had actually exifted. He vindicated both the house of commons, the jury, and himfelf, with refpect to the acquittal of the prifoners. It was admitted by the grand jury, that there was ground for an accufation for the crime of high treafon; it was therefore his duty to follow up the indictment, and fubmit the whole of the matter to the jury for their decifion. He next proceeded to the bill then before the houfe for preventing feditious affemblies. He faid, the queftion was, whether the fituation of this country was fuch, that a leffer evil thould be adopted to prevent a greater. He allowed the bill would extend the power of magiftrates; but argued, that the feditious meetings lately held, and the inflammatory fpeeches made at them, called aloud for the meafures about to be adopted to prevent them in future. He had feen two handbills, one entitled, "The Rights of Kings," and the other, "Summary of the Duties of Citizenship," both written for the ufe of the members of the Correfponding Society. The attorney general then gave it as his opinion, that it was impoffible for the laws of the country, as they then flood, effectually to restrain the publication of fuch libels, and prevent fuch feditious meetings. He agreed that the propofed laws would in fome degree refrain other bodies of men, but contended that falus populi fuprema lex eft.

Sir Francis Baffet fpoke in favour of the bill, and pointed out the neceffity of paffing it into a law.

The houfe at length divided. For the motion, 22; against it, 167.

It is difficult, extremely difficult, to affign one tolerable reafon for the minifter's conduct in refifting this motion for inquiry. The attack on his majefty had been made

under circumftances which in fome perfons had excited fufpicion. An immenfe reward offered for the difcovery of the offender, had proved ineffectual; and the minifter, in the courfe of the debate, had been publicly compared with the minifters of Charles II. who were known and acknowledged to have fabri cated plots and confpiracies to promote their own finifter defigns. A man of fpirit, in fuch circum. ftances, would have called for inquiry inftead of refifting it, as if he was afraid of truth, as if he fhrunk from investigation. On the other hand, by having the facts in evidence before the house, the arguments of oppofition must have been confined within much more limited boundaries. They must have acknowledged the evil; and they could only have deliberated on the fimple queftion, whether the propofed remedy was fuch as ought to be adopted confiftently with the principles of the conftitution, How mortifying muft it have been to a minifter to hear his character impeached by the blackeft infinuations, which, in the records of parliament, muft defcend to pofterity, while a little investigation would, we doubt not, have placed it in a fair point of view, and might eventually even have led to the detection of the atrocious offender?

Upon the fecond reading of the bill for the better preventing feditious affemblies on the 17th of November, the folicitor general (fir John Mitford) arofe to explain and to point out the neceflity of the bills paffing into a law. The facred freedom of fpeech, the privilege of which was justly reckoned fo diftinguifhed a blefling of the British conftitution, had, he faid, been fhamefully and dangerously

abufed,

66

abused. The object of the bill was to prevent the perverfion of an important right, and to fuperfede the neceffity of ftronger reftrictions upon it than the bill was meant to impofe. The fecond part of the bill was intended to remedy the abufe of debating in public meetings, to prevent private intereft from prompting difcuffions of public grievances, and to put a stop to that traffic by which an uncandid and unfair examination of abufes, a turbulent fpirit of difcontent had been raised and encouraged, to ferve the peculiar purposes of individuals. His opinion was, that the provifions in the bill were not fo extenfive in their operation as they ought to have been;" and this was the only defect he could fee in it. The framers of the bill, however, had been guided by the best of motives. He argued ftrongly in favour of the bill, on account of the liberty it allowed to call any number of the people together to petition for the removal of grievances, or any other legal purpose, only with the precaution of giving previous notice to a magiftrate. The attendance of a juftice of the peace, he contended, would rather aid and fupport the difcuffion of any moderate queftion than impede it; becaufe, without fuch attendance, it would be easier for any enemy to the business before the people to excite the rabble to disturb the meeting and breed a riot, than when fuch precaution was taken. How then could the bill be reprefented as fubverfive of the beft privileges of the people of England, or as ftabbing the principles of the conftitution? Mr. folicitor enlarged on the great impropriety of public functionaries being paid by the people," which, he said, had produced

all the anarchy in France, and was a principle which the British conftitution had long abandoned. He laid it down as a maxim, that all revo- . lutions were effected by minorities; and that the active perfevering fpirit of a few would always triumph over the peaceable difpofition of the many. After enlarging on the delinquency of Mr. Yorke, and all his ufual topics, he concluded a fpeech of confiderable length by afferting, that the exifting laws were undeniably defective, as they did not reach the focieties from which the evil originated; he therefore fupported the second reading.

Mr. Erskine, in the beginning of his fpeech, referred particularly to what had just been advanced by the folicitor general, who had afferted that the prefe. bill was ftrictly confonant to the principles of the conftitution. An act of this defcription, faid Mr. Erskine, was never thought of in the reign of Charles the Second, after the horrors. and confufion of the former reign; fuch an act was never attempted in the reign of king William, when the government was newly established, during a difputed fucceffion, or in the two rebellions that raged in the fubfequent reigns; it was an act which even the prefent miniftry never thought of paffing, when they fufpended that grand palladium of English liberty, the Habeas Corpus aft; nor when they had the reports of committees, ftating the exiftence of treafonable plots, upon their table. The learned folicitor, he faid, defended the neceffity of paffing the prefent bill without any fresh reafons or new plots; inftead of adducing new evidence, he had trodden again the dull track that he had trodden fo frequently before, and had travelled back again to the

