Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

in the act, the real family of the houfe." So alarming a reftriction occafioned an immediate cry of hear him, on the oppofite fide, but Mr. Pitt perfifted in his determination, and moved for leave to introduce a bill for the prevention of feditious meetings.

The motion being read, Mr. Fox began a long and animated fpeech, by declaring his abhorrence of the treatment offered to the king, but profeffed himself. no lefs offended at the difcourfe he had juft heard. An attempt had been made to found the neceffity of framing the bill propofed on the proceedings of the affemblies fo highly reprobated by minifters, who contended that they ftruck at the existence of parliament itfelf; but if fuch were the real cafe, were not those who broached thefe rebellious tenets amenable to the law, and liable, on conviction, to condign punishment? There was no evidence that the late outrages, though juftly complained of, originated in the meetings alluded to. Proclamations were no evidence; they were the fabrication of minifters, frequently to ferve the worst purposes. Public difcuffions, on national fubjects, were not only legal, but the very life of the English conftitution; without thefe no fiberty could fubfift. The bill, it was faid, would not prevent, but only regulate them. But attend, faid Mr. Fox, to the regulation; I thought, he continued, that I knew the rights of men, and the rights of Englishmen." A great cry arifing of hear him: "What, faid he, do you fuppofe it a flip, and that the rights of man is a fentence without a meaning? have men no natural rights? if fo, Englishmen's rights

can have no existence. The rights of man, I fay, are clear: man has natural rights, and he who denies it is ignorant of the bafis of a free government: he is ignorant of the firft principles of ours, for these rights are connected with the best parts of the hiftory of our country." The people, Mr. Fox continued, had an inalienable right to deliberate on their grievances, and to demand redrefs from the legiflature, but were forbidden by this bill to exercife thefe rights without the attendance of a magiftrate, and previous notice to him of their intention. He was empowered to arreft any one prefent, whofe words he might think proper to call feditious, and even to diffolve the meeting at his own pleafure." Say then at once, Mr. Fox exclaimed, that a free conftitution is no longer fuitable to us. Conduct yourselves at once as the fenators of Denmark did: lay down your freedom, and acknowledge and accept of defpotifm, but do not mock the understandings and the feelings of mankind, by telling the world that you are free. Can a meeting, under fuch reftrictions as the bill requires, be called a meeting of free people? is it poffible to make the people of this country believe that the plan is any thing but a total annihilation of their liberty.” After some strictures on the numbeṛ of perfons to whom the bill limited henceforth all meetings; behold, purfued Mr. Fox, the state of a free Englishman; before he can difcufs any topic which involves his liberty, or his rights, he is to fend to a magiftrate, who is to attend the dif‐ cuffion; that magiftrate cannot prevent the meeting, but he can prevent their fpeaking, because he can allege that what is faid has a ten

66

dency

dency to disturb the peace of the kingdom." Mr. Fox hoped that the people would perceive the danger that threatened their freedom, and meet together, while it ftill remained lawful, to confult in what manner to preferve it from the infringement defigned in the bill propofed, and to exprefs their deteftation of it. He had feen and heard of revolutions, but experience had fhewn they were not owing to the freedom of popular meetings, but to the tyranny exerted to enflave men. The French revolution arose from minifterial oppreffions, and the arbitrary proceedings of a defpotic government that held the people in continual dread, and filenced their very fears by the terror of those punishments fufpended over those who dared to utter their fentiments. If the people's complaints were groundless, the lefs they were noticed, the fooner they would ceafe, as falfe furmifes would very foon be difcovered and lofe their effect; but, if well-founded, the efforts made to reprefs them muft terminate, either in a bafe minded fubmiffion of the people, or in a refiftance fatal to their rulers as well as to themselves. Were the introduction of fuch a bill insisted on, he thought himself bound, previoufly to any farther difcuffion, to move for a call of the house.

Mr. Fox was fupported by Mr. Stanley, who explicitly affirmed, that if the bill fhould pafs, he fhould confider this country as on the eve of a revolution. He reminded ministers of the well-known affertion of Montefquieu, that a numerous increase of penal laws was a fure prognostication of a state's verging to its decline. This alone

appeared to him a fufficient motive for oppofing fo oppreffive a bill. There exifted laws adequate to the fuppreffion of unlawful meetings; but the bill was, in fact, the fevereft libel on the good fenfe and attachment of Englishmen to their conftitution; it reprefented them as infenfible of its worth, incapable of enjoying liberty, and deferving, for that reason, to be deprived of it.

In answer to these arguments, fir William Pulteney admonished the opposers of the bill to confider it impartially, before they described it in fuch odious colours. It by no means prevented free difcuffion, that of the prefs particularly, which he viewed as fully adequate to the fupport of that public fpirit, and thofe popular maxims on which the conftitution refted. The prefs was the strongest pillar of liberty, by the latitude with which every poli tical subject was allowed to be treated: while this remained untouched, the public was in no danger of ever feeing the conftitution fubverted, and it was a privilege which he would never confent to part with; but it could not exist in a democracy any more than under an arbitrary government, nor, in truth, any government but a limited monarchy like our own. great danger of popular meetings was, that they heard only one fide of the queftion. Uninformed multitudes were easily deluded by the fpecious and inflammatory fpeeches of defigning perfons, who well knew, that in fuch meetings they would have little, or rather no contradiction, to encounter, and find their audience ready prepared to acquiefce in whatever they might think proper to deliver, Times [94]

The

and

and circumftances called for regulations appofite to the difpofitions of men at different periods. The prefent temper of men was mafked by precipitation and temerity, and ought to be repreffed accordingly. Proceedings that bordered on fedition ought certainly to be oppofed with firmnefs and diligence. Were magiftrates, in fuch cafes, to exceed their powers, they would certainly be called to a fevere account, in a country where juries had fhewn themselves fo tenacious of the liberties of their fellow-fubjects, and where the spirit of liberty animated, fo manifeftly, the legiflature itself, as to induce it to declare thofe very juries competent judges whether a publication fhould be deemed a libel.

