their dependant emissaries in the House of Commons) of the chief legislative authority! Let us view this in another light. The meinbers of the House of Peers, for example, either have, or have not the virtue, independence, wisdom and moderation ascribed to that illustrious body. I give no opinion as to the fact. But this in the very teeth of the Reviewers, I will affirm, and challenge them to disprove; that if these attributes do belong to the Lords, they can no where be so creditably, so honourably, and therefore so efficiently exercised and applied, as in their own exclusive assembly, where their virtues, &c. &c. &c. would have full play without allay or counteraction. On the other hand, if the ascription of these attributes to them be gratuitous, and that in fact, they do not belong to them, I must contend, that the introducing the representatives of an aristocracy, without virtue, independence, wisdom, or moderation, into the House of Commons, is by no means calculated to improve that assembly! There is indeed one case, and only one, in which such an amalgama tion might be supposed likely to improve the Commons; but the supposition is obviously too fanciful to proceed upon, without better authority, though I do not think it can be disproved; being, that the Commons might have even less of all these qualities than themselves. It is just worth observing, that in this commerce" of contact and sympa. *thy" the emissaries of the peers, and the crown are only to impart virtue, not to receive any. They are to constitute the "permanent majority," by whom the business of government is to be carried "smooth

ly on," without "jerks," &c.-They are not sent to be influenced by the Commons to consent to popular measures; but they are sent that the Commons may be influenced by them to forego such measures. There is to be action, but no reaction; in short, they are to outvote the Commons; which is the plain English of" the sympathy and the con"tact," and of all that involution of verbose sophistry. The last case put by the Review ers, that of " the King resisting with indig "nation a law, which had received the de*cided approbation of both Houses of Par"liament," I think it not worth considering; as being a case which, if both, or either of the Houses possessed the confidence of the country, never could happen; or, if in such circumstances, it did; the injury though it might be very serious to the King himself, would be of very slight importance to the nation. And I cannot avoid observing, that it would be a much more patriotic employment in such a juncture as the present,

to endeavour to point out some practicable means for restoring the legislature to this confidence, (which the Reviewers alledge it to have lost) than to be making nugatory hy potheses for countenancing a system of corruption, whose necessary operation it is, to make the government odious, and the peo ple contemptible.The grand error in all this argument, in which the Reviewers have demonstrated their inclination at least to defend a base cause, consists in their having confounded (I feat wilfully) the object with the instrument-the means of government with its end. With this intention they trifle through several pages upon the dangers and inconveniences which would result from the independent operation of the three estates, as if their lethargic harmony had been the summum of our constitutional po lity, whose very existence is founded upon their strife; and its end, the security of the rights and liberties of the people; or, as if their sleep had been the equivalent of good goa vernment-whilst the fact is, that the har mony of the orders is very indifferent to the people; to whose interests, it is only essential, that they should act conscientiously and right! A scope of acting, in which mankind is too corrupt ever to be unanimous ; though a great mind, in its contention with the baser passions, may cause it, in the main and upshot, to prevail. As for the “har

mony and sympathy" recommended by the Reviewers, too much of them saveur strongly of collusion, and connivance ; and will always be so suspected by the sensible part of mankind. It was to secure the rights and liberties of the people from any combination for their destruction, that the constitutional checks upon the several orders, nay, the very orders themselves, were preserved: For the accomplishment of this grand object, our ancestors on behalf of the people considered their having a substantive voice in the legislature to be essential; and never dreamed, that a system could have been pretended to be for their good, which, in its very germ, would stain, with dishonour (pages 407 and 19) both the constituent, and the representative.-For it appears assumed, quite to their own satisfac tion, (though, doubtless, falsely) by the Reviewers, that by this operative principle of dishonour, the government now acts in the House of Commons. Nay, they go so far as to declare, that without this "per manent" (that is, according to them, in fluenced, that is, corrupted, that is, degraded)" majority, the government could nei. "ther be stable nor respectable?" To talk of checks upon power, by the assumption,

that every separate interest has its organ "inthe House of Commons" (p. 413) is the prattle of children. The plain question lies in a nut shell DO THE FREE MEMBERS

OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS CONSTITUTE

ITS MAJORITY? The answer to this, resolves the argument. On its own account, it is not worth remarking, that in the whole of their copious theory, not an individual allusion is made, in support of their opinions, to any celebrated epoch in our history, from which, civil liberty dates an ex. istence, or derives a confirmation; nor to any constitutional writer whatsoever. The only authority appealed to is, that of another Scotch metaphysician (Hume); a name, whatever its merited reputation in other matters, of, at least, suspicious authority in this. The essay, they refer to, begins with the very ominous and credible assumption of the maxim (in so many words):-THAT EVERY POLITICIAN IS TO BE CONSIDERED A KNAVE. In which, I concur with that philosopher, and to oppugn which, I have discovered nothing (after the most attentive perusal) in the Edinburgh Reviewers. But brefer to him, in order to quote the following from the same Essay; which the Reviewers, perhaps, satisfied with a general acquiescing recollection, have not lately read." Every court or senate is de "termined by the greater number of voices; "so that if selfish views influence only the "majority (as they will always do) the "whole senate follows the allurement of this separate interest, and acts as if it *contained not one member who had any "regard to public interest and liberty !!! (Essay on Independence of Parliament.)--I proceed to p. 414." The great object to

be accomplished was not so much to save the House of Commons from the morti"fication of having their bills stopped by the lords, or rejected by the sovereign, as to protect these two estates from the "direct exercise of this privilege. By the "vast and rapid increase of wealth and in"telligence in the country at large, the "consideration and relative authority of that "branch of the government which stands "most in connection with it, was sudden"ly and prodigiously enlarged, &c. &c." Here their argument, not unworthy of its predecessors, obviously amounts to this: that whereas, when the Commons of England were comparatively mean, and contemptible, they had an efficient voice in the legislature by their representatives; and, whereas, they are now become considerable,

rich and intelligent," it is, therefore, fit, that this wisdom, wealth and respectability

should be counteracted; and that instead of possessing the weight, and exercising the controul, which they actually exercised over the legislature; (p. 411) whilst they were mean and contemptible, they should now have none at all! In their justification (p. 416) of "the interference of peers in elec"tions" and of " the sitting of placemen in "the House of Commons," by their alledged impossibility of preventing either, I wholly differ with the Reviewers; for I think nothing more easy, although I as certainly think, that where half a dozen scoundrels, in a rotten borough, are empowered by law to return two persons to represent them in parliament, public honour, and liberty, in such a case, suffer no more from the interference of a peer, than of a commoner patron. But as to placemen in par◄ liament, and its being in their power, notwithstanding any regulations, which could be made, to sit in the House of Commons, until they got their PLACES, (p. 418) although they might be prevented from sitting there afterwards, I beg to suggest to the Reviewers, and their friends, a receipt for curing even this desperate evil-a cure simple and radical-and which, on these accounts, will never be applied, viz: the prohibiting for 10, or 20 years, or for life, every representative of the people from accepting any office of emolument under the crown; and any office whatever (though : merely honorary) during the time of representation. And in this prohibition, I espe cially include all oFFICES OF STATE. For; it is by no means necessary, but on the contrary very unnecessary, and preposterous, that SECRETARIES OF STATE, CHANCELLors

