of

was the very foundation of the bill, to which, for the purpose deluding the people, they had given another title. It was calculated to give a security against any public deliberation of the people on the misconduct of ministers. By this bill 400,000 persons, or any number, might assemble and deliberate at Copenhagen House, or in an open field, and there they might canvass the question of war and peace; the whole conduct of ministers; and hold what language they pleased, whether temperate or intemperate, to recommend peace, or even to withhold supplies; and under the authority of this bill, no justice of peace would have any power to interfere with, or to attempt to disperse them, or even to interrupt their proceedings. Gentlemen might wonder how this could happen. He would tell them :-By this bill any number of persons might meet for the purpose of examining and considering any depending law; this they could not avoid in the bill according to the principle on which its authors pretended to proceed. Every supply bill offered to that house-and scarce a week passed without such bills-was a depending law; and, according to this act, the people might meet and discuss it; and, under the discussion of a bill for granting a supply to his Majesty, they might discuss the whole conduct of the king's ministers, and whether they ought not to be removed from his Majesty's service. It was a bill rather to encourage and provoke, than to suppress tumultuous meetings and assemblies. He did not mention this in order that any new clause should be inserted, but to show the inefficacy of the bill; and also by way of notice of what ground he should hereafter take when this bill came out of the committee, in order that there should be no colour for saying afterwards that he took an unmanly part in the way he should oppose the bill in its future stages.

Mr. Pitt having replied to Mr. Sheridan,

Mr. Sheridan said, he was glad to hear the right hon. gentleman had taken what he said as a notice of what he should do hereafter upon this bill. He need not wonder he was now a little sneered at by that right hon. gentleman, about lending the aid of his abilities to any measure, for he had been more than once reproached for having given himself so much trouble to mend so many of his bad bills. He seemed to forget the nature of the case now before parliament. Suppose Mr. Thelwall, or any other person, was to call a meeting at Copenhagen House, when

a bill of supply was to be voted in parliament, and that instead of three there should be ten tribunals erected, from whence to harangue the populace, could anything be more regular in the discussion of a supply bill, than to enter into the circumstances of the war, the distressed situation of the country, and the misconduct of ministers in the course of it? it was the constant course of debating in parliament. There was no ingenuity required upon the subject; the company so assembled would soon find out the incapacity and the tyrannical disposition of ministers; aud that these were the sources of the misfortunes and calamities of this country. He said that advantage would be taken of this bill, in order to do the very thing which ministers affected to prevent. The people would avail themselves of it, because they were provoked to it by the tyrannical and absurd restrictions imposed upon them by the present bill. He should state this more at large hereafter. Whether ministers would hereafter bring in another bill upon this subject, he knew not; but he was sure this was inadequate to the object for which it was professed to be brought forward.

DECEMBER 3.

TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.

Mr. Mainwaring presented a petition from the churchwardens, minister, sidesman, overseers, commissioners of paving, guardians of the poor, &c., in Clerkenwell parish, whose names were all obtained, he said, in a few hours, in support of the bills.

MR. SHERIDAN said, that the churchwarden and sidesman who subscribed this petition, were in the singular number, for there was only one churchwarden out of four, one sidesman out of four, and two overseers out of six who espoused it. Nothing could be more fair and open than the petition which he had the honour to present the other day against the convention bills, from the inhabitants of Clerkenwell parish; for a requisition was made by twenty-four housekeepers, to call a public meeting; a handbill, of which 4000 copies were distributed, was signed by twenty-six housekeepers; six respectable houses were open for the reception of signatures, and, in twelve hours, 1200 names were subscribed. Nothing could be more clandestine than the manner in which this petition was obtained, for it was privately prepared, and carried from door to door, where the poorer in

habitants were terrified into a subscription by the appearance of the collectors of rates and taxes, and the public-houses by the appearance of a magistrate, who, at the next quarter sessions, might otherwise refuse a license. In the meantime it was a notorious fact, said Mr. Sheridan, that a week had been employed on this occasion.

Lord W. Russell presented a petition from the noblemen, gentlemen, clergy, freeholders, and other undersigned inhabitants of the county of Surrey, against the convention bills. The petition was subscribed by 6091 persons; regular notice had been given of the meeting, gentlemen of great ability on both sides of the question attended. There had been a minority at the meeting, which minority had entered into several resolutions, and had drawn up a petition which had been signed by about 2000 persons. Mr. T. Onslow conceived, that there were some floating particles in the atmosphere of the house, which, coming in contact with some gentlemen, produced in them a disorder called the cacoethes loquendi. These particles, he was happy to say, had not come in contact with him, and, therefore, he could assure the house that he would not trouble them with a long speech upon the subject. The petition that had been presented had been signed by above 6000 persons: the petition in favour of the bills by about 2000 perBut he wished to know how many of those 6000 persons were freeholders of the county, and how much of the property of the county they represented?

sons.

