law, and then the question would be, whether the provisions of the bill now opened conformed to that intention. To him they appeared of a very extraordinary nature. The first part that struck his mind was, the restraint upon the purchase, by any subject of this country, of any land in France. The bills to which the honourable and learned gentleman had alluded upon that head as precedents, were not in his mind very highly deserving of imitation; for in this, and every other country calling itself free, he had always held, that property was in the highest degree entitled to the protection of the law; and if so, there could be no doubt but the power of disposing of it was to be considered under the same protection; both of which were violated by the present bill.

The second ground upon which the bill proceeded was, that the possession of land in France, by any of his majesty's subjects there, might become hostile to the interests of this country. Should the learned gentleman not have stated some specific inconvenience that this country had felt by any of its subjects having possessions in other countries? British subjects had had from time to time many such possessions, and no evil, that he ever heard of, had hitherto resulted from that circumstance: he was firmly convinced, that nothing at this moment could be more dangerous than holding out that idea, and that there was not any thing at the present that made it appear more dangerous to have such possessions than. at any former period. Indeed, he never expected to hear a proposition maintained in any part of the world, least of all in Great Britain, that we should not subscribe to loans, or engage in the funds of any country; or that those who were at war with us, were not to have their property considered as sacred. The direct contrary had hitherto been the rule; and it had been always held out, that property of every kind was secured to the use of its possessor, as well during war of any kind, as in times of the most profound peace? Something to the reverse of this had been started and proposed during the American war, respecting property held in Pennsylvania; but the minister of that day rejected with disdain a proposition so unjust and impolitic; observing, that the sacredness of the possession of property being the basis of a free state, the honour, and ultimately, the safety of the kingdom, might entirely depend upon that principle. This was wise, as well as honourable. But this principle was totally destroyed by the spirit of the present bill. Nevertheless, if we looked at the interest of this country, independent of any other consideration, he was convinced that we should not be so rash as to stop the intercourse between this country and France with respect to the purchase of lands, or the investing

of money in the funds. Had we lost all sense of the advantage to be derived from keeping that open? Was it likely that much of the money of the people of this country would be laid out in purchases in France? Or was it not rather more probable, that many of the people of France would make purchases with us? We had always encouraged foreigners, even in time of war, to deal in our funds; and we had always held their property sacred: and he would ask, whether encouragement afforded on both sides to deal in the funds, would operate most in favour of this country or of France; of that which had most, or that which had least credit? Was it to be supposed, that men would be so blind to their own interest, as not to perceive and avail themselves of this advantage? But these considerations would be defeated entirely by the present bill.

The next provision of this measure went to declare it treason to supply the French, or any in alliance with them, with arms. If that part of the law was to be thoroughly revised, perhaps he might have something to offer to the attention of the House upon that subject; but, considering all wars of late years in Europe as contests of revenue, rather than of arms, he questioned whether it would not be of advantage to this country to trade with its enemies, and perhaps to sell to them even articles of arms, whilst we had prompt payment, at our own price, for them. With respect to the prohibition of Englishmen going to France without a passport, as described in the bill, he should pass it by, as he considered it as the least exceptionable clause. But as to the provision against Englishmen returning to their country, it was monstrous enough to make the learned gentleman himself afraid of stating it. It was giving a power to the king to banish, during the war, every British subject now in France. But, it seemed, he had the power of returning in certain cases, by giving security and what not for his good behaviour. Who was to be the judge of the amount of that security? This was to be left to a magistrate. Here again, a man was to be put under the discretion of another person, who might render his return impossible by exacting security to an amount that could not be given. If one man was to be at the discretion of another in the dearest of his rights, that of living under the government and partaking of the advantages of the constitution of his native country, he must ask, upon what principle it was, that we were daily congratulating each other, and praising our laws to foreign nations? Where was the foundation of our boasting, if an English subject, the most meritorious English subject, and because he was meritorious he stood a great chance of being obnoxious

to his majesty's ministers, was to be at the mercy, whim, or caprice of any creature of the crown, who had the power to say to him, without assigning a reason," You shall not come over to this country, because I do not chuse you shall come."