OF THE EXCHEQUER, LORDS OF THE TREA→

SURY, ADMIRALTY, &c. and heads of other departments holding offices during pleasure under the crown, should be trustees at 'all for the interests of the people. The very profits of some of these places (the exchequer for instance, and many more) depending on the amount of the sums voted by these very persons themselves in parliament. The famous DUKE OF BUCKINGHAM, (not the MARQUIS) in one of his speeches, describes a farce, where an actor holds a dialogue with himself, speaking first in one voice, and then answering himself in another; and declares, that this is not more unnatural, thair for a member of parliament to ask first in the king's name for such a sort of supply, deliver an account from him of how much is needful, and then give by his ready vote, what he had before asked by his master's order. He afterwards adds, “nll we "would prevent, is, that a good rich cor

poration should not chuse to entrust with their liberties a plain honest country neighbour, and find him within 6 months "changed to a profound cunning courtier." -So say I, and as to the great officers, place them in the House of Commons, in the same predicament, in which the constitution formerly placed them, and still contemplates them, in the House of Lords; where the secretaries of state, attorney and solicitor generals, have, to this day, their regular writs of summons," ad tractan"dum et consilium impendendum," though not" ad consentiendum." The dispensing with their attendance in the House of Peers, and the making them members of the House of Commons, is a “sympathetic" improvement only of modern times. The votes of these great personages being found possibly more valuable to the country in the " con"coctions of measures" in the House of Commons, than their counsel in the House - of Peers!" They are not much afraid of "the influence of noble families," next say the Reviewers, (p. 417) which I believe. But, when they add, in allusion to peers being parliamentary patrons, that it is not "a debasing or ungenerous influence," I must decidedly differ with them. To the Reviewers, indeed, who have written an express treatise in defence of political corruption, parliamentary, or any other sort of sycophancy, may possibly seem no debasement. But in this respect every man will judge of them, and feel for himself. For me, I can consider nothing more debasing, than the acceptance of an aweful public trust, requiring the best, and freest exercise of my capacity, the right of conscientiously discharging which, previously agree to surrender! And whether this surrender be made to a peer, or an upstart nabob, does not in my opinion, (though it does in the Reviewers',) in any respect alter its baseness-which regards the surrenderer only, not the surrenderee. It appears, without any blush, that the Reviewers (p. 418) treat "sinecure places or pensions" as "" mere "trifles;" adding, that the most rigorous reformer would not state the sum total at a million annually. To the Reviewers, possibly, whose ideas march in a parallel with our extravagant national expenditure, the sum of a million may seem "a mere trifle." To me, it seems a scale of very princely corruption but the despair is not wholly in its amount, immense though it be the damnable consideration is the way in which, and the purposes, for which, it is applied.The particular arguments of the Reviewers, as far as I can discover them, are now

exhausted, and my first letter gave the gene

ral view. I will subjoin two resulting remarks. 1st, That the histories of all governments shew, that the gradation from a state of general political corruption to a state of political slavery is insensible, and certain; and although the latter is the sharper evil, the former condition is the most hopeless, and the most base; whilst the familiarizing the country to a corrupt, and degenerate constitutional theory, seems the natural preparative for reconciling it to its practice. 2d, The great instigators to total revolution, are those, who endeavour to shew, that the beautiful theory of our constitution is delusion; that the carrying it back to its principles would do no good, because those principles are not better than our actual abuses; consequently, that there is but one option-the resulting inconveniences, such as we feel them, are to be submitted to, or the irrepa rable building pulled down to its founda tions! The Reviewers, who prefer the former, appear to have adopted the ingenious torment of Procrustes; and as they found it would have been impossible to reconcile the abuses to the constitution, have fitted the constitution to its abuses.-I am now to take my leave of the political misprisions of the Edinburgh Reviewers-in doing which, justice urges me to give them, in other respects, their well earned praise. In clearing modern literature of its Augean rubbish, they enjoined themselves a labour for Hercules, and they have performed it with his strength; the canons of taste and criticism have had no abler expositors; and in the bold censures which they have pronounced on bad and careless productions, they have not only become the incitements to fire writing, but like their illustrious Grecian predecessor have exhibited its example." Si siç "omnia!" With such impressions, I cannot but have felt the fearful odds of this contention; which nothing but the fullest conviction, that I had all the truth on my side of the argument, could have made me encounter. I hope I have in some instances vindicated the spirit of the constitution from their aspersions; in others, I believe I have detected their sophistries; and, I know, I have had no object but truth. My style, with many other faults, of which I am conscious, but have not leisure to correct, I offer with much good humour a victim to their critical severity-Let that, and those, fall! Happy-if the illustrious fate of Nisus be mine : "Moriens animam abstulit hosti." -J. C. WORTHINGTON. -Southampton, Dec. 1, 1807.

