tiate after victory has been declared in favour of the enemy, and the allies have been deserting us and one another. After this, that such a man could possibly suppose he is supporting the dignity of this country, and that he should put himself on a footing with any gentleman, who has not the misfortune to be in the present Administration, is an extraordinary thing, but it is an assumption of merit which is peculiar to his Majesty's present Ministers.

"In the meantime, it is with heartfelt satisfaction I reflect, that in everything I ever proposed I have supported the dignity of this country. I regard it as a circumstance of good fortune to me, that I never gave an opinion by which one drop of British blood was shed, or any of its treasure squandered. It has been my fortune to oppose, perhaps unsuccessfully, that which brought this country into a disastrous situation; I mean the American war-a war disastrous indeed; but after all the calamity which it produced, we were happy then compared with the situation of this country now. Good God! Sir, that there should be a moment compared with which the American war was a state of happiness! and yet so any person will find it to have been on examining them both. Our present calamities bear no resemblance to those of the American war. Does the Minister deny the fact? He has never yet said it; and I should be glad to hear him aver it now, for I am ready to answer him if he does. The right honourable gentleman has thought fit to insinuate that those with whom I act never mention the glory of the British arms. The fact is notoriously otherwise. There is not one instance in which we have withheld praise from any of our gallant heroes; on the contrary, we have been proud to praise them. The right honourable gentleman was not a member of this House in the time of the American war; but if he will take the trouble of inquiring, he may be easily informed of the part I took in praising the gallantry of the British troops. America, however, was lost. We are now in alarm lest we should lose Ireland; and I own to you, Sir, that I tremble for the fate of Great Britain.

Is it, then, a thing to be endured, to hear a man accuse others of endeavouring to lower the dignity of the country, when we are doing all we can to save it, and are calling for an inquiry into the conduct of that very man who has brought us to the last stake, in which we are contending for our very existence? And shall it be still a question who is the best friend to the honour and interests of Great Britain? This inquiry may not take place; but I am glad the honourable gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce) has intimated his intention of again bringing the subject forward in some other shape. He can do it with great propriety. But I wish to be informed, if this committee be not granted, what I am to say to my constituents if they ask, Who are the allies of this country? What is our relative situation with the King of Prussia ? What with the Emperor? What has been the conduct of Administration with regard to the war? What is the situation of Ireland? To all these questions I can only answer, I cannot tell you anything of these matters. The House of Commons would not grant me an inquiry; they went hand in

hand with the Minister.' I wish the House of Commons to have credit with the people. I know there are enemies to this House; and if you refuse this committee, you will furnish more arguments against the House of Commons than any that ever were written upon the subject."

The question being put, "That the House do now adjourn," the House divided: Yeas, 219; Noes, 63. So it was resolved in the affirmative.

TREASON AND SEDITION BILLS.

On the 29th of October, 1795, the King opened the session of Parliament in person. The crowd which was assembled on the route from St. James's Palace to the Houses of Parliament was observed to be greater than any that had previously been collected. Several noblemen and gentlemen, who were the objects of popular dislike, were treated, as they passed in their carriages, with hisses, hootings, and groanings; and on his Majesty's progress to and return from the House of Lords, several stones were thrown at his carriage, the windows broken, and his Majesty himself only narrowly escaped injury to his person.

Before the address on the speech from the throne was taken into consideration in the House of Lords, Lord Grenville called the attention of their lordships to the insults that had been offered to his Majesty in his passage to and from the Houses of Parliament. Witnesses being called to prove the facts above stated, an address to the King was voted, expressing concern that persons should be found so insensible of the happiness derived from his just and mild government, and of the virtues which so eminently distinguished his character, as to be capable of such flagitious acts, and their earnest wishes, in which they were confident of being joined by all descriptions of his subjects, that effectual means would be taken, without delay, to discover the authors and abettors of crimes so atrocious. This address was communicated to the Commons at a conference, and their concurrence to it being obtained, the joint address of the two Houses was presented to his Majesty on the 1st of October, by a committee of Peers and Commoners.

