24] 
and circumstantes called for regula- 
tions apposite to the dispositions of 
men at different periods. The pre- 
sent temper of men was marked by 
precipitation and temerity, and 
ought to be repressed accordingly. 
Proceedings that bordered on sedi- 
tion ought certainly to be opposed 
with firmness and diligence. Were 
magistrates, in such cases, to ex- 
ceed their powers, they would cer- 
tainly be called to a severe account, 
in a country where juries had shewn 
themselves so tenacious of the liber- 
ties of their fellow-subjects, and 
where the spirit of liberty animated, 
so manifestly, the Isgislature itself, 
as to induce it to declare those very 
juries competent judges whether a 
publication should be deemed a 
libel. 
Mr. Halhed acknowledged the 
propriety of the first proclamation, 
offering an ample reward for the 
discovery of those who had insulted 
the king, but totally disapproved of 
that proclamation, in coincidence 
with which the bill had been 
brought into the house. ‘The mis- 
behaviour of the populace, he af- 
firmed, proceeded from the sense 
of their feelings, and ought not, in 
equity, to be attributed to that 
meeting of the people, three days 
before, which had not exhibited 
the least sign of a riotous disposition, 
and had parted as peaceably as it 
had met. The miserable situation 
of the rioters, though not a justifi- 
cation, ought to weigh with those 
who reflected to what irregularities 
men might be driven, when they 
wanted bread. But the inveteracy 
of ministers to men who had oppos- 
ed their measures, with such constan- 
cy and determination, was the real 
motive that prompted them in the 
formation of this bill. They pro- 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
posed by it to infuse such terror into 
the societies so long obnoxious to 
them, as would deter them, at once, 
from ever daring to resume the pro- 
secution of their designs, and thus 
to crush, at one blow, all attempts 
and ideas to affect any reform in 
parliament, or to remedy any of 
the abuses and prievances so long 
complained of by the nation at 
large. 
The bill was opposed by Mr. 
Maurice Robinson, as separating: 
the interests of the king from those 
of the people, and setting them, 
as it were, in opposition to each 
other. The king, as father of his 
people, was in justice bound to 
treat them with paternal care, and 
not to permit ministers, on the pres 
text of consulting his personal dig- 
nity, to render their condition worse 
than ever it had been, by punishing 
the many for the offences of a few, 
burried into the commission of their 
delinquencies. by the pressures of 
hunger and want. No evidence 
had been produced to countenance 
the ministerial assertion, that the 
riots were caused by the popular 
assemblies, held in the vicinity of 
the metropolis. ‘The clear and 
well-known purpose of these meet- 
ings was to petition for peace and 
reform, the endeavours to obtain 
which could not, by any legal con- 
struction, be deeméd acts of sedi- 
tion. 
The bill was supported by Mr. 
alderman Lushington, as a measure 
without which the person of the 
sovereign would be continually ex- 
posed to the insults of the vilest po- 
pulace, who would become the 
more daring and outrageous when 
they saw that parliament passedby 
unnoticed the criminal insolence of 
which they had been guilty. apis 
the 
