vaft acquifition of power, that would accrue to minifters from fuch a law, would enable them to firain the words and actions of individuals into treasonable meanings, when ever they were inclined to exercife vengeance on those who were obnoxious to them. For thefe reafous, whoever valued the conftitution of this country, muft confider this bill "as one of the fevereft and most dangerous to the rights and liberties of the people that had ever been introduced." It was afferted in reply by lord Grenville, that it was owing to the firmnefs of parliament, that the feditious principles imported from France, and induftrioufly propagated in England, had been fuccefsfully refifted, and the conftitution protected against the malevolent defigns of its domeftic enemies. When the provitions of the intended bill came into examination, the neceffity of adopting it would be rendered manifeft; nor would it prevent the people from holding legal meetings., None but evil-difpofed perions could fuffer by the enacting of fuch a law. In answer to thefe allegations, the duke of Bedford, after declaring his difapprobation of the bill, expreffed in ftrong terms his perfuafion, that while it ftill remained in their power to meet together, the people would every where aflemble to teftify their averfenefs to to gla ring an infringement on their freedom, in fo explicit and refolute a manner, that he could not think the houfe would confent to a bill fo vifibly repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen. It was obferved on this occafion by lord Radnor, that if in the old flatutes of the reign of Edward III. J relating to treafon, certain offences had been omitted that ought to be confidered and punished as fuch, they ought in fuch cafe to be declared and enacted to come within that meaning, in order to put men on their guard, and prevent them from committing what they would ther know to be criminal. The question was then puf, and carried for the printing of the bill. On the tenth of November, the fecond reading of the bill was moved by lord Grenville, who obferved, that the feditious fpeeches and treasonable libels, circulated in the meeting that had been held near Copenhagen-houfe, three days only before the opening of the prefent feilions, had, in the opinion of all reflecting people, pronipted that audacious fpirit which infulted the perfon of the fovereign, and bid de fiance to the legiflature. The purpofe of the bill, he faid, was to protect the king from fimilar outrages, and to punith treafonous proceed ings. No, punishments would be enacted by the bill for crimes not already acknowledged deferving of them; its fole intent was to include treafonable publications and difcourtes among them, as being no leis criminal in their confequences. It was high treafon to devile the king's death; to confpire againft his perfon and government, as fpecified in the bill, amounted therefore to a degree of criminality that evidently merited the fevereft chattilement, whether fuch confpiracy confified in levying civil war against him, or in encouraging foreign enemies, by publications, writings, or fpeeches. The provifions of the bill were conformable to the prin ciples admitted in the acts of Elizabeth and Charles II. and were as Similar imilar as circumstances would permit. Difficulties having arifen in the conftruction of the laws relating to treafon already in forces the intent of this bill was to explain and fix the meaning of thofe laws. It would not prohibit any act or meet ing, allowed to be legal, but only provide a more fuitable punishment according to the degree of crimipalty, than that ordained by the laws in force, as in various cafes, notwithstanding criminalty was evidently proved, an appofite punishment had not been enacted. On thefe grounds he moved the fecond reading of the bill, It was acknowledged by the duke of Bedford, that every man ought, in duty, to abhor the treat ment offered to the king, and earneftly defire the punishment of the guilty; but the bill before the houfe did not tend to procure more fafety to the perfon of the fovereign, than the laws already exifting. There was no fufficient proof that the outrages committed were connected with the meetings To which they were attributed; and though minifters declared themfelves convinced of this connection, that was not fufficient to induce the houfe implicitly to coincide with their conviction. When the habeascorpus-act was fufpended, a felect 'committee was appointed to inveftigate the neceffity of fuch a meaTure, and the proceedings on that occafion gave them at leaft an appearance of deliberation; but the prefent meafure required certainly tnach more confideration. It was hot the temporary fufpenfion of an act. It was the enacting of a law entirely new to the fpirit of the onftitution, and which was un deniably an abridgement of the liberty of the fubject. Before fo dangerous an innovation fhould be fuffered to pafs, parliament ought ferioufly to weigh its certain confequences against the mere allegations of its neceffity. The pretence of the bill was the fecurity of the king's perfon; but, were the laws in being any ways deficient in that refpect? The duke then adverted to the times, from which the miniftry had borrowed their prefent proceedings, the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles II. but was it not an infult to the understandings of Englifhmen, to speak of fuch times as models fit to be copied; but even the precedents alluded to in thofe times would not authorise ministers to follow them. Thofe enacted in queen Elizabeth's reign were directed against the bulls iffued by the Pope, and thofe that were adopted under Charles II. paffed immediately after the reftoration, when it was thought indifpenfible to protect him by the ftrongest fences againft the fanatic rage of thofe who had oppofed it. The duke of Bedford was warmly feconded by the earl of Lauderdale, who reprefented the actual fufferings of the people, as the causes of the outrage offered to the king. It was not aftonishing, he faid, that, among a hundred thousand individuals cafually affembled, forty or fifty of them fhould be prompted, by the feelings of diftrefs, to exprefs them in that outrageous manner. Oppreffive and cruel laws were contrary to the difpofition of the people of this country, and tended to render them averfe to the government that framed them. The ftatutes of Edward III. were made at a time when the power of the crown was very great; yet the de · [C2] finition finition of what was to be accounted treafon, was much clearer and precife than in the words of the prefent bill, which contained words an phrafes, the meaning of which might be fo confrued as to create new crimes at the option of minifters. There were times, he said, when refiftance on the part of the people was juftifiable, and even confidered as a duty, by great and well-known authorities. The heads of the law fhould not therefore be entrusted with