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. It met on the eleventh of November, and was presided by the duke of Bedford. All the members of both houses of parliament belonging to the club attended on this occasion. The speeches and opinions delivered were uncommonly spirited and resolute. After mature deliberation, it was unanimously resolved, that they would give every aid to the civil magistrate in detecting, and bringing to punishment, the persons concerned in the daring attack made upon the king, in his passage to parliament, on the first day of the session that, lamenting, as they did, this nefarious act, they saw, with the utmost concern, that it had been used as a pretext for introducing into parliament a bill, striking at the liberty of the press, and the freedom of public discussion, in substance and effect destroying the right of the subject to petition the branches of the legislature for redress of grievances, and utterly subversive of the genuine principles of the constitution; and for proposing another measure, calculated to produce similar effects, by means still more exceptionable. That it was therefore highly expedient, that meetings of the people, in their respective districts, should be immediately called, to consider this important subject, and for the purpose of petitioning parliament against the said bill, or any other measure which

might tend to infringe the just rights of the people of Great Britain.

The corresponding society's numerous members, together with an immense multitude of their adherents and well-wishers, assembled on the twelfth of November, in the fields near Copenhagen-house. Here they solemnly denied all intentions of raisingcommotions,and disproved, by the strongest arguments they could adduce, 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 four hundred thousand British subjects, met together to communicate their sentiments, and express them freely, as authorised to do by the bill of rights, on the measures of ministry, which tended to invade the liberties vested 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 electers 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. In the public meetings, held for those purposes, people were nearly unanimous in their opposition to the bills: but they were secretly counteracted by the agents of ministry, who circulated clandestinely

counter

counter-addresses in their favour. It was strongly asserted, at the time, that these were signed by none but ministerial dependents, such as officers of the customs and excise, and military men. So great was the repugnance of the people at large asserted to have been, that the signatures of youth at school was resorted to. But with all these exertions, the petitions, on the side of the ministry, did not exceed sixtyfour subscribed by about thirty thousand individuals of the above description, while the addresses against the bills, amounted to near one hundred, and the subscribers to upwards of one hundred and thirty thousand.

Among those who signalized their adherence to ministry, were the members of the association, formed, with the countenance and aid of government, by Mr. Reeves, at the close of 1792, and the commencement of 1793, against republicans and levellers. They stood forward on this occasion, with extraordinary zeal, in support of the two bills, of which they expressed the highest approbation in the address which they presented to the king.

But, notwithstanding the disproportion of numbers against them, ministry persisted, with unremitting resolution, in carrying forward their designs. However, opposed by the majority of the nation, they were secure of a support in parliament, that would enable them to compass the point proposed. The popular opinions were, in the mean time, represented by those who argued in defence of the bills, as the mere ebullitions of party zeal, and dictated to the people by the leaders of parliamentary opposition, who hoped to excite such complaints and clamours against the conduct of government,

as might deter it from the prosecution of its plans. These, they as serted, were, in the opinion of the judicious and the more respectable part of the community, necessary for the internal tranquillity of the kingdom, and could only be disapproved by those factious and disaffected people, who sought, for malicious purposes, to throw the country into confusion.

While the nation at large was thus agitated, its representatives were taken up with no less violent debates on the petitions now presented to them from every quarter. That from the corresponding society was laid before the house on the twenty-third of November, by Mr. Sturt, who warmly exculpated that society from the imputations of treason or sedition. In order to shew, at the same time, the malevolent intentions of ministry, and its partizans, be produced a performance, attributed to Mr. Reeves, the framer and president of the associations against republicans and levellers, wherein it was unequivocally maintained, "that the govern ment of England was a monarchy; that the monarch was the ancient stock from which have sprung those goodly branches of the legislature, the lords and commons; that these, however, were still only branches, and that they might be lopped off, and the tree be a tree still, shorn indeed of its honours, but not, like them, cast into the fire."

