HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
the bill to be rejected, the conse- 
quences would quickly prove how 
necessary it was for the preservation 
not only of the king but of every 
well-affected subject, as well as of 
the good order and peace of the 
community. 
) The attempt of ministry to enact 
such a law as that purported by 
the bill, was represented by Mr. 
Curwen as the most flagitious inno- 
vation. Its direet and visible aim 
was to strip the subject of his most 
valuable privilege, that of speak- 
ing his mind on every matter relat- 
ing to the public. Herein consist- 
ed, in fact, the very essence, not 
only of English, but of all real 
liberty. The movers of the bill 
had reason to wish themselves au- 
thorized to impose silence on the 
people, who had so much reason 
to be displeased at their conduct. 
The voice of that people had occa- 
sionally prevented them from pro- 
secuting their imprudent schemes, 
and constrained them to listen to 
disagreeable admonitiens. So re- 
solutely was he determined to pre- 
fer this voice to that of ministers, 
that he did not scruple to avow 
himself ready to support it at the 
risk of his property and his life. 
It appeared to him immaterial 
whether the constitution fell by 
insurrection or by despotism. The 
bill proposed would effect it as cer- 
tainly as any of the tumultuous 
proceedings of an enrayed people. 
But this fatal bill was obviously dic- 
tated by ministerial resentment at 
the opposition it had met with, 
both in and out of parliament. He 
did not, however, imagine, that, 
when the inimical intentions it dis- 
played against public liberty were 
duly perceived, the people of Eng- 
Jand would remain so heartless and 
[a5 
supine as not to resist it with the 
vigour and spirit of their ances- 
tors. 
The principle of the bill was 
decidedly approved by Mr. Wile 
berforce, as tending to check the 
licentious disposition, among the 
common people, introduced by 
the doctrines imported from France. 
The ideas of that people, on reli- 
gious as well as political matters, 
had lately made an alarming pro- 
gress in this country, and it was 
the duty of the legislature to dis- 
courage them by all prudent and 
legal methods. He did not consi- 
der the bill as an invasion of public 
liberty, which, he was persuaded, 
would rather be strengthened, when 
popular discussions upon national 
affairs, and meetings called for 
that purpose, were duly regulated. 
He concluded, however, by ac- 
knowledging, that he sincerely 
wished there had been no occasion 
for such a bill,, to which his assent 
was extorted by the necessity of 
choosing, among a variety of diffi. 
culties, that which appeared the 
least productive of evil. The 
meetings of individuals, to debate 
upon national affairs, had certainly 
been attended’ with such improper 
freedoms, that they well deserved 
to be restrained. The only assem- 
bly, to which the people could re- 
sort with well-grounded confidence 
of meeting with friends to listen to 
their grievances and to redress them, 
was the house of commons; it was 
the shield of public liberty, it was 
truly a popular meeting, wherein 
the nation would always find able 
and resolute defenders of its consti- 
tutional rights; it was a tribunal, 
before which its cause would be 
pleaded with efficacy; and where 
its complaints, when justly founded, 
would 
