tion itself as evidence. He could agree to no such rule: he well knew there were those who doubted the truth of proclamations; who believed many of them to be the acts of Ministers for certain purposes of their own; and he was sure it was not regular in that House to take things for granted merely because they appeared in a proclamation. "These were strong objections to proceeding upon this subject without better evidence. All this, however, was trifling in comparison with what the right honourable gentleman had said upon the subject. He had said, that there might be a difficulty to preserve the right of petitioning, and to prevent abuses of that right. Difficulty and delicacy he confessed there were, but that did not embarrass him; for, he said, they might be settled in the detail. Thus the right honourable gentleman talked with ease on the rights of the subject, as if he expected to bring the public to submit to the most rigid despotism. In that detail," Mr. Fox said, "he would never take a share; for he would never attend the detail of a measure which in its essence was so detestable. The right honourable gentleman had divided the meetings into two classes. With regard to the first, that of public meetings for the discussion of public subjects, he must not only confess them to be lawful, but must allow them also to be agreeable to the very essence of the British constitution, and to which, under that constitution, most of the liberties we enjoyed were particularly owing. The right honourable gentleman had said, that these meetings were not to be prevented, they were only to be regulated. Attend," said Mr. Fox, "to the regulation. 1 thought I knew the rights of man; aye, and the rights of Englishmen." [Here was a loud cry of " Hear, hear!"] "What," said he, " that is a slip, you suppose the rights of man is a sentence without a meaning. Do you say that men have no natural rights? If so, Englishmen's rights can have no existence; this House can have no existence. The rights of man, I say. are clear; man has natural rights; and he who denies it, is ignorant of the basis of a free government-is ignorant of the best principle of our constitution. "The people, he had always thought, had a right to discuss the topics from which their grievances arose. In all instances, they had a right to complain by petition, and to remonstrate to either House of Parliament, or, if they pleased, to the King exclusively; but now, it seems, they are not to do so, unless notice be given to a magistrate, that he may become a witness of their proceedings. There were to be witnesses of every word that every man spoke. This magistrate, this jealous witness, was to form his opinion on the propriety of the proceedings; and if he should think that anything that was said had a tendency to sedition, he had power to arrest the man who uttered it. Not only so, he was to have the power of dissolving the meeting at his own will. Say at once," said Mr. Fox," that a free constitution is no longer suitable to us; say at once, in a manly manner, that upon an ample review of the state of the world at this moment, a free constitution is not fit for you; conduct yourselves at once as the senators of Denmark did-lay down your freedom, and acknowledge and accept of despotism. But do not mock the understandings and the feelings of mankind, by telling the world that you are free; by telling me, that if out of this House, for the purpose of expressing my sense of the public administration of this country, of the calamities which this war has occasioned, I state a grievance by petition, or make any declaration of my sentiments, which I always had a right to do; but which if I now do, in a manner that may appear to a magistrate to be seditious, I am to be subjected to penalties hitherto unknown to the laws of England. If, in stating any of these things out of the House, a magistrate should be of opinion that I am irregular, he is to have the power to stop me: he may say, The cause which you allege for your grievance is unfounded; you excite, by what you say, jealousies and discontents that are unfounded;' and if I say what in his judgment or his wishes ought to be concealed, he is to have a power to stop me, and to treat me as a rioter, if I do not obey him. I ask again, if this can be called a meeting of free people? Did ever a free people meet so? Did ever a free state exist so? Did any man ever hypothetically state the possibility of the existence of freedom under such restrictions? Good God Almighty, Sir! is it possible that the feelings of the people of this country should be thus insulted? Is it possible to make the people of this country believe that this plan is anything but a total annihilation of their liberty? "The right honourable gentleman had next adverted to a bill which had been passed to prevent the assembling of persons for the discussion of questions on the Lord's-day, from which he was to bring in a bill to prevent the discussion of questions on any day; and this, he said, was to be applicable to all cases where money was to be taken. Why all questions were to be prohibited where money was to be taken, merely on an allegation that such questions might produce mischief, was, he confessed, beyond his skill to understand. But this was not all: it was to be applicable, it seemed, to places where no money was to be taken, because, in truth, persons might be admitted by means of tickets; and they must not amount to a number beyond a certain one which the Minister should be pleased to insert in his bill, unless