moft particularly called for the interference of parliament. He, as a fervant of his Majefty, and a member of that houfe, viewed it as his duty to remonstrate against them and endeavour to check their feditious tendency. He obferved, that, whatever variation there might be in the bill he had to propofe from the prece dents of former times, he affured their Lordships that they would be found only to vary to far as the peculiar forms of existing circumstances required. The precedents to which he referred were thofe in the reign of Elizabeth, and at the commencement of the reign of Charles II. acts paffed in approved times, and applied to circumftances by no means diffimilar to thofe of the prefent day. He doubted not but their Lordships would agree with him in the neceflity there was of applying a speedy remedy to thofe dangerous practices, which had proceeded fo far as to endanger the' monarchy, or even the life and fafety of our prefent fovereign. On thefe grounds he prefented a bill entitled, "An Act for the Safety and Prefervation of his Majelly's Perfon and Government, against Treasonable and Seditious Practices and Attempts;" which being read a first time, he moved that it fhould be printed, and the Lords be fummoned for the fecond reading on the Tuesday following.. But as the polity of Britain is not the immediate fubject of our hiftory, we will not tire our readers with detailed accounts of the fpeeches which this bill occafioned in both houfes of Parliament. At the fame time we would justly expofe ourselves to blame, did we altogether país them over in filence. We fhall therefore give the out-lines of fome of the most important and friking. The Earl of Lauderdale faid, that, when he saw the proclamation which had just been read, his mind was filled with an equal degree of furprite and anxietyThat he conceived from high authority, that the nation might reft fatisfied, that one of the great objects of the war was completely fulfilled, and that the dread and alarm which had any where exifted, was quieted, by the falutary effects of the proclamation of 1792, and the fubfequent meafires which minifters had adopted. But his aftonishment was greatly excited by the perufal of the proclamation now read, and ftill more fo, at finding bill introduced from the fame quarter, and grounded upon that proclamation. This measure appeared to him a direct contradiction to the high authority he had just alluded to, and proved, that now it would be abfurd to fuppofe government had fucceeded in obtaining one of the greatest objects of the war; for they now came forward with a measure ten times ftronger and more dangerous to the liberties of the country, than they had hitherto dared to do, even at the moment of their greateft and moft avowed alarm. - His Lordfhip contended, that, by the bill then introduced, a variety of new crimes and new treasons would be added to the criminal code of this country; and it would effect a total alteration of the laws refpecting treafon, and a moft dangerous innovation on the conftitution. He contended that there was not the flightest connection between the meetings at Iflington, &c. and the outrage on his Majefty.That the old conftitution of France had nothing more defpotic or hoftile to the liberties of the people than the bill propofed. That the fact appeared to him to be, that minifters having involved the country in a ruinous and deftructive war, they then had recourfe to extraordinary and unheard-of meafures; meafures which, if carried into a law, would annihilate every liberty and privilege which Englishmen then enjoyed.-The bill, he maintained, was not brought in to check a fpecific or immediate danger, but as a permanent alteration of the criminal law of this country; for it was to continue during the lite of the King, and even afterwards.-Lord Lauderdale concluded a very able and animated fpeech, by pronouncing the bill then before their Lordships to be "one "one of the feveret, and most dangerous to the rights and liberties of the people, that had ever been introduced into parliament." Lord Grenville, in oppofition to the Earl of Lauderdale, obferved, that minifters had not faid that all difcontent and defign against the government of this country was done away; or that all feditious practices were at an end. This was not the fpirit or the meaning of his noble friend on the woolfack-nor was it true that minifters had at any time afferted that there was a general fpirit of difloyalty or difaffection in this country; fo far from this, he had the glory of faying, there was almost an universal spirit of loyalty in the nation. He denied that minifters had brought on this war-the votes of their Lordships declared the contrary. With respect to the provifions of the bill, when they came to be argued, he should prove his affertions on the neceffity of the measure. He fhould prove that it did not, in the smallest degree, interfere with the right of the people