and impartial juftice. By that ftatute, to compafs or imagine the death of the king was ftated to be high treafon. He faid, he could not think how any law could be made to plant a hedge by which the perfon of the fovereign could be more fecurely defended than by the words of that ftatute. The fecond part of the fame ftatute declared levying war against the king, or granting comfort and protection to his enemies, to be high treafon. But why did not our ancestors make "the compaffing to levy war" high treafon? The reafon was, that, in the benevolence of the principles by which they were actuate 1, they never overstepped the neceffity of the occafion. They knew that it was in the power of any malignant ruffian to attack the perfon of the king, and to endanger his fafety; and therefore, in their ftatute, they made the very imagination of his death to be high treafon. They did not wait for the execution of the deed; they ftruck at the intention itself, as foon at least as it was discovered by any overt aft. But they held out a confpiracy to levy war against the king as only a mifdemeanor, because it was a thoufand to one that the confpiracy was too contemptible for notice; that it would be difcovered before it was ripe for execution: the crime of confpiracy was fated in the mind, and it was only from overt acts that a criminal intention could be fhewn to exiit. Mr. Erkine then ftated the cafe of fir John Friend, who was indit d for high treafon: the overt aft charged in his indictment was the railing of troops in France to aid the cause of the pretender. On this occafion, chief juice Holt properly contended, that, in ordinary cales, a confpiracy to levy war certainly was not an overt act of 1796.

high treafon; but as the immediate object of this confpiracy was to lay violent hands upon the perfon of the king, it came under the firít claufe of the ftatute of Edward the Third, and conftituted an overt aÅ of treafon

Sir John Friend on the contrary argued, that, though the troops were raised at hi, inftance, and the purpose for which they were raifed was to levy war ag inft the king, yet he refted his crufe upon the intention not having been carried into effect, and inferred from thence that he was inocent of the charge of high treason. But fir John Friend's objection could not bear him out; for chief juft ce Hoit, like an honeft man and a found lawyer, only ftated the facts as evidence of the defign, and left the jury to decide, whether the overt acts which were eftablitned, were proofs of guilt in the perfon accufed. This being the law, Mr. Erikine expreffed his furprize to hear it afferted that th bill then before the houfe made no alteration in the law of treafon. He contended that the legislature was about to cutdown the text on which all the judicial contractions flood, and enact, "that any confpiracy to levy war against the government was to be deemed uigh treafon;" and fo far did the provifions of the propofed bill extend, that even a confpiracy to pull down all the bawdy houfes in the kingdom would confign the confpirators to the punishment of traitors. He aked the framers of the bill, if they had not embodied all the falfe conftructions of the ftatute of Edward the Third, on purpose to make them a ftanding law; and if an attempt to pull down a few turnpike ates might not fubject a man to the enalties of high treafon? He urged the injuftice of impofing oppreffive laws

D

upon

upon the nation, becaufe a folitary individual, in the malignity of his heart, or in the infatuation of enthufiafm, had committed a defperate outrage. The bill comprehended a variety of new treafons, and even conftituted writing an overt act of treafon. He adverted to the claufe of the bill, in which it was enacted, that to "exprefs, publith, utter, or declare, any word, fentence, or other thing or things, to incite or ftir up the people, &c." was a misdemeanor. He could not perceive from whence the framers of the bill had borrowed this expreffion; he had in vain fearched for it in the history of former ty

rants.

The attorney general replied to Mr. Erfkine; and Mr. Fox pointed out fome ftrong objections to the bill: but the feries of arguments used by these members on this occafion being very fimilar to thofe employed in the former ftages of the bill, it would be fuperfluous to repeat them.

The houfe then divided upon the commitment of the bill. Ayes, 203; noes, 40.

The house next refolved itself into a committee, Mr. Serjeant in the chair. Upon that part of the firft claufe of the bill, which enacts that it fhall continue in force during the life of his majefty, and until the end of the first feffion of parliament after his deceafe, Sir William Young faid, he thought the provifions of the bill fo neceflary, not only at this particular juncture, but as general regulations, that he fhould move to leave out the words "during the life of his majefty," in order to make the bill permanent. General M Leod faid he would propofe an amendment, that, inftead of the words "during the natural life of our most gracious fovereign

lord the king, whom Almighty God preferve and blefs with a long and profperous reign," fhould be inferted " during the life of our most gracious minifter Mr. Pitt, whom Almighty God preferve and blefs with a long and profperous adminiftration!"

