44] 
The bill was read athird time, ac- 
cording to form, on the third of De- 
eember, and carried up to the house 
of Jords on the same day. 
The bill for the security of the 
sovereign was, on the thirtieth of 
November, taken into consideration 
by a committee of the whole house 
of commons, when Mr. Erskine op- 
posed it by a variety of reasonings. 
He observed, that the bill diminished 
the liberty of the subject, without 
adding to the safety of the king’s per- 
son. It was a political maxim of 
long standing, that'the best govern- 
ment was that which produced the 
greatest security with the fewest re- 
straints, and that the worst was that 
-which increased penalties without 
undisputed evidence of their pro- 
priety. Another maxim, of equal 
force, was to preserve ancient laws in 
their primitive simplicity, till ex- 
perience had proved them inadequate 
to their intended purposes. The 
statute of Edward III]. concerning 
treason, had not been proved, but 
merely asserted, to be unequal to the 
punishment of the outrages referred 
toin the two bills. In the opinion 
of one of the greatest luminaries of 
the law in this country, the lord- 
chief-justice Hale, that important 
statute had been enacted, as a re- 
medy against former oppression, aud 
to secure the subject against illegal 
prosecution, ‘To compass, or even 
to imagine, the death of the king, 
was, by that statute, declared high 
treason: could words be found of 
stronger import, or of plainer mean- 
ing? To levy war against the king, 
or to grant comfort and protection 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1796. 
a war asmore than a misdemeanour, — 
which, like many others, might not 
déserve material notice, while no 
clear and overt act could be adduced 
to prove it, and without which act 
no treasonable intentions could law. 
fully be presumed. Mr. Erskine ar- 
gued, from the decision of Jord-chief- 
justice Holt, that overt acts alone, 
properly established, ought to be ad 
mitted as proofs of guilt in trials 
for high treason, The bill in con- 
templation would, he explicitly af- 
firmed, extend the crime of high 
treason to such a multitude of trivial 
cases, that every petty misdemeane 
our might be brought within its 
construction. After a variety of 
other arguments, had been used on 
both sides, the debate closed by two © 
hundred and three votes, for the 
commitment of the bill, against 
forty. 
On the third reading of this bill, — 
the tenth of December, it. was op- 
posed in the same manner, and main~ 
tained with the same reasonings as 
antecedently, but it passed, with &lk 
its clauses, after some ineffectual o 
jections to that in particular, which 
enacted its duration till the demise 
of the king. . 
The bill to prevent seditious meet- 
ings was read a first time on the third 
of December, and its second read- 
ing took place on the ninth, when 
lord Grenville urged a multiplicity 
of reasons in its favour. He de- 
clared it necessary for the preservae © 
tion of the lives and property of in- 
dividuals, and for the security of the 
constitution, and liberties of the peo- 
ple, for which he alleged that the 
“ 
to his enemies was, by that statute, 
made equally criminal: but it did 
not make the compassing to levy war 
against him high treason, because 
the legislators of that day did not 
consider a conspiracy to levy such 
laws in being had not sufficiently 
provided. 
The marquis of Lansdowne, and — 
the earls of Moriaand Derby, strenu-_ 
ously opposed it. They particularly © 
reprobated that{clause which pein i 
rized — 