Bagshaw

993)

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. RUSSIA.In the present Number will be found the King's Declaration in answer to that of the Emperor of Russia, which was inserted in this volume at page 894. There has also been issued an Order of Council (contained in this Number), for general reprisals against Russia. Thus are we, after a long while spent in hesitation; after having played as many awkward tricks as a choused cully to win back an inconstant harlot, come to an open rupture, and, I dare say, that, to keep up the character, we shall not, be spa-" ring in reproaches.The declaration fully refutes, and very properly resents, the false. hoods and insolence of the Russian declaration, except in one instance, where partyspirit has, as usual, prevailed over truth and duty. I allude to the passage, which is an answer, or, rather, which should have been an answer, to that part of the Russian declaration which complains of our not having sent troops to the assistance of the allies during the last campaigns in the North of Europe. The Emperor had said, that while he was engaged in a war, in which England had a more immediate interest than he, England herself remained inactive and neglected to second and support his military operations. What is the answer to this? Way, that, though the king cannot perceive that bis interests in the war were more direct, than those of Russia, yet, that he acknowledges them to have been very great; that a public declaration is not the place wherein to discuss the policy of having effected, or omitted to effect, disembarkations of troops; that, if, however, the peace of Tilsit is to be considered as a punishment of England for her imputed inactivity, the Emperor of Russia should recollect, that, before that treaty was entered on, the Emperor had received distinct assurances, that England was making the most strenuous exertions, and that, in fact, the troops, sent to Copenhagen, would, if the peace of Tilsit had not been made, have been sent to the assistance of Russia.This, in plain English, would have been expressed as follows: "We allow that we "had a deep interest in the continental war,

[994

"and, as to the late ministry not assisting

you, we will not attempt to justify them; "but, when you made the peace of Tilsit to "punish England for their criminal neglect, you should have considered, that the pre "sent ministry (just then come into office), "had given you assurances of speedy assistance; but, that, at any rate, the evils that have fallen upon Europe in consequence "of the treaty of Tilsit, are wholly to be "ascribed to the late ministers." This is the plain English of the passage referred to. This is the true meaning of what has now been issued to the world in the king's name, without any appearance of recollecting, that it was the same king who gave his sanction to the proceedings of both ministries.-From this declaration, in which great caresis taken to refute the Emperor of Russia in what he alledges respecting Denmark, we may anticipate what will be the nature of the discussions, upon this subject, when the parliament meets; nor would it be at all difficult for any one, who has occasionally heard them, to sit down and write beforehand, every word that the several speakers will utter upon the subject. To express every idea, I should say; for, as to the words that they may make use of, and the digressions and ramblings that they may fall into, to anticipate, them would be impossible, itbeing by no means unlikely, that these speeches may resemble that specimen of English oratory, which, as translated from one of our famous debates, is preserved and shown in the Della Cruscan Library.-ne faction will blame the other for not preventing the treaty of Tilsit by sending timely aid to the Emperor, 66 our magnanimous

ally;" while the other faction will recriminate in blaming their opponents for producing the war with Russia by the attack upon Denmark. Indeed, their writers it is, who have, respectively, furnished the Emperor of Russ a with the materials for his declaration; with the grounds of his charges against their country; and we have now, a pretty good proof, that the patriotism of the principals does by no means yield, in point of fervency, to that of the underlings. I am 2. H