Mr. Barham condemned this levity, as unfuitable to the folemnity of the occafion. He argued for a limited time, on the ground that the country at large would be better fatisfied.

Upon a divifion taking place, that the bill continue for the natural life of the king, and until the end of the next feffion of parliament after a demife of the crown, there appeared 129 votes for this. period, and 6 in favour of its being renewed every three years.

On the 4th of December, the order of the day being read for the house to take into confideration the report of the amendments made in the committee on the fame bill, all the gentlemen who had uniformly oppofed it retired from the house in a body. The amendments were then gone through and agreed to by the houfe: after which the bill, with the amendments, was ordered to be engroffed, and read a third time on the Thurfday following.

Accordingly, on the 10th of December, the chancellor of the exchequer moved the order of the day, for the third reading of the bill.

Mr. Harrifon oppofed the third reading, on two grounds: firft, whether the act of Edward the Third was fufficiently ftrong to prevent the neceffity of any new law for the fafety of his majefty's perfon? Secondly, whether the laws exifting were fufficient to provide against and punish any language or publi cations that went to the fubverfion of the government? He argued,

that

that the prefent fhould rather be a declaratory act, stating, that doubts had arisen concerning the conftruction of the high treason ftatute of Edward the Third, than a new permanent act. He declared, that he was fully perfuaded in his own

mind that the former laws were fufficient. He called the bill a fatire on the crown, and a libel on the loyalty of the people of England.

Mr. fecretary Dundas contended, that if any good could come from felf-constituted meetings, it would be by placing them under the eye of the legislature. Indeed he had flattered himself, that "after the trials of Hardy and others, the good fenfe of the nation would have checked their further progrefs." But the meetings in St. George's fields, and at Copenhagen-house, had diffipated thefe hopes.

Mr. Pitt, alderman Newnham, fir William Pulteney, and Mr. Jen. kinfon, fpoke in favour of the third reading.

Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Weftern, Mr. Jekyll, and Mr. Fox, urged with additional energy fome of their former arguments against the bill.

The bill was then read a third time, and paffed.

On the third of December the bill for preventing feditious meetings was read a third time in the commons. Mr. Hardinge on this occafion made a fpeech of confiderrable length in fupport of the bill.

Mr. Fox and Mr. Sheridan contended against its paffing into a law; but the arguments urged by the gentlemen on both fides of the queftion being nearly the fame as those we have already noticed in the former debates on the fubject, would be to indulge in an unneceffary prolixity to repeat them here.

On the fame day Mr. Pitt took

up the bill to the houfe of lords, when it was read a first time.

On December 9th, upon the fe cond reading of the bill in the house of lords to prevent feditious meet ings, lord Grenville rofe, and reminded the house that he had on a former day introduced a bill for the better fecurity of his majefty's perfon and government, which had met with their lordships' approbation. But that was only one of the meafures which his majesty's minifters thought proper to bring forward to guard the conftitution, and protect the liberties of the country. The other measure was the prefent bill, which had been received from the other house, and was then brought forward for their lordships' difcuffion. The prefent bill was to provide for what the other bill did not immediately regard, viz. to fecure the lives, the property, and the happiness of the people of England, for which important object it would be found that the exifting laws did not fufficiently provide. His lordship then went over the old ground, in depicting the tremendous evils which impended over this country from the correfponding fociety, and called upon the houfe to apply the remedy which this fituation requir ed.

The earl of Derby, the marquis of Lanfdowne, and the earl of Moira, contended strongly against the bill. They urged the right the people of this country had to free difcuffion. They contended that the power which would, by the bill, be invested in magiftrates, of feizing and carrying to punifhment those who might be found in what were called unlawful affemblies, would be to punish the offence without the cognizance of a jury;

in other words, would expofe the culprit to arbitrary punishment: that the bill went to deftroy the bill of rights, and the principle of freedom that though minifters might feel a horrid gratification in the contemplation of the effects which their meafures might produce, they might triumph in their fuccefs, and it was the only triumph they had to boaft; but nobody would envy them. That they had done their duty in oppofing the bill; and whatever might be the confequence they would fay

Victrix caufa diis placuit, fed vica Catoni. Minifters alone were the deities, however, to whom the victory would be acceptable. That Being who had created man for freedom, could never be gratified in feeing the purposes of his wifdom and goodness counteracted; nor could he fail to regard thofe with complacency, who had honeftly engaged in the caufe of liberty and truth. Notice was taken by the earl of Moira of an expreflion which had fallen from lord Weftmoreland, who had faid, "Send the people to the loom and the anvil, and there let them caru bread, instead of wafting time at feditious meetings." Lord Moira could not believe, he faid, that the Almighty made any part of mankind merely to work and eat like bafts: he had endowed man with reasoning faculties, and given him leave to use them.