So flagrant a violation of the fundamental principles of the English constitution excited the indignation, not only of the opposition, but of many of the members friendly to ministers. The public loudly proclaimed it a stab aimed at the vitals of the constitution, and loaded the author with the most opprobri

ous

ous epithets. So universal was the detestation of the principles contained in this performance, that it was judged requisite, in order to appease the public, formally to vote it a libel on the constitution, and to direct the attorney-general to prosecute the author. But so weak and faint was the prosecution, in the opinion of the public, that they stigmatised the prosecutors, as acting knowingly under the control of directors, who certainly would not suffer so valuable an instrument of their designs to suffer an injury for having acquitted himself so much to their satisfaction.

On the twenty-fifth of Novem, ber, a motion was made, by Mr. Curwen, to postpone, one week, the discussion of the two bills. He spoke, with marked vehemence, against the bill for preventing seditious meetings, as tending, in its infallible effects, to change the whole consttution. It was only in popular meetings, he observed, that the real sentiments of the people could be manifested; and these sentiments, thus freely expressed, had hitherto, though affectedly slighted by ministers, proved an effectual restraint on their power, and stemmed that torrent of corruption with which they endeavoured to overwhelm ail resistance to their measures. Were this strongest, and almost only remaining, bulwark of the constitution to be demolished, all opposition must fall with it, both within, as well as without, the house; as the commons, when no longer supported, by the concurring voice of the people, would quickly experi ence a diminution of their own consequence, which, they must be conscious, rested entirely on the consequence of the people. Were these to be silenced, how could their re

presentatives consistently pretend to deliver the opinion of their constituents? The influence of the crown had, of late years, overweighed all the importance of the democratic part of the constitution, by depriving it of so alarming a proportion of its property, and annexing it to the aristocracy, through the creation of such a number of peers. If the remaining friends to the democracy valued its existence, and considered it as the only solid foundation of liberty, a truth not to be denied, they would rally around it, without delay, and exert their whole strength to preserve it from the ruin with which it was now menaced, more obviously, and more dangerously, than ever.

In the course of the memorable speech, which he made on this day, Mr. Curwen took occasion to bring to the recollection of the house an expression that had fallen, two days before, from Mr. Windham, in a de bate on the bill for securing the king's person against popular insults. This gentleman, in answering a speech of Mr. Fox, had given him to understand,in explicit terms, that ministers were determined to exert a vigour beyond the law. So singular an expression did not fail to strike the whole house with astonishment. By the enemies to ministry, it was construed into an inadvertent avowal, that they were resolved to pay no regard to the laws in the execution of their projects, and wo, Id destroy such as stood in their way; and it was, in fact, blamed by both sides of the house, as equally imprudent and intemperate.

Mr. Curwen's animadversions, on these words of Mr. Windham, were extremely spirited and severe. He rebuked him, forcibly, for presum

ing, that the many men of intrepidity, with which the parliament and nation abounded, would tamely permit him, and his associates, to trample on their rights, and submit to become the passive instruments of their violation. Mr. Windham replied only by a smile. Mr. Curwen's motion was, nevertheless, out voted by two hundred and sixty-nine against seventy.

On the twenty-seventh of November, the house went into a committee on the bill for preventing seditious meetings, when Mr. Fox, Mr. Grey, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Lambton, and all the other members of the opposition, Mr. Sheridan excepted, left the house. Even Mr. Sheridan declared, that he did ⚫ not remain for the end of proposing any alterations in the bill. To do justice to the public, it ought, he said, to be negatived in every part of its

contents.

The secession of the minority underwent a variety of discussions on is propriety. Many were, indeed, of opinion, that well knowing their presence could be no impediment to the passing of the bill, a formal se cession from an assembly, that was, in their judgment, resolved to destroy the liberty of the nation, would make a greater impression upon the public, than if they were to continue sitting in the house, and opposing the ministers, as usual, to no pur pose. But many were of a different opinion, and thought, by their presence and resistance, notwithstanding that the bills would haye past, they must have been divested of much of the severity with which they were accompanied, and that it became them, at all events, to dispute every inch of the ground, of which, by their retreat, the ministry would now become undisturbed possessors.

