to be a libel, and of the sense ascribed to the said paper in the indictment or information.

2ndly, And because we conceive that the said right of the people is of the utmost consequence to the freedom of this nation, and to that bulwark of its rights, the liberty of the press.

3rdly, And because we conceive that the Bill sent from the Commons is well calculated to convey a parliamentary declaration and enactment of the said important right of the people, and because we conceive every delay of such declaration and enactment to be in the highest degree dangerous to the safety of the subject.

4thly, And because we conceive that we cannot with propriety refuse our immediate assent to propositions which no person in the debate did deny to be salutary; and because we conceive that this delay tends to give countenance to doubts that we apprehend to be utterly ill-founded, and to encourage a contest of jurisdiction that can only be injurious to the regular and impartial administration of justice in this Kingdom.

Charles Stanhope, Earl Stanhope.

For the first and second reasons.

Jacob Pleydell Bouverie, Earl of Radnor.

1st, Because we conceive, that the Bill sent from the Commons is of the highest importance for the preservation of the rights of juries; and that considering the different opinions which have prevailed of late years with respect to this subject, we conceive every delay of a parliamentary declaration and enactment to be dangerous in the highest degree to the safety of the subject.

2ndly, Because whatever difference of opinion may subsist in regard to the existing law, there seems to be so general a concurrence with respect to what ought to be the law in future, that we cannot, with propriety, refuse our immediate assent to provisions, which are admitted to be salutary, on the ground of requiring time to ascertain how far the late practice of the Courts is or is not justifiable by the law of the land.

William Wentworth Fitzwilliam, Earl Fitzwilliam.

James Maitland, Earl of Lauderdale.

Henry Herbert, Lord Porchester.

William Henry Cavendish Bentinck, Duke of Portland.

Robert Auriol Hay Drummond, Lord Hay (Earl of Kinnoull).

CCCCX.

MAY 31, 1792.

On the 21st of May the King issued a proclamation against 'seditious writings.' The demand for parliamentary reform, particularly in large unrepresented towns, was urgent, and the action of Pitt in 1782 justified or seemed to justify the claim. On the 30th of April, Mr. Grey gave notice that he should in the next Session move for leave to amend the representation. This action was taken in consequence of a meeting held by 'the friends of the people' in Freemason's Tavern on the 26th of April, at which Mr. Lambton was in the chair. The address of the association may be found in Parliamentary History, vol. xxix, p. 1305. When the King's proclamation was read in the Commons, on the 25th of May, Mr. Grey made a vigorous attack on the administration of Pitt, charged him with political malignity, and called him 'a public apostate from the first step of his public life to the present moment.' The debate in the Lords took place on the 31st of May, and was remarkable for a speech by the Prince of Wales, and by a violent altercation between Lord Lauderdale and the Duke of Richmond, the latter having quitted the party of parliamentary reformers. The amendment to the address moved by Lord Lauderdale was negatived without a division, and the following protest, containing the amendment, entered.

1st, Because we think the honour and dignity of Parliament trifled with by a solemn call, without any adequate cause, and upon slight pretences, to make unnecessary professions of attachment to the constitution, and of zeal for his Majesty's government, and to concur in applauding his Majesty's ministers for advising this extraordinary measure of a royal proclamation, and a recurrence to the authority of Parliament; a measure not called for, and which appears to us much more calculated to awake causeless apprehensions, and excite unnecessary alarm among a people affectionate to the King, and obedient to the laws, than to answer any of those salutary purposes for which alone ministers should presume to use the royal name and authority.

2ndly, Because those writings which his Majesty's ministers now consider as likely to disturb the public peace, and excite dangerous tumults, and of which the prosecution is, on a sudden, deemed by them indispensable to the preservation of order, and the security of government, have been permitted for a considerable time past to be openly, and, as is asserted, industriously disseminated through every part of the Kingdom; and, therefore, if the principles thus propagated be so subversive of all order, and

destructive of all government, and are at the same time so unfortunately calculated to make a rapid, alarming, and fatal progress in the minds of a peaceable and enlightened people, as ministers have, in debate, maintained, it would well become the care and wisdom of Parliament, instead of committing its authority in the measures of executive government, and taking part in the ordinary execution of the laws, to inquire why so important a discovery was not made at an earlier period, and why the ministers have so long permitted the salutary terrors of the law to sleep over offences, the prosecution of which so highly imported the public safety.

