hard necessity of defending the constitution by force, that they will act with that energy which such a crime must necessarily excite in a loyal assembly. The power of the law of England, I trust, will be sufficient to defeat the machinations of all who risk such dangerous doctrines, and to punish treason wherever it may be found.

Mr. Fox, in explanation, said :-I rise to re-state my expression, but not to retract one word of what I have said. Let the words be taken down at the table. They express the sentiments of an honest Englishman; they are those sentiments for which our forefathers shed their blood, and upon which the Revolution was founded. But let me not be mistaken. The case I put was, that these bills might be passed by a corrupt majority of parliament, contrary to the opinion and sentiments of the great body of the nation. If the majority of the people approve of these bills, I will not be the person to inflame their minds, and stir them up to rebellion; but if, in the general opinion of the country, it is conceived that these bills attack the fundamental principles of our constitution, I then maintain, that the propriety of resistance, instead of remaining any longer a question of morality, will become merely a question of prudence. I may be told that these are strong words; but strong measures require strong words. I will not submit to arbitrary power, while there remains any alternative to vindicate my freedom.

Mr. Windham said, that the explanation took nothing from the dangerous tendency of the original declaration. The meaning obviously was, that the right hon. gentleman would advise the people, whenever they were strong enough, to resist the execution of the law. The right hon. gentleman rested on no majority, but the majority of force. The right hon. gentleman had brought the matter to a crisis; and it was now verging to that point to which, in his opinion, it had long tended. It was alarming to the country, but they must see it: the danger ought to be known to them; and if they did not see the dreadful precipice near which they stood, in his opinion, they were lost for ever. At least they had a fair warning: they now knew from the unequivocal declaration of the right hon. gentleman, what lengths would be justified; they had time to prepare against the danger; but he would not wish for a [VOL. XXXII.]

dishonourable safety; not one gained by flight and pusillanimity, but by manly fortitude in meeting the danger. In that case, the right hon. gentleman would find that ministers were determined to exert a vigour beyond the law-[A loud cry of Hear, Hear! and " take down his words"] Mr. Windham repeated the words, that they were ready to exert a vigour beyond the law, as exercised in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances. The times and the circumstances would then require stronger laws, and the exertion of more efficacious means to put those laws in execution.

Mr. Sheridan repeated what Mr. Fox had stated, with respect to resistance. If, he said, a degraded and oppressed majority of the people applied to him, he would advise them to acquiesce in those bills, only as long as resistance was imprudent. They had affirmed, that these bills went directly to overturn the constitution; if they were sincere in that language, what other answer could they give to the people than that which they now avowed? What contemptible wretches must they be, if, while under the shelter of their privilege, they professed the measures to be calculated to overturn the constitution, and infringe the bill of rights, they shrank back on such an occasion, from stating that which they conceived to be the undoubted right of the subject-to resist oppression, when all legal means of redress were refused. To the declaration of Mr. Fox, he implicitly subscribed. It must be the feeling of every true Englishman; of every man who acknowledged the principles which seated the illustrious family of Brunswick on the throne. His right hon. friend had said, that if the people of England were so dead to all their former feelings, that they wished for these bills, then he was no longer a fit servant for such a people, and he had no occasion to have made that declaration; they did, and must know that the frame and texture of his soul could never suffer him to be the servant of slaves, as they must be if these bills passed into laws.

Mr. Grey said, that from the principle which had been maintained by his right hon. friend, he would not shrink; and he would repeat with him, that if, by the government of the country, measures were carried into effect, contrary to the wishes of a great majority of the people, and contrary to the liberties of the nation, [2 C]

should he be asked, whether the people ought to refrain from resistance, he would say, that they should only be induced to refrain by motives of prudence. With respect to the bills themselves, no modification could make them otherwise than hostile to the principles of the constitution.

Mr. Fox's amendment was negatived. Nov. 24. This day the House was called over. After which, numerous Petitions were presented from all parts of the country against the two bills. The presenting of these petitions, and the conversations to which they gave occasion, continued till nearly two in the morning, in consequence of which, the order of the day for going into a committee on the Seditious Meetings bill was postponed till

to-morrow.

Debate in the Commons on the Seditious Meetings Bill.] Nov. 25. After several petitions against the two bills had been presented, Mr. Pitt moved the order of the day for going into a committee on the Seditious Meetings bill.

