land from France should provide themselves with a passport from the secretary of state. This clause was novel only from its mildness; for in the act of king William, passed in the best of times, and by the most declared and best known friends of the constitution, it was made infinitely more penal in anatural-born subject of the king to return from France to England with out leave. The then circumstances of the times justified the rigour of the act of William; and the present state and principles of France would warrant a much stronger measure than that which was to be enacted by the clause in question. Every part of the bill was simple, very little of it was new, and therefore there could be no occasion for delay.

The Attorney General said, that in the division of the clauses of the bill on which the right hon. gentleman had commented,he had thought proper to stigmatise some of them with the epithet of tyrannical. It would certainly be doing injustice to himself, as the author of that bill, if he suffered such an imputation to remain on the principles on which it was founded. The same provisions which were contained in the present act, were adopted at the era of the Revolution, and when the sole question between this country and France related to our right to fix the succession to the throne of these kingdoms; and our ancestors on that account, had deemed it proper to pursue similar measures with those which were at present adopted. And, at the present crisis, when the very existence of the constitution was endangered, could that be thought tyrannical which was then considered as justifiable? With regard to the prohibition of British subjects to return from France without a passport, if any such restraint was requisite, and abundant proofs of its necessity might, and had been adduced, the way in which it was imposed was of a most unobjectionable kind. The party landing in Great Britain, though he might have been refused a passport by the secretary of state, might easily obtain his freedom by giving proper security to any neighbouring justice of the peace, and, finally, by appealing to the courts at Westminster, obtain exemption from any kind of restraint. And though particular hardship might possibly arise, yet the plan itself was perfectly defensible, on the difficulties which had arisen from the singularity of existing circumstances. Nothing was more absurd in determining on the intrin

sic merit of any measure which was brought forward, than vague obsevations on its popularity or unpopularity in the country. Even on that ground, however, he was willing to meet the right hon. gentleman, and could with confidence assert, that in every circle of which he had knowledge, it was spoken in terms of universal approbation. In corroboration of what he had said, he begged leave to inform the House, that he had, since this bill was in agitation, received a letter from a surveyor, stating, that had not such an act as this been likely to pass, he was engaged to go over to France, there to survey some lands which were to be purchased by British subjects; but at the same time he did not wish to allege specific facts in support of a plan which was founded on the more broad and permanent basis of general policy. If the National Convention had distinctly confessed that the means of carrying on the war were to arise from the sale of lands, surely a clause which prevented Englishmen from parting with their money on the security of such lands, was a deprivation to France of the means of carrying on the war. As to the charge which had been thrown on government of having libelled the people of this country, by the implications in which they had involved them by the terms of the present bill, he had flattered himself that that subject had been dropped long since. It had been said at the beginning of the session that the loyalty of the people of England was libelled by the preparations of government, and he did not imagine that the charge would have been renewed on the present occasion. It was a fact that the most dangerous doctrines had gone forth; doctrines, the operation of which could not be checked but by declaring them liable to the penalties of treason. At the period of the Revolution, the doctrine that the king, lords, and commons could not regulate the succession of the crown, had been declared to be treason; and were not the same or more dangerous doctrines held out at this moment? The measures which government had adopted had met with the approbation of nine tenths of the people without doors, and of a considerable majority in that House; and, when those measures had been disapproved, the gentlemen who disapproved them had been the only libellers; they had been the libellers of the majority both of that House and of the people without doors. He

occasions.

Mr. Sheridan said, that as to the bill being in some parts of it tyrannical, that part of the subject had not been fairly treated by the advocates for the bill; they said there was no evil in it for which there was not a remedy. If a man came from France, and was taken into custody for not complying with certain capricious distinctions, he might apply to the secretary of state to be discharged, and he should have his liberty. How? If the secretary of state pleased, but not otherwise. Could any thing be more tyrannical than such a measure? As to the libel on the people of England, that they were many of them disposed to sedition, that the present times were full of danger, and that the bill was only a mitigation of the law of treason as formed by the founders of the Revolution, there was the most gross misapplication-at the time when the alterations were made in the act of Edward 3d, there was indeed reason to apprehend sedition and rebellion; that was a law in consequence of the petition of the people praying for it, and it was carried against the influence and in direct hostility to the crown. It was matter of astonishment to him, that gentlemen could gravely say that there were treason and sedition in this country; that there were the same reasons at this day for the bill, as there was at the time of the revolution; that the present moment required the same restraints, as when there was a plot against the safety of the state. He was sure the charge of sedition on the people of this country, was a foul calumny upon them. Let the attorney-general produce his proofs. Let him tell that House that he would take up one man in the kingdom for treason. Let him name one man whom he suspected. Let him charge one man with a seditious view. But whenever these questions were asked, instead of showing the existence of the evil, ministers contented themselves with producing a remedy. Did we ask for proof of sedition? Look at the alien bill, was the answer. They proved the dis

