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 preferve it from the infringement defigned in the bill propofed, and to exprefs their deteftation of it. He had feen and heard of revolutions, but experience had shewn 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 defpotic government that held the people in continual dread, and filenced their very fears by the terror of thofe punishments fufpended over those who dared to utter their fentiments. If the people's complaints were groundlefs, the lefs they were noticed, the fooner they would ceafe, as falfe furmifes would very foon be difcovered and lofe their effect; but, if well-founded, the efforts made to reprefs them muft terminate, either in a bafe minded fubmiffion of the people, or in a refiftance fatal to their rulers as well as to themselves. Were the introduction of fuch a bill infifted on, he thought himself bound, previoufly to any farther difcuffion, to move for a call of the houfe.

Mr. Fox was fupported by Mr. Stanley, who explicitly affirmed, that if the bill fhould pafs, he fhould confider this country as on the eve of a revolution. He reminded minifters of the well-known affertion of Montefquieu, that a numerous increafe of penal laws was a fure prognoftication of a ftate's verging to its decline. This alone

appeared to him a fufficient motive for oppofing fo oppreffive a bill. There exifted laws adequate to the fuppreffion of unlawful meetings; but the bill was, in fact, the fevereft libel on the good fenfe and attachment of Englishmen to their conftitution; it reprefented them as infenfible of its worth, incapable of enjoying liberty, and deferving, for that reafon, to be deprived of it.

In answer to these arguments, fir William Pulteney admonished the oppofers of the bill to confider it impartially, before they defcribed it in fuch odious colours. It by no means prevented free difcuffion, that of the prefs particularly, which he viewed as fully adequate to the Support of that public fpirit, and thofe popular maxims on which the conftitution refted. The prefs was the ftrongeft pillar of liberty, by the latitude with which every political fubject 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 like our own. The great danger of popular meetings was, that they heard only one fide of the queftion. Uninformed multitudes were eafily deluded by the fpecious and inflammatory fpeeches 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 acquiefce in whatever they might think proper to deliver. Times [C4]

and

and circumstances called for regulations appofite to the difpofitions of men at different periods. The prefent temper of men was matked by precipitation and temerity, and ought to be repreffed accordingly. Proceedings that bordered on fedition ought certainly to be oppofed with firinnels and diligence. Were magiftrates, in fuch cafes, to excecd their powers, they would certainly be called to a fevere account, in a country where juries had fhewn themselves to tenacious of the liberties of their fellow-fubje&s, and where the fpirit of liberty animated, fo manifeftly, the legiflature itfelf, as to induce it to declare thofe very juries competent judges whether a publication fhould be deemed a libel.

Mr. Halhed acknowledged the propriety of the firft proclamation, offering an ample reward for the difcovery of thofe who had infulted the king, but totally difapproved of that proclamation, in coincidence with which the bill had been brought into the houfe. 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 riotous difpofition, and had parted as peaceably as it had met. The miferable fituation of the rioters, though not a julification, ought to weigh with thote who reflected to what irregularities men might be driven, when they wanted bread. But the inveteracy of minifters to men who had oppofed their measures, with fuch conilancy and determination, was the real motive that prompted them in the formation of this bill. They pro

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

The bill was oppofed by Mr. Maurice Robinfon, as feparating the interefts of the king from thofe of the people, and fetting them, as it were, in oppofition to each other. The king, as father of his people, was in juftice bound to treat them with paternal care, and not to permit minifters, on the pretext of confulting his perfonal 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 minifterial aflertion, that the riots were caufed by the popular affemblies, held in the vicinity of the metropolis. 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 Luthington, as a meafure, without, which the, perfon of the fovereign would be continually expofed to the infults of the vileft populace, who would become the more daring and outrageous when they law that parliament paffed by unnoticed the criminal infolence of which they had been guilty. Were

the

the bill to be rejected, the confequences would quickly prove how neceffary 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 miniftry to enact fach a law as that, purported by the bill, was reprefented by Mr. Curen as the moft flagicious innovation. Its direct and visible aim was to ftrip the subject of his most valuable privilege, that of fpeaking 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 impofe filence on the people, who had fo much reafon to be difplealed at their conduct. The voice of that people had occafionally prevented them from profecuting their imprudent fchemes, and constrained them to liften to dagreeable admonitions. So refolutely was he determined to prefer this voice to that of minifters, that he did not fcruple to avow himfelf ready to fupport it at the rik of his property and his life. It appeared to him immaterial, whether the conftitution fell by infurrection or by defpotifim. The bill propofed would effect it as certainly as any of the tumultuous proceedings of an enraged people. But this fatal bill was obviouly dictated by minifterial 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 fo heartlefs and

fupine as not to refift it with the vigour and fpirit 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 progrefs in this country, and it was the duty of the legillature to dif courage them by all prudent and legal methods. He did not confider the bill as an invafion of public liberty, which, he was perfuaded, would rather be ftrengthened, when popular difcuffions upon national affairs, and meetings called for that purpofe, were duly regulated. He concluded, however, by acknowledging, that he fincerely wifhed there had been no occafion for fuch a bill, to which his affent was extorted by the necefity of choofing, among a variety of difficulties, that which appeared the leaft productive of evil. The meetings of individuals, to debate upon national affairs, had certainly been attended with fuch improper freedoms, that they well delerved to be reftrained. The only ailembly, 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 houfe of colamons; it was the field 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 juttly founded,

would

would never be refused an attentive hearing.