Mr. Curwen rose to propose to the House the delay of one week before they proceeded farther with these bills. The proceeding with due deliberation never was so strongly called for on any former occasion. The present was a measure of which they had no precedent since the constitution had been established. If the nation could suffer it, he should think that it was useless to withhold chains from those who had lost the relish and love of liberty. Such was not, such could not be the case with the people of England; it was a gross calumny upon them to suppose it. He should state to the House the reasons which he thought ought to induce them to afford the short respite he required for the country, that their feelings and sentiments might be fairly known. Nothing but the wild, misjudging policy of the right hon. gentleman, could ever have brought such measures under discussion. If mischief should ensue, it would be chargeable alone on those who forced it upon them. He could not suppose the nation so lost to every manly feeling that they would tamely part with their liberties at the imperial mandate of a minister. As far as the sense of the country had yet been taken, it had been almost unanimous in the reprobation of these measures: an honest indignation had been raised, which had seldom, if ever,

attended, any other measure; and well it might, for none ever so strongly called for it. He deprecated as unworthy of a good cause, every attempt to misrepresent, come from what quarter it might; but he would not believe they owed to such means the numerous petitions on the table. The delay he proposed would fully ascertain that to the satisfaction of the House, and leave no doubt what were the feelings of the people. The consequences which must infallibly result from these measures, were infinitely more alarming than at first met the eye. Rob the people of their right of petitioning, take from them their interest and connexion with the democratic part of the constitution, and you destroy with their consequence their freedom, and with theirs your own. What would be the situation of this House, when they had drawn a line of separation, which renounced the support and controlling influence of twelve parts out of thirteen of the whole people? If the full force of the united body of the nation had been barely sufficient to maintain to them the due influence in the scale, what would be their situation when they rested upon the represented part only. Three or four hundred thousand was the most extended calculation out of six millions. If they renounced the controlling influence of the people; if they wantonly destroyed the ties which had united them; ought they to look for their support? an act of such injustice must degrade them in their estimation, and make them view with satisfaction their debasement. Having nothing to hope from them, they would leave them to conduct a struggle, which had in it nothing to engage their affection, or to affect their interest; they would then be what he feared they were fast verging to-a mere office for registering the burthens of the people. The bill must, in its effects, alter the whole constitution. Popular opinion had restrained and counteracted the power and influence of corruption. Take that away, and ineffectual would be the struggle. The existence of the House of Commons depended upon the united interest of the whole body of the nation. The increased corrupt influence of the crown, together with the torrent of honours, which had of late years inundated that House, and deprived the democratic part of the constitution of such a weight of property, called upon them to maintain their just and necessary influence. A free country could

as to suppose that those who had been the ornament of their country, who had shed their blood in its defence, would forget the love of liberty they sucked in with their mother's milk, and become the instruments of enslaving their fellow-subjects? It was calumniating those brave men to suppose it. One tyrant had made the experiment; and he trusted the example would deter a repetition of the attempt. Let ministers restore to the people the blessings of peace, and prosperity would naturally follow; let them change their measures, show a respect for the constitution, and correct abuses, and there would be nothing to fear from either anarchy or despotism. He concluded with moving, "That this House will, upon this day se'nnight, resolve itself into the said committee."

Mr. Harrison seconded the motion. He believed the people were totally averse to the bills. It was a measure that ought not to be adopted by ministers, unless they meant to insult the people, and alienate their affections from parliament. It was, in his mind, a daring violation of the liberties of the country.

alone exist where there was freedom of speech, and liberty of the press. When these are gone, all that remained must soon follow. Proof of the existing circumstances which justified the measure had been denied them, and they were called upon to give their sanction to it upon general notoriety. He thought the experience they had had should teach them greater caution. A committee of parliament had declared a traitorous correspondence to exist; repeated verdicts of juries negatived that fact, and every honest man in the country rejoiced at it. Should not that House doubt a little its own disposition too easily to credit the report of plots and disaffection? As a proof of it, he should instance the information of an hon. member, that the doctrine of king-killing had been preached at Copenhagen-house. But how was the fact? No such thing did happen; that meeting passed off with perfect decorum and order. That abominable hand-bill was said to have been distributed there. Had government no reporters there? Would it have been safe for any but themselves to have been the distributors? How came it, if otherwise, that the persons concerned were not apprehended? The most clear and absolute necessity would alone induce him to increase the penal statutes, satisfied as he was, that severe penalties tended rather to the escape than punishment of offenders. In the name of the people of England, he intreated the House not to preclude them an opportunity of being heard against these bills at their bar. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) had asked if they loved peace? Might he not with as much propriety ask that hon. gentleman, if he Loved liberty, and could have been sincere in his endeavours to obtain freedom for thousands who never tasted of its blessings, and now be a friend to measures which would, if carried, establish despotism? He subscribed most heartily to the doctrine laid down by Mr. Fox on a former night, that if they forced these bills upon the people against their will, resistance would be no longer a question of moral duty, but of prudence. Let the nation judge whether the friends or opposers of these bills are the most entitled to their confidence. The secretary at war talked of employing "a vigour be yond the law."What did this mean? Was he so little acquainted with the stuff of which an English heart was composed,