On the same day, a proclamation was issued, enjoining all magistrates and others to use their utmost endeavours to discover and apprehend the authors, actors, and abettors, concerned in the outrages which had been offered to his Majesty's person, and offering a reward of one thousand pounds to any one who would give information, so as that the perpetrators of those outrages might be apprehended and convicted.

A few days before the opening of the session, meetings, composed of large multitudes of the people, had been held in Saint George's Fields and in the parish of Marylebone, in the immediate neighbourhood of a tavern called Copenhagen House, at which violent and inflammatory language respecting those in authority had been used, and addresses of an offensive character

voted to the Crown. The violence which had been used towards his Majesty in his progress to and from the Houses of Parliament was attributed by Ministers to the proceedings which had taken place at these meetings. Accordingly, on the 4th of November, a second proclamation appeared, in which it was said that immediately before the opening of Parliament a great number of persons had been collected in fields in the neighbourhood of the metropolis by advertisements and handbills; that speeches were delivered to the persons assembled tending to create groundless jealousy and discontent, and endanger the public peace; that seditious and treasonable papers had been lately distributed, tending to excite evil-disposed persons to acts endangering the person of his Majesty; that such proceedings had been followed on the day on which that session of Parliament commenced by daring outrages, to the imminent danger of his Majesty's person; and that an anxiety generally existed, occasioned by rumours and apprehensions, that seditious and unlawful assemblies were intended to be held, and such other criminal practices repeated; it therefore enjoined all magistrates and others to suppress seditious and unlawful assemblies; to exert themselves in apprehending persons delivering inflammatory discourses in such assemblies. if they should nevertheless be held; and in bringing to justice persons who should distribute seditious and treasonable papers.

On the 6th of November, Lord Grenville introduced a bill into the House of Lords, for better securing the King's person and government. The motive he alleged was, the necessity of preventing abuses similar to those that had taken place on the opening of the session. He explicitly attributed them to the inflammatory discourses delivered at the meetings which had been so long suffered, without due notice on the part of the Legislature, but which had now reached such a degree of insolence, that they required immediate restriction. He would recur on this occasion, he said, to precedents framed in approved times, the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and the commencement of the reign of Charles the Second. His lordship concluded with offering to the House a bill for the safety and preservation of his Majesty's person and government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts."*

On the 10th of November, after the order of the day for taking into consideration his Majesty's late proclamation had been read, Mr. Pitt said he trusted the House would feel the necessity of preventing such insults being again offered to the Sovereign as he had experienced on the opening of the session, and that every loyal subject would co-operate with him on this occasion, in taking such measures as would obviate those causes from whence the outrages proceeded, which were the factious meetings of disaffected people, wherein seditious discourses were constantly held, and principles maintained utterly subversive of good order and obedience to government. The pretence of these meetings was to petition the Legislature for rights withheld from the people; but the real motive was to promulgate opinions inimical to government, and calculated to bring it into contempt.

* Vide 36 Geo. III. c. 7.

If the executive power were not invested with sufficient authority to control these meetings, they would finally endanger the existence of the state. The rights of the people doubtless ought to be respected, but it was equally indispensable to obviate their abuse. The question before the House was, Mr. Pitt said, whether the pressure of the moment did not require an instant remedy? A clear and defined power was wanting in the magistrate to disperse such meetings as threatened disorders. This power indeed ought not to extend to meetings held for lawful purposes, but only to authorize him to watch over the proceedings of any large assembly, whatever might be the object of those who assembled. To this intent, notice should be given to the magistrate previously to the intended meeting; he should be empowered to be present, and if it appeared of a seditious tendency, to seize the guilty on the spot; to obstruct him should be made felony; and if the meeting did not disperse at his command, the penalties provided in the Riot Act should be inflicted on the refractory. There was, Mr. Pitt added, another species of meeting, consisting of persons who attended public lectures on political subjects; the lecturers were men who make the dissemination of sedition the source of their livelihood. To these meetings he thought it would be proper to apply regulations something like those which were made about fourteen years ago, in a statute called, from the learned gentleman who introduced it, Mansfield's Act, and by which all houses wherein meetings of an improper kind were held on a Sunday, were to be treated as disorderly houses. To avoid evasion, the provisions of the act should apply to every house in which any persons met exceeding a certain number stated in the act, being the real number of the family. Mr. Pitt concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectually preventing seditious meetings and assemblies." As soon as the Speaker had read the motion,