convinced, that, with respect to Russia, neither of the factions has acted wrong, except in what they have done towards a co-operation with her. After he refused to ratify his former treaty with France, he should have been left to himself. We had no concern in his new quarrel; England had no more real interest in the fate of his armies or his country than she now has in that of the armies or the countries of the American Savages or of the East India Company; to have sent troops to his succour would have been sending them to almost certain death, and would have been certain to add to the miseries of the people of England; and, not to have taken the Danish fleet would, after the peace of Tilsit, have been voluntarily to enable the two Emperors to put our safety in danger, or, at the least, to give us great annoyance. Bat, for the two factions to commend the conduct of each other, and especially upon points of great national importance, would never do. It would be contrary to all rule. There would be no matter for debate; no grounds whereon to contend, that one faction ought to come in and enjoy the good things which the other faetion now enjoys.-As to the consequences, to us, the people of England, of a war with Russia, they are good, and, as time proceeds, they must be better and better. The merchants are, indeed, in some danger of suffering; but, that suffering will not be great, and what they cease to gain the rest of the nation will gain, which, in my view of things is very desirable. I am aware, that this doctrine will not be very palatable either at Batson's Coffee house or the New York Coffee house, where I perceive that - the Russian and American merchants are, like wasps whose nests have been destroyed, assembling in angry council; but,' the bees, from whose cells they have heretofore drawn the means of their riotous luxury, must be fools indeed to feel much sorrow at their confusion "The custom-house duties will fall off, while there will be no falling off "inthe public expenditure." I know it. But, it is no difference to me, for instance, whether I pay a duty upon the Russian leather, in which the books for my library are bound, or whether I pay that duty upon English leather, or, if it should strike the fancy of the people of Whitehall to put the duty, now collected upon Russian leather, upon horses, what difference is it to me? To me, and to every man, it is as well to pay a duty upon horses as upon books.-There is no getting over this truth. Taxes are still taxes, in whatever shape they may assail us ; and, as far as I know, the more direct the

tax the better, because it is more clearly perceived, and more easily traced upwards to its source, and downwards to its consequences. If, for instance, all the present taxes were abolished, and in lieu of them two thirds of the whole of every mar's income were taken from him, weekly or yearly, in money, how much better we should all understand the thing. The commercial system is a system of deception and fraud. It is artfully contrived to make the mass of the people believe, that a great part, and even the greatest part, of the taxes come not out of their labour and property, but out of manufactures and commerce; that, somehow or other (for nobody ever pretends to say how), taxes are brought into the country; that bankers, top, make the means of paying taxes; and that, in short, it is but a very little part of the taxes that the people of England really pay. It is this notion, this 'absurd aud ridiculous notion, this notion so unworthy of creatures endowed with reason, that has been made to uphold the corruptions and abominations which have so long prevailed. If there were a man standing at every public-house bar, and, when you paid the landlord twopence for a pot of beer, were to demand fourpence of you in tax, convincing you, at the same time, that he had power to put you in jail if you refu sed to give it him, the thing would be too clear to admit of dispute about it; the most blind would open their eyes, and, amongst the rest, I hope, my honest, though somewhat long-winded friend, Scoto-Britannus, who, at present, cannot, for the life of him, per-' cieve how it is, that the labourer contributes towards the support of sinecure placemen and pensioners. It is because I wish the people of England to see clearly to the very bottom of the source of taxation; it is for this, and for other reasons before stated by me, that I am desirous of seeing commerce greatly abridged, and, it is because I am desirous of seeing this, that I hail with satisfaction a war with Russia; not, as the Morning Chronicle falsely insinuates, for the love of war itself; not for the love of battle and murder and sudden death; but, for the sake of the great and permanent good that it will produce. Besides, in a war with Russia, what battles have we to fight? It is a country situated at such a distance, and possessed of so little of that sort of power which can possibly be brought to bear upon us, that a war with it is matter of much less consequence to us than a heavy fall of snow to lie a fortnight, or a rot amongst the sheep. Either of these is of great importance; seriously affects as; diminishes our real wealth;