As to the insurance of ships belonging to France, the question did not involve any principle; for the preventing of Englishmen from paying the losses of the French was right enough; but he wished to know of what utility the prohibition would be. The truth was, that the premium was always more than equal to the risk, and the balance was in favour of the underwriter. If, for instance, out of one hundred insurances, the profits of the premium was much more than the loss at the expiration of the policy, then England would have gained, and France would have lost. Why, then, he must say, that he did not see the reason for this restraint upon trade. But, however, he had less objection to this clause than he had to many of the others, because it appeared to him to be merely foolish. He ridiculed the attorney general's definition of the word correspondence, and thought that the people of this country needed not to be told, that, if they entered into any agreement with the enemies of the state, to perform any thing that tended to its injury, they were amenable to the law. However, if the learned gentleman thought the people of this country were so ignorant of their duty to the state, it was kind in him to tell them what they were liable to in cases of neglect or positive offence. Mr. Fox concluded with saying, that the whole of the bill, as opened by the learned gentleman, appeared to him entirely unnecessary, many parts of it repugnant to the common principles of justice, some of them foolish, and he believed it brought forward with no other view than to disseminate through the country false and injurious ideas of the existence. of a correspondence between some persons and France, and alarms of dangers where there were no dangers at all; and therefore it should meet with his decided opposition, even in that early stage.

The motion was also warmly opposed by Mr. Erskine; leave, however, was given to bring in the bill.

March 21.

This day the bill was read a second time, and on the attorney general's moving that it be committed to-morrow,

Mr. Fox expressed his surprize that the learned gentleman should wish to carry, with such precipitation, through the House, a bill which, he did not hesitate to say, was an attack upon the fundamental liberties of Englishmen, and a measure equally ineffectual, impolitic, and tyrannical. An honourable gentleman had differed from him on this subject, but had been so candid as to say, that those who now opposed this bill had, ever since the year 1783, maintained the most constitutional principles. It was an adherence to these same principles which made them now express their disapprobation of a measure which every good whig, as a whig, must heartily reprobate. Time ought to be allowed for discussing it; the precipitation with which he saw it was now to be hurried through the House could answer no other end than that of preventing discussion. A law of no less import than that of preventing Britons from returning home to their country, was, without time for consideration, to be committed the next day. Why?-for no other purpose than that of hurrying it through the House before the recess. It was, he said, to be committed to-morrow, reported on Monday, read a third time on Tuesday, carried to the Lords on Wednesday, and on Thursday the recess commenced; so that even by that method it could not be done, and those who attempted it only committed a useless act of indecency. He trusted that gentlemen on the other side of the House would not be quite so precipitate, but would allow some little delay. The bill affected the nation at large: it was fit, therefore, that time should be given for the people to express their opinion upon it; and he believed that that opinion would be found to be extremely unfavourable; for, by what he could learn, no bill had ever been brought into parliament which was more unpopular, as far as it yet reached. In short, he considered it to be such an encroachment on the rights of the people, and such a degradation of justice, that the House should wait for the sense of the country. He declared that there was not a single clause in the bill to which he would not, in the committee, give his dissent, unless he should find something stronger in favour of the clauses than had yet been advanced. To the clause for making it necessary for Englishmen to procure passports from the secretary of state, to return to their own country, he was determined to give the most steady opposition; for by that clause Englishmen would find themselves placed in the most degraded situation, when obliged to ask a secretary of state's leave to return to their country and their homes. For his own part, he should despise himself if he could silently suffer himself to be placed in a situation in which he should be obliged to apply to a servant of

the crown, as a favour, for leave to return to England, or to his own house.

March 22.

The House went into a committee on the bill. The solicitor general having moved, "That the consideration of the preamble should be postponed till the different clauses of the bill should be gone through,"

Mr. Fox said he was happy to hear that the gentleman who brought in the bill began to think that it was not perfect, and that it might want some modification. For his part, he thought the provisions of the bill to be such as ought to meet the detestation of the people of this country. He should attend to whatever modifications should be offered; but the best modification he knew would be that of expunging all the clauses out of the bill. He said he wanted to prevent the progress of a bill, which the imagination of man could hardly think of without astonishment a bill which, perhaps, was never equalled in the despotism of its principle; and he knew that those who brought it in could not, without considerable vigilance from others, be prevailed upon to pay any attention to the constitution of this country. He insisted, that before a proposition so new and alarming was acceded to, it should at least be justified by a clear proof of an urgent necessity. An honourable gentleman (Mr. Anstruther) had quibbled on this preamble in a most extraordinary manner, and had been obliged to state it unfairly in order to support his deduction. He had asked, whether it could be denied that it was expedient to prevent corresponding with his majesty's enemies, &c.; but the words of the preamble were, that "it is expedient more effectually to prevent such correspondence,' &c.; and he would ask, on the other hand, whether, without any knowledge of the insufficiency of the existing laws, or of any dangerous and extraordinary urgency, we should think it right to go on to the enacting of such dreadful provisions as some of those which composed this bill? Gentlemen talked of what had been done at the revolution: let them follow the example of those who acted at that time, by shewing evidence of the necessity of the present measure. He could not agree with much that he had heard that night; for, upon the principle now asserted, if a handful of men, however insignificant, or however small in number, should happen to entertain opinions subversive of the established constituion, this alone would be held sufficient to justify the invest