3rdly, Because, if it be expedient to punish the authors and publishers of seditious writings, we think it the province of the executive government to determine upon that expediency, and to put the law in motion; and we cannot but consider as pernicious in its example, and unconstitutional in its principle, the present attempt made by the Ministers to shelter themselves, justify their conduct, and cover what, according to their argument, has been their criminal negligence, by a measure of Parliament. We believe the laws to be sufficiently efficacious for the punishment of such offenders as are described in the royal proclamation, and we see no reason why Parliament should take from his Majesty's ministers any part of the responsibility which appertains to their stations, of advising the Crown, and directing its law officers as to the fit seasons and proper occasions on which any of the law, for preserving the public peace should be enforced; nor can we observe, without expressing our marked disapprobation, that the confidence which the public still place in the wisdom and integrity of Parliament, notwithstanding all the attempts made by the present ministers to destroy it, is insidiously laid hold of by them to create public prejudice, and excite public indignation against those who are represented as obnoxious to the laws, and objects of prosecution. A sense of justice might have taught the Ministers, that to fair and impartial trials, uninfluenced by any previous declaration, unprejudiced by any previous interference of Parliament, even the authors and publishers of those writings that have at last awakened the attention of ministers, are entitled; and a sense of decorum should have restrained them from lessening the dignity, and committing the honour of Parliament, by making it, indirectly indeed, but, to the common

sense of mankind, obviously, a party in public prosecutions, which Parliament is thus made to sanction and direct, and on which this House, in the highest and last resort, may have to sit in the impartial and uninterested, but awful, character of judges.

4thly, Because, in this measure by which Ministers in effect confess and record their past inattention to the dangers which they now deprecate, and their present inability to discharge the ordinary duties of their station without the extraordinary aid of Parliament, the public cannot fail to perceive that weakness and inefficiency in his Majesty's councils, which are more hurtful to the true interests, and more derogatory from the just authority of government, than any imaginary progress which, with great injustice to a loyal people, ministers attribute to the principles asserted in the writings of which they complain.

5thly, Because, when we consider how long the Ministers have viewed with unconcern the circulation of those opinions, at the consequence of which they now affect to be alarmed, and when we recollect that of all those societies for the purpose of obtaining a reform in the representation of the people, and mentioned in the debate, one only is of recent origin, we have but too much reason to believe, that under whatever form they have disguised their design, the real object of Ministers has been to subject to suspicion and distrust the principles, misrepresent the views, and calumniate the intentions of that association of respectable persons lately formed for purposes the most virtuous and constitutional, upon principles the most pure and disinterested, to be pursued by means the most legal and peaceful; wielding no weapons but those of truth and reason; using no efforts but those of argument, unsupported by party; appealing only to the sense and judgment of a public deeply interested in the objects of their pursuit, and not presuming to demand any personal credit but what may be derived from their steadiness, consistency, and integrity. This society appears to be the only one which has excited the jealousy of those Ministers from whom justice has extorted an admission in debate, that nothing offensive, or even improper, has proceeded from it. Of those Ministers, some of whom have themselves engaged, but to a much greater extent, and upon much broader principles in the prosecution of the same general objects, the attainment of which they declared not only indispensable, but

alone capable of preserving the liberties of the people, and perpetuating the blessings of the constitution; but which objects, with the peaceful possession of power and emolument, they have long neglected and lost sight of, and now, at last, in the face of the public, in defiance of the most solemn engagements, unblushingly abandon. Such are the Ministers who have presumed to use the royal name and authority to a proclamation, by which insinuating the existence of dangers, of which even some of their most confidential friends have declared their disbelief, they vainly hope to divert the attention of a discerning public from their apostacy from principles, and their dereliction of opinions which paved their way to power, and for which they stood deliberately and repeatedly pledged to a generous, confiding, and, at last, deluded people.

6thly, Because, if the objects of that association thus particularly aimed at by his Majesty's ministers were not expressly justified by their former principles and professions, as the Act itself of associating to pursue those objects is sanctioned by their former conduct and example, we should still see nothing in it to discommend, but much to applaud. A moderate and temperate reform of the abuses of the constitution is due to the people, who being on their part just to the monarchical and aristocratical branches of the constitution; who commit no invasion of the rights, and seek no abridgment of the powers of either, are entitled to have their own share in the legislation of their country freed from the unjust usurpation of others, and to possess uninvaded, and to exercise uncontrolled by the other branches of the government, those rights, which this happy constitution in the matchless excellence of its principles has solely and exclusively allotted to the people.

A reform of such a character and description may lessen the means and diminish the opportunities of corrupting legislation both in its source and in its progress; it may reduce the influence by which unconstitutional ministers preserve their power, but it will save the nation from their profusion, and perpetuate that constitution which all equally profess to venerate. Such a reform, we believe, cannot with perfect safety be long delayed-the more readily and cheerfully those rights which belong only to the people are restored by those who at present in too many instances possess and exercise them, the more firm and established will be the present happy form of our