HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
similar as circumstances would per- 
mit. Difficulties having arisen in 
the construction of the laws relating 
to treason already in force, the in- 
tentof this bill was to explain and 
fix the meaning of those laws. It 
would not prohibit any act or meet- 
ing, allowed to be legal, but only 
provide a more suitable punishment 
according to the degree of crimi- 
nality, than that ordained by the 
laws in force, as in various cases, 
notwithstanding criminality was evi- 
dently proved, an apposite punish- 
ment had not been enacted. On 
these grounds he moved the second 
reading of the bill. 
It was acknowledged, by the duke 
of Bedford, that every man ought, 
in duty, to abhor the treatment 
offered to the king, and earnestly 
desire the punishment of the guilty ; 
but the bill before the “house did 
not tend to procure more safety to 
the person of the sovereign, than 
the laws already existing. There 
was no sufficient proof that the out- 
Tages committed were connected 
with the meetings to which they 
were attributed; and though mi. 
nisters declared themselves con- 
vinced of this connection, that was 
not sufficient to induce the house 
implicitly to coincide with their con- 
viction. When the habeas-corpus- 
act was suspended, a select com- 
_ Mittee was appointed to investigate 
the necessity of such a measure, and 
the proceedings on that occasion 
gave them at least an appearance of 
deliberation; but the present mea- 
Sure required certainly much more 
consideration, It was not the tem- 
porary suspension ofanact. Itwas 
the enacting of a law entirely new 
to the spirit of the con titution, 
and which was undeniably an 
abridgment of the liberty of the 
[19 
Subject. Before so dangerous an 
innovation should be suffered to 
pass, parliament ought seriously to 
weight its certain consequences 
against the mere allegations of its 
necessity. The ptetence of the bill 
was thesecurity of the king’s per 
son; but, were the laws in being 
any ways deficient in that respect ? 
The duke then adverted to the times 
from which the ministry had bor- 
rowed their present proceedings, the 
reigns of Elizabeth and Charles IT. 
but was it not an insult to the un- 
derstandings of Englishmen, to speak 
of such times as models fit to be 
copied ; but even the precedents al- 
luded to in those times would not 
authorise ministers to follow them. 
Those enacted in queen Elizabeth’s 
reign were directed against the bulls 
issued ‘by the Pope, and those 
that were alopted under Charles 
Il. passed immediately after the 
restoration, when it was thought 
indispensible to protect bim by 
the strongest fences against the 
fanatic rage of those who had ops 
posed it. 
The duke of Bedford was warmly 
seconded by the earl of Lauderdale, 
who represented the actual suffer- 
ings of the people as the causes of 
the outrage offered to the king. It 
was not astonishing, he said, that, 
among a handred thousand indivi« 
duals casually assembled, forty or 
fitty of them should be prompted, 
by the feelings of distress, to ex- 
press them in that outrageous man 
ner. Oppressive and cruel laws were 
contrary to the disposition of the 
people of this country, and tended 
to render them averse to the go- 
vernment that framed them. The 
statutes of Edward III. were made 
at a time when the power of the 
crown was very great; yet the de. 
fc2j finition 
