jesty's mouth, as he had expressed his satisfaction at our improved situation, part of which was attributed to the returning loyalty of his subjects.-The hon. gentleman had asked, what were our liber. ties before the formation of clubs? He would remind him, that since the Revolution, clubs had always existed in a greater or less degree; and that the hon. gentleman himself had of late years belonged to almost every one of them. He desired the House to recollect what the magistrates in Westminster were who would be entrusted with authority under this bill. They were not like the gentlemen of that House, of independant fortunes, and administering justice gratuitously, but paid creatures, pensioners, and dependents on ministers. Then what was to be done to render them fit for their offices? First you must give them independence, then integrity, and lastly talents, or they would never be able to discriminate. If any orator, in the heat of his argument, should use a seditious word, or one which the magistrate con strued to be so, and not immediately desist when desired so to do, the riot act was to be read, and followed up by military execution. Reformers in general were not very ready to attend to a gentle hint, and here there was but one alternative; for if the magistrate did not find Was it not actually for want of some such provision, that the national discontents, long working secretly, burst forth at length like a torrent, with the greater violence from having been so long repressed? Again, might not all Charles 1st's subsequent misfortunes be traced to his discontinuance of parliaments for eleven years together, by which a similar effect had been produced in England? The application was obvious. But the right hon. gentleman had declared, that if the bill should pass, there would be a total abrogation of all the liberties of the country. This was in part answered by an hon. gentleman who, opposing the bill with equal violence, had declared that he hoped or believed, that if the bill should pass the people would resist it. He was sure the hon. gentleman could not mean they would resist it by force; all he could design was, that the people, if it should pass, would exercise their just right of petitioning against it, and that the public voice, when expressed loudly and unanimously, would procure its repeal. But when it was so confidently asserted, that, with these clubs and societies the national liberties would expire, he must ask in his turn, where were the national liberties before those clubs and assemblies existed, which were but of late origin? But it had been urged, that we were accusing the people of England in general of disaffec-him passive and obedient, when setting tion; nothing could be farther from the truth. Had this been the fact, we should now have been too late with our preventive remedy: but, in truth, this was the exact time to interfere, before the poison had generally diffused itself. He could most solemnly declare it, as his conscientious opinion, that in voting for this measure, he should invigorate the British constitution. Mr. Sheridan said, that the hon. gentleman who spoke last, agreed to the measure, because he was desirous of handing down the liberties we enjoy unimpaired to posterity. But unfortunately the bill in question was one of the first to destroy those liberties, inasmuch as it made a direct attack on the right of petitioning. He differed also with the hon. gentleman in his idea of a conspiracy, when he insinuated that the spirit of disaffection had increased. Did he mean to assert that it raged more dangerously now than it did at the commencement of the war? If he did then it was evident, that ministers had put a direct falsehood into his ma him to rights, he was to knock him down, Besides, how many magistrates were to be employed to disperse a large assembly? He supposed they were to be procured by advertisement, and we might shortly expect to read in the public papers, "Wanted an immense number of magistrates, to prevent the dissemination of seditious doctrines, and set the people to rights." At this rate not a respectable man would be found in the magistracy, but ashamed of having their names seen there, would resign the bench to a set of hired, venal dependents. He in his soul and conscience believed, that all the tumults had been raised by that immense army of spies which had been disbanded. He hoped the House would not suffer such a libel as this bill to pass; for if it were to pass; he should think it unworthy of him to make use of the exclusive privilege which was allowed to the members of that House, to be the pratthing representative of a dumb and enslaved people. Mr. Martin believed in his conscience, that ministers had taken advantage of what had happened, to rouse a spirit in the country to support their intolerable measures. Such a military force was established all over the country, that he feared much blood would be shed before the nation could regain its liberties. He remembered the day when no minister would have dared to propose such a mea sure. Mr. Windham (secretary at war) said, he had heard much of assertion, that the liberties of this country were gone, and that the people were enslaved; but these assertions had been supported by very little reasoning. The hon. gentlemen opposite had long been too much in unison with the feelings and sentiments of the people who compose such meetings, and therefore it was not surprising that they should express the