Mr. Wallace considered that a certain proportion of respect was due to the petitions of the people, when they were fairly and honestly expressed. With regard to those before that House, it had been incontestibly shown, that they were obtained by the grossest calumnies, and the foulest misrepresentations. He therefore wished the bill to be discussed in a committee as soon as possible, in order that it might be printed, and the people be enabled to form an accurate opinion of what they had to expect from it. He understood what gentlemen meant when they called for procrastination, and were against having the measure made more palatable. Their conduct showed they were not averse to illegal resistance. They directly attacked that constitution for which they affected so much regard. They endeavoured, by their language, to influence the freedom of debate, and to light up the flame of civil war. The conduct of the London Corresponding Society was, he insisted on it, clearly connected with the insult offered to the king. The attempt of ministers to defeat their machinations gave offence to some gentlemen. He was nevertheless convinced, that by adopting the present measures, the country would be saved. It had been advanced by an hon. gentleman,

that it was immaterial whether the nation degenerated into a state of anarchy, or of despotism: those gentlemen, however, who opposed the bills, would not find in a state of anarchy protection for that property which they boasted gave them so large a share in the welfare of the country. He reminded Mr. Curwen of his having stated in a former debate, that those clubs and societies proceeded to such an extent as to afford him some uneasiness; notwithstanding which, he had that day expressed his fears for the constitution, when mild and necessary measures were taken in order to counteract their mischievous intentions. Mr. Wallace declared, he would not say that any of the parties assembled at Copenhagenhouse, actually put the instrument into the hand of the miscreant who attacked the sovereign; but he would assert, that the language used at that meeting was likely to work on the minds of the ignorant, and wat calculated to produce outrages against the laws. Having seen the outrages that the practices of these men had already occasioned, knowing that they might be repeated, and convinced that these bill were necessary to defeat and prevent them, he could not consent to the present motion, because he felt that every hour that was lost to their proceedings, was lost to the preservation of the sovereign, and the safety of the constitution.

Mr. Whitbread pleaded guilty to the charge made against his hon. friend who made the motion, and confessed his object was merely to create delay, for the purpose of obtaining more petitions against it, in its present abominable shape. Happy was it for the country, that the constitution of that House had provided forms of deliberation, apparently with a prospec tive apprehension of the necessity in certain cases, for delay. In those forms, he, with his hon. friends, would intrench themselves, and in those forms they would defend their post against the passing of the bills, in doing which he believed they would also defend the liberties of the country. Every moment that these bills were delayed from passing into a law, was a moment preserved to the freedom of the people. It had been said, that the petitions were obtained in an unfair manner: he denied the fact. Did they not speak the sentiments of the people? If they did not, what was it that made ministers so anxious to force the bills upon

them? An hon. gentleman had spoken of the misrepresentation employed to procure those petitions; but surely he had forgotten the misrepresentations of those who supported the bill. They misrepresented it when they asserted, that it was meant as a guard to the liberties of the people; for they knew that it was not only a daring attack upon those liberties, but that such was the object professedly in view. He wished for delay, because he wished the people to examine whether the bills were or were not intended as a security for their liberties. He wished for delay, that they might have an opportunity of comparing and consulting toge ther, and of giving their opinions freely. He was desirous that the bills should go forth to the world in all their natural deformity, that the people might see what an alarming stretch of power was attempted. Ministers pretended that the bills were to secure the liberties and constitution of the country. He was not surprised at such pretences; he knew that it had been the practice of weak politicians and of furious bigots, in all ages, to pretend, while they secretly undermined any institution, that they were putting that institution on a firmer basis. Had not the axe, the wheel, and the stake been used to enforce even the mild religion we professed? Now, he would unequivocally affirm, that these bills were as detestable as any of the most despotic measures of the most accursed tyrant upon earth. Instead of beholding the people prosper under a government of freedom, justice, and mercy, we should soon see them sink under a government of tyranny, of persecution, and of blood; aye, of blood! Was there no blood in the bill? What did it tend to, but the shedding the blood of his majesty's subjects, when upon such slight grounds it enforced military execution? The bill was a severe act, and it was to be passed into a law without there having been one tittle of evidence to prove its necessity. Where did this proof exist? In the notoriety? It was said it was notorious, that doctrines were preached upon a certain day, in a certain public meeting, and that afterwards an outrage was committed, in which the preaching and the practice were connected. The people who composed that meeting contend that they have been calumniated, and desire to be heard by counsel. Until they who were so ready to refute, therefore, should have been re