duly licensed by a magistrate. He would again ask, Was this, or was it not, to prevent all political discussion whatever? Let them show him when this had obtained since the Revolution, or at any time when this country could be called free. The people are to be prevented from discussing public topics publicly: they are to be prevented from discussing them privately. If then, without this private intercourse or public debate the grievances of this country are to be felt, and are such as to call forth a general desire that they should be redressed, what are the public to do? They must send, it seems, to a magistrate, and under his good leave they are to be permitted to proceed." [Here there was a cry from the Treasury bench of "No! no!"] "I do not mean," said Mr. Fox, "to overstate this power, God knows there is no occasion for that, for there seems to be sufficient care taken of magisterial authority in every step of this proceeding. Behold, then, the state of a free-born Englishman! Before he can discuss any topic which involves his liberty, he must send to a magistrate who is to attend the discussion. That magistrate cannot prevent such meeting: but he can prevent the speaking, because he can allege that what is said tends to disturb the peace and tranquillity of this realm. "Sir, I hope this bill will never pass into a law; I hope it will never even come into this House. I am not friendly to anything that will produce violence. Those who know me will not impute to me any such desire; but I do hope that this bill will produce an alarm; that while we have the power of assembling, the people will assemble; that while they have the power, they will not surrender it, but come forward and state their abhorrence of the principle of this proceeding; and those who do not, I pronounce to be traitors to their country. Good God, Sir, what frenzy, what infatuation has overtaken the authors of this measure! I will take another view of the subject; instead of regarding it as an invasion of the liberties of the subject, I will consider that it is adopted only as a measure of precaution against the consequences of popular tumult, and as calculated to oppose the progress of the principles of anarchy. Considered even in this point of view, I contend that it is mad to adopt such a measure as this. We have witnessed revolutions in other countries; we have recent examples before our own eyes; we have the experience of former periods of our history. Did those revolutions, with which we are acquainted, proceed from any excess of liberty, or facility of popular meeting? No, Sir, they were owing to the reverse of these; and therefore I say, if we wish to avoid the danger of such revolutions, we should put ourselves in a state as different as possible from that under which they took place. What are we now doing? Putting ourselves in a condition nearly resembling the periods when those revolutions happened. In the reign of Charles the First, the most interesting period to which we can look in the history of this country, was freedom of speech indulged to any latitude; or were libels suffered to pass without notice? On the contrary, were not both at that time punished with an extraordinary degree of rigour? Is it the intention of Ministers, by these arbitrary measures, to bring the country into the same disastrous situation in which it was plunged during that unhappy reign? It might have been supposed that the impressive lessons of modern times, and of events still fresh in their consequences, had not yet been forgotten. Look to France before the period of her revolution. Was it the facility of public meetings, or the freedom of discussion granted to the subject, that tended to produce that great change? On the contrary, was it not the absolute prerogative of the King? Was it not the arbitrary power lodged in Ministers? Was it not the oppressive privilege of issuing Lettres de Cachet against all who dared to utter their sentiments, and complain of existing grievances, that excited the indignation of the people and accelerated the downfall of the monarchy? If, therefore, one view on which the present measure is held out to your acceptance, be in order to prevent the troubles arising from the frequency of popular assemblies, on that very ground ought In the friends of peace and of order to resist the adoption of the measure. countries where men may openly state their grievances and boldly claim redress, the effect of their complaints and remonstrances may, indeed, for a time be obstructed by the operation of ministerial corruption and intrigue; but perseverance must ultimately be effectual in procuring them relief. But if you take away all legal means of obtaining that object, if you silence remonstrance and stifle complaint, you then leave no other alternative but force and violence. These are means so dreadful in their effects that it may be matter of question whether any good they produce can possibly compensate for the evils with which they are necessarily attended; such means as scarcely even the best cause can justify. Let us examine a little closely the argument on which so much stress is laid, namely, the danger that may arise from a popular discussion of grievances. If the pretext of grievances be groundless, and not warranted by any immediate pressure, the more it is discussed the less effect it will have in exciting discontent. But if you preclude these political humours, if I may so call them, from having a vent, you then leave no alternative but unconstitutional submission, or actual