same feelings on this occasion. It was not, however, from such opinions, that the House was to form its ideas. No man could doubt but that a number of men in this country were engaged in designs to subvert the constitution. Certain gentlemen exulted at that circumstance. He wished them joy of that exultation, but he could not share it with them. He saw it with regret, and it was with regret that he attempted a remedy. If the law at present did not reach those societies, it was fit they should make a law for them. The principles adopted by those societies went directly to the destruction of the constitution. Whether certain doctrines had made a progress in the country, and whether they were attended with danger or were likely to be so, was the issue between them, and on which he called for judgment. When, in the feelings of every body, the whole world had confessedly undergone great changes, the hon. gentlemen opposite seemed to have forgot there was such a thing as the French revolution," the greatest fabric," as had been represented," which human wisdom ever founded on human virtue." Look at the authors and supporters of this system and every man must see they had the ambition to produce even a greater change in the world, than was produced by its conversion from Paganism to Christianity: or by the Saracens under Mahomet. The present leaders of France had annulled treaties in a thousand instances. They were not to be bound by the old musty maxims of Grotius and Puffendorf. They had endeavoured to exterminate all traces of ancient institutions, and had attempted to make the world adopt a new principle. Was there a country in Europe safe from the poison of these principles, or which had not felt the effect of this great democracy? Were not the principles openly avowed in every country, and acted on by men of information and talents? It was evident there was a set of men in this country, who openly professed an attachment to the French republic, who wished them success, and only waited for an opportunity to co-operate with them. What was the case in Holland? Was it an entire conquest, and was there no French party in Holland? Was even America secure against the propagation of French principles? Did any man before the present moment hear of an unjust war against France? He desired the House to examine the French Revolution, and then to say whether that war was not just, which was undertaken against robbers and murderers, and those who were guilty of every crime that blackened human nature. To say that such a war was not just, was an outrage against common sense. There never had been a period in the history of this country when such opinions were entertained, and it was self-evident, that the progress of laws and of crimes must go hand in hand. When new offences occur, new laws must be enacted to meet them. The only question was, whether this remedy was to be applied, or whetherthose societies and meetings were to be permitted to go on preaching sedition and treason as much as they pleased? They had circulated hand-bills and papers of a nature too scandalous to be stated. They mentioned directly the assassination of the sovereign, and this was followed, in a few days, by an actual attack on him. Yet certain hon. gentlemen did not think this measure of safety necessary to be adopted, and saw no connexion between the language held at these meetings and that attack. No government that ever existed permitted such meetings; and as an argumentum ad hominem, the glorious system of new French liberty did not admit of them. The moment a man said any thing the least obnoxious to the government, they took a short method with him, and cut off his head. Mr. Grey said, the right hon. gentleman either did not possess the confidence, or was not acquainted with the crafty wiles of ministers. For this he was not sorry as their inconsistency and absurdity of conduct appeared more clearly from the right hon. gentleman's speeches. The decline of democratic principles had, on a former occasion, been much dwelt on, as the happy effect of the war; yet, at that moment the prevalence of those very principles was made the ground of the bill proposed by ministers. It was argued in favour of the motion, that the spirit of turbulence and discontent was increasing, and the bill intended to be brought in was thought a necessary measure to secure the constitution from invasion. He was ready to allow that discontent of a very alarming nature prevailed in the nation, but could it be attributed to French principles? Certainly not. If properly traced it would be found to originate in the corruption and folly of ministers, who, by plunging the country into an unjust war, produced calamities which they were unable to alleviate or redress. It was urged that there were not only discontented men but traitors in the country, who sought to destroy the constitution. That there were such wretches he would readily admit, wretches of the most base and abominable kind, traitors, who strove, by the most atrocious means to subvert the constitution. He would not name who those traitors were, nor in what situations they were placed, but he was convinced, that if suffered to proceed in their iniquitous plans, they would inevitably produce the dreadful effects which were so much affected to be apprehended from popular meetings and private clubs. He could not conceive any connexion between the meeting at Copenhagen-house and the outrage on his majesty so far from