means of concealing every species of rish schools, &c.,-all remedied in profligacy are so abundant. No ta- Scotland, by empowering courts of lents can protect them. Romilly, a law to divide commons, grant ditown-bred lawyer, was astonished to vorces when due, with the same measee the House of Commons tena- sure of justice to the rich and poor, ciously adhere to the necessity of at--and to value the tithes of every taching a bit of wax or a wafer (seals) proprietor. With us, the poor law to documents that bind lands. He is administered by those who make was not aware of the spirit of the the payment, aided by the clergy and English aristocracy, and the neces- elders; and parish schools are, in like sity which they feel of keeping fast manner, established under the patronhold of every remnant of protection age of the proprietors, who, within still left to them by the law against certain limits, fix the expenditure. the alienation of their estates, and the They have not in England the system downfall of their families. of administration, by meetings of parish heritors, commissioners of supply, (county heritors,) of which every proprietor of about L.80 or L.100 per annum, is a member, and by whom all roads, canals, &c. are superintended. It is said that Whitbread's bill for the establishment of parish schools in England, was lost chiefly because it proposed to authorize the vestries (who had in general grossly abused their powers under the poor laws) to carry into effect the measure in detail. There were in England no unsuspected bodies in constant operation, as public trustees, like the Scottish parish proprietors, to whom, under the control, if necessary, of commissioners of supply, (county proprietors,) the trust could be safely devolved. But why should not Scotland be governed, like Yorkshire, as a part of the same undivided empire of England? I answer that such a suggestion is just an apology for carrying the evil of absenteeism to the highest pitch, while, at the same time, Scotland is to get nothing in return. It is to be stripped of all its ancient establishments, and reduced, not merely to the reality, but to the degraded form, of a conquered province; and all to gratify the new dreamers or speculators about economy! Leaving out of view, as an antiquated plea, the Treaty of Union, by which it was stipulated that much of the ancient forms of law and the administration of it, should remain, it is certain that, in relation to what may be styled its separate administration, its arrangements are, and have been, not only good, but better than those of the country of England, or of English counties, and though they had not been better, a certain degree of separate administration is beneficial to the empire. I do not undervalue the institutions of England. The world owes much to England,-to the example and influence of its Protestant constitution -of its Parliaments-its liberty of the Press, and its trial by Jury, however defective in form. But the internal arrangements of England are greatly behind those of Scotland,witness their hundreds of enclosure bills to divide commons,-their divorce bills, which give justice only to the rich, and leave the poor in profligacy, their miserable form of supporting their clergy, which places them in the state of extortioners and plunderers of their people, their wretched plan of providing for the poor by vestries, their want of pa Then to render effectual the administration of justice, our Scottish forefathers held that too much could not be done. To satisfy all men that their complaints will be patiently heard and redressed by public authority, is not only the first step towards national improvement, but it continues absolutely necessary to the preservation of it. If institutions adequate to that object be not maintained, industry is lost, and men speedily fall back into mutual hostility and barbarism. In Scotland there was established, (how long now to continue, we cannot tell,) in Edinburgh, a civil and criminal court of fifteen judges, a revenue court of five judges, a consistorial court of four, and an admiralty court of one. These belonged to the nation. Farther, Edinburgh and every county town has a sheriff, being a barrister, who is allowed a substitute, to be resident in the county. The sheriff has jurisdiction to the highest amount in cases of debt, and considerable jurisdiction in criminal matters. The magistrates of every royal borough have a similar jurisdiction-all liable to the review of the courts of Edinburgh. Say our present rulers, Why all this mighty judicial apparatus for so small a country as Scotland, while we in England have only our twelve judges, and our Chancellor and his deputy, the Master of the Rolls, and, of late, a Vice-Chancellor, and some few others? The answer is, You do not administer justice. Your Court of Chancery, even with its late addition, is inadequate to its duties. Money is locked up in it to the amount of thirty or forty millions sterling, awaiting its disposal, because the court is unable to give justice with dispatch to the litigants. The counsel in it are said to tell shameful known lies, which would expel a Scottish barrister from his profession, and from the society of his equals, because the court cannot afford to set apart, as we do, a special judge to receive written statements of cases requiring the instant interference of a court of justice. In your jury courts, the life of a man made a judge, is said, on an average, to be only worth five years' purchase. They are wrought down like old racers put into a stage coach. Your causes are not tried by the judges, but forced into the hands of inexperienced persons, as arbitrators, who judge or misjudge according to hazard. This you call administering justice! The truth is, your country has in this department outgrown its institutions, but from wretched economy, thrift, stinginess, ignorance, and sheer greed, you keep things as they were in the days of Edward I. But your present rulers are very willing to make experiments on Scotland. The maxim seems to have returned, Fiat experimentum in corpore vili, Make experiments on the worthless. This maxim seems now practically to be held