18} 
vast acquisition of power, that 
would aécrue to ministers from such 
a law, would enable them to strain 
the words and actions of individuals 
into treasonable meanings, when- 
ever they were inclined to exercise 
vengeance on those who were ob- 
noxious to them. Foy these rea- 
sons, whoever valued the constitu. 
tion of this country, must consider 
this bill ‘‘ as one of the severest and 
most dangerous to the rights and li- 
berties of the people that had ever 
been introduced.” 
It was asserted, in reply, by lord 
Grenville, that it was owing to the 
firmness of parliament, that the se- 
ditious principles imported from 
France, and industriously propogated 
ir England, had been successfully 
resisted, and the constitution protec- 
ted against the malevolent designs of 
its domestic enemies. When the 
provisions of the intended bill came 
into examination, the necessity of 
adopting it would be rendered ma- 
hifest; nor would it prevent the 
people from holding legal meetings. 
None but evil-disposed persons 
could suffer by the enacting of such 
2 law. 
In answer to these allegations, 
the duke of Bedford, after declaring 
his disapprobation of the bill, ex- 
pressed in strong terms his persua- 
sion, that while it still remained in 
their power to meet together, the 
people would every where assemble 
to testify their averseness to so glar- 
ing an infringement on their free- 
dom, i in so explicit and resolute a 
manner, that he could not think the 
house would consent to a bill so 
visibly repugnant to the feelings of 
Englishmen. 
It was observed on this occasion, 
by lord Radnor, that if in the old 
Statutes of the reign of Edward III. 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
relating to treason, certain offences 
had been omitted that ought to be 
considered and punished as such, 
they ought in such case to be de- 
clared and enacted to come within 
that meaning, in order to put men 
on their guard, and prevent them 
from committing what they would 
then know to be criminal. The ques- 
tion was then put, and carried for 
the printing of the bill. 
* On the tenth of November, the 
second reading of the bill was 
moved by lord Grenville, who ob- 
served, that the seditious speeches 
and treasonable libels, circulated in 
the meeting that had been held 
near Copenhagen-house, three days 
only before the opening of the pre=. 
sent session, had, in the opinion of 
all reflecting people, prompted that 
audacious spirit which insulted the 
person of the sovereign, and bid de- 
fiance to the legislature. The pur- 
pose of the hill, he said, was to pro= 
tect the king frote similar outrages, 
andto punish treasonous proceed- 
ings. No punishments would be 
enacted by the bill for crimes not 
already acknowledged deserving of 
them ; its sole intent was to include 
treasonable publications and dis- 
courses among them, as being no 
less criminal in their consequences. 
It was high treason to devise the 
king’s death; to conspire against 
his person and government, as sper 
cified in the bill, amounted there= 
fore to a degree of criminality that 
evidently merited the severest chas- 
tisement, whether such conspiracy 
consisted in levying civil waragainst 
him, or in encouraging foreign 
enemies, by publications, writings, 
or speeches. The provisions of the 
bill were conformable to the prin- 
ciples admitted in the acts of Bli- 
zabeth and Charles II. and were as 
similar 
