addresses, there was little novelty of remark. The necessity of a continued war was urged on one hand; and, on the other, a negotiation was recommended. The king's speech was censured by Mr. Fox as not giving a just view of the situation of affairs; but the minister would not allow that it exhibited a delusive picture.

The freedom of debate was exercised with great warmth in the discussion of two bills which the court deemed necessary for the safety of the constitution. One was brought forward by lord Grenville, who, referring to the late unjustifiable treatment of his majesty, the reviving spirit of turbulence, and the increase of seditious publications, proposed the enactment of a new law for the repression of such alarming practices. He did not mean that the bill should render any offences punishable but such as were already acknowledged to be deserving of legal chastisement; and its provisions, he said, were conformable to the principles of several acts of the reigns of Elizabeth and Charles II. The duke of Bedford and the earl of Lauderdale contended, that the existing laws were sufficiently strong and severe for the discouragement of treason and sedition; that the new bill would infringe those rights which every Briton claimed from the constitution framed by his progenitors; that it was a libel on the loyalty of the people, and on that patience which they had shown amidst the evils of unnecessary war; and that it would create and nourish, not stifle, disaffection. On the second reading, those two noblemen opposed it with redoubled energy; and the earl hinted that oppressive laws might justly be resisted; an innuendo which inflamed the wrath of lord Grenville, who observed that such language, if it had been used out of pardiament, would have rendered his lordship amenable to the law. The earl of Mansfield vindicated the bill, and dreaded serious mischief if it should not be enacted. The earl of Abingdon wished it to be rejected, as he disapproved all innovations upon the laws, whether planned by arbitrary tories or mad republicans. When the house divided, the votes were ten to

one in favour of the measure, the numbers being eighty and eight.

At the commitment of the bill, lord Thurlow reprobated the severity of some of its clauses. The lord-chancellor replied, that the punishment would not be too rigorous for the offence. The bishop of Rochester (Dr. Horsley) wished that all licentious freedom of remark or complaint might be strictly and vigilantly repressed; adding, that the "people had nothing to do with the laws but to obey them." When he was reproved for this imperious declaration, he qualified it by allowing that individuals had a right to remonstrate against those laws by which they were particularly effected.

Messieurs Fox, Sheridan, and Erskine, were the principal opposers of this bill when it reached the house of commons. They affirmed that it was unjust in principle and oppressive in detail; that it was palpably repugnant to the constitutional rights of the people; and that nothing which had recently happened called for such a violation of their freedom.

After frequent divisions, the third reading was voted by a majority of 181. It passed under the title of "an act for the safety and preservation of his majesty's person and government against treasonable and seditious practices and attempts."

One clause ordained the capital punishment of every one who should express, utter, or declare, by the publication of writings, or by any overt act, such imaginations, devices, or intentions, as were calculated to injure the king, impair hist authority or that of the parliament, or promote an invasion of his dominions. Another provision was, that all declarations tending to excite hatred or contempt of the king, or the government and constitution, should be considered as high misdemeanors; and it was decreed that a second offence of this kind might be punished either in the ordinary mode, or by banishment from the realm for a term not exceeding seven years.

The other bill of coercion was introduced by Mr. Pitt, whose aim was to restrain popular meetings. If the daring licentious

ness of the democratic faction should not be checked, the constitution, he apprehended, would not long subsist. When he had stated the outlines of his scheme, he was accused by Mr. Fox, on fair grounds of presumption, of an intention of stiffing that freedom of discussion which every one might claim, of superseding the bill of rights, and subjecting the people to the yoke of despotism. Mr. Halhed, not being convinced that the late outrage was the result of the meeting near Copenhagen-house, or that it arose from a general or formidable combination, was unwilling to agree to the proposed bill. Mr. Curwen thought, that no member who had the feelings of an Englishman would support this impudent attempt to rob the people of their dearest liberties. Mr. Wilberforce was highly pleased with the bill, as it tended, without the exercise of despotic measures, to prevent the success of schemes of unconstitutional reform. Mr. Sheridan opposed it with animation, and hoped that the house would not be so spiritless as to submit on this momentous occasion to the dictates of the minister. Mr. Windham said, that it was the duty of the house to support the constitution against the attacks of Jacobins and traitors; but Mr. Grey replied that it was more endangered by arbitrary schemes of this kind than by the intrigues of supposed malcontents. On a division, the numbers were 214 and 42, affording a superiority of 172 for the introduction of the bill.