Loid Thurlow urged feveral grave and weighty arguments, to prove that the confequences which had arifen from the propagation of jacobinical principles in France, afforded no juftification for the legiflature of this country to enact new laws, with a view to the prevention of fimilar effects here: he

thought the members of that houfe had nothing to do with what had paffed in France. The bill was to be objected againft, as establishing a bad precedent, under countenance of which a variety of bad laws might creep into the state, and defile the pages of the ftatute-book. While he thought the exifting laws fuficient to fupprefs feditious affemblies, he could not help remarking the variety of mifconceptions that had taken place refpecting the bill, and in no particular more than in the idea that it trenched upon the right of the fubject to difcufs public grievances, to petition, complain, or remonstrate, or otherwife addrefs the king, or either or both houfes of parliament, refpecting them. So far from that being the cafe, the bill fet out with recognizing that principle in the plaineft and broadeft manner. His lordship pointed out the distinction between the extent to which the provifions of the bill went, and that of the provifions of the act of Charles the Second, and the act of George the Firft, commonly called the Riot Act. By the latter, the perfons affembled for an unlawful purpose did not incur the penalty of death, unlefs they continued together riotoufly and tumultuously for one hour after the act had been read. By the prefent bill, it an affembly met for the mere difcuffion of public topics, continued together peaceably to the number of twelve or more for one hour after proclamation made, commanding them to difperfe, they were guilty of felony without be nefit of clergy; and the magiftrate was ordered to put them to death, or at least he incurred no penalty, if, upon refiftance, any of the perfons fo continuing together loft 6

their

their lives. This was in his mind an infuperable objection to the bill; and he therefore voted against it. He was anfwered by the lord chancellor in a speech of confiderable length, but nearly upon the fame ground of argument made ufe of by the ministerial fide in the houfe of commons, when the fame bill was introduced into that houfe.

Upon the question for the bill's going into a committee, there were contents, 109, non-contents, 21.

On the 11th of December the houfe of lords went into a committee upon the bill for preventing feditious affemblies. In the limitation claufe, the duke of Norfolk moved that, inftead of "three years," the words " one year" fhould be fubitituted.

This amendment was fupported by lords Darnley, Scarborough, Radnor, and Romney; and oppofed by lords Grenville, Spencer, and Mulgrave. On a divifion, there appeared for the amendment, contents, 8, non-contents, 45.

Upon the 14th of December the bill was read a third time in the houfe of lords and paffed.

Thus we have given a very brief fketch of the interefting difcuffions which took place on thefe extraordinary bills; for to have entered at length into the arguments employed by the feveral fpeakers would have occupied nearly the whole portion of this work which

is devoted to hiftorical detail *. That a measure of this nature was in the contemplation of miniftry long previous to the outrages on his majefty, is evident, not only from the unguarded declaration of Mr. Dundas, but from the general tenour of the debates, and ftill more

from the debates, which, in the preceding feflion, took place upon the ftate trials. Yet it would be uncandid to impute to minitters a fettled plan to overthrow the conftitution of England.-Their meafures, on the contrary, have never appeared in any inftance to have been formed upon any deep-laid defign, upon any thing like an extended fyftem; they are to be confidered in general as temporary expedients, and, according to their own favourite idea, adapted in all cafes to exifling circunfances. While we frankly concede thus much in their favour, it is not eafy to believe that the terror excited in miniftry by a few infignificant mechanics in the metropolis, under the name of a Correfponding Society, could be fo great as they affected to feel.-We cannot fuppofe them fo wek and ignorant; we must do juftice to their understandings, in fuppofing them actuated by different motives: and the fimpleft folution of their conduct in this inftance appears to be this-They felt that they had rafhly and incautiously involved the nation in a war which had difappointed all their projects, and batlled all their hopes; they must have felt that the iftorms of public indignation were filentiy gathering, as taxes and mifery increafed; and a measure of the nature of these bils, aided by the increase of the military force, they apprehended to be the most certain rampart which they could raife for their own protection.

In the event there is reafon to believe they have been dif. appointed. appointed. The general outcry which was raifed throughout the nation against this flagrant innova

tion