peared to him greatly to overshoot the
mark. The circumstances did not war-
rant such an inroad on the constitution.
These meetings were of two kinds. Either
they were idle in themselves, and might
safely be suffered to evaporate; or they
were excited by serious grievances. In
the latter case, no force could subdue
them, and they were to be dispelled only
by an adequate redress. An able physi-
cian once remarked to him, that it was
easy to dispel a local swelling; the only
difficulty was to say where it would next
make its appearance. No man could
deny but that grievances existed, and
that the principal one was in the defect of
our representation. Our constitution had
wonderfully maintained its ground, even
after the theory on which it was founded
had been given up.
He had never been
a party man, and therefore was to be
understood in all he should say, as express-
ing merely the sentiments of an individual.
He had two objections to party; one
was, that, if he attached himself to any
set of men, it would necessarily follow
that at times he must submit his opinions
to theirs, and this he disliked; the other
was, that he thought there was a some-
thing in the idea of voting with party,
naturally and necessarily corrupt. But
though no friend to party, as it tended
to hamper opinions, he must in justice
say, that party had in a great measure
supplied the defects of the theory of the
constitution, and for two reigns had
checked the growing power of the pre-
rogative. A change was now arising,
not owing so much to men, as to the per-
petual tide in human affairs. In regarding
this change, it was necessary for them to
take care that one branch of the constitu-
tion did not trench on the rights of an-
other. When he looked at the composi-
tion of the legislative powers, he saw
them divided, generally speaking, into
two bodies; one constantly voting on the
side of the minister, and the other as
uniformly voting with the party termed
the opposition. From hence resulted a
false inference, that the act of the minis-
ter was the wish of the sovereign, and
that he who should oppose any measure
of the former was in personal opposition
to the latter. But if this was an error
on the side of the government, there was
an error perfectly correspondent on that
of the people; they not unfrequently attri-
buted to the principles and designs of
men, what, in fact, were measures attri-

butable only to the state of affairs. In
the present criterion, therefore, what was
to be done? When the assertion had been
made that this was no fit moment to bring
forward any such question of grievance as
he had described, he agreed to it; but
because, by the violence of persons che-
rishing French principles, the security of
the constitution had been menaced-in
their care for a particular part, it was not
the less incumbent upon their lordships
to be watchful that no one branch invaded
the rights and privileges of the other-
and he could not but see of late many
alarming strides of prerogative manifested
in the measures submitted to that House.
Admitting, as he did, therefore, the expe-
diency of some measure, the query natu-
rally presented itself, whether there might
not be found one less violent than that
which was now proposed? He had not
heard one defender of the present act,
who did not confess that it was an in-
vasion of Magna Charta and the Bill of
Rights. By those were recognized and
established the right of petition and the
right of discussion. He confessed the
contemptible nature of many of the peti-
tions and papers of the societies alluded
to; and noticed the assertion that the
present measure was grounded upon pre-
cedents. Some of these were taken from
the reign of Elizabeth, and great and
glorious as her reign confessedly was,
yet the consideration that she inherited
the arbitrary sentiments of the Tudor line,
was a sufficient reason why precedents
should not be drawn from her reign. If
ministers were fond of her reign, why not
copy the general policy of that wise
princess, and not partially and obnoxiously?
Mr. Hume said of that sovereign, that by
adapting all her measures to the spirit of
the times, she succeeded in raising the
country to a state of unequalled glory
and happiness. Why, therefore, did they
not copy her economy, recollecting that
she gave up her jewels, and was content
to alienate even a part of the crown lands,
rather than lay any oppressive and addi-
tional burthens upon the people? There
was another, and a still stronger instance of
wisdom in her conduct touching the Re-
formation. We should look at the temper
she displayed in the management of reli-
gious prejudices, and apply it as a rule
for our conduct in the present emergency:
for the American and French revolutions
evinced that men would go equally far
upon the impulse of a civil as a religious

enthusiasm.

She held with a prudent | respectable gentleman, Mr. Thomas Law. That gentleman had joined the Crown and Anchor Association, when it professed impartiality. He left them when they began to act on anonymous letters, and when they had resolved that their chairman, after consulting with the Attorney general and the solicitor to the treasury, was competent to institute any prosecution. It was not surprising, if, after this specimen of club government, Mr. Law sought a refuge iu America. It was only wonderful that Mr. Reeves had since flourished in the way he had done. He could not, however, believe that any noble lord could come forward as the defender of this man, Reeves, and retain a person of such principles in his office.In his opinion, nothing like proof had been adduced of a plot against the person of the sovereign. It was impolitic to excite such a jealousy between the king and his people. The noble marquis declared, that had he the honour to be one of his majesty's cabinet, or had he the still higher honour to style himself the friend of that royal personage, he should think it his duty to advise him to come down to that House, and by giving his dissent to these bills, ensure greater popularity than had attended any action of his life. That would, indeed, be a glorious day. It would tend more to the safety of his royal person than a thousand such acts of parliament. If these bills passed, and were not executed, it would infallibly subject them to contempt. If they were executed by the stipendiary magistrates, they must be bold men, to act upon the exercise of so broad a discretion, as that with which they were invested upon the mere guidance of Burn's Justice. God Almighty, in his donation of human faculties, usually accompanied great warmth and intemperance with a deplorable want of judgment. When this was considered, was the discretionary power to be safely reposed in hands so liable to be corruptly influenced or wrongly directed? What he dreaded was the general gloom which these bills would spread over the people. They would tend more than any thing to destroy that happy union of the lower with the higher classes of society and arm the different orders with animosity against each other. Thy would destroy that free spirit of English men, which had been the real cause of the energy of our national character, and of our prosperity and wealth. Peace and reform were the