A regular inquiry into the true nature and extent of the dreaded danger was recommended by Mr. Sheridan; but Mr. Powys said, that general notoriety was a sufficient ground for the present proceedings. Mr. Fox warmly promoted an inquiry, and conjured the minister to relinquish the odious system of terror; but the proposal of investigation was rejected by a great majority.

The bill was defended by the solicitorgeneral (sir John Mitford) as strictly constitutional. It would not, he said, prevent public meetings, but would subject them to proper regulations; and it would

not suppress debating societies, though it would debar them from that free discussion of political subjects which might lead to sedition and tumult. Mr. Erskine disputed its expediency, and denied that it was compatible with the spirit of the constitution. Mr. Anstruther and the earl of Mornington exercised their eloquence, not merely in vindicating, but in panegyrising the measure. Mr. Sheridan indulged himself in sarcastic animadversions on the arguments of some of the advocates of the bill, and on the violent conduct of the ministry. Mr. Dundas allowed that the new regulations would in some degree encroach on popular rights; but he was convinced that they would secure the general frame of the constitution. Mr. Fox said, that the bill tended to destroy, or alarmingly to diminish, the benefits of the revolution : but Mr. Pitt maintained that it would contribute to secure those benefits.

During these discussions a general alarm prevailed throughout the country, and many petitions were presented for and against the two bills. The signatures to the former were 30,000, those to the latter exceeding 130,000. The ministerial addresses were very strenuously supported by Mr. Reeves, who, for a pamphlet in which he had elevated the monarchical branch of the government beyond all due bounds, was stigmatized by an address of the commons for prosecution; but he was acquitted of criminal intention, though the jury pronounced the work to be a very improper publication.

his

On a resumption of the subject, Mr. Grant distinguished himself as a supporter of the bill. Lenient measures, he said, would not have the effect of conciliating the good-will or allaying the discontent of men who wished to overturn the constitution. There was no security, but in coercive acts, against the machinations of those who thought more of their supposed rights than of their political and social duties. In another debate, Mr. Hardinge spoke on the same side of the question, alleging that Jacobin clubs,

affiliated societies, imperium in imperio, would in all probability prevail, if this bill, or one of a similar kind, should not pass. Mr. Sheridan said, that no patriotic magistrates would act under such a law, and that to attempt the enforcement of it would be an unpardonable insult to a free nation. Mr. Abbot severely censured Mr. Fox for having stimulated the people to rebellion; but the orator replied, that he had addressed his speech to the governors, not to the governed, and had merely uttered the sentiments of every manly advocate of freedom, in declaring that resistance would become a question of prudence, not of morality, if the parliament should enact a bill against the sense of the majority of the public.

If Mr. Fox roused the indignation of the courtly phalanx by these bold expressions, Mr. Windham excited equal resentment among the opposite ranks by recommending, with views of counteraction, the exercise of a vigor beyond the law but Mr. Sheridan trusted that no minister would ever be suffered to act the part of Robespierre in England. On another occasion, the language of the secretary at war was highly offensive; for, with an air of inhuman indifference, he mentioned the fall of his brave countrymen in the field of war as if it had been the destruction of contemptible insects or vermin, by saying that they had been killed off.

The peers who most warmly attacked Mr. Pitt's bill, were the earls of Derby, Moira, and Lauderdale, the marquis of Lansdown, and the duke of Bedford : lord Thurlow and the duke of Leeds also condemned its unjustifiable rigor. But all opposition to it was fruitless; and it received the royal assent with the equally obnoxious bill of lord Grenville.