well, I do not want your assistance;" then the doctor would affect a resolute tone, and insist on bleeding his patient today; and if he did not then find himself ill, he would put him in a strait waistcoat tomorrow. With respect to what the chancellor of the exchequer had said upon Whigs and Tories, he did not know any person so well fitted to prove that a man might affect to be a Whig, and yet be a Tory in his heart: he did not know a man who had greater reason to feel what he said upon that subject, or to understand it better. If the right hon. gentleman meant any thing by what he had said on that subject, he meant to convey a sentiment, and establish a doctrine the most pernicious to public liberty; namely, that public profession of principle was altoge. ther a piece of delusion upon the people. This was done by the minister with a view of bringing all public spirit into contempt, to destroy all distinction between the friends of freedom and the friends of despotism, and to build his own power upon the ruin of both. But whatever he might think, there was too much good sense in the people of this country to be imposed on by such stale attempts; they began to see the difference between their friends and those who wished to deceive them. Ministers began to feel that the story of seditions, and all the trade of the alarmists, began to flag, and therefore this bill was brought in to revive the delu sion; but the people might be said to be like those who had been sworn at Highgate-they never would take a counterfeit while they could have the reality.

Mr. Pitt said, that with respect to the insinuation of the hon. gentleman upon whigs and tories, if any abandonment of principle was ascribed to him, or the attempt to subdue all principle in political considerations, it was an imputation which he disdained. He held not the principles of some persons who had lately called themselves whigs, but the principles of liberty settled at the Revolution.

Mr. Whitbread thought the conduct of ministers in the present instance highly indecent, and strenuously urged the propriety of deferring the commitment of the bill.

The question being put, that the words.

March 22. On the order of the day for going into a Committee on the bill, Mr. Fox implored the delay of a day or two before they went into a committee. The measure was fraught with so many evils, that the most mature deliberation was necessary. If the country were sufficiently apprized of its dangerous and unconstitutional tendency, he entertained no doubt but it would meet with universal detestation. He could not resist expressing his indignation at the precipitancy with which so extraordinary a measure was enforced.

The House having resolved itself into the Committee,

Mr. Grey said, that before such a bill had been introduced, some proofs ought to have been given, that the country was endangered by the traitorous correspondence now alluded to. In his opinion it was totally unnecessary, as the 25th Edw. 3d tended to prevent every overt act, which generally, in times of public emergency, was deemed treasonable. Both the title and preamble of the bill were false. The first ran thus: "A bill more effectually to prevent, during the war, all traitorous correspondence with, or aid or assistance being given to, his majesty's enemies." This certainly implied that there were among his majesty's subjects some dangerous mal-contents, who aimed at the subversion of the government of this country, and the complete overthrow of our constitution. This allegation he would totally deny, till he saw proofs to the contrary. As to the preamble, it was equally fallacious. It declared-" Whereas it is expedient more effectually to prevent traitorous correspondence with, or aid or assistance being given to, his majesty's enemies, during the continuance of the present war." This undoubtedly implied that the 25th Edw. 3d was not sufficiently strong. He was of a contrary opinion, and thought it well calculated to prevent all traitorous correspondence. If that act was considered weak and insufficient, why not say so? Why libel the people of this

favourable to the cause of the enemy? As both the title and preamble were founded on false principles, he proposed that the whole should be postponed; and if any law were necessary, which he denied, something less objectionable might be introduced.

