had, for some time, been kept in prison. taken away, the only barrier that we had To be sure he was liberated upon the con- against the annihilation of liberty would viction of the perjury of his accuser. But be completely destroyed. The bill would what reparation did ministers grant to this interrupt the meeting of clubs, occasional man, thus exposed to suffer, from the attendance on which formed the chief, if falsehood and corruption of another? It not the sole, luxury of persons in certain had been asked, whether it was fair to stations. The learned gentleman told us, set down the whole of the friends and that the whole of the government was atsupporters of ministers as being in a con tacked. He was not an advocate for atspiracy against the liberties of the coun- tacks on government, but he was an adtry? To this he would answer by ano-vocate for human nature, when it was opther question, did not the learned gentle- pressed. It had been well said in a former man believe that there were in the Corres- war with respect to the Americans, "You ponding Society some men who were by drive them to madness, and will you no means actuated by those detestable quarrel with them about their ravings?" views which were indiscriminately as- When he looked to the many calamities cribed to the whole of the body? So in which the war had brought upon the the same way he might believe, that there country; when he saw, during them all, were some supporters of ministers, who an acquiescent and confiding House of really meant well, though they were blind Commons, he thought he could account dupes of the folly, or unconscious instru- for some part of that spirit of discontent ments of the wicked policy of ministers. which pervaded a great body of the people. But though he by no means confounded This was the only war since the peace of every supporter of ministers under the Utrecht, which had in no one instance same censure, yet if he saw a rooted de- given rise to an inquiry in the House of sign on the part of ministers to invade the Commons. Even during the famous wars liberties of the subject, followed up by of Chatham, and the victorious campaigns successive efforts, all directed to that ob- of Marlborough, inquiries were instituted ject, he should think himself wanting in respecting some of the operations, Had his duty, if he did not take all peaceable this been the only war so eminently bril means of stirring up opposition on the liant, so uniformly successful, so clear in part of the country to the progress of their its details, so economical in its arrangemeasures. He agreed with the learned ments, as to claim exemption from that gentleman, that the constitution was bet- strict investigation, which had been dister adapted for the enjoyment of practical played at former periods in the military liberty than that of any other country, but history of this country? With this neghe rather thought that had been the case ligence of the House of Commons before formerly more than it was at present: it their eyes,-with the experience of their would be invidious to state any precise own accumulated sufferings-was it to be epoch when the alteration began to be wondered at that men should complain, most manifest, yet without meaning any more especially, when the authors of their thing, either personal or disrespectful to misfortunes, were at the same time mathe king, he must state, that from the king an attempt to deprive them of their time of the revolution till the accession of dearest and best rights? You may prehis present majesty to the throne, practi- vent men from complaining, said Mr. Fox, cal liberty had been greater than it had but you cannot prevent them from feeling, been since, and that the system which had Either your bills must remain waste paper, been acted upon in this reign was more or they must be carried into execution hostile to liberty than that acted upon with circumstances of the greatest oppres during the period to which he had alluded. sion. Depend upon it, if men speak less, He could discover nothing in the present they will feel more, and arms will be left state of the country that could justify this them as the only resource to procure renew infringement on the liberties of the dress to themselves, or exercise vengeance subject intended by the bill. So far from upon their oppressors. Mr. Fox then it, the power and influence of the crown proceeded to refute the pretext for not were obviously so enormous, that all the going into an inquiry, from the supposed liberty that subsisted in the country was urgency of danger. He stated the little preserved only by the freedom of speech advantage which ministers had derived and the liberty of the press: if either of from their system of alarm and terror, these were given up, or in any degree from an instance personal to himself. If, Iterare cursus at the commencement of the war it should | anticipate the discussion upon these bills; have been proposed that he should make a but when they did come forward, he speech, as he had that day done,to 30,000 would venture to assert, that he would people, the question would not have been, lay such grounds before the House as whether he should have been suffered should satisfy their minds upon the subto speak, but whether he should have been ject. The right hon. gentleman asks, suffered to exist. By that large concourse, "why, if this danger exists, and has existhe had that day been heard with unanimity ed for some time, why did you suffer the and approbation; so great was the change Habeas Corpus act to revive? why did you that had taken place in their sentiments! not continue its suspension?" Whether miHe concluded with recommending to mi- nisters had done right in not proposing to nisters to abandon a system, which had continue the suspension, he would not unhitherto only been marked by reverses dertake to say; he