This consideration, he confessed, occasioned considerable difficulty, but it did not create an insuperable dilemma. In applying the desired remedy, two things were to be looked to-the first, to correct the abuse of a sacred and invaluable privilege; the second, to preserve that privilege inviolate: caution was therefore necessary, lest, on the one hand, they should encroach on the rights of the people, or, on the other, should suffer the abuse of those rights to become the instrument of their total extinction. This was a matter of great delicacy, and should be attended to in the detail; but the House would see, that at present the real question was, did not the pressure of the moment call for some remedy? According to the opinions which he had collected, as well as he had been able, from others, and such as he had formed for himself, the great point wanted at this moment was a more clear and defined power in the magistrate, to disperse and put an end to all meetings likely to be productive of consequences such as were already mentioned. He by no means meant this power of dispersion to extend to meetings professedly and obviously lawful, and held for legal and constitutional purposes; but that, in every case of a numerous meeting, of whatever nature, or under whatever colour, notice should be given, so as to enable the magistrate to keep a watchful eye over their proceedings. He should therefore propose, that whatever be the pretext of a public meeting (if the House was at all of opinion there was any necessity for the regulation of such meetings), such notice should be given to the magistrate, in order that he might attend, for the preservation of the public peace; that he might watch the proceedings, to prevent any measure that might tend to attack, or to bring into contempt, either the sovereign himself, or any branch of the established government of the country. That the magistrate should be empowered to apprehend any persons whose conduct should seem calculated for those purposes, and that any resistance to the authority of a magistrate so acting, should be deemed felony in every person concerned in it. That, on perceiving the proceedings of such meeting to be tumultuous, and leading to the bad consequences he had already mentioned, the magistrate should have power similar to that which he had already by the riot act, to disperse that assembly, and that after reading the riot act, and ordering them to disperse, any number of persons remaining should, as by the riot act, incur the penaltyof the law, that of felony. The House would see, that this summary power in the magistrate, while it would still leave to the people the fair right to petition, on the one hand, would, on the other, prevent the abuse of it. This, he said, was the outline. All detail he would reserve for future discussion. Under the other description of meetings, through which the minds of the people were poisoned, fell those of public lecturers, who made the dissemination of sedition the source of livelihood. To them he thought it would be proper to apply regulations something like those that passed about fourteen years ago, in an act which, from the learned gentleman who brought it in, was called Mansfield's act, and by which all houses wherein meetings of an improper kind were held on a Sunday, were to be treated as disorderly houses. And, to avoid evasion, the clause should apply to every house wherein any people met, exceeding a certain number to be stated in the act, the real family of the house. These, said he, are the outlines of the measure I have to propose; and so convinced am I that there can be but one feeling, and one opinion, that some measure of this kind is necessary [here a cry of" hear!" from the opposite side]; and so little am I shaken in that conviction by the adverse vociferations of "hear, hear !" that I am sure I should but show a distrust of the cause, if I said any more. I will therefore only move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the more effectually preventing Seditious Meetings and Assemblies." Mr. Fox said, he trusted it was unnecessary for him to preface what he had to say, by a declaration, that he felt as much horror at the attempt which was made against his majesty as any man in the kingdom: quite as much as any man who might move, who might second, or who might support the bill, which it seemed was to be offered to the House. Having agreed so far with the minister that night, there he must take his leave of him. He did not think he should well express his feelings, if he declared that his indignation at what had happened even on that day, was more than equal to what he felt from what he had heard this night. The right hon. gentleman had regularly proceed, for they were points on which there was no proof. Nothing was more clear than that the House of Commons ought never to proceed upon any measure that might trespass upon the rights of the public, without evidence that was decisive, even in cases of extreme necessity; but there was no evidence whatever to connect any of the proceed. ings of these meetings, with the daring insult offered to his majesty. The right hon. gentleman had said, Should not the House endeavour to prevent the repetition of such an insult? Undoubtedly it should. But then it should be upon evidence, and here the right of persons to meet any where to consult on public measures, was to be affected in consequence of what happened to his majesty on the first day of the session, althougli there was no evidence to prove that the outrage arose from any proceedings that were had at any public meeting previous to that day. Some persons, perhaps, might consider the proclamation itself as evidence. He could agree to no such rule; he well knew there were those who doubted the truth of the proclamations: who believed many of them to be the acts of ministers for cetain 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. adverted to a bill at that time in the other House, which was stated to have for its object the better security of his majesty's person, and on which it was probable the House would have some communication with their lordships. He believed it would be difficult for the right hon. gentleman to show the necessity for that bill, if he meant to ground that necessity upon the assumption that what happened on the first day of the session was in consequence of what passed at meetings to which he had alluded. He disapproved highly of all these experiments, which were professed to be intended as securities for the enjoyment of all the blessings of our constitution. He knew the constitution had existed for ages sufficiently guarded by the law as it now stood, and therefore, if the right hon. gentleman had not opened his plan, which, he declared struck him with horror; if he had not said a single word upon that detestable plan, he should have given his negative to the proposition in question; because the proposition itself laid it down as an assumed fact, that the law at present is insufficient to prevent breaches of the public peace. It was said, that a seditious meeting had been held somewhere in the neighbourhood of the metropolis a few days previous to the meeting of parliament; that at such meeting very alarming proceedings had taken place, striking at the very existence of parliament itself. That such proceedings took place he did not know; but, this he knew, if speeches were made that had such a tendency, the speakers were amenable to the law. If hand-bills were distributed that had such a tendency, the distributors were amenable to the law. If any person had so conducted himself as to be the means of causing the people so assembled to form a resolution, having such a tendency, he was amenable to the law, and, when proved guilty, was liable to adequate punishment. But this bill was to proceed upon the flimsy pretext, that all the violence and outrage that had been offered to his majesty was the result of this meeting, of which there was not the colour of proof. He knew, indeed, that the right hon. gentleman had attempted to connect them; he knew, too, there had been, and would be endeavours to confound the two things. It was ridiculous to talk of these things being perfectly notorious; that these proceedings were clearly seditious; they were points upon which that House could not These were strong objections to proceeding upon this subject without better evidence. All this, however, was trifling, in comparison with what the right hon. 