It imported that no meeting of any description of persons, exceeding the number of fifty (except such as might be called by sheriffs or other officers or magistrates,) should be holden for political purposes, unless public notice should have been given by seven housekeepers; that,

VOL. I.

if such a body should assemble without notice, and twelve or more individuals should continue together (even quietly) for one hour after a legal order for their departure, they should be punished as felons without benefit of clergy; and that the same rigor might be exercised, if any person, after due notice of the meeting, should use seditious language, or propose the irregular alteration of any thing by law established. With regard to the delivery of lectures or discourses, or the exercise of debate on topics connected with the laws and government of the country, a licence was declared to be necessary for such meetings.

It was not without surprise, that each house received, during the discussion of the two bills, a message from the king, holding out a prospect of peace. Alluding to the new constitution and the directorial government of France, he said that such an order of things had arisen, as would induce him to meet any desire of negotiation on the part of the enemy, with a full readiness to give it the speediest effect. When an address of thanks for this communication was moved, Mr. Sheridan suggested an amendment, tending to produce an immediate negotiation, and to remove, by a renunciation of the principles on which the war had been conducted, all obstacles to the attainment of peace. Mr. Fox also wished that the first offer should proceed from our court; but Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas thought it adviseable to wait till the enemy should manifest a disposition to negotiate. Similar observations were made in the house of peers.

At the beginning of 1796, the debates in parliament became still more animated and important than at the close of the pre ceding year. It was moved by Mr. Grey, that an address should be presented to his majesty, entreating him to assure the government of France of his readiness to enter into a negotiation for the establishment of peace on reasonable terms. He was sorry to observe that the court appeared to be more intent on warlike preparation than eager to promote peace,, Overtures from this country, he thought,,

2A

could not be degrading; and he flattered himself with the hope that they would be successful. Mr. Pitt wished that this affair might be left to the discretion of the ministry. It was proper, he said, that the allies of Great Britain should be consulted, as a close concert with them would give greater dignity and effect to a negotiation. Steps had been already taken to ascertain the disposition of the enemy; and, if there should be a prospect of an honourable peace, the opportunity would be embraced with pleasure. Mr. Fox said, that a better season for treating than the present might not occur for a long period; and he hoped that, as the French had renounced the decree of fraternity, every idea of interference in their interior concerns would on our part be disclaimed. This would be a good preparative to negotiation; and a subsequent offer of moderate terms would expedite the accomplishment of the desirable object. Only 50 members supported the motion, while 189 voted against it.

The active spirit of Mr. Grey soon brought him forward on another subject. He accused Mr. Pitt of having encroached on the right of the commons to control and direct the application of the public money, by the demand of a vote of credit for two millions and a half, at a time when there was no reasonable ground for withholding the estimate, or declining to state the particular services for which that sum was intended. The charge was answered by a declaration that ministers were accountable for the proper expenditure of the money in question. The bill which sancThe bill which sanctioned the vote was opposed by the earl of Lauderdale and other peers; and, in a protest which followed the assent of the majority to the measure, it was pronounced to be "a part of a system that acted in contempt and in defiance of those wholesome forms and regulations, which the wisdom of our ancestors devised for the protection of the public purse against the encroachments of corrupt ministers."

A supposed deviation from strict honor, and an instance of partiality in the negotiation for a loan, formed new grounds of Mr William Smith repeatedly

urged a complaint of the minister's neglect of the principles of fair and open competition in bargains of this kind; and Mr. Jekyll charged him with gross fraud, and collusion, in a pecuniary transaction with Mr. Boyd. But the majority of the house justified the management of the loan, and refused to stigmatize the alleged fraud.

