a0] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
finition of what was to be accounted 
treason, was much clearer and pre- 
cise than in the words of the pre- 
sent bill, which contained words 
and phrases, tbe meaning of which 
might be so construed as to create 
new crimes at the option of mi- 
nisters. There were times, he said, 
when resistance on the part of the 
people was justifiable, and even 
considered as a duty, by great and 
well-known authorities. The heads 
of the law should not therefore be 
entrusted with a discretionary power 
of extending, or interpreting the 
laws, as thereby the freedom of in- 
dividuals could never be secure ; 
and as the sense of such a state 
of insecurity might justly rouse 
them to such exertions, for the re- 
covery of their rights, as might 
throw the realm into the most fatal 
disorders. 
The statute of Edward III. was 
represented by lord Mansfield, in 
reply, as too Jax and imperfect ; it 
was not explanatory in various cases 
Similar to that which wes now un- 
der-consideration 5 it was not suf- 
ficient therefore to prevent or to 
punish adequately delinquences of 
this nature. The statute against 
treason in the reign of Elizabeth 
served asa precedent to that under 
queen Anne, and ought not to have 
been spoken of as unfit to be imita- 
ted. Thelaws enacted to the same 
purpose under Charles IJ. were point- 
edat the republican party at that 
day, which, like the same party at 
the present, consisted of sworn ene- 
mies to monarchy, and of conse- 
quence to the sovereign that wore 
the crown: if it was deemed neces- 
sary then to protect him from their 
fury, it was no less indispensible now, 
that principles of the most rebelli- 
ous nature were openly circulated in 
defiance of all law and government. 
He justified the wording of the bill 
as sufficiently clear and intelligible, 
and was of opinion that seven years 
transportation was not too severe for 
the offence on which the bill in- 
flicted it. 
The duke of Norfolk took this 
occasion to assert, that to the prin- 
ciple of resistance the family of 
Brunswick owed its exaltation to 
the British throne; this principle 
ought therefore never to be for- 
gotten by the friends of liberty. 
Though they should be careful not 
to misapply it, yet occasions might 
arise, as they had formerly arisen, 
when the application of it would 
become as necessary as at the pe- 
tiods to which he alluded» From 
the evidence relating to the insult 
offered to the crown, he was per- 
suaded that measures might easily 
be adopted to prevent such out- 
rages in future; but he thought 
himself bound to reject the bill pro- 
duced by ministers in its present 
furm, as invading the liberty of the 
subject in a variety of respects, and 
placing it too much at their dis« 
posal. 
After other peers had delivered 
their opinions on the subject, the 
duke of Bedford cencluded it, by 
saying, that the reasonings against 
the bill had met with no adequate — 
answers ; they stood upon constitu- 
tional ground, and though they 
might be out voted, they could not 
be refuted. The bill added nothing 
to the personal safety of the king, 
but increased the power of the 
crown in a most uncoustitutional 
degree ; he would therefore oppose 
it, as adirect attack on the liberty 
of Englishmen. Should it unhappily 
pass into a law, it would prove so 
fatal an infringement on the consti- 
tution, © 