Mr. Fox said, "he trusted it was unnecessary for him to preface what he had to say by a declaration which he hoped, for every member of that House, was equally unnecessary; that he felt as much horror at the attempt which had been made against his Majesty as any man in the kingdom-quite as much as any man who might move, who might second, or who might support, the bill which it seemed was to be offered to the House. Having agreed so far with the Minister that night, there he must take his leave of him. Nor did he think he expressed feebly his indignation and abhorrence at the insults offered to his Majesty, when he said it was not more than equal to what he felt from what he had heard that night. The right honourable gentleman had adverted to a bill, at that time in the other House, which was stated to have for its object the better security of his Majesty's person, and on which, it was probable, the House would have some communication with their Lordships. He believed it would be difficult for the right honourable gentleman to show the necessity for that bill, if he meant to ground that * 21 Geo. III. c. 49.

necessity upon the assumption that what happened on the first day of the session was in consequence of what passed at meetings to which he had alluded. He disapproved highly of all these experiments, which were professed to be intended as securities for the enjoyment of all the blessings of our constitution. He knew the constitution had existed for ages sufficiently guarded by the law as it now stood; and, therefore, even if the right honourable gentleman had not opened his plan, which, he declared, struck him with horror; even if he had not said a single word upon that detestable plan; he should have given his negative to the proposition in question-because the proposition itself laid it down as an assumed fact, that the law at present is insufficient to prevent breaches of the public peace. It was said, that seditious meetings had been held somewhere in the neighbourhood of the metropolis a few days previous to the meeting of Parliament; that at these meetings very alarming proceedings had taken place, striking at the very existence of Parliament itself. That such proceedings took place he did not know; but this he knew-if speeches were made that had such a tendency, the speakers could be punished by the laws already in existence. If handbills were distributed that had such a tendency, the distributors were amenable to the law as it then stood. If any person had so conducted himself as to be the means of causing the people so assembled to form a resolution having such a tendency, he was already amenable to the law, and, when proved guilty, was liable to adequate punishment. That the law had hitherto been found sufficient for all such purposes, was enough to determine him to oppose this new measure, even if it were not supported by the flimsy pretext, that all the violence and outrage that had been offered to his Majesty was the result of these meetings, of which there was not the colour of proof. He knew, indeed, that the right honourable gentleman had attempted to connect them; he knew, too, there had been, and would be, endeavours to confound the two things.

66

It was," Mr. Fox said, "ridiculous to talk of these things being perfectly notorious-to say, that these proceedings were clearly seditious; they were points upon which that House could not regularly proceed, for they were points on which there was no proof. Nothing was more clear than that the House of Commons ought never to proceed upon any measure that might trespass upon the rights of the public, without evidence that was decisive, even in cases of extreme necessity; but there was no evidence whatever to connect any of the proceedings of these meetings with the daring insult offered to his Majesty. The right honourable gentleman had said, Should not the House endeavour to prevent the repetition of such an insult? Undoubtedly it should. But then it should be upon evidence; and here the right of persons to meet anywhere to consult on public measures, was to be affected in consequence of what happened to his Majesty on the first day of the session, although there was no evidence to prove that the outrage arose from any proceedings that were had at any public meeting previous to that day. Some persons, perhaps, might consider the proclama