hand the balance between the catholics and the protestants: and such a prudent equipoise, with respect to politics, would be much preferable to the present violent measures. It was by taking this judicious medium, that she preserved for us that moderate church, which it was our pride to possess; which he trusted would last as long as the constitution itself; and that both might descend honoured and revered together to the end of time. But if the particular precedent from the reign of Elizabeth was exceptionable, still less would any precedent apply drawn from the miserable reign of Charles 2nd, every year of which was marked with violations of the true liberties of the country. He then considered the plea of necessity, and whether the existing laws were not sufficient without the introduction of any innovation. He believed no lawyer would say that the existing laws was not adequate to the punishment of any offences with which the societies were charged. If the laws were not adequate, they should be invigorated. He appealed to lord Thurlow, who, though he did not now wear a black coat, or hold a purse in his hand, would be pretty decisive evidence as to the law. That fresh laws were unnecessary was proved from the circumstance of the conviction of Mr. Yorke, who was at that moment in confinement upon the existing provisions. If his seditious words were thus easily come at, why not those of Mr. Thelwall, if he had really spoken them? He knew of nothing so peculiarly flagitious in the assertions of Mr. Thelwall, as to call for any peculiar punishment. He had said that the opposition were as bad as the ministers. This was an assertion that nobody would quarrel with. He had affirmed also, that the minister was the greatest apostate of the age. Now it was a fact pretty notorious, that Mr. Pitt had gone once as far as any man in the doctrine of parliamentary reform. He had talked of the immense salaries paid to Mr. Pitt's family. What these are, said the noble marquis, I cannot say; it is an affair of arithmetic: but if Mr. Thelwall's mouth was to be stopt, it could certainly have been done without the aid of the present bills. But was Thelwall the only man who spoke those unwelcome matters? He remembered reading a paper some time ago in the Morning Chronicle, to which was affixed the name of a most

abuse was open to punishment. Had it been otherwise the freedom of the press instead of an advantage, would have been the most intolerable tyranny. Montesquieu, in his Spirit of Laws, said, that the existence of freedom in England depended on the freedom of petition, and the freedom of the press. If the people feel the pressure of particular laws, and are not at li

monstrate against them, they are slaves indeed. To declare, therefore, that "the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them," was as odious as it was fallacious, and when he said that, he by no means intended any reflection on the right reverend prelate, who in the course of a recent debate had made use of the expression; the handsome, manly, and liberal explanation, which the right reverend prelate* had since given of his meaning, not only reflected the highest honour on his good sense and candour, but cured the declaration of all possible exception.

country to enact new laws with a view to the prevention of similar effects here. He thought they had nothing to do with what had passed in France, as far as related to any influence it ought to have on their proceedings in parliament. It was their duty to govern their conduct in legislation, with a view to such laws as were expedient and necessary to the good order, the well-being and the happiness of the peo-berty to petition for their redress or reple. The contrary doctrine was not only unfair in principle but impracticable in itself, as the genius and character of the two nations were extremely dissimilar, and it was idle to suppose that the two countries were to be governed in the same way. The doctrine was, besides, somewhat insulting to Englishmen, whose loyalty was not more general than sincere and ardent, and who were more likely to be induced by the horrors experienced in France, to abstain from excesses that might lead to the same consequences, than to make the conduct of the French the model of their imitation. With re--The people had an undoubted right to gard to what had passed in the societies alluded to, that was a matter of which he professed to know nothing. If they had distributed seditious papers, the present law would reach them with a sufficient severity of punishment. The case, however was, in his opinion, not precisely the same, in point of mischievous effect, with respect to speeches delivered at popular meetings. Whenever he heard of a speech made before 30,000 persons, the first thing that occurred to him was, that it was impossible that one thirtieth part of the audience could hear it. No great apprehension need, therefore, be entertained of the danger likely to result from such harangues; but writings or printed papers might be circulated throughout the kingdom, and read again and again till the poison worked and produced those consequences most to be dreaded. He would therefore have the laws in being enforced against libellous and seditious writings, and he had no doubt they would be put an end to. The speeches in question he could suppose were insolent and impertinent, but were they so dangerous as to call for the present bill? It was the glory of the English law, that there was no previous restraint on the people in the exercise of the important privilege of meeting to discuss grievances and petition parliament respecting them. That privilege stood precisely on the same ground with the freedom of the press. Its use was free and unrestrained, but its

interfere with the laws in the manner pres cribed by the Bill of Rights, and recog. nized by the present bill; as far, therefore, as that went, the bill was unobjectionable, but it was what followed that was to be deprecated. The restraints it threw around the exercise of that constitutional right which it broadly acknowledged were alarming and dreadful indeed. The bill, therefore, was to be objected against as establishing a bad precedent under countenance of which a variety of bad laws might creep into the state, and defile the pages of the Statute book. He recollected that in 1782, when a motion for a reform in the parliamentary repre sentation had been rejected in the House of Commons, and the previous question moved upon it, the people were immediately informed by men of celebrated characters, and popular weight in the country, that their petitions had been rejected by the mode held most obnoxious, as the means of getting rid of a question of im portance, and were called upon to meet in districts, and to discuss the best means of rendering their application to the House more successful; but it was not then contended, that their intention was to overawe parliament, or do more than to awaken in the people a due attention to a subject that involved their dearest and most invaluable rights. He recollected

* The Bishop of Rochester. See p. 267...

T