a difcretionary power of extending, or interpreting the laws, as thereby the freedom of individuals could never be fecure; and as the fenfe of fuch a fate of infecurity might justly roufe them to fuch exertions, for the recovery of their rights, as might throw the realm into the moft fatal diforders. The ftatute of Edward III. was reprefented by lord Mansfield, in reply, as too lax and imperfect; it was not explanatory in various cafes fimilar to that which was now under confideration; it was not fufficient therefore to prevent or to punish adequately delinquencies of this nature. The ftatute against treafon in the reign of Elizabeth ferved as a precedent to that under queen Anne, and ought not to have been fpoken of as unfit to be imitated. The laws enacted to the fame purpofe under Charles II. were pointed at the republican party at that day, which, like the fame party at the prefent, confifted of fworn enemies to monarchy, and of confequence to the fovereign that wore the crown; if it was deemed neceffary then to protect him from their fury, it was no lefs indifpenfible now, that principles of the moft rebellious nature were openly circulated in The duke of Norfolk took this occafion to affert, that to the prin ciple of refiftance the family of Brunswick owed its exaltation to the British throne; this principle ought therefore never to be forgotten by the friends of liberty. Though they thould be careful not to mifapply it, yet occafions might arife, as they had formerly arifen, when the application of it would become as neceflary as at the periods to which he alluded. From the evidence relating to the infult offered to the crown, he was perfuaded that meafures might eafily be adopted to prevent fuch outrages in future; but he thought himself bound to reject the bill produced by minifters in its prefent form, as invading the liberty of the fubject in a variety of refpects, and placing it too much at their dif pofal. After other peers had delivered their opinions on the fubject, the duke of Bedford concluded it, by faying, that the reasonings against the bill had met with no adequate anfwers; they ftood upon confiitutional ground, and though they might be out voted, they could not be refuted. The bill added nothing to the perfonal fafety of the king," but increased the power of the crown in a most unconstitutional degree; he would therefore oppofe* it, as a direct attack on the liberty of Englishmen. Should it unhappily país into a law, it would prove fatal an infringement on the confti tution,' tution, that the public would foon be fenfible of the change effected in its condition, and lament, when too late, the fpiritlefs acquiefcence of thole who, forgetting their own dignity and intereft, as well as that of the nation, had facrificed it to unjuftifiable motives, or perfonal views. On putting the queftion, it was carried in favour of miniftry by feventynine votes against eight. On the fame day, Mr. Pitt moved in the house of commons, that the royal proclamations, in confequence of the late riot, fhould be taken into confideration. He grounded his motion on the neceffity of prevent ing fuch infults being offered to the fovereign, as he had experienced on the opening of the feffion. He prefumed every loyal fubject would unite with him on this occafion, and that methods would be taken to obviate thofe caufes from whence the outrages proceeded, which were the factious meetings of difaffected people, wherein feditious difcourfes were conftantly held, and principles maintained utterly fubverfive of good order and obedience to government. The pretence of thefe meetings was to petition the legiflature for rights withheld from the people; but the real motive was, to promulgate opinions inimical to government, and calculated to bring it into contempt. If the executive power were not invefted with fufficient authority to controul thefe meetings, they would finally endanger the exiftence of the state. It was, he acknowledged, the indubitable right of the people to pafs their judgement upon minifters and their measures, and freely to exprefs their fentiments on all political fubjects, as alfo to petition the different branches of the legislature; but thefe rights ought to be kept within- There in and circumstances called for regula tions appofite to the difpofitions of men at different periods. The prefent temper of men was marked by precipitation and temerity, and ought to be repreffed accordingly Proceedings that bordered on fedi tion ought certainly to be oppofed with firmnefs and diligence. Were magiftrates, in fache cafes, to ex ceed their powers,' they would certainly be called to a fevere account, in a country where juries had fhewn themselves to tenacious of the liber ties of their fellow-fubjects, and where the spirit of liberty animated, fo marifeftly, the legislature ittelfy as to induce it to declare thole very juries competent judges whether a pubireation tould be deemed a libel. Mr. Halhed acknowledged the propriety of the firft proclamation, offering an ample reward for the diseqvery of thofe who had infulted the king, but totally disapproved of Caut proclamation, m coincidence with which the bill had been broth into the house! The mif behaviour of the populace, he at med, proceeded from the 'enfe of their feelings, and ought not in equity, to be attributed to that meeting of the people, three days botore, which had not exhibited the leaf fign of a riotous difpofition, and had parted as peaceably as it had met. The mitorable fituation of the rioters, though not a juftifieation, ought to weigh with those who reflecte to what irregalaries men might be drivenpwhen they wanted bread. But the inveterncy of minifters to men who had oppot ed their meafares, with fucive nitamcy dirt 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 cruth, at one blow, all attempts and ideas to effect any reform in parliament, or to remedy any of the abutes and grievances fo long complained of by the nation' at larger 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 ofoconfulting his perfonal dig nity, to render their condition worke than ever it had been, by punishing the many for the offences of a few, hurried into the commifiion of their delinquencies by the preflures of hunger and want. No evidence had been produced to countenance the minifterial affertion, that the riots were caufed by the popular affemblies, held in the vicinity of the metropolis. The clear and well-known purpose of thele meetings was to petition for peace and reform, the endeavours, to obtain which could not, by any legal con ftruction, be deemed acts of fedition. The bill was fupported by Mr. alderman Lufirington, as a measure, without which they perfon of the fovereign would be continually expofed to the sinfuls of the left populace, who would become the more daring and outrageous when they faw that parliament pafled by unnoticed the criminal infolence of which they had been guilty. Were the |