could, however, state and disappointments. The pressure of some ground to justify their conduct. the war was the original source of the dis- Whatever the opinion of the right hon. contents of the people, and the measures gentleman might be of the trials for high taken to repress these discontents had only treason, and the evidence produced upon increased the evil. The bad success of that occasion, he was sure they had a their policy ought to induce them to trace strong effect upon the public. When that back their former footsteps, immense mass of matter was laid open, and the real designs of these societies developed, it served to open the eyes of the unwary, to check the incautious, and to deter the timid. When this was considered, and also the wretched situation to which France was reduced, there was fair ground for ministers to suppose that the delusion would cease. It was therefore prudent to try the effect of a lenient measure; and what was the effect? From the moment the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act was taken off, all the plans of these societies revived and continued in a progressive state till the meeting of parlia ment.-The right hon. gentleman called for some proof, to show the connexion of the meeting at Copenhagen-house, and the attack upon his majesty. But what was the moment chosen to commit this out. rage? Could it be supposed that this daring outrage was committed without hope of support from some party or other? Certainly not. Upon these grounds, he trusted the House would reject the motion. and to try what effects they could produce upon the people, by treating them with respect and gentleness. He reminded them of the saying of a great man, whom they had often occasion to quote (Mr. Burke) "Try all means of gentleness; terror can always be applied to, but never without danger; for if it fails in one instance, it produces contempt ever after." Mr. Pitt said, that the right hon. gen. tleman had expressed himself under some obligations to ministers for restoring him to a portion of the popularity which he had lost, and had founded his claim to that popularity upon having addressed a meeting that day of 30,000 persons with applause. With respect to the number of persons present at the meeting, he could not undertake to speak correctly, not having any data upon which to form an opinion. But he should advise the right hon. gentleman not to be too sanguine in his calculation of their numbers, before he knew for how many of his auditors he was indebted to a reinforcement from Copenhagen-house, because it was notorious that the persons who assembled at that place expressed their determination of joining the assembly of the electors of Westminster; he would advise him to pause until he knew with certainty how many of that 30,000 were electors and householders in Westminster. The right hon. gentleman had stated, that ministers had called upon parliament to pass these bills, without laying before them any ground upon which they could be convinced of their necessity. He would not Sir W. Milner thought the public should never be impeded in their meetings to discuss public affairs. The manner in which the Westminster meeting was conducted that day, did them credit. He was sorry to hear that there were soldiers sa near the place of so peaceable an assembly. To bring soldiers near a place where there was to be a meeting for political purposes, was a practice of a very despotic nature; it tended to overawe the assembly, and to prevent their speaking their minds with freedom. He did not see any connexion between the proceedings of Copenhagen-house, and the attack on his ma jesty. He expressed great contempt for the idea that a public debating society could engender treason. What sort of treason was that which a man might go to hear on paying sixpence? Sir Francis Basset had no objection to the holding of public meetings for constitutional purposes; but when they were confessedly held for purposes that were inimical to our constitution, it became the duty of government to take care to bring the military for the purpose of suppressing tumults, if any should arise. He could not agree with those who thought there was no connexion between the meeting at Copenhagen-house and the outrage offered to his majesty. He had heard of words delivered at that place, which were dangerous in themselves and still more so from the manner in which they were delivered. The words were these, "His gracious majesty is to meet his parliament on Thursday next, and I hope you will give him a warm reception.' Would any man of common sense say, that this was to be understood as applying to the applause which arose from attachment to his person? Was it not obviously for the purpose of contumely? Sir Francis adverted to the riot act. That act had been passed without inquiry, upon the notoriety of the case, that mischief might otherwise arise. What was the situation of the country at the time? There were some persons who were known to be inimical to the king. And it was also known that they wished to remove him, and put another on the throne in his place. The danger apprehended at that time, great as it was, was nothing to that which was to be dreaded at present. Had the family of Stuart been placed upon the throne, the whole of the constitution would not have been destroyed, the property of every individual would not have been wrested from him; personal distinction would not have been sacrificed; and some security would have remained for the form of our government continuing. But if the persons engaged in those societies should succeed, there would be an end at once to the very form of our constitution. The mischiefs of these clubs which it was the object of the bill to suppress had long struck him so forcibly, and so it had many country gentlemen, like himself, that they thought the minister had been