The Solicitor General observed, that every treasonable act contained in this bill was of that nature by the existing laws of the country, and the sole object of the bill was accurately to ascertain the nature of such acts. According to the true spirit of the statute of Edw. 3d the framers of this bill had come to the House for a legislative exposition of the old law, rather than leave to judges the power of putting a judicial interpretation upon it. The second clause, preventing the purchase of lands in France, was clearly treasonable; and it was impossible to say, that selling naval and military stores to the French was not aiding and assisting his majesty's enemies. The third and fourth clauses were both justifiable and expedient, on the grounds of general security to the country and safety to individuals; and though ministers might be upbraided as being the supporters of arbitrary power, by a body of men who arrogated all public spirit, patriotism and virtue to themselves, yet they would go on undaunted in their career, while they were conscious of consulting the defence and prosperity of the nation. According to his ideas, insurance of enemies ships in time of war was aiding and assisting his majesty's enemies; and as far as he could view the matter, the title was perfectly consistent with the preamble.

The Attorney General defended the preamble. In adopting it he had followed the example of lord Somers, and some of the greatest men that ever were in this country. In every act of this sort, it was necessary that it should admit of a more general interpretation than could perhaps be wished, if the evil could be otherwise sufficiently guarded against. For instance, in the present case, it might no doubt be true, that some persons going from this country to France, or returning hither, might have no improper intention whatever, yet, as other persons might probably go there, or return from thence, for purposes hostile to this country, it be came necessary, in order to guard effec tually against these, to make a general regulation, prohibiting all persons either

from going to France, or returning from thence, except under such regulations as may be consistent with the safety of the

state.

Mr.Hawkins Browne said, that although there were some gentlemen who had differed from him on the subject of the necessity of the present war, and who had supposed it might have been averted by negociation, yet now that we had been so unjustly attacked, and were actually at war, he had hoped that every gentleman would unite in supporting such measures as might be necessary to the carrying on that war with vigour and effect. The grand question in his opinion was, "Whether we should have any king, any constitution, or any government at all?" Were he enthusiastically fond of republicanism--were he the maddest zealot that had ever admired Harrington's Oceana, he would at this time defend the British constitution against the new system. God forbid that we should ever have a government imposed upon us by France! He went on to state the danger arising to this country from the principles and objects of France in the present war; its evident intention to interfere in the internal polity of this country; and his abhorrence of the idea of our receiving, what he might otherwise reckon a benefit, if imposed on us by the power of France: because the constitution spurned all foreign interference. Had he been a Jacobite, he could not have brought himself to have received from such influence, the establishment of his favourite king.

Mr. Anstruther asked if, when gentlemen objected to the preamble of the bill as containing an absolute falsehood, they meant to dispute that it was expedient to prevent the corresponding with, or giving aid or assistance to, his majesty's enemies? for nothing was asserted in the preamble except that it was expedient to prevent these three things. It had been said, however, that the preamble ought to be postponed till the facts were proved, and, if the preamble stated any specific facts, he should perhaps agree to this. The bill was one of prevention, and the merit of it was, that it came in at the beginning of a war, before any correspondence with the enemy had taken place, or any aid or assistance had been given them. He then vindicated the general principle and several clauses of the bill."

Mr. Powys said, that it was the uniform practice to postpone the preamble of bills [VOL. XXX. ]

till the different clauses were discussed, and stated that, in his opinion, the House had already decided upon the necessity of the bill as well as its principle, by giving leave to bring it in.

Mr. Fox was against postponing the preamble. The hon. gentleman who spoke last but one, had quibbled on this preamble in a most extraordinary manner, and had been obliged to state it unfairly in order to support his deduction: he had asked whether it could be denied, that it was expedient to prevent corresponding with his majesty's enemies, &c.; but the words of the preamble were, that it was expedient more effectually to prevent such correspondence, &c.; and he would ask, whether, without any knowledge of the insufficiency of the existing laws, or of any extraordinary urgency, the House would think it right to enact such dreadful provisions as some of those which composed this bill? Gentlemen talked of what had been done at the Revolution. Let them follow the example of those who acted at that time, by adducing evidence of the necessity of the measure. Upon the principle now asserted, if a handful of men, however insignificant, or however small in number, should happen to entertain opinions subversive of the established constitution, this alone would be held sufficient to justify the investing government with the most arbitrary powers, though there existed, in fact, no real danger. An hon. gentleman had said, that if he were a Jacobite, he would not take the part even of his favourite monarch, if imposed on him by the power of France. For his part, if the constitution which he so much venerated was to be destroyed, he did not care whether its overthrow came from France, or originated at home. He would support ministers in carrying on the war, but he would not agree to undermine the constitution; and he could not give his concurrence to the proceeding one step farther in the present bill without evidence of some great and urgent necessity. It had been hinted, that inconveniences had arisen during the American war, from improper intercourse with the enemy; for his part, he had never before heard of it, and he was sure no such thing had ever been proved. He believed that, during the war which began in 1756 and ended in 1760, less restrictions had been imposed than in any other war, and he would submit it to gentlemen, without any observation, whe[2 R]

