26] 
would never be refused an attentive 
hearing. 
Mr. Sheridan severely animad- 
verted on the motives assigned by 
Mr. Wilberforce for supporting the 
bill. Instead of strengthening pub- 
lic liberty, it went directly to destroy 
it, by silencing every voice that 
might have been heard inits defence. 
Ministers had boldly asserted, that 
one of the fortunate consequences. 
of the war, was the eradication of 
French principles; but the false- 
hood of this assertion was evident, 
from their gradual increase through- 
out the multitude. The discussions 
of the people would now, he ob- 
served, be wholly at the disposal of 
ministerial dependants and agents, 
either to permit, or to forbid, as 
they thought proper, or, more proba- 
bly, as they were directed. Thus, 
in fact, that liberty of speech, Spon 
which Englishmen were wont to 
value themselves, they would here- 
after hold barely upon sufferance. 
Were the bill to pass, he should 
eonsider the house of commons as 
no longer able to express the real 
sentiments of their constituents, 
-who, when restrained by terror from 
the manifestation of their thoughts, 
would not have it in their power to 
lay them before their representa- 
tives, between whom, and them- 
selves, that free communication of 
ideas, on the national business, must 
cease, which constituted the prin- 
cipal basis of English liberty. 
The bill was opposed also by Mr. 
Martin, who explicitly charged the 
minister with having seized the op- 
portunity of the late riots, to raise 
an alarm throughout the nation, 
that might be converted to the sup- 
port of the ruinous measuresin which 
he was still resolved to persist. War, 
alone, was now become'the object 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
of ministers. They studied to pros 
pogate the like infatuation in every 
part of the country, which now ex~ 
hibited endless scenes of military pa- 
rade. The bill tended, as other 
ministerial measures, to introduce 
an arbitrary system of government. 
This was evidently the project which 
ne must have formed, by accompa- 
nying it with so many restrictions 
on the personal freedom of indivie 
duals. There was a time, when the 
people of this land would not have 
borne such an audacious attempt on 
their liberties, nor any minister have 
dared to try the experiment. 
Mr. Windham sharply contended 
in favour of the bill. He observed, 
that loud asseverations, of the loss of 
liberty, were heard from the oppo- 
sition in the house, and the popular 
meetings: a marked unanimity of 
sentiments subsisted between them. 
But it was time to suppress these 
sentiments, wherever they took occa- 
sion to manifest themselves, by pu- 
nishing, with merited severity, their 
propagators and abettors. It was 
absurd to affect an ignorance of the 
designs in agitation at the meetings, 
of the commonalty, and of the so- 
cieties, that pretended to have no 
other object in view, than peace and 
reform. Their object was te cons 
cert the methods that were most 
likely to embarrass and subvert the 
present government, and to substie. 
tute another, more consistent with 
their own notions, which were, in 
fact, those adopted in France. This 
was the country of their predilec- 
tion, and to the arms and councils 
of which they notoriously wished 
_ every possible success against thema- 
chinations of so dangerous a party; 
existin g in the bosom, as it. were, 
of the nation, and striving, with inde- 
fatigable efforts, to infuse ito it the 
3 "poison 