extremely remiss in not bringing some such measure as the present forward long before that time. Mr. Windham spoke highly of the pension that had been granted to Mr. Burke, whom he extolled as the most enlightened man in Europe, and to whom a statue of gold ought to be erected. He thought ministers gave proof of their public spirit by granting him a pension, as much of the labour of that great man had been exerted against themselves. If such a man as Mr. Burke had been left in that indigence in which the independence of his own great mind had so long kept him, it would have been a disgrace to the country and the age in which he lived. The manner in which that gentleman had been talked of in his retirement, and under the pressure of domestic affliction, was degrading to those who indulged in it. The character of so great a man ought to be venerated by the public. Mr. Sheridan said, that with regard to the pension to Mr. Burke, he would not say.one word of his merits, farther than that no man deserved better to enjoy a part of the public money, if pensions were at all to be given, since he had contributed so much to the economy of the national cash. The manner, however, of granting the pension was disgraceful, not only to the gentleman himself, but to ministers. His own bill had been evaded in order to grant him his pension, instead of coming for it fairly to parliament. An hon. baronet had related a speech, said to be uttered at Copenhagen-house. It was, he owned, gross and highly improper, but was it spoken? A learned gentleman had produced a number of papers, said to be bought at the shop of citizen Lee, whom he called bookseller to the London Corresponding society. He believed that citizen Lee was not the bookseller of the Corresponding Society. Let him be proved to be so. The chancellor of the exchequer ought to be the last to demolish debating societies, as he had himself profited so much from them; the right hon. gentleman had attended them assiduously, and had not only spoken in a mask at these debating societies, but had lent a helping hand to the institution of one of them, at the Lyceum in the Strand. His speech in a mask was spoken at Carlisle-house, on the question, "Whether the distinction was just, which divided all mankind into two classes, knaves and fools." What side the right hon. gentleman had taken he could not say. Perhaps no man could better illustrate the position, that a little political knavery Nov. 19. On the motion, That the Treasonable Practices Bill be now read a second time, Mr. For said, that he should enter into the subject when the question should be put, that the speaker do leave the chair, which he understood was likely to take place on the 23rd. Mr. W. Smith said, he felt himself compelled by every sentiment of duty to oppose the bill. He opposed it on this ground, that it would be ineffectual with regard to the objects professed to be attained. He thought that the law as it stood at present, was adequate to all the purposes for which the bills were avowedly introduced. He therefore could not suffer the bill to pass in any stage of it without taking the sense of the House. The House divided when there appeared to be: Yeas, 64; Noes, 22. Nov. 23. This day numerous Petitions * The public was no less occupied than parliament itself, in the discussion of the two Bills. Clubs and associations were formed every where for the purpose of opposing them by every method not liable to the cognizance of the law. Never had there appeared, in the memory of the oldest man, so firm and desided a plurality of adversaries to the ministerial measures as on this occasion: the interest of the public seemed so deeply at stake, that individuals, not only of the decent, but of the most vulgar professions, gave up a considerable portion of their time and occupations in attending the numerous meetings that were called in every part of the kingdom, to the professed intent of counteracting this attempt of the ministry. The Whig club, Comprising not a few individuals of the first rank and property in the kingdom, led the way in this celebrated opposition. The Corresponding Society's numerous members, together with an immense multitude of their adherents and well-wishers, assembled on the 12th of November, in the fields near Copenhagen-house. Here they solemnly denied all intentions of raising com were presented to the House against the Treason and Sedition bills. After which. Mr. Pitt moved, that the order of the day for going into a committee on the Treason bill be discharged, and that the House do resolve itself into the said committee on the 25th. Mr. Fox said, he wished for farther delay, because it appeared that these bills were most reprobated where they were best known, and met with approval only where their merits had not been discussed. His opinion of the bills was precisely what he had declared it to be-that they repealed the Bill of Rights, and subverted the constitution of the country. He did not wish to see them altered or amended; he rather hoped they might pass in their present form, because, as the attack was to be made upon the rights and liberties of the nation, he wished that attack to be open, broad, and intelligible to the people at large. He did not wish the poison of these bills to be sweetened to their palates, but that the people should be prepared and cautioned against the dreadful draught. If, indeed, the opinion of the majority were in favour of these bills; if he could believe it possible that the people were so degraded and abject as to prefer slavery to liberty, or to countenance these bills with any thing like their approbation; if they did not so generally express their abhorrence of them, as to show that they yet retained an unabating attachment to the constitution of their ancestors; he could only say, that he could motions, and disproved the charge brought against