The bill was, of course, carried through the house without opposi tion, and without any other modi fications than its supporters thought necessary to render it less odious to the public. It was proposed, by the solicitor-general, on reading the third clause against the meeting of more than fifty persons, that if twelve of them remained together, one hour after being ordered to disperse, it should be adjudged death, without benefit of clergy. But an amendment was moved, making it only punishable as a misdemeanour. This was seconded by Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Stanley, Mr. Banks, and Sir W. Dolben: but the severity of the solicitor-general prevailed, and his motion was carried by eighty votes against only thirteen; so completely was the house devoted to the inexorable disposition of the framers of this bill.

This was evinced no less glaringly, on discussing that clause which empowered the magistrate present at any popular meeting to dissolve it immediately, should he be of opi

on, that any subject brought forward were unlawful, or of a sedi tious tendency. The clause was confirmed, and the magistrate also authorized to seize and commit the person whom he judged guilty of such offence.

The last clause respected the duration of the bill. The solicitorgeneral, consistently with the severe system he had embraced, moved that it should last three years. Mr. Stanley endeavoured to reduce it to one, or at most to no more than two, but the majority continued immoveable in its compliance with the solicitor, and the term of three years was voted by forty-six against only two.

The

The bill was read a third time, according to form, on the third of December, and carried up to the house of lords on the same day.

The bill for the security of the sovereign was, on the thirtieth of November, taken into consideration by a committee of the whole house of commons, when Mr. Erskine opposed it by a variety of reasonings. He observed, that the bill diminished the liberty of the subject, without adding to the safety of the king's person. It was a political maxim of long standing, that the best government was that which produced the greatest security with the fewest restraints, and that the worst was that which increased penalties without undisputed evidence of their propriety. Another maxim, of equal force, was to preserve ancient laws in their primitive simplicity, till experience had proved them inadequate to their intended purposes. The statute of Edward III. concerning treason, had not been proved, but merely asserted, to be unequal to the punishment of the outrages referred to in the two bills. In the opinion of one of the greatest luminaries of the law in this country, the lordchief-justice Hale, that important statute had been enacted, as a remedy against former oppression, and to secure the subject against illegal prosecution. To compass, or even to imagine, the death of the king, was, by that statute, declared high treason could words be found of stronger import, or of plainer meaning To levy war against the king, or to grant comfort and protection to his enemies was, by that statute, made equally criminal: but it did not make the compassing to levy war against him high treason, because the legislators of that day did not consider a conspiracy to levy such

1

a war as more than a misdemeanour, which, like many others, might not deserve material notice, while no clear and overt act could be adduced to prove it, and without which act no treasonable intentions could lawfully be presumed. Mr. Erskine argued, from the decision of lord-chiefjustice Holt, that overt acts alone, properly established, ought to be admitted as proofs of guilt in trials for high treason. The bill in contemplation would, he explicitly affirmed, extend the crime of high treason to such a multitude of trivial cases, that every petty misdemeanour might be brought within its construction. After a variety of other arguments had been used on both sides, the debate closed by two hundred and three votes, for the commitment of the bill, against forty.

On the third reading of this bill, the tenth of December, it was opposed in the same manner, and maintained with the same reasonings as antecedently, but it passed, with all its clauses, after some ineffectual objections to that in particular, which enacted its duration till the demise of the king.

The bill to prevent seditious meet ings was read a first time on the third of December, and its second reading took place on the ninth, when lord Grenville urged a multiplicity of reasons in its favour. He declared it necessary for the preservation of the lives and property of individuals, and for the security of the constitution, and liberties of the people, for which he alleged that the laws in being had not sufficiently provided.

The marquis of Lansdowne, and the earls of Moria and Derby, strenuously opposed it. They particularly reprobated that clause which autho

rized