An inquiry into the state of the nation was moved by Mr. Grey, who declaimed against the war with eloquence and energy, combated the pretences on which it had been undertaken, and censured the misconduct which its directors had so glaringly evinced. He particularly noticed the prodigality of the minister and the disorder of the finances. He affirmed, that above seventy-seven millions of debt, incurred by this war, had been funded; that twentytwo millions of floating debt remained; that the burden which had thus accumulated in three years exceeded the whole amount of the national debt contracted before the year 1756; that enormous sums had been lavished without the sanction of parliament; and that all the success which had attended our arms might have been btained with an expenditure comparatively small. He calculated the peace establishment (if the war should immediately cease) at twenty-two millions, and estimated the applicable revenue at nineteen millions and a half-a deficiency which would require additional taxes to the annual amount of two millions and a half. He animadverted on the dangerous augmentation of the number of barracks, and treated of other points of serious import. Mr. Jenkinson, in answer to these remarks, contended that the expenses of the war were not unnecessarily multiplied; that the managers of the treasury were as attentive to economy as the nature and circumstances of the contest would allow ; that the war had exhibited some splendid instances of success; and that the commerce of the nation was in a more flourishing state than had ever been known even in time of peace. By a majority of 162, the proposal of inquiry was rejected.

The increase of barracks became a topic of subsequent debate. General

Smith inferred, from this unconstitutional system, that the minister cherished despotic intentions. Mr. Fox said, that the freedom of the constitution greatly depended on the amicable intercourse between soldiers and citizens, and that the habitual separation of the two classes would render the former too subservient to the crown. Mr. Pitt replied, that soldiers were more conveniently and usefully, as well as more more cheaply, quartered in barracks, than in public houses; and Mr. Windham hinted, that the system might be advantageous in another point of view, by preventing the troops from being infected with the seditious humors of the populace.

Amidst these and other debates, the failure of an application for peace excited animadversion. Mr. Wickham, the British minister in Switzerland, had proposed a general negotiation to M. Barthelemy, the French ambassador to the cantons; but the executive directory, understanding that one of the demands at an eventual congress would relate to the restoration of the Netherlands, evaded the proposal, and furnished Mr. Pitt with a pretence for declaring, that, as the enemy had refused to listen to any requisition for the surrender of what was considered as the iualienable territory of the republic, "nothing was left for the king but to prosecute a war equally just and necessary."

A new loan was now negotiated, for the invigoration of those hostilities, which, it was alleged, the arrogance and obstinacy of the French compelled our government to continue. Above twenty-seven millions and a half had been previously voted; and a loan of eighteen millions had formed a part of the ways and means. The supply was at length augmented to 37,588, 000 pounds and, to make up the greater part of the new demand, seven millions and a half were borrowed. The guards and The guards and garrisons were reduced to 49,000 men; the forces in the colonies were increased to 77,000 men; the sailors and marines were 110,000. Taxes were imposed on legacies to collateral relatives; wine, tobacco, salt, and sugar, were rendered additionally contributive to the public exigencies; hats

furnished a small sum; the proprietors of horses and dogs were also burdened; and all who were liable to the assessed taxes were required to pay ten per cent. extra. These burdens were not voted without remonstrance or opposition; but all objections were overruled.

A neglect of the due means of rendering the West-Indian expedition of sir Charles Grey completely successful, and a gross inattention to the health and accommodations of the soldiers employed under that officer, were imputed to the ministry by Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Dundas replied to the charge, but did not wholly refute it.

The slave trade for the supply of the islands occasioned various debates. A bill had been introduced for its abolition; but, though it was ably supported, it was unsuccessful; and the house would not even receive a bill proposed by Mr. Francis for improving the condition of the slaves.

A long speech from the marquis of Lansdown, calling the attention of the peers to the danger which menaced the constitution from the enormous increase of ministerial patronage and influence, and to the necessity of a retrenchment of expenditure, produced a feeble reply from lord Grenville, and a boast from lord Auckland of the great extent of the revenue.. The endeavours of the earl of Guildford to promote peace and a change of system were also abortive.

Mr. Grey proposed a series of resolutious, adducing such charges as he thought would justify an impeachment of some of the ministers. He affirmed, that the provisions of the aet of appropriation had beenfrequently violated; that the statute for the regulation of the office of paymaster to the army had also been infringed; that false accounts had been presented to the house; and that other mal-practices-had marked the ministerial proceedings. The premier acknowledged that some irregularities had occurred; but declared that nothing criminal had been wilfully committed, and that an attention to duty, and a regard for the public service, had formed the chief features of official, management.

2.A.2.

1