was, that the perfonal character of the monarch, on the British throne, was highly refpectable and exemplary; but the perverfenefs of his minifters, in forcing his people into a war, neither of their choice nor to their intereft, in lavishing their money

for its profecution against their re peated wishes for its termination, in creating places and emoluments for the abettors of this ruinous fyf tem, and in adopting the fevereft and most unconftitutional measures against all who had the fpirit to oppofe them: these and other inftances of obftinacy, arrogance, and contempt of the people's rights and interefts, fully juftified him in calling their conduct unconstitutional and corrupt.

The duke was anfwered by lord Grenville, who went over the fame grounds of arguments already urged in fupport of the bill. He did not deny the duke's affertions refpecting 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 fimilar to their own. But the horrible events that enfued owed their caufes to the lawless principles maintained in the clubs and diforderly affociations 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 fame plan as thofe in France. Like them, they taught principles utterly fubverfive of ancient laws and conftitutions, and inimical to the moral and religious order of things eftablifhed for centuries. Thefe were certainly moft dangerous innovations, and tended evidently to throw this, and any country, into the most fatal diforders. They ought, therefore, to be refifted, and it would argue fear or imbicillity not to oppofe them in the firmest and most effectual man

It was with much animal vehemence infifted on by the earl of Lauderdale, that the fafety of minifters was much more confulted by this bill than that of the king, They were confcious, that if the people were fuffered to meet together, their reiterated remonftrances could not fail, at laft, to make fome impreffion to their prejudice. The privilege of difcuffing parliamentary tranfactions had never yet been called in queftion or thought dangerous. The more important the question brought before the legiflature, the greater was the propenfity as well as the intereft 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 conftructive treafon; but the attempt was fo 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 fo powerfully as to fruftrate it, notwithstanding all ministerial arts and efforts in its favour. The debate finally concluded by fixty-fix votes for the paffing of the bill and feren against it. The duke of Bedford and the earls of Derby and Lauderdale entered a very folemn and fpirited proteft in oppofition

to it.

10

In the house of commons, the fame influence prevailed as in the houfe of lords. A meffage from these was brought to the commons, on the 16th of November, informing them, that they had paffed the bill for the king's better fafety, and requesting their concurrence. Mr. Pitt, in confequence, moved its firft 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.

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

In conjunction with Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Lambton, Mr. Sheridan propofed, that, previously to the difcuffion of the bill, a committee fhould be appointed to inquire into the particulars of the infult offered to the king. This was opposed by miniftry as difre fpectful in the firft ftage of a bill, framed for the fecurity of the fovereign, and laid before them by the houfe of lords; but Mr. Sheridan infifted, that no proofs had been adduced to authorize fo harth a measure, and that ministers had no right to bring forward fuch a bill without the cleareft proofs of its neceffity. 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 fhould not be fuffered to efcape the punishment 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 release 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 itself to be credited. On thefe premifes he moved, "that a committee fhould 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, fpoken at the popular meetings, was fuch, anfwered Mr. Powis, that no other evidence could be needed to justify the ftrong meafures in contemplation, which were evidently neceffary to check the turbulent difpo fition that had gone forth. It did not amount to abfolute treafon, but it approached fo 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 fuppreflion of confpiracies against the ftate, and that if they were not enforced the minifters themfelves were to blame. Their reprefentations of the state of things merited no attention; they were framed to deceive the public, and had neither truth nor even plaufibility; they contradicted each other in the moit 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 factioufhefs and democratic principles. Was this a ftyle of fpeeking 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 mireprefenting it to the fovereign, or of endeavouring to conceal it from the legiflature? Mr. Fox,, on this occafion, exprefled particular indignation at the behaviour of fome individuals employed by adminiftration in the capacity of ipies. 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 ufe words and to adopt propofals, far more reprehenfible than they firft intended. What [D]

naine