I admire the British constitution, because it gives scope to the people to exercise the right of political discussion; not merely with the permission… - Charles James Fox

So fully am I impressed with the vast importance and necessity of attaining what will be the object of my motion this night, that if, during the almost forty years that I have had the honour of a seat in parliament, I had been so fortunate as to accomplish that, and that only, I should think I had done enough, and could retire from public life with comfort, and the conscious satisfaction, that I had done my duty.

[T]he question now was, whether the British constitution, "that beautiful fabric, raised by the steadiness of our ancestors, and cemented by the best blood of the country!" ... whether that beautiful fabric, raised by the steadiness of our ancestors, and cemented by the best blood of our country, was to be maintained in that freedom, in that purity, in that perfection, in which those ancestors had delivered it to us, and for which, that blood had been spilt; or whether we were to submit to that system of despotism, which had so many advocates in this country.

Look to France before the period of her revolution. Was it the facility of public meetings, or the freedom of discussion granted to the subject, that tended to produce that great change? On the contrary, was it not the absolute prerogative of the king? Was it not the arbitrary power lodged in ministers? Was it not the oppressive privilege of issuing Lettres de Cachet against all who dared to utter their sentiments, and complain of existing grievances, that excited the indignation of the people and accelerated the downfall of the monarchy? If, therefore, one view on which the present measure is held out to your acceptance, be in order to prevent the troubles arising from the frequency of popular assemblies, on that very ground ought the friends of peace and of order to resist the adoption of the measure.