Page images
PDF
EPUB

supported such as to qualify its obnoxious provisions. So grave a statesman as Lord Grenville claimed credit for it as being copied from acts passed in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth and Charles II.,—' approvel times,' as his Lordship ventured to affirm.1 Dr. Horsley, Bishop of Rochester, 'did not know what the mass of the people in any country had to do with the laws, but to obey them.' This constitutional maxim he repeated on another day, and was so impressed with its excellence that he exclaimed, 'My Lords, it is a maxim which I ever will maintain, I will maintain it to the death,-I will maintain it under the axe of the guillotine.' And notwithstanding the obloquy which this sentiment occasioned, it was, in truth, the principle and essence of the bill which he was supporting.

2

Within a week the bill was passed through all its stages, there being only seven dissentient Nov. 13th, peers,—and sent to the House of Commons.3 1795.

Seditious

Bill, Nov. 10th.

But before it reached that house, the Commons had been occupied by the discussion of another measure equally alarming. On the meetings 10th November, the king's proclamations were considered, when Mr. Pitt founded upon them a bill to prevent seditious meetings. Following the

1 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 245; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 5.

2 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 268. His explanations in no degree modified the extreme danger of this outrageous doctrine. He admitted that where there were laws bearing upon the particular interests of certain persons or bodies of men, such persons might meet and discuss them. In no other cases had the people anything to do with the laws, i. e., they had no right to an opinion upon any question of public policy! See supra, Vol. II. 61.

Ibid., xxxii. 244-272; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 5, 6.

same reasoning as these proclamations, he attributed the outrages upon his Majesty, on the opening of Parliament, to seditious meetings, by which the disaffection of the people had been inflamed. He proposed that no meeting of more than fifty persons (except county and borough meetings duly called) should be held, for considering petitions or addresses for alteration of matters in church or state, or for discussing any grievance, without previous notice to a magistrate, who should attend to prevent any proposition or discourse tending to bring into hatred or contempt the sovereign, or the government and constitution. The magistrate would be empowered to apprehend any person making snch proposition or discourse. To resist him would be felony, punishable with death. If he deemed the proceedings tumultuous, he might disperse the meeting; and was indemnified if any one was killed in its dispersion. To restrain debating societies and political lectures, he proposed to introduce provisions for the licensing and supervision of lecture-rooms by magistrates.

When this measure had been propounded, Mr. ' Fox's indignation burst forth. That the outrage upon the king had been caused by public meetings, he denounced as a flimsy pretext; and denied that there was any ground for such a measure. 'Say at once,' he exclaimed, that a free constitution is no longer suited to us; say at once, in a manly manner, that on a 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

6

your freedom, and acknowledge and accept of despotism. But do not mock the understandings and feelings of mankind, by telling the world that you are free.'

He showed that the bill revived the very principles of the Licensing Acts. They had sought to restrain the printing of opinions of which the government disapproved: this proposed to check the free utterance of opinions upon public affairs. Instead of leaving discussion free, and reserving the powers of the law for the punishment of offences, it was again proposed, after an interval of a hundred years, to license the thoughts of men, and to let none go forth without the official dicatur. With the views of a statesman in advance of his age, he argued, "We have seen and heard of revolutions in other 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 say, if we wish to avoid the danger of such revolutions, we should put ourselves in a state as different from them as possible.' Forty-two members only could be found to resist the introduction of this bill.'

2

Each succeeding stage of the bill occasioned renewed discussions upon its principles. Nov. 27th, But when its details were about to be con- 1795. sidered in committee, Mr. Fox, Mr. Erskine, Mr. Grey, Mr. Lambton, Mr. Whitbread, and the other

1 Ayes, 244; Noes, 42, Parl. Hist., xxxii. 272-300. Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 6.

2 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 300-364, 387-422.

[blocks in formation]

opponents of the measure, rose from their seats and withdrew from the House.' Mr. Sheridan alone remained, not, as he said, to propose any amendments to the bill,-for none but the omission of every clause would make it acceptable, but merely Dec. 3rd. to watch its progress through the committee. The seceders returned on the third reading, and renewed their opposition to the bill; but it was passed by a vast majority.3

practices bill

in the Commons, Nov. 16th.

[ocr errors]

Meanwhile, the Treasonable practices bill having Treasonable been brought from the Lords, had also encountered a resolute opposition. The irritation of debate provoked expressions on both sides tending to increase the public excitement. Mr. Fox said that if ministers were determined, by means of the corrupt influence they possessed in the two Houses of Parliament, to pass the bills, in direct opposition to the declared sense of a great majority of the nation; and should they be put in force with all their rigorous provisions, if his opinion were asked by the people, as to their obedience, he should tell them that it was no longer a question of moral obligation and duty, but of prudence.' He expressed this strong opinion advisedly, and repeated and justified it again and again, with the encouragement of Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Grey, Mr. Whitbread, and other earnest opponents of the bills. On the other side, this menace was

1 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 300-364, 387-422; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 11.

2 Parl. Hist. xxxii., 422.

Ayes, 266; Noes, 51. Ibid., 422-470.

Parl. Hist., xxxii. 383, 385, 386, 392, 451-460; Lord Col

6

met by a statement of Mr. Windham, that ministers were determined to exert a rigour beyond the law, as exercised in ordinary times and under ordinary circumstances.'

[ocr errors]

Opposition

After repeated discussions in both Houses, the bills were eventually passed.2 During The bills their progress, however, large classes of passed. the people, whose liberties were threat- out of doors. ened, had loudly remonstrated against them. The higher classes generally supported the government, in these and all other repressive measures. In their terror of democracy, they had unconsciously ceased to respect the time-honoured doctrines of constitutional liberty. They saw only the dangers of popular license; and scarcely heeded the privileges which their ancestors had prized. But on the other side were ranged many eminent men, who still fearlessly asserted the rights of the people, and were supported by numerous popular demonstrations.

On the 10th November, the Whig Club held an
extraordinary meeting, which was attended The Whig
by the first noblemen and gentlemen of Club.
that party. It was there agreed, that before the
right of discussion and meeting had been abrogated,
the utmost exertions should be used to oppose these
dangerous measures. Resolutions were accordingly
passed, expressing abhorrence of the attack upon the
king, and deploring that it should have been made

chester's Diary, i. 9. Nov. 24th: Grey to-night explained his
position of resistance to the theoretical, which in the preceding
night he had stated to be practically applicable to the present
occasion.'-Ibid., i. 10. And see Lord Malmesbury's Diary, iii. 247.
1 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 386.
236 Geo. III. c. 7, 8.

вс?

« PreviousContinue »