it, he said, he would rather incur the imputation of acting with those men to whom ministers alluded, than suffer the motion to pass without his most marked disapprobation; considering it as he did, as an attempt to rob the people of their dearest rights and enslave the nation. Were not the laws sufficient to suppress seditious meetings? Was not government fully enabled by the assistance of the civil and military power to quell any riot that might happen. An hon. baronet had observed by way of palliating the evil proposed, that the liberty of the press was preserved in its fullest extent. Ought we, therefore, to be deprived of the liberty of speech? It had been pressed as an argument, that government could not be supported by other means. If it could not be supported by other means, the question naturally arose, should it be supported at all. The best governments would occasionally excite discontent, and why should not a government disgraced by ministers whose baseness and folly had degraded the country and whose foolish and ruinous system had universally propagated discontent produce the same effect in a more eminent degree. The right hon. gentleman had observed, that a regular plan was formed for subverting the constitution. What was the system of defence, with which this attack was to be repelled. Ministers proposed to crush the people, and must necessarily destroy the constitution under the flimsy pretence of defending it; a dangerous plan, a plan unlikely to succeed, it being infinitely more probable that they would crush themselves. He would on every occasion oppose so detestable a measure. The question being put, "That leave be given to bring in the bill," the House divided: could doubt that the meaning of those who met at Copenhagen-house was, to excite that spirit which afterwards broke out in an outrage against his majesty? But could the worthy alderman prove any connexion between those who attended that meeting, and the persons who had so daringly insulted his majesty? The House might recollect how the minister had acted, when he caused the Habeas Corpus act to be suspended. Then there was a little decent delay, for the case was referred to a committee. In the present instance, there was nothing of evidence before the House, nothing of the existence of any plot, but the mere assumptions of the proclamation. This was the work of ministers, who came to that House with it, and said, "it is our will that you believe every word of it." "Sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas." come to that conclusion. For his own part, he declared his utter disbelief of it. There might, indeed, be hand-bills written and distributed, and most probably were, as others had been before them, by spies and informers. He was warranted in saying this, for practices of this sort had been proved. Ministers had propagated such libels frequently through the medium of their scandalous and disgraceful tools. Could that be doubted? Had it not been stated at the Old Bailey by Lynam, one of the informers, who admitted that he was paid by government for what he did, and that he was obliged to make extravagant speeches and propositions in some meetings to prevent his being sus pected as a spy? If, therefore, there were any of these hand-bills distributed at Copenhagen-house, the probability was, that the persons who handed them about, were the spies of government. Mr. Canning was of opinion, that there With regard to the late meeting, what was an intimate connexion between the was the probability of this doctrine of proceedings at Copenhagen-house, and king-killing having been held forth? It the disgraceful outrage which followed. was a meeting where lectures were deAn attempt had been made against the livered from particular places erected for king, and a hand-bill was circulated on that purpose, and if there had been held the practice of "king-killing." The doc- forth the doctrine of king-killing, it was trine was preached, and the attempt was utterly impossible for the thing to pass by made. The designs of the speakers were without being noticed. The notoriety of not disguised; they publicly declaimed the whole proceeding proved the falsity of against majesty and government. He the assertion. As so much stress had been did not see how gentlemen could be so laid on the connexion between the problind to plain and evident facts; unless ceedings at these meetings, and the insult they wanted to disguise what the de- offered to the king, he would move for a claimers and orators had no idea in con- committee to inquire into the facts, as cealing. If the attack on the sovereign was done on the suspension of the Habeas immediatelyfollowed the circulation of such Corpus act. abominable doctrine, he did not see how the connexion could be discredited. There was a plea used, it was true, that they were assembled for the puspose of petitioning parliament; but this, it was easy to perceive, was only a pretext to deceive. And yet some gentlemen would still say, that the doctrine and the fact had no connexion. Mr. Sheridan began with observing, that the hon. gentleman had stated, that there was a connexion between the proceedings at Copenhagen-house, and the insult offered to his majesty. He had also alleged that the doctrine of kingkilling had been inculcated by distributing a hand-bill. Now, the connexion that he wanted was a connexion between what that gentleman said and the fact; for until he gave some proof of it, it was a little