Mr. Sheridan could not help being of opinion, that though Mr. Onslow had rebuked the practice of the cacoethes loquendi, he had not wholly refrained from it. To the wit of the hon. gentleman he had nothing to object, except that it seemed not to be without preparation. The joke about the dismissal of ministers the house had heard before. Though, therefore, the repetition of signatures to a petition might be a good thing, he never heard that the repetition deserved that praise. He was happy to hear it now avowed by the staunchest friends of the minister, that the surest way to procure the signatures and the suffrages of the people, was to represent that they would tend, in their consequences, to remove him from his situation. This was a truth which the minister himself had for some time been in the habit of hearing, but hearing with affected incredulity, from the opposition side of the house. Now, however, he could not well resist the conviction that flashed upon him, from the testimony of those adherents who were most tender of his interests. Of petitions, the hon. gentleman seemed to think that the sole excellence consisted in the weight of property which they represented. As to the system of measuring the value of a man's opinion by

the size of the freehold he possessed, it seemed founded on the philosophy of Sergeant Kite, who held in contempt "the opinion of any man that was not six feet high"-a doctrine which he supposed that hon. gentleman would be unwilling to subscribe to. In regard to this petition, it was certainly three times higher in the strength of its opinion than the other, because it contained three times the number of signatures, having 6000 to 2000. An hon. gentleman opposite had wished for accurate descriptions; he supposed he had taken the hint from a foreigner, whose name he observed in the petition in favour of the bills, which he begged the clerk to read.

The clerk read, "Alexander Dupont, proprietaire et fidele sujet du Roi d'Angleterre."

This person, Mr. Sheridan remarked, could not be a very disinterested petitioner, as, if he had refused to sign, he might have been liable to have been that moment turned out of the kingdom. Alderman Harley presented a petition from Aldersgate ward in favour of the

bills.

Mr. Le Mesurier said, he was rather an old inhabitant of the ward, and from the contrariety of opinions in it there was fear of tumult. He urged that this petition was signed by the greatest number of persons of property, while many of the signatures to the other were subscribed by persons who had tasted the hon. alderman's bounty during the hard frost.

Mr. Sheridan rose to allude to the speech of Alderman Le Mesurier. Many persons ought not, it had been said, to have signed that petition, because they had tasted the bounty of Mr. Anderson. Was this principle to be tolerated? Was this a condition to which the people of England ought to be reduced? Was humanity to be exerted for such purposes? Were the people, as soon as they tasted the bounties of the rich, to surrender from that moment all right of judgment and decision? There was, he hoped, but one man in the kingdom who would maintain such a doctrine.

Alderman Le Mesurier complained of misrepresentation; he had meant only that the persons who had partaken of Mr. Anderson's bounty ought not to have signed a petition against him. An alderman, Mr. Le Mesurier lamented, could not open his mouth, but he must be cavilled at.

Mr. Sheridan could not conceive why Mr. Le Mesurier should suppose him to be so great an enemy to aldermen.

The order of the day for the third reading of the bill for more effectually pre

venting seditious assemblies was read. Mr. Harding spoke at considerable length in favour of the bill. Mr. M. Montagu followed.

Mr. Sheridan (who had risen at the same time with Mr. Montagu, but had given way) said, "The hon. gentleman (Mr. Hardinge) made so many direct allusions to me, that it could not appear surprising that, immediately on his sitting down, I should have risen to present myself to your notice. I am not sorry, however, that I was interrupted, as the last hon. speaker has pursued nearly the same line of argument, and, by replying to both, I shall be able to save the time and trouble of the house. The hon. gentleman having insinuated a great deal of blame to the opposition against the bill, has, by way of preserving the appearance of candour, thought proper to admit, that ministers have not been sufficiently alert in checking the progress of the evil which it has now become necessary to oppose; and that the magistrates have not been altogether free from blame, in not properly enforcing the authority attached to their functions. If this statement be just-if the evil does proceed from the inactivity and negligence of magistrates-what remedy does this bill afford for checking the proceedings of seditious meetings, or the circulation of dangerous libels? Instead of anything in the bill which is calculated to call forth their energy, and aid their exertions, it destroys the reverence of their authority, and opposes an obstacle to the discharge of their functions, by placing them in a situation of odium and suspicion with respect to the people, the effect of which, I venture to affirm, will be such, that when once the nature of this bill is properly explained, there is not one magistrate of respectability in this country who will choose to retain the office. It has been stated, that in a former debate, I took occasion to throw reflections on the characters of magistrates. On the contrary, there are many who fill the situation, whom I regard with the highest respect; but my objection to the magistrates of Westminster-to whom at that time I referred —was, that they were paid by ministers, and removable at pleasure. I have to return my thanks to the learned gentleman for many things which he addressed to me in the way of personal civility, and which, coming from him, I confess have great weight. I have, secondly, to thank him for taking up the question exactly in the point of view in which I wish to consider it— whether the necessity of the case is such as to call for the