applicable to Scotland. Our forefathers acted in this matter on very different principles. They despised economy, in what was necessary to the safety, the pride, and the prosperity of their country. They supported parish schools, they established four universities, they supported the poor, and they placed judges and justice at every man's door, while by courts fully officered in their capital, they preserved uni formity in the law administered by the numerous local judges. The effect has been, that in every county town or large borough, we have an assemblage of intelligent men of the law, professional pleaders and conveyancers. No such thing could occur in the meanest burgh in Scotland, as occurred a few years ago, amidst the bloody scenes at Manchester. It was there left a matter of dispute, whether the riot act had been read or not, and the fact was never very satisfactorily explained. The youngest magistrate of the smallest burgh in Scotland, Lauder, Sanquhar, or Auchtermuchty, would have known that the first step in the performance of a public act, is to provide witnesses of his proceedings. The intelligence thus diffused has manifested itself, and operated in a thousand forms, in giving activity to the country, and directing its exertions. The career of improvement has probably been more rapid in Scotland, than in any country on earth. The cultivation of our lands has in little more than one generation become confessedly superior under every disadvantage of soil and climate. We have had no parliament, to assemble in Edinburgh the rank and riches of a nation,-no seat of government to dispense contracts and employment,- -no office at which government is to pay millions to national creditors. Yet in Edinburgh and Glasgow, we have in sixty years reared cities not rivalled in substantial splendour and elegance. True, we have had all the subordinate establishments of a kingdom; a Court of Exchequer; boards of Customs and Excise; a General Post-Office; a full arrangement for the Administration of Justice; Free Banking Establishments unshackled by monopoly. Here, accordingly, is the history of the rapid progress of Scotland in prosperity. The effect of its subordinate station in the empire has been counteracted by its establishments, by the intelligence and activity which these fostered, and by preventing the ruinous effect of absenteeism, or the emigration to London of all persons possessing riches or ambition, which must speedily occur if the present short-sighted administration are to work their apparent pleasure in effecting their schemes of thrift. They are to a certainty acting under miserable blindness. Scotland pays all the taxes that are paid in England. A multitude of taxes are not imposed on Ireland. Yet Scotland has held up its head. But will it do so, pressed down by the removal of its public establishments-the necessary emigration of all its wealthy families, and of all its most active and ambitious spirits-the consequent decay of its towns, and the loss of the markets for all its produce? If Government were possessed of true wisdom, they would see that the institutions of England ought to be brought up to those of Scotland, instead of bringing down ours to a lower and more degraded level to resemble theirs. A Board of Appeal ought to be established to try in review all cases from the colonies and dependencies of the empire, instead of leaving them to what is called the cockpit, or privy council, or a single officer, the Chancellor, who, being a member of the Cabinet, is liable to be influenced by all the changing politics of the day. The country police of England ought also to be reformed, in imitation of what was done by the wisdom, yes, I will say, the superior wisdom, of our Scottish ancestors. But there is at present a blind rage abroad to make every thing cheap. Men forget, or do not see, that the present state of things is temporary. The present currency law, and the public debt and the public establishments, cannot permanently co-exist. The currency law must go down, or Britain must go down. It is in vain to imagine, in the present state of transition, that good can be done by crippling the public establishments. It is expenditure that is wanted to give bread to the poor, and not pubfic thrift. The population prospered during the war, because every man's commodities and labour were rising in value, and consequently his debts and expenses were proportionably diminishing. At present all this is reversed, but it is in vain to hope to remove the evil by measures plainly calculated to aggravate them. Will Scotland pay more taxes by destroying her public establishments, or does the minister expect to raise money from the gin-shops of London, while he extinguishes the spirit and enterprise of the remoter districts of the country? More especially, is an em pire to be made prosperous by les sening its means of administering justice? It need not be disguised that this project of economy, directed specially against Scotland, is mixed up, as already noticed, with a rage for ma king experiments on us; and government have succeeded in diffusing to a large extent this rage for experimenting on all public arrangements. If Government had the spirit to make a railway from John-o-Groat's house to Penzance in Cornwall, they would do more for the nation than will ever result from their present plans of pulling down those establishments which tend to augment at once the intelligence and the safety of the na tion. One thing they are rapidly ac complishing. They are extinguish ing all fixed opinions, destroying all prejudices, exciting a love of novel ty, a fearless love of change, and a thirst in every man's mind to alter the arrangements of society in some way or other, and especially by di minishing payments. Government is bit by this rage, and is setting the example. It is rapidly descending among all ranks. It has only to reach the multitude, and then all the na tional establishments, the national creditors, the clergy, the judges, the navy, and the rent-demanding proprietors of land, will be regarded as nuisances to be removed. If change begin with Scotland, depend upon it Scotland will have its revenge, though not