Lord Beauchamp thought that no parallel could be drawn between the war of 1756 and the present. This war had peculiar features belonging to it, which set at defiance all attempts at comparison with former wars. In every former war the countries engaged respected the constitutions of each other; but in this, our enemy seemed satisfied with nothing less than the complete destruction of our whole political establishment. The bill appeared to him a necessary measure, and therefore he saw no reason why they should postpone the preamble.

Mr. Burke rose in defence of the bill. He said he rejoiced that, in times of public emergency, the ministers and the legislators of this country reverted to the salutary principles of our ancestors. This was undoubtedly the best mode of discharging their duty to the country and while they adhered to this, maxim, no person need apprehend that the constitution would not be taken care of. The present bill had, he said, been condemned with much acrimony by the gentlemen who led the opposition phalanx; but although he had listened with the greatest attention, he had not heard one argument which could prevail upon him to alter his opinion, that the regulation now introduced was neither unwise nor unconstitutional. They had been lavish of their censure, because they asserted that the measure wanted precedent; but, when they made this assertion, they did not recollect, or, what was almost the same thing, they did not choose to recollect, that in several periods of our history siimilar precuations had been adopted by the government for the time being. He would not overcharge their memories with instances from remote times, but content himself with producing one which occurred in the year 1688, when a happy Revolution took place in this country-not a revolution stained with blood and infamy, as that lately adopted in a neighbouring kingdom. To convince them of what he now advanced, he affirmed, that the very next chapter to the Bill of Rights contained an act empowering king William to take up and imprison all suspected persons. The people of those days, who were jealous of their rights and liberties, were not heard to murmur against the proceedings of government, but suffered the whole to pass in silence, fully persuaded that they

large. The same policy was afterwards adopted by the ministry who followed; and their political sagacity was much applauded. With regard to whig and tory, if properly understood, he hoped that neither of them could be considered as an enemy to the country. A whig was, in his opinion, a person who agreed to the constitution of king, lords, and commons; but who, on any public misunderstanding, would adhere to the aristocracy and democracy of the country, rather than yield to the monarchy. A tory was a person who acted upon a contrary principle, by favouring, on all occasions, the prerogative of the crown. Those who believed that the constitution was amply secure without the present bill, argued on false principles. The constitution alone could not defend itself. It required all the manly efforts of those who were its guardians to repel every storm which menaced its overthrow. No period had occurred in history more detrimental to its vital principles than the present; and government merited applause and gratitude in proportion to their vigilance and activity. Some gentlemen had condemned administration for their remiss conduct; but they ought to recollect, that a little rest from the fatigues of business was at times requisite. Sleep, the sister of death, was as necessary to the body politic as to the body natural. Sleep was a cessation of all our faculties. It was a relaxation which infused into the vital stamina a new portion of health and vigour, and enabled all the members to exert their various functions with a greater impulse and effect. I therefore rejoice, said Mr. Burke, that ministers are aroused, and predict the happiest consequences from their energy. From their resolution and activity I anticipate the overthrow and humiliation of the enemy; and have no doubt but that the warmest congratulations will follow their enterprise and success. You are now at war with an enemy who has waged war with your constitution, and who has been but too successful in establishing among you a dangerous domestic faction [Here there was an interruption of No, no!]. Gentlemen may now deny the assertion, but at a future period I will name them, to their confusion, though not to their shame.Every kind of government, whatever may be its organization or structure, implied and required that a man should surrender