Mr. Sheridan feverely animadverted on the motives affigned by Mr. Wilberforce for fupporting the bill. Inftead of firengthening public liberty, it went directly to deftroy it, by filencing every voice that might have heard in its defence. Minifters had boldly afferted, that one of the fortunate confequences of the war, was the eradication of French principles; but the falfehood of this affertion was evident, from their gradual increafe through out the multitude, The difcuflions of the people would now, he obferved, be wholly at the difpofal of minifterial 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 pats, he fhould confider the houfe of commons as no longer able to exprefs the real fentiments of their conftituents, who, when reftrained, by terror, from the manifeftation of their thoughts, would not have it in their power to lay them before their reprefentatives, between whom, and themfelves, that free communication of ideas, on the national butiness, muft ccale, which conftituted the principal bafis of English liberty.

The bill was oppofed alfo 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 fupport of the ruinous meafures in which he was ftill refolved to perfift. War, alone, was now become the objec

of minifters. They ftudied to propagate the like infatuation in every part of the country, which now exhibited endlefs fcenes of military parade. The bill tended, as other minifterial measures, to introduce an arbitrary fyftem of government. This was evidently the project which he must have formed, by accompanying 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 minitier have dared to try the experiment.

Mr. Windham fharply contended in favour of the bill. He obferved, that loud affeverations, of the lofs of liberty, were heard from the oppofition in the houfe, and the popular meeting: a marked unanimity of fentiments fubfifted between them. But it was time to fupprefs these fentiments, wherever they took occafion to manifeft themselves, by punithing, with merited feverity, their propagators and abettors. It was abfurd to affect an ignorance of the defigns 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 most likely to embarrafs and fubvert the prefent government, and to fubftitute another more confiftent with their own notions, which were, in fact, thofe adopted in France. This was the country of their predilection, and to the arms and councils of which they notorioufly willed every poffibe fuccefs against the ma chinations of fo dangerous a party, exifting in the bofom, as it were, of the nation, and ftriving, with inde fatigable efforts, to infule into it the

prifon of their deteftable opinions. Was it not the duty, as well as the intereft, of the legiflature, to arm itfelf with every precaution? Every than that valued his country, and its contitution, would, on this occafion, come forward, and join, with heart and hand, in its prefervation from the calamities that must befall it, were the French, and their English adherents, to fucceed in their defigns against this country. It was against thofe united enemies the prefent bill entirely militated: it was inimical to no Englishman that loved his country. In the actual circumftances 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 fo judiciously propofed, would continue to carry them on, till it might become highly difficult to fruftrate them. Thefe plans were, undeniably to overturn every political inftitution differing from that established in France, which they boaftingly aflerted was the only juft and lawful one in Europe. He would atk every man of fpirit and patriotifm in that houfe, and in the whole nation, whether fuch prefumption were fupportable? Could it be deemed unjuft to take up arms against fo affuming and arrogant a people, or to frame acts for the counter-acting of thofe among ourselves, who were either fo 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 peole of this country; but extraordinary cafes required extraordinary treatment. Enormities, uncommonly atrocious, must be encountered by hws adequately fevere. Such was the rage that aftuated 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 profefled attachment to the fovereign, and, with its own reputation and dignity, pafs by, unpunished, fo execrable a violation of all principles on which the conftitution 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 dif grace to parliament, and would argue. pufillanimity, to allow them to nect 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 themfelves of our imprudence, in having fo long, and fo unpardonably, connived at them.

In reply to thefe allegations, it was obferved, by Mr. Gray, that miniftry, after exulting in the extinction of democratic principles, operated by their vigilance, now came forward with a bill, which they founded on the neceffity of obviating the alarming progrefs they had made, and were daily making, throughout the nation: to which of these affertions were we to give credit? If thofe principles were not extinguifhed, miniftry had been deceived, or had endeavoured to deceive the public. If they were, in reality, extinguished, the bill they propofed to pals againit them origi nated from other motives; and those could be no other, than to filence the complaints of the people, enraged at their misconduct, and, chiefly, at their perfifting in it, notwithstanding