1795.

COERCIVE BILLS.

17

A

panying overt acts, were themselves constituted overt acts, and rendered the offender guilty of treason. new offence was created, which subjected to the penalties of a high misdemeanour any person who by writing, preaching, or speaking, should incite or stir up the people to hatred or dislike of His Majesty's person, or the established Government and Constitution of the realm. Under the last words, it is obvious that the liberty of speech and the liberty of the press might have been wholly destroyed, had it not been for the recent Libel Act, which happily deprived prerogative judges of the exclusive right of interpretation in questions of libel. The Bill was denounced in the strongest terms by the Whig lords; and Grenville, who introduced the measure, could refer to no better times than those of Elizabeth and Charles the Second, as precedents for such unconstitutional legislation.

Act to repress

cussion.

The second of this pair of Bills, which was brought forward in the Commons, was intended to restrict freedom of discussion, and to public disrender it hardly possible to hold meetings for any political purpose without infringing on the law. Every public assembly, relating to any matter concerning the Church or State, was to be held by previous advertisement, signed by resident householders; and all assemblages not convened in this manner were declared illegal. The next clause of the Bill was of the most arbitrary character. It subjected any meeting, legally constituted, to the summary provisions of the Riot Act, if, in the opinion of any two justices, such meeting was dangerous to the public peace. By another provision, lecturerooms, and even gatherings in the open air, to which admittance was obtained by payment, were required to be licensed, and were placed under the observation of the police.

This measure was received by the few members of

18

VIOLENT DECLAMATION OF

CH. XXXVI.

Reception of the measure.

the House of Commons who were neither the obsequious followers of the minister, nor unmanned by exaggerated terrors, with every mark of amazement and disgust. Fox had been hardly able to restrain himself, while the minister, in stately periods, sought to demonstrate, that the partial excesses of the untaught populace, irritated by temporary causes, were a sufficient reason for retrenching some of the most valuable liberties of Englishmen. When Pitt sat down, the Whig leader, fired with a generous indignation, started up, and denounced the measure in words of vehemence and power, which even he himself had never surpassed. He said it was better at once to declare that, after experience, and upon a review of the present state of the world, a free constitution was no longer suitable to this country; but he hoped that the people, while they were yet allowed to meet, would assemble and express their abhorrence of these measures; for if they were to be denied a legal mode of making known their grievances, they would be reduced to the level of those unhappy creatures who have no alternative between abject submission and armed resistance. This Bill, and Lord Grenville's, commonly distinguished by the names of the Treason Bill' and the 'Sedition Bill,' were carried through both Houses by the commanding majorities which usually supported the Ministry. Fox and his friends, however, abated none of the vehemence of their opposition. When the Bills were advanced to that stage in which the details should have been discussed, Fox declined to discuss them, and hoped that they might pass in their integrity, that the people might fully understand the nature and extent of the attack which had been made upon their liberties. As to their obedience to such laws, that, said the great Whig chief, is a question, not of duty, but of prudence. Such language as this, of course, drew down

1795.

FOX IN OPPOSITION.

19

upon the intrepid orator the solemn censure of the head of the Government. He was told that he had preached rebellion, that he had recommended an appeal to the sword, that he desired to involve the country in anarchy and bloodshed. The strong words of the Opposition leader became the text for many a Tory speech and pamphlet; they inflamed still further the overheated loyalty of the gentry, clergy, and freeholders, throughout the kingdom; and convinced, if conviction were wanting, the upper and middle classes of the necessity for rallying round the altar and the throne. Moderate men shook their ⚫heads, while the violent and revolutionary party alone applauded the bold language of the Whig leader. It is not easy to defend a statesman who suggests resistance to the laws made by competent authority, unless he is prepared for the consequences to which he points. It is certain, that Fox did not mean to incite the people to rebellion; but it was well that at a time when the current of public opinion ran violently in a direction opposite to freedom, and when the Government, instead of moderating the rage of the friends of order, were doing everything in their power to aggravate alarm, a great Englishman should stand up, even if he were alone, and vindicate those high principles of liberty for which the Eliots, the Hampdens, and the Sidneys had sacrificed their lives. "The principles of freedom of speech and freedom of the press,' said Fox, 'I have learned from my early youth, from Sidney and Locke, from Sir George Savile and the Earl of Chatham; but,' he added, "if there were no authority for them, I would maintain them by myself. I may be told these are strong words, but strong measures require strong words.' The rash impetuosity of Windham, excited by this speech, hurried him into language, in the opposite sense, still more objectionable. He accused Fox of appealing to force, and declared that, in such case,

20

PETITIONS AGAINST THE BILLS. CH. XXXVI.

the Ministry were determined to exert a rigour beyond the law. Loud cries of 'Take down his words forced the minister, courageous as he was, to retreat upon an explanation, tantamount to retractation. But these rash words, as well as another insolent phrase dropped by Bishop Horsley, in the Upper House, that the people had nothing to do with the laws but to obey them, were long remembered, and quoted by those who would represent the Court as engaged in a systematic design to subvert the liberties of the nation.

Petitions against

While these angry debates were agitating both Houses of Parliament, the political as-. the Bills. sociations in the metropolis and in the principal towns were preparing petitions against the further progress of the Bills. The Corresponding Society, however, thought it prudent, in the first instance, to set themselves right, if possible, with the country, by issuing a paper, in which they disclaimed all connection between the meeting at Copenhagen Fields and the tumultuous attacks which had been made on the person of the Chief Magistrate, as they affected to designate the King. The Whig Club also thought it necessary to make a distinct statement of their principles. Their manifesto was carefully drawn it enunciated no doctrine which was not accepted by constitutional authority, and contained no approval of universal suffrage and annual Parliaments, which were avowed as the basis of the affiliated societies. The appeal to public opinion. against the Bills was, on the whole, a failure. Many petitions, indeed, were presented, but the bulk of them was got up under the immediate superintendence of the Corresponding Society, and emanated from the metropolitan districts. Four counties only petitioned, and two of these were Middlesex and Surrey. On the other hand, the petitions in favour of the Bills were almost as numerous as the petitions

1795.

DEMOCRATIC PUBLICATIONS.

21

against them; showing that there was a powerful party in the country resolute to support the Government in any measure to put down the societies which adopted the principles, the language, and the nomenclature of the French Republic. The Bills passed both Houses; but an important modification of the Sedition Bill was effected by omitting the clause which empowered the magistrate to dissolve a meeting merely on his own judgment that it was dangerous to the public peace. The Bill was limited to three years; and it expired by efflux of time, without having, in any instance, been put into operation. The Treason Bill was limited to the duration of His Majesty's life, and likewise remained a dead letter.

Political

A curious instance of the inconsistency into which the blindness of party can betray its ablest leaders and most shining lights was ex- pamphlets. hibited during this session. One Reeves,* who held a small place in one of the public offices, a courtier and a man of some learning, with more zeal than ability or discretion, had rendered himself obnoxious to the revolutionary party by his activity in organising an association to counteract their proceedings. While the Treason and Sedition Bills were pending in Parliament, this man, intending to serve his party, published a bulky pamphlet, which he called 'Thoughts on the English Government.' It was a mere farrago, which showed that the author was wholly ignorant of the subject on which he professed to write; the only intelligible proposition to be extracted from it was, that the British constitution was a monarchy which could dispense with Lords and Commons. The style of this piece was as contemptible as the matter; and it is difficult to conceive that any person should afford the leisure to look through it; still more that it could influence the opinion of

*He was the author of a book with the ambitious title of 'A

History of the English Law.' It is a mere compilation.