The bills passed. Opposition out of doors. The Whig 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 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." 2 After repeated discussions in both Houses, the bills were eventually passed.3 During their progress, however, large classes of the people, whose liberties were threatened, 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 by the first noblemen and gentlemen of 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 1 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 383, 385, 386, 392, 451-460; Lord Colchester'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 practi- were accordingly passed, expressing abhorrence of the attack upon the king, and deploring that it should have been made the pretext for bills striking at the liberty of the press, the freedom of public discussion, and the right to petition Parliament for redress of grievances; and advising that meetings should be immediately held and petitions presented against measures which infringed the rights of the people.1 The London Corresponding Society published an address to the nation, indignantly denying that the excesses of an aggrieved and uninformed populace could be charged upon them, or the late meeting at Copenhagen House, -professing the strictest legality in pursuit of parliamentary reform,-and denouncing the minister as seeking pretences "to make fresh invasion upon our liberties, and establish despotism on the ruins of popular association." 2 3 Copen Nov. 12th. The same society assembled a prodigious meeting at Meeting at Copenhagen House, which agreed to an address, peti- hagen tion, and remonstrance to the king, and petitions to both House, Houses of Parliament, denouncing these "tremendous bills, which threatened to overthrow the constitutional throne of the house of Brunswick, and to establish the despotism of the exiled Stuarts." A few days after- Meeting in wards, a great meeting was held in Palace Yard, with Mr. Fox in the chair, which voted an address to the king and a petition to the House of Commons against the bills. Mr. Fox there denounced the bills "as a daring attempt upon your liberties,—an attempt to subvert the constitution of England. The Bill of Rights 1 Hist. of the Two Acts, 120. 2 Ibid., 39. 3 Ibid., 125-134. Ibid., 232-236, 239; Adolph. Hist., vi. 370; Lord Colchester's Diary, i. 7. This meeting had been convened to assemble in West- Palace Other meetings. Mr. Reeves's is proposed to be finally repealed, that you shall be deprived of the right of petitioning." And the people were urged by the Duke of Bedford to petition while that right remained to them. Numerous meetings were also held in London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, and in various parts of the country, to petition against the bills. At the same time, other meetings were held at the Crown and Anchor, and elsewhere, in support of ministers, which declared their belief that the seditious excesses of the people demanded these stringent measures, as a protection to society.1 The debates upon the Treason and Sedition Bills had pamphlet. been enlivened by an episode, in which the opposition found the means of retaliating upon the government and its supporters. A pamphlet, of ultra-monarchical principles, was published, entitled "Thoughts on the English Government." One passage represented the king as the ancient stock of the constitution, and the Lords and Commons as merely branches, which might be "lopped off" without any fatal injury to the constitution itself. It was a speculative essay which, at any other time, would merely have excited a smile: but it was discovered to be the work of Mr. Reeves, chairman of the "Society for protecting liberty and property from Republicans and Levellers," - better known as the "Crown and Anchor Association."2 The work was published in a cheap form, and extensively circulated amongst the numerous societies of which Mr. Reeves was the moving spirit; and its sentiments were in 1 Hist. of the Two Acts, 135, 165, 244, 306-361, 389-392, 466, et seq.; Belsham's Hist., x. 10-23. 2 Mr. Reeves was the author of the learned" History of the Law of England," well known to posterity, by whom his pamphlet would have been forgotten but for these proceedings. accordance with those which had been urged by the more indiscreet supporters of repressive measures. Hence the opposition were provoked to take notice of it. Having often condemned the government for repressing speculative opinions, it would have been more consistent with their principles to answer than to punish the pamphleteer: but the opportunity was too tempting to be lost. The author was obnoxious, and had committed himself:-ministers could scarcely venture to defend his doctrines;-and thus a diversion favourable to the minority was at last feasible. Mr. Sheridan, desirous, he said, of setting a good example, did not wish the author to be prosecuted: but proposed that he should be reprimanded at the bar, and his book burned in New Palace Yard by the common hangman. Ministers, however, preferred a prosecution, to another case of privilege. The attorney-general was therefore directed to prosecute Mr. Reeves; and, on his trial, the jury, while they condemned his doctrines, acquitted the author.1 motion to repeal and Sedi tion Acts, May 14th, 1797. In 1797, Mr. Fox moved for the repeal of the Mr. Fox's Treason and Sedition Acts, in a speech abounding in political wisdom. The truth of many of his sentiments Treason has since received remarkable confirmation. "In proportion as opinions are open," he said, "they are innocent and harmless. Opinions become dangerous to a state only when persecution makes it necessary for the people to communicate their ideas under the bond of secrecy." And, again, with reference to the restraints imposed upon public meetings: "What a mockery," he exclaimed, "to tell the people that they shall have 1 Parl. Hist., xxxii. 608,627,651, 662. In the Lords, notice was also taken of the pamphlet, but no pro ceedings taken against it; Ibid., 681. of news papers, 17891798. a right to applaud, a right to rejoice, a right to meet when they are happy but not a right to condemn, not a right to deplore their misfortunes, not a right to suggest a remedy!" And it was finely said by him, Liberty is order; liberty is strength,"-words which would serve as a motto for the British constitution. His motion, however, found no more than fifty-two supporters.1 Regulation During this period of excitement, the regulation of newspapers often occupied the attention of the legislature. The stamp and advertisement duties were increased more stringent provisions made against unstamped publications; and securities taken for ensuring the responsibility of printers.2 By all these laws it was sought to restrain the multiplication of cheap political papers among the poorer classes; and to subject the press, generally, to a more effectual control. But more serious matters were still engaging the attention of government. Corre Societies, The London Corresponding Society and other similar sponding societies continued their baneful activity. Their rancour against the government knew no bounds. Mr. Pitt and his colleagues were denounced as tyrants and enemies of the human race. Hitherto their proceed 17951799. ings had been generally open: they had courted publicity, paraded their numbers, and prided themselves upon their appeals to the people. But the acts of 1795 having restrained their popular meetings, and put a check upon their speeches and printed addresses, they resorted to a new organisation, in evasion of the law. Secrecy was now the scheme of their association. 1 Parl. Hist., xxxiii. 613. 2 29 Geo. III. c. 50; 34 Geo. III. c. 72; 37 Geo. III. c. 90; 38 Geo. III. c. 78; Parl. Hist., XXX. iii. 1415, 1482. |