too much to call on the House to Mr. M. Robinson called on the House to pause, nnd seriously to think of the step they were now about to take. The liberties of this country had never been better cherished than under the house of Brunswick, but ministers were endeavouring to make this reign similar to the reign of Tiberius. Mr. Curwen asked, if pamphlets, such as he had heard stated that night, had really been distributed, what had government been about? Why did they not prosecute the authors? With regard to the. present bill, it was one which required mature deliberation. If there were plots, let the House have evidence of them. He had a family, and he wished to bequeath his fortune and liberty to his children. He was a lover of the constitution, and he wished to transmit it to posterity; but he despaired so to do,, if the bill passed into a law. He wished, at least, to have some precedents. Did the country, in times of the greatest danger, resort to such a measure? If the bill passed, the clause of the Bill of Rights, which enabled the people to petition, was no more. Alderman Lushington said, he would submit to a temporary sacrifice for the general good, but he did not wish the measure proposed by this bill, to be made a permanent law of this country. He should wish to see it made nothing more than an annual regulation at most. Mr. Grey rose chiefly for the purpose of entering his protest against the time that had been chosen for bringing the bill forward. There ought to have been notice given of its being to be brought forward; that not having been the case, the consequence was, that the bill would pass one stage in the absence of some of the most eloquent members. He did not believe that the insult to his majesty originated at Copenhagen-house. It was said, that the doctrine of king-killing was preached there. He knew nothing of that. He had indeed been informed that a handbill was circulated, which stated something about king-killing. He thought the bill unnecessary, because the laws already in existence were fully sufficient to repress the evil. He should oppose it in that House, and out of that House; and if he should be so fortunate as to contribute to the reprobation of it on the part of the people, he should think he had done some service to his country. Mr. Duncombe considered the bill of more importance than any that had been introduced into that House since the Revolution. But, had a bill of that tendency taken place before 1688, we had been still grovelling under the despotism of the house of Stuart. He had witnessed with horror the behaviour on the first day of the session. He wished to see the kingly part of the constitution protected, but there was another part of it that deserved no less attention, namely, the democratical. They were equally essential to its perfection. If the existing laws were not sufficient, he would willingly consent to other laws to any laws that wounded not the vital principles of the constitution. He thought the free discussion of political subjects was one of those principles. The minister whom he had long supported, surely could not wish to discredit popular meetings, for in addition to his merit, he was considerably recommended to his majesty's favour, by the opinion the people had expressed of him; and he was confident he would not kick down the constitutional ladder, by which he had mounted to eminence and distinction. He could not approve of the bill in its present form, as he liked not to leap over those outworks of our constitution, those barriers of freedom, which our ancestors had ever respected. Mr. Wilberforce felt the utmost regret upon the present occasion to find himself under the necessity of differing with his hon. friend, with whom, upon every constitutional question, he had formerly had the happiness to agree. He was sure, however, that the sentiments his hon. friend had expressed were dictated by his total misconception of the bill. There was nothing contained in the bill that, in his apprehension, touched on the essential rights of the constitution. It abolished none of the privileges which Englishmen could legally exercise. The right of holding popular assemblies and of discussing public affairs was preserved by this bill to every extent which ought to be permitted, or which the existing laws authorized. Sir W. Milner said, he would oppose the bill, because he considered it would not only be useless for the object to which it was directed, but would prove highly detrimental to the country. He was convinced that the guilty might be punished by the existing laws. He thought ministers ought to endeavour to suppress illegal meetings, if such took place, and to give directions to magistrates to exert, for that purpose, the authority they possessed. He had heard of a meeting which had taken place that day, where, he understood, the utmost decorum had prevailed, If this meeting was assembled for the purpose of petitioning the legislature against this bill, he highly approved of their design. The loyal yeomanry and gentry in various parts had met, and he hoped would meet, to give it their decided opposition. Alderman Anderson said, he highly ap proved of the bill, though he was not yet perfectly master of its contents. He entertained the greatest dread of the seditious meetings which had been held, and thought some strong measure necessary to counteract them. In his journey to town that day, he had seen crowds of people, and inquiring the cause at a turn |