HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



273 



others more effectual olight indis- 

 pensably to be framed. 



These observations occasioned a 

 most anininied speech by Mr. Fox. 

 After condemning the measure of 

 suspension in tlie strongest terras, 

 lie adverted to t!ie menacing tenor 

 of Mr. Windham's discourse, which 

 Seemed to portend a gradual depri- 

 vation of their liiierties to English- 

 men, Should the restniints already 

 laid upon them not answer the 

 views proposed, wiiich were ap- 

 parently to break their spirit, and 

 tame them into submission, other 

 means were to be tried, and others 

 still to succeed, until those views 

 were completely efFected. But 

 what severer usage than the present 

 could remain in the contemplation 

 of ministers ? Would they forbid 

 people to meet and communicate 

 their sentiments on public aifairs ? 

 Were such an injunction disobey- 

 ed, would they sentence them to 

 imprisonment? Would they, in the 

 rage of resentuicnt, at the hatred 

 excited by their tyranny, er^'Ct tri- 

 bunals to punish the indignant pub- 

 lic ? Was it resol\ed, in short, to 

 demolish the British constitution 

 one part after another, under pre- 

 tence of preventing its destruction 

 by French principles ? The tact 

 was, that in Englcnd, as well as in 

 Frai'.ce, terror was to be made the 

 order of tl-.e day, and not a voice 

 be lifted up against tht? ministers. 

 The word Convention was now held 

 up as an object of alnrm, to terrify 

 the people, and induce them to 

 think the kingdom wasin imminent 

 danger of some grc.Tl ci'lamity. Rut 

 what was a convention i)Ut a meet- 

 ing of the people:' wIk rein, if they 

 hebave seditiously, or did any 

 thing unlawful, thev wtre liable to 

 be imprisoned and punished in the 



V:JL. XXXVI. 



same manner as if there were no 

 convention. Where then was the 

 danger of such a meeting ? Tlie 

 object of the societies, which they 

 scrupled not to acknowledge, was to 

 obtain universal suffrage. Allow- 

 ing such a system to be impracti- 

 cible, it was far fiom clear tiiat 

 the confusions in l'"rance had arisen 

 from tha! cause ; it was a theory 

 which, i;ke all others, might through 

 the iniquity of men be rcndeied 

 instrumental to wicked purposes : 

 but did it follow that, because im- 

 proper ideas of liberty had been 

 taken up by the French, or that 

 liberty itself had been abused, 

 every man who mentioned that 

 word should be cliarged with dis- 

 loyalty ? Tiie misfortunes of France 

 were due to the previous oppiet- 

 sions of the former go\erninent, 

 which had rendered the French na- 

 tion desperate, and prepared it to 

 receive any talents that thwarted 

 tyranny. Had that nation been 

 j)rotjcted by a Flabeas Corpus act } 

 had the government been con- 

 strained, by standinglaws, torespect 

 the rights of the community, tliose 

 tenets would not have found an en- 

 trance iiito that unhappy country. 

 By a parity of reasonmg, those mis- 

 fortunes wercnot to he dreaded here, 

 while iheconstilution remaiiicdfree 

 from pQr<.'crsions. But it was the 

 very essence of the English con- 

 stitution, tliat men Should speak 

 their minds. Were the freedom 

 of complaining against griev'ances, 

 and of meeting for the purpose of 

 peticioning for rt-dr ss, rmd of ex- 

 posluhiiing with persons in autho- 

 rity, to be branded with, the name 

 of sedition, what would become of 

 our boasted constitution, .of that 

 liberty which dlsiinguishedt! ;ei"ng- 

 iidi from all othfr nations ? But 



T 



nothiiig 



