HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
had it always in his option to dis- 
solve a disorderly assembly when it 
was evidently accompanied by a 
breach of the peace; and by the 
riot-act he was explicitly empower- 
ed to disperse meetings he!d. on un- 
lawful purposes. Mr. Erskine next 
proceeded to expose the change of 
sentiments in the English on matters 
of government. Mr. Burke had, he 
said, already taken notice of this 
alteration so long ago as the Ame- 
rican war, ‘* We begin, bis words 
were, to acquire the spirit of domi- 
nation, and. to lose the relish of 
honest equality: the principles of 
our forefathers become suspected to 
us, because we see them animating 
the present opposition of their 
American descendants. The faults 
which grow out of the luxuriance 
of freedom, appear much more 
shocking to us than those vices 
which are gemerated from the ranke 
ness of servitude.”” Thus, said Mr. 
Erskine, neither the idea, nor the 
term of equality, were strangers to 
our language till lately, as some 
time-servers would insinuate. It 
were wiser in the higher ranks to 
cherish this idea, than to affect a 
secession from the commonalty, and 
to hold it beneath their dignity to 
make one common cause with 
them. The great ought seriously to 
weight the consequences that must 
certainly ensue from acontest be- 
tween them and the little. It 
would indicate aspirit of disunion 
ia this country, of which the French 
would not fail to avail themselves ; 
far worse would be the conditions 
of atreaty with them in such a 
case, than if they found us united 
in disposition and interests. Mr. 
Erskine, reverting to the motives 
alledged in support of the bill, said, 
because, while the sovereign was 
going to parliament, al a time when 
[37 
a complication of calamities had 
rendered the poor desperate, a few 
wretches were guilty of outrages 
tohim, for which they might have 
been punished by statutes long ex« 
isting, the whole nation is at once 
to lose the privilege on which it 
justly sets the highest value. The 
statute enacted in the thirteenth of 
Charles II. was, he observed, the 
acknowledged precedent of the 
present bill: by the tenour of that 
statute one hundred theusand indi= 
viduals might assemble in order to 
concert together a petition: the 
only prohibitions contained in that 
act, were, to hawk the petition 
about for those to sign, who might 
not know of the grievances com- 
plained of, and that more than ten 
persons should present the petition 
to the king. It also empowered 
magistrates to interpose their authos 
rity when overt acts of tumult took 
place, and to requiresecurity against 
any breach of the peace; but no 
meeting nor communication of 
thoughts were forbidden; tumul- 
tuously petitioning was the only 
thing forbidden. How different, 
exclaimed’ Mr. Erskine, was this 
act from the bill now depending, 
which even prevented men from 
petitioning. He concluded by ani- 
madverting on the language once 
used by Mr. Pitt himself, on the 
subject of parliamentary reform. 
‘* We had lost America, were the 
minister’s words, through the core 
ruption of an unreformed parlia- 
ment, and we should never havea 
wise and honourable administration, 
nor be freed from the evils of un- 
necessary war, nor the fatal effects 
of the funding system, till a radical 
reform was obtained.” But the 
man who had spoker. these true and 
memorable words was the same 
whe new charged with sedition all 
[ D 3] those 