to meet in legal and peaceable affemblies. None could be made to fuffer by it, but those who knew their conduct and intentions were wicked. The Duke of Bedford followed the fame arguments ufed by Lord Lauderdale, and faid he would take the first opportunity to exprefs his fentiments on the bill. On the 10th of November, Lord Grenville moved the order of the day, for the fecond reading of the bill to protect his Majefty's perfon, &c. The bill, he faid, might be divided into two parts; the first for the protection of his Majefty's perfon, the other for the purpofe of punishing treafonable crimes. against the ftate. On the firit, he prefumed there would be but one opinion; and on the fecond, he afferted, that there were no punishments for crimes that were not already acknowledged to be fuch by the exifting laws, excepting that it was intended, by the prefent bill, to include treafonabie publications and difcourfes, as equally criminal and dangerous with the acts ftated to be treafon by the laws then in force, &c. The The Duke of Bedford, in a lucid and argumentative. fpeech, reprobated the bill as fraught with danger to the liberty of the fubject.-His Grace, among other fevere strictures, made fome pointed obfevations upon the good times from which Lord Grenville had taken his precedents in fupport of the bill. He never thought that the noble Lord had fo far forgotten what be, and the nation owed to thofe who had brought about the revolution, as to fpeak of the reigns of Elizabeth, and Charles II. as models for example, or furnishing precedents for government to act upon in the prefent day In Elizabeth's time, thofe laws were chiefly directed against bulls iffued by the pope, and when the country was in a very distracted state, both from foreign and domeftic foes; and in Charles the Second's reign, those measures were adopted when he was just rettored after twenty years abfence, and were deemed abfolutely neceffary for his protection. Lord Lauderdale made a long and able fpeech against the bill, and concluded by obferving, that however difpleafing it might be to fome of their Lordships to hear it, he was juftified by great and known authorities in faying, that times and circumstances might be such, as not only to justify, but to make refiftance become a duty. Lord Mansfield expreffed a very different opinion of the bill. In the reign of Charles II. he said, much of the leaven of republicanifm remained. There were alfo fitth-monarchy men, who indeed differed from the republicans of the prefent day, who wished for no King, as they adhered to the idea of a King of a certain defcription. Lord Mansfield concluded with fome compliments to the known humanity and fortitude of his Majefty. After feveral obfervations from the Dukes of Bedford and Norfolk, the question was then put, and the houfe divided Contents, 56.-Non-contents, 7. In the house of Commons, on the fame day, (November 1c) the chancellor of the exchequer moved the order order of the day for taking into confideration his Majefty's proclamations of October 31st and November 4th, 1795. Mr. Pitt painted in glowing colours the ftrong impreffions which the criminal and outrageous infult committed upon his Majefty's perfon, on the first day of the feffion, had made upon the minds of all his fubjects, and remarked, that these outrages proceeded from circumstances upon which he meant to ground the proceedings of that night-if the house meant not to do their business by halves, and that fuch enormities fhould be totally averted, they should adopt fome means to prevent thofe feditious affemblies, which ferved as vehicles to faction and difloyalty, which fanned and kept alive the flame of diffatisfaction, and filled the minds of the people with discontent-the meetings to which he alluded were of two defcriptions. The first under the pretext of petitioning parliament for rights of which they affected to be deprived, agitated questions, and promulgated opinions, hoftile to the exifting government, and tending to bring it into difrepute with the people. The other defcription, though less numerous, not lefs public, nor lefs dangerous, was concerted evidently for the purpose of diffeminating unjuft grounds of jealoufy and difcontent, and of encouraging the people to acts of even treafon itself. Both thefe required fome ftrong law to prevent them. No man, he said, would deny the right of the peo ple to exprefs their opinions on political men and meafures, and to difcufs and affert their right of petitioning all the branches of the legislature; but it was the duty of the house to prevent thefe privileges from being made a pretext for fubverting the established govern ment of the country. He confeffed, however, that it was neceffary to proceed with caution in this business, left, on the one hand, they thould encroach on the people, or, on the other, fuffer the abufe of those rights to become the inftrument of their total extinction the |