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 hon. 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 hon. gentleman had hinted at two points. 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 hon. gentleman had said, that these meetings were not to be prevented, they were only to be regulated. "Attend," said Mr. Fox, "to the regulation. I thought I knew the rights of man-aye, and the rights of Englishmen. [Here was a prodigious 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 would 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 any thing 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, 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 the 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 which hitherto were 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 griev 'ance 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 exist ence 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 any thing but a total annihilation of their liberty?" The right hon. 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 speak ing, because he can allege, that what is said tends to disturb the peace and tranquillity of this realm. tude; 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 hoped, that the impres➡ sive 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 subSir, I hope this bill will never come ject, that tended to produce that great into this House. I am not friendly to any change? On the contrary, was it not the thing that will produce violence. Those absolute prerogative of the king? Was it who know me will not impute to me any not the arbitrary power lodged in minissuch desire; but I do hope that this bill ters? Was it not the oppressive privilege will produce an alarm; that while we have of issuing Lettres de Cachet against all the power of assembling, the people will who dared to utter their sentiments, and assemble; that while they have the power, complain of existing grievances, that exthey will not surrender it, but come for- cited the indignation of the people, and ward and state their abhorrence of the accelerated the downfall of the monarchy? principle of this proceeding; and those If, therefore, one view on which the prewho do not, I pronounce to be traitors to sent measure is held out to your accepttheir country. Good God, Sir, what mad-ance, be in order to prevent the troubles ness, what frenzy has overtaken the authors of this measure! I will suppose for a moment that the only object which they have in view is the preventing a revolution in this country. But that they should have proceeded upon a plan which has no regard for the liberty of the people, no regard for the glorious efforts of our ancestors, no regard for their maxims, no esteem for the principles and the conduct which have made us what we are, or rather, if this bill be countenanced, what we were, is to me astonishing! For to proceed thus, in order to suppress or prevent popular tumults, appears to me to be the most desperate infatuation. Good God, Sir! We have seen and have heard of revolutions in different states. Were they owing to the freedom of popular opinions? Were they owing to the facility of popular meetings? No, Sir, they were owing to the reverse of these; and therefore I if we wish to avoid the danger of such revolutions, we should put ourselves in a state as different from them as possible. What are we now doing? Putting ourselves in a condition nearly resembling the periods when these revolutions happened. In the reign of Charles 1st, the most interesting period to which we can look in the history of this country, was freedom of speech indulged to any lati say, arising from the frequency of popular as- 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. Mr. Stanley said, that if this bill passed we were upon the eve of a revolution. Montesquieu had asserted, that the surest proof of a country's verging on destruction was an enormous increase of penal laws. The existing laws were every way sufficient to arm the magistrate with proper power for the suppression of all illegal meetings. Did ministers imagine they lived in the midst of people hostile to the constitution? Were not the laws for the punishment of misdemeanors adequate? Why should a law be brought in to authorize magistrates to attend at public meetings? Did they not attend? Could they not, as Englishmen, attend and declare their free opinions on any subjects propounded at any public meetings? He considered the bill as a libel on the loyalty of Englishmen, and a measure which would make him abhor the authors of it for the rest of his life. Sir W. Pulteney said, that the greatest jealously ought to exist in the minds of the people at any infringement of their privileges, but gentlemen would do well to try, whether this consequence would attend the present measure. He agreed, that the measure would militate against liberty, if it prevented free discussion: but if such assemblies as those in question were suppressed, he begged to know, whether the liberty of the press would not continue to exist in all its force? That was a mode of discussing all popular topics, adequate to all the purposes of the community. That alone was sufficient to maintain all the blessings of the people; and that could not exist in a republican form of government, in an absolute monarchy, or any sort of government which he knew, except a limited monarchy, such as we happily enjoyed. In inflammatory assemblies where sedition was copiously dealt out to the multitude, there ought to be something to save the public mind from imbibing the insidious poison. The great danger of such meetings was, that they only heard one side of a question, and their ignorance and want of information led them on to action. It was very fit, therefore, that they should be set right on such points. If treason. and sedition were afloat, the current ought to be stopped; and if the laws already in force were inadequate, some regulation ought to be made to save every thing dear. to Englishmen. Mr. N. B. Halhed said ;-Mr. Speaker, There are circumstances, under which no unwillingness of public speaking, no consciousness of slender abilities, will authorize a perseverance in taciturnity: when a town is besieged, the most peaceable inhabitant must occasionally handle the musket, or line the battery. I am the last man who would wish to press myself forward on the notice of the House, or take an ostensible part in the business of the day. Educated in the most loyal principles of love for the constitution and respect for the crown, I have hitherto contented myself in the silent enjoyment of the inestimable privileges of a free-born Englishman, and a warrantable hope that I should preserve them undiminished to my latest hour. The continuance of those hopes, and of that enjoyment, is so inseparably linked with the question ac. tually before the House, that I am persuaded our resolution of this day will, in one way or the other, decide upon them for ever. I have therefore applied myself with all the diligence I am capable of to the consideration of the subject of our present debate, and I hope gentlemen will do me the justice to acknowledge, that however deficient my capacity, there is not one member of this House who has better pretensions for impartiality at least of judgment in a complete separation from all party attachment, and a disavowal of |