violence. If ever there exists a just cause of grievance, one or other must be adopted; a tame acquiescence, incompatible with the spirit of freedom, or an open resistance, subversive of the order of government. I know that peace and quiet are the greatest of all blessings, but I know also that rational liberty is the only security for their enjoyment. I admire the British Constitution, because it gives scope to the people to exercise the right of political discussion; not merely with the permission of a magistrate, or under the control of an executive force, but on all occasions to state, in bold and plain words, the grievances which they feel and the redress which they desire. I have only now to express my firm determination to oppose the bill in every stage of its progress. And, in the first instance, I shall conceive it necessary to move for a call of the House, as it is impossible for me to suffer a question, which involves so material an alteration of the constitution, to pass in this House, without solemnly calling on every member to give a vote on the discussion." On a division the numbers were-Yeas, 214; Noes, 42. Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill, and on the motion of Mr. Fox, a call of the House on that day fortnight was agreed to.* By 36 Geo. III. c. 8, intituled "an Act for the more effectually preventing seditious meetings and assemblies," it was enacted that no meeting composed of more than fifty persons should be holden, to consider of any petition or remonstrance, or to deliberate on any grievance in Church or State, without previous notice by an advertisement signed by resident householders. All meetings held in contravention of this law were declared illegal; and all persons attending them who did not disperse in a given time, on the command of the proper authority, were to be subject to punishment. If at any meeting, legally called, illegal modes of altering the present laws were proposed; or, if such meeting, in the judgment of two or more justices of the peace, or of other specified civil authorities, should, by reason of any special circumstances, become dangerous to the public peace; then such justices, or other civil authorities, were authorized to declare the meeting an unlawful assembly, and to disperse it by force, if necessary; and were indemnified for the maiming or death of individuals who endeavoured to resist MR. FOX'S MOTION ON THE CONDUCT OF THE WAR WITH FRANCE. In his speech from the throne on the opening of the session, on the 29th of October, 1795, the King stated that a general sense appeared to prevail throughout France, that the only relief from the increasing pressure which the destruction of its commerce, the diminution of its maritime power, and the unparalleled embarrassment and distress of its internal situation had produced, could arise from the restoration of power and the establishment of some settled system of government; and that should the destruction and anarchy which had produced the present crisis terminate in any order of things compatible with the tranquillity of other countries, and affording a reasonable expectation of security and permanence, the appearance of a disposition to negotiate for a general peace, on just and suitable terms, would not fail to be met, on his part, with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect.* On the 8th of December following, a message from his Majesty was delivered to the House of Commons by Mr. Pitt, stating that the crisis which was depending at the commencement of the session, had led to such an order of things in France † as would induce him, conformably with his sentiments already declared, to meet any disposition to negotiation on the part of the enemy, with an earnest desire to give it the fullest and speediest effect; and to conclude a treaty of general peace, whenever it could be effected on just and suitable terms for himself and his allies. In order to ascertain the views of the French Government, Mr. Wickham, the British Minister in Switzerland, wrote, on the 8th of March, 1796, by the direction of Mr. Pitt, to M. Barthelemy, the French ambassador at Basle, submitting to him three questions:-1. Was there a disposition in France to open a negotiation with his Majesty and his allies for the re-establishment of a general peace, by sending ministers to a congress? 2. Would there be a disposition to communicate the general grounds of a pacification, such as France would be willing to propose, in order that his Majesty and his allies might thereupon examine in concert whether they were such as might serve as the foundation of a negotiation for peace? 3. Or would there be a desire to propose any other way for arriving at the same end? Mr. Wickham also said he was authorized to receive an answer to these questions, and to transmit it to his court; but that he was not authorized to enter into negotiation or discussion. § them. By other clauses, a license was made requisite for houses, rooms, or fields,' where money was taken for admission to hear discussions or lectures; the license was revocable by the justices; unlicensed houses and rooms were subjected to the penalty inflicted on disorderly houses; and justices of the peace were empowered to demand admission into any room, house, or field, in which they had reason to suspect that discussions or lectures were delivered contrary to the provision of the act. The act was to continue in force for three years. *Par!. Hist. vol. xxxii. p. 142. Ibid. p. 569, + The establishment of the Directory. |