HISTORY GF EUROPE. 
- éd, and was only subjected to regu- 
lations for its more beneficial ex- 
ercise, it was unreasonable to com- 
plain of its being extinguished. 
The solicitor, speaking of the pu- 
rity and independence of the British 
parliament, took this occasion to 
condemn the system adopted by 
the French, of allowing salaries to 
the representatives of the nation. 
Hence, he asserted, arose the cala- 
mities of France. It wasa practice 
which had Jong been relinquished 
by this country, and which denoted 
the prudence of the people and 
government. He also advanced 
another maxim, which was, that re- 
volutions were always the work of 
inorities : these usually consisted 
of spirited and active individuals, 
who were not deterred by difficul- 
ties, and whose resolution and per- 
Severance rendered them indefati- 
gable, and enabled them finally to 
overcome the majorities that op- 
posed their designs. These ma- 
jorities being composed of the 
peaceable and well-affected to go- 
vernment, though acting with loy- 
alty, did not exert themselves with 
afervour equal to that of their an- 
tagonists, whose vigour and ani- 
mation in pursuing the objects for 
which they were contending, in- 
_Spired them with exertions too vio= 
lent to be resisted by men, who had 
only ordinary motives to influence 
them, while the others were 
prompted by that multiplicity of 
passions which actuate men who 
are striving to exalt themselves 
wbove others, and to expel them 
from the seat of power, in order.to 
occupy it themselves. Isom the 
various reasonings that had been 
used in support of the bill, he infer- 
red, that as the laws in force did 
not sufficiently apply to the nu- 
merous meetings and associations, 
[35 
where the seditious principles come 
plained of were encouraged, laws 
that might clearly be directed 
against them, ought of course to be 
enacted. 
In reply to the solicitor-general, 
Mr. Erskine positively denied the 
bill’s consistency with the principles 
of the British constitution. Neither 
in the reignof Charles II. nor of 
William III. nor in those that fol- 
lowed, though two of them were 
marked by rebellions, had the mi- 
nistry dared to attempt such an in» 
fringement on the liberty ef the 
subject ; and yet the first of these 
reigns was immediately after those 
commotions that had brought a 
king to the scaffold: the second was 
noted for the obstinacy with which 
the adberents to a dethroned mow 
narch exerted themselves in his 
cause, even to the attempting the 
very life of the prince upen the 
throne, In the height of thesebellion 
of 1745, no minister had ventured to 
fetter the nation in the manner pro 
posed by the present bill. Even the 
very framers of it, when they sus~ 
pended the habeas-oorpus-act, and 
were preparing their materials for 
the late trials, had abstained from this 
glaring invasion of national freedom. 
No plots had since arisen, corrobo- 
rated with any proofs, to arm mi- 
nisters with a just pretence for so 
outrageous an attack on the con~ 
stitution; the fundamentals of which 
were so materially affected by it, 
that the right to petition, on which 
the security of the people against 
oppression essentially depended, 
would’ be utterly destroyed. The 
bill forbad all discussion that was 
net sanctioned by a magistrate. Did 
not such a clause empower magis= 
trates appointed by, and removable 
at, the will of the crown, to be 
judges of the nature of the petitions 
Dz] of | 
