32] 
ner, by holding out the severest 
chastisements to those who endea- 
voured to disseminate principles of 
so pernicious and destructive a ten- 
dency. 
' It was with much animal vehe- 
mence insisted on by the earl of 
Lauderdale, that the safety of mi- 
nisters was much more consulted 
by this bill than that of the king. 
They were conscious, that if the 
people were suffered to meet toge- 
ther, their reiterated remonstrances 
could not fail, at last, to make 
some impression to their prejudice. 
The privilege of discussing parlia- 
mentary transactions had never yet 
been called in question or thought 
dangerous, The more important 
the question brought before the le- 
gislature, the greater was the pro- 
pensity as well as the interest of 
the public to examine and scruti- 
nize it. If this privilege was al- 
lowed in matters of litde impor- 
tance, it ought, indubitably, to 
hold good in affeirs of great and 
weighty concern to the nation. 
Ministers had tried how far the 
law would bear them out in their 
endeavours to establish the doctrine 
of constructive treason; but the 
attempt was so odious, that it fail- 
d; the present, however, was an 
attempt far more invidicus, and he 
doubted not, that if the people of 
England viewed it in that light, 
they would exert themselves so 
powerfully as to frustrate it, not- 
withstanding all ministerial arts and 
efforts in its favour, The debate 
finally concluded by sixty-six voles 
for the passing of the bill and seven 
against it. The duke of Bedford 
and the earls of- Derby and Lau- 
derdale entered a very solemn 
and spirited protest in opposition to 
it. : 
ANNUAL REGISTER,; 
1796. 
In the house of commons, the 
same influence prevailed as in the 
house of lords. A message from 
these was brought to the commons, 
on the 16th of November, inform- 
ing them, that they had passed the 
bill for the king’s better safety, and 
requesting their concurrence. Mr. 
Pitt, in consequence, moved its 
first reading, which was carried by 
one hundred and seventy votes 
against twenty-six; thesecond read- 
ing was voted by one hundred and 
fifty-one against twenty-five. 
It being observed by lord Eard- 
ley, that a public meeting had 
been held on Sunday by persons 
who opposed the bill, a transaction 
which he looked upon as too much 
in the style of French principles, 
Mr. Sheridan observed, that the 
meeting was justified by its object, 
which was to prepare a hand-bill 
to dissuade the people from tumult 
and riot. 
In conjunction with Mr. Fox, 
Mr. Grey, and Mr, Lambton, Mr. 
Sheridan proposed, that, previously 
to the discussion of the bill, a com- 
mittee Should be appointed to in- 
quire into the particulars of the 
insult offered to the king. This 
was opposed by ministry as disre- 
spectful in the first stage of a bill, 
framed for the security of the soye- 
reign, and laid before them by the 
house of Jords; but Mr. Sheridan 
insisted, that no proofs bad been 
adduced to authorize so harsh a 
measure, and that ministers had no 
right to bring forward such a bill 
without the. clearest proofs of its 
necessity. Ministers were bound, 
in their own justification, to fei 
it appear to the public that they 
acted ingenuously and upon fair 
grounds, the case being of such im- 
portance and magnitude, that no 
suspicions 
