HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
dency to disturb the peace of the 
kingdom.” Mr. Fox hoped that 
the people would perceive the dan- 
ger that threatened their freedom, 
and meet together, while it still 
remained lawful, to consult in 
what manner to preserve it from the 
infringement designed in the bill 
proposed, and to express their de- 
testation of it- He had seen and 
heard of revolutions, but experi- 
ence had shewn they were not ow- 
ing to the freedom of popular meet» 
ings, but to the tyransy exerted 
to enslave men. The French revo- 
lution arose from ministerial op- 
pressions, and the arbitrary pro- 
ceedings of a despotic government 
that held the people in continual 
dread, and silenced their very fears 
by the terror of those punishments 
suspended over thase who dared to 
utter their sentiments. If the peos 
ple’s complaints were groundless, 
the less they were noticed, the 
sooner they would cease, as false 
surmises would very soon be disco- 
vered and lose their effect ; but, if 
well-founded, the efforts made to 
repress them must terminate, either 
jn a base-minded submission of the 
people, or in a resistance fatal to 
their rulers as well as to themselves. 
Were the introduction of such a 
bill insisted on, he thought himself 
bound, previously to-any farther 
discussion, to move for a call of the 
house. 
Mr. Fox was supported by Mr. 
Stanley, who explicitly affirmed, 
that if the bill should pass, he 
should consider this country as on 
the eve of a revolution. He re- 
minded ministers of the well-known 
assertion of Montesquieu, that a 
humerous increase of penal laws 
as a sure prognostication of a state’s 
verging to its decline. This alone 
(as 
appeared to him a sufficient motive 
for opposing so oppressive a bill, 
There existed laws adequate to the 
suppression of unlawful meetings ; 
but the bill was, in fact, the sever- 
est libel on the good sense and at- 
tachment of Englishmen to their 
constitution ; it represented them 
as insensible of its worth, incapa- 
ble of enjoying liberty, and deserv~ 
ing, for that reason, to bé deprived 
of it. 
In answer to these arguments, sir 
William Pulteney admonished the 
opposers of the bill to consider it 
impartially, before they described 
it in such odious colours. It by ng 
means prevented free discussion, 
that of the press particularly, which 
he viewed as fully adequate to the 
support of that public spirit, and 
those popular maxims on which the 
constitution rested. The press was 
the strongest pillar of liberty, by 
the latitude with which every polis 
tical subject was allowed to be 
treated: while this remained une 
touched, the public was in no dan- 
ger of ever seeing the constitution 
subverted, and it was a privilege 
which he would never consent to 
part with ; but it could not exist in 
a democracy any more than under 
an arbitrary government, nor, in 
truth, any government but a limit- 
ed monarchy like our own. The 
great danger of popular meetings — 
was, that they heard only one side 
of the question: Uninformed mul- 
titudes were easily deluded by the 
specious and inflammatory speeches 
of designing persons, who well 
knew; that in such meetings they 
would have little, or rather no con 
tradiction, to encounter, and find 
their audience ready prepared to 
acquiesce in whatever they might 
think proper to welen Times 
{C 4} end 