meeting

meeting that had been held near Sheffield, in which Mr. Yorke, it had been afferted, made a speech highly feditious. In contradiction to the affertion of the folicitor general, that the right of the fubject to petition the king was not taken away by the propofed bill, Mr. Erfkine faid he would maintain pofitively and diftinctly, that the bill, if it could be reduced to practice, would abfolutely deftroy the right of the fubject to petition. It was a maxim in law, when any thing was prohibited by law, the means by which fuch thing might be done were alfo prohibited. According to the enactments of the bill, no fubject was to be difcuffed which the magiftrates did not approve of; thus thofe magiftrates "who were appointed by, and removable at, the will of the crown (fuch as the riffs, &c.) were to be judges of the nature of the petitions of the people." The magistrates, who reprefented his majesty, he contended, would therefore never permit the people to meet for the purpofe of petitioning against a meafure of high prerogative, or in any cafe where the king might be fuppofed not to confult the happiness of the people. He would fay again and again, that "it was the right of the people to refift that government which exercifed tyranny." It had been faid that bold language had been held at public meetings; it was certainly bold to say that the people had a right to refift, and that they ought to rife; but there were fome occafions which rendered the boldeft language warrantable.

With the fanction of the fentiments of the venerable earl of Chatham, he would maintain that the people of England should defend their rights, if neceffary, by the laft

extremity to which free men could refort. "For my own part," faid Mr. Erfkine, "I fhall never cease to ftruggle in fupport of liberty. In no fituation will I defert the cause. I was born a free man," continued he, and folemnly appealing to his Creator, "I will never die a flave!"

In the whole of the late proceed. ings and events, he obferved, one of the most fatal circumstances had been, that the higher orders of the. people feparated themfelves too much from the lower orders. This had been one of the causes of the revolution in France. Under their arbitrary monarchs, there were literally but two claffes of the people; a pampered, profligate, proud nobility, and a low, miferable, and abject rabble; no intermediate clafs, no knowledge, no virtue.

France had an unreformed church, an unreformed ftate, a profligate defpotifim, and the most profound fuperftition. He urged the necefity of preferving the British conftitų, tion pure, in order to prevent a revolution. He defied the whole pro feffion of the law to prove that the bill then before the houfe was confonant to the principles of the conftitution. The conftitution was abrogated and annulled by it. Our ancestors were content to wait till fome overt act appeared, which was the fubject of punishment. But, under this bill, the determination of a magiftrate was to interfere between the people and the affertion of their rights, and the complaint of their grievances. Depend upon it, faid Mr. Erskine, the people of England will not and ought not to fubmit.

Mr. Erskine then read a paragraph from an address to the jury at the Old Bailey upon the late trials for

high treafon, which fhewed that no confpiracy had exifted, and that the opinion of the judge had not been as reprefented. The chief justice fays

"All men may, nay, all men muft, if they profefs the faculty of thinking, reafon upon every thing which fufficiently interefts them to become objects of their attention; and, among the objects of the attention of free men, the principles of government, the conftitution of particular governments, and, above all, the conftitution of the government under which they live, will naturally engage their attention and provoke fpeculation. The power of communication of thoughts and opinions is the gift of God; and the freedom of it is the fource of all fcience, the firft fruits and the ultimate happiness of fociety; and therefore it seems to follow, that human laws ought not to interpofe, nay, cannot interpofe, to prevent the communication of fentiments and opinions in voluntary affemblies of men."

Mr. Erskine next commented upon the preamble and feveral claufes of the bill, and contended that it was in the power of any one man, by going to a meeting and fpeaking a few feditious words, whether appofite to the fubject or not, to afford a warrantable reafon for a juftice to diffolve the meeting; any fpy (and magiftrates had their fpies) with half a crown in his pocket, might go, and, by uttering feditious expreffions, afford his paymafter the power of putting an end to all difcuffion, and to the meeting. He faid the law of the land was fully adequate to all the purpofes of good government without the introduction of the prefent measure. In any public meeting,

when a breach of the peace was committed, a magiftrate, by the exifting law, was entitled to interfere; and, in his fupport, was authorized to raife the poffe comitatus, if neceffary; and alfo, by the Riot Act, he had the power of difperfing tumultuous affemblies.

He then alluded to fome fenti. ments which were formerly uttered by Mr. Burke when fpeaking of the American war, which he thought peculiarly applicable to the prefent time. That great man reprefented Englishmen as contending for an imaginary power; "We begin," faid he, "to acquire the fpirit of domination, and to lofe the relifh of honeft equality. The principles of our forefathers become fufpected to us, because we fee them animating the prefent oppofition of our children. The faults which grow out of the luxuriance of freedom appear much more fhocking to us, than thofe vices which are generated from the rankness of fervitude."

It appears from hence, faid Mr. Erskine, that the word equality is not a word of new coinage, and introduced into the dictionary only three years ago; but a word of long and ancient ufage, and ftamped with fuch an authority as that of Mr. Burke. It was his opinion, that the higher ranks did wrong in thus feceding from the lower. If the latter had fwerved from their duty, it would be better for the former to rally them round the principles of the conftitution, and lead them back to their duty, than thus to make, as it were, a feparate caufe against them. Let those higher ranks recollect what must be the certain confequence of a conteft between them and the lower ranks. He contended, that, if the propofed

measures