them, by ministry, of being concerned in the outrages committed against the king. They framed three petitions, one to the King, and the two others to the Lords and Commons; stating them to be the unanimous petitions of nearly 400,000 British subjects, met together to communicate their sentiments, and express them freely, as authorized to do by the Bill of Rights, on the measures of ministry, which tended to invade the liberties invested in them by the constitution. They supplicated, therefore, the king to exert his royal authority, in the preservation of his people's rights, directly threatened by the two bills brought forward by his ministers; and they requested the two Houses to interfere in behalf of the public, against the ministerial attempt to procure their passing. The livery of London, the electors of Westminster, and the freeholders of Middlesex, agreed to remonstrances and petitions of the like nature, and were followed by a number of counties, and almost every town of note in the kingdom."-Annual Register for 1796. no longer be a profitable servant of the people. He might sit down in silence, and enjoy in the tranquillity of private life, the society of his friends; but he could not, with the feelings he possessed, be a profitable servant of the people. If, on the contrary, the people were, as he truly believed them to be decidedly against these bills; not a mere concerted majority, but the great mass of the people against them; then, undoubtedly, they had a right to demand his services, and he should hold himself bound to obey the call. He had a right to hope and expect that these bills, which positively repealed the Bill of Rights, and cut up the whole of the constitution by the roots, by changing our limited monarchy into an absolute despotism, would not be enacted by parliament against the declared sense of a great majority of the people. If, however, ministers were determined, by means of the corrupt influence they possessed in the two Houses of parliament, to pass the bills, in direct opposition to the declared sense of a great majority of the nation, and they should be put in force with all their rigorous provisions, if his opinion were asked by the people, as to their obedience, he should tell them, that it was no longer a question of moral obligation and duty, but of prudence. It would, indeed, be a case of extremity alone which could justify resistance, and the only question would be, whether that resistance was prudent. He was aware that these words were liable to misconstruction, and he knew that ministers were adepts in the art of misrepresentation; but a public man must not shrink in times of danger from strong expressions, because they may be misconstrued or misrepresented. What he said, he said deliberately; and it was for the authors and abettors of the bills to consider whether they would hurry the parliament to the passing of them, before it could be ascertained whether they had the sense of the people with them or not. With regard to the amendments that might be made in the committee, he repeated, that no mending could qualify this attack on the constitution. The poison might be concealed, it might be made more palatable, and it would be so much the worse. If, however, the constitution was to be violated, he wished the people to see the attack in all its glaring, open treason, that they might be roused to its defence. He certainly, therefore, should not lend himself to qualify the atrocious wick edness of these bills. Mr. Fox concluded with moving to adjourn the debate till tomorrow se'nnight. Mr. Pitt said :-I do not rise to follow the right hon. gentleman through the whole of his speech; but there are some passages in it which I cannot hear, without instantly expressing my horror and indignation at them. The right hon. gentleman has made a broad, and unqualified declaration, that if his arguments and his measures do not prevent the passing of the bills, he will then have recourse to different means of opposition. He has avowed his intention of setting up his own arguments in opposition to the authority of the legislature. He has said, that if he is asked his advice, he will put the propriety of resistance only on the question of prudence ;-without adverting whether the consequences of this advice may be followed by the penalties of treason, and the danger of convulsion; thus openly advising an appeal to the sword, which must either consign its authors to the vengeance of the violated law, or involve the country in anarchy and bloodshed. The right hon. gentleman has taken care not to be mis-stated. Happily for the country, this declaration of his principles is too clear to admit of a doubt. With all the horror that I feel at such language, I am glad the right hon. gentleman has been so unreserved and explicit. The House and the country will judge of that gentleman's conduct from his own language; they will see the extent of his veneration for the constitution, and of his respect for parliament, when, in violation of his duty, in defiance of legal punishment, he can bring himself to utter such sentiments. I am glad the right hon. gentleman has made that avowal, because I hope that it will warn all the true friends of the constitution to rally round it for its defence. I will not enter into a discussion of the abstract right of resistance, or what degree of oppression on the part of the government, would set the people free from their allegiance. I will only call to the recollection of those who hear me, that the principle of these bills, upon which the right hon. gentleman has ventured such language, has met with the approbation of a large majority of the House, and I trust that majority will show the right hon. gentleman, that they have not lost the spirit of their ancestors, which has been so frequently referred to, and that if they are driven by treason to the |