Mr. Halhed acknowledged the propriety of the firft proclamation, offering an ample reward for the difcovery of those who had infulted the king, but totally difapproved of that proclamation, in coincidence with which the bill had been brought into the house. The mifbehaviour of the populace, he affirmed, proceeded from the fenfe of their feelings, and ought not, in equity, to be attributed to that meeting of the people, three days before, which had not exhibited the leaft fign of a riotous difpofition, and had parted as peaceably as it had met. The miferable fituation of the rioters, though not a juftification, ought to weigh with thofe who reflected to what irregularities men might be driven, when they wanted bread. But the inveteracy of minifters to men who had oppofed their measures, with fuch conftancy and determination, was the real motive that prompted them in the formation of this bill. They pro

pofed by it to infufe fuch terror into the focieties fo long obnoxious to them, as would deter them, at once, from ever daring to refume the profecution of their defigns, and thus to crufh, at one blow, all attempts and ideas to effect any reform in parliament, or to remedy any of the abufes and grievances fo long complained of by the nation at large.

The bill was oppofed by Mr. Maurice Robinson, as feparating the interefts of the king from those of the people, and fetting them, as it were, in oppofition to each other. The king, as father of his people, was in justice bound to treat them with paternal care, and not to permit minifters, on the pretext of confulting his perfonal dignity, to render their condition worle than ever it had been, by punishing the many for the offences of a few, hurried into the commiffion of their delinquencies by the preflures of hunger and want. No evidence had been produced to countenance the minifterial affertion, that the riots were caufed by the popular affemblies, held in the vicinity of the metropolis. The clear and well-known purpose of these meetings was to petition for peace and reform, the endeavours to obtain which could not, by any legal conftruction, be deemed acts of fedition.

The bill was fupported by Mr. alderman Lufhington, as a measure, without which the perfon of the fovereign would be continually expofed to the infults of the vileft populace, who would become the more daring and outrageous when they faw that parliament paffed by unnoticed the criminal infolence of which they had been guilty. Were

the

[ocr errors]

the bill to be rejected, the confequences would quickly prove how neceffary it was for the prefervation not only of the king but of every well-affected fubject, as well as of the good order and peace of the community.

The attempt of miniftry to enact fuch a law as that, purported by the bill, was reprefented by Mr. Curwen as the moft flagicious innovation. Its direct and visible aim was to ftrip the fubject of his moft valuable privilege, that of fpeaking his mind on every matter relating to the public. Herein confifted, in fact, the very effence, not only of English, but of all real liberty. The movers of the bill had reafon to wish themselves authorized to impofe filence on the people, who had fo much reafon to be difpleafed at their conduct. The voice of that people had occafionally prevented them from profecuting their imprudent fchemes, and constrained them to liften to difagreeable admonitions. So refolutely was he determined to prefer this voice to that of minifters, that he did not fcruple to avow himfelf ready to fupport it at the risk of his property and his life. It appeared to him immaterial, whether the conftitution fell by infurrection or by defpotifm. The bill propofed would effect it as certainly as any of the tumultuous proceedings of an enraged people. But this fatal bill was obvioully dictated by minifterial refentment at the oppofition it had met with, both in and out of parliament. He did not, however, imagine, that, when the inimical intentions it difplayed againft public liberty were duly perceived, the people of England would remain fo heartlefs and

[ocr errors]

fupine as not to refift it with the vigour and fpirit of their anceftors.

The principle of the bill was decidedly approved by Mr. Wilberforce, as tending to check the licentious difpofition, among the common people, introduced by the doctrines imported from France. The ideas of that people, on religious as well as political matters, had lately made an alarming progrefs in this country, and it was the duty of the legiflature to dif courage them by all prudent and legal methods. He did not confider the bill as an invafion of public liberty, which, he was perfuaded, would rather be ftrengthened, when popular difcuffions upon national affairs, and meetings called for that purpose, were duly regulated. He concluded, however, by acknowledging, that he fincerely

wifhed there had been no occafion for fuch a bill, to which his affent was extorted by the neceffity of choofing, among a variety of difficulties, that which appeared the leaft productive of evil. The meetings of individuals, to debate upon national affairs, had certainly been attended with fuch improper freedoms, that they well deferved to be reftrained. The only affembly, to which the people could refort with well-grounded confidence of meeting with friends to liften to their grievances and to redress them, was the house of commons; it was the fhield of public liberty, it was truly a popular meeting, wherein the nation would alway find able and refolute defenders of its conftitutional rights; it was a tribunal, before which its caufe would be pleaded with efficacy, and where its complaints, when justly founded,

would

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]
« ZurückWeiter »