to its profit in the first instance. This subject deserves to be resumed and discussed, not by one but a hundred pens. In particular, it ought to be well considered how far the recent changes imposed on us have been improvements, and how far Scotland deserves to be made the subject of experimental economy, while every sort of indulgence, and the most lavish expenditure, are displayed towards Ireland-a country far richer in all the natural riches of a finer soil and a milder climate. THE REFORM OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. It is abundantly obvious to all men that the popular branch of the Legislature does not work well-that, from some reason or other, the intended benefits cannot be drawn from it, and it cannot be kept under the necessary constitutional restrictions. This is universally admitted, and the House of Commons, as it is, has all sides against it. Those who do not call for a radical change in its construction, intimate, by charging it with the want of intellect and integrity, that a radical change of some kind is necessary; and, as to defenders, it has none. We are here supplied with a question of the very highest moment. In times of the most favourable character, the incompetency of this House could not be other than a mighty national evil; but in the present day, when speculative changes and experiments, which spare nothing in law, system, and institution, are the general rage, it must in the nature of things be the parent of national destruction. While it must prevent beneficial changes and experiments on the one hand, it must on the other produce all conceivable ones of an opposite kind, and give them the most fatal operation. To prove that this is not mere hypothesis, we need only point to the fact, that this House, after making those which have plunged the community into such fearful suffering, now almost unanimously refuses to make a single one in the way of remedy. When the gross incompetency of the House of Commons is matter of such general allegation, and the violent corrective of a radical change in its construction is scarcely opposed in any quarter, it may be wise and profitable to enquire dispassionately into causes. No honest man can defend its late and present conduct, or say that a vital alteration is not imperiously called for; but it by no means follows that this should be the change we have named. Men who require the most solid grounds to induce them to sanction great and perilous changes, will remember that previously to the last few years this empire was governed with as much virtue and wisdom as perhaps human infirmity will admit of. The House of Commons was then fully competent to the discharge of its duties; if the community fell into distress, it promptly investigated the causes, and applied efficient remedies; it was duly influenced by the public voice, and its general labours were distinguished by sound principle, and salutary effect. Yet this House was then chosen precisely as it is at present, with perhaps this difference-the democracy had somewhat less influence in the choice than it now has. This goes far towards proving that the deplorable change in its character and conduct is not to be ascribed wholly to the manner in which it is chosen. Abundance of additional proof is furnished by those members of it whose election is not in the least influenced by the aristocracy, but proceeds chiefly from the lower orders. In respect of knowledge and ability, they rank as low as the slaves of the borough-monger. As favourable specimens, we may point to the représentatives of London, Westminster, and Southwark. Sir F. Burdett, who is so much lauded by interested partisans, is only a voluble declaimer, who is never, even by these partisans, cited as an authority on any subject. Who would dream of appealing to his opinion on matters of finance, trade and currency, or on any great question of domestic legislation or foreign policy? Who would expect to find him taking a leading part in promoting by practical knowledge and ability the general interests of the state? We need only say farther, that if the House were composed solely of such members as he, Wood, Hobhouse, Wilson, &c. it would be even below what it is in information and talent. Speaking of parliaments in general, the members for the three divisions of the metropolis rank amidst the most inefficient ones. Such members stand in the lowest rank in respect of independence. The most violent party men-those who are the most insensible to restraint and shame in sacrificing the empire to party and faction—are always to be found among them. They are not less the slaves of party because they affect hostility to the great constitutional ones of the state; they nevertheless have their party; and in bigotry and fanaticism, they surpass Whig and Tory. If they attach themselves to the Ministry, or the regular Opposition, they are quite as servile as any of the rotten borough representatives. With regard to creed, such members occupy the very lowest place in Parliament. We must look to them, to find the wild enthusiast, the profligate disturber, the godless revolutionist, the reformer, who seeks to sweep away the institutions of the country without sparing its religion, and the projector, whose schemes contemplate the dissolution of society. If the House of Commons were composed wholly, or principally, of such men as those generally are whose election lies solely with the democracy, the empire would be scourged with every conceivable evil. Such members are not a whit superior to the rotten borough ones in consistency and integrity. When Mr Canning, the ultra Anti-Reformer, was made the Premier, Sir Francis Burdett, the ultra Reformer, proclaimed himself the servile supporter of his Ministry. The Radical Baronet was not to be found when the Marquis of Blandford made his motion for Reform in the last Session, because his party then idly dreamed of incorporation with the Wellington Cabinet. The dream has ceased, the Whig hopes of office and coronets must now rest on opposition, a new election is approaching, and of course Sir Francis Burdett is once more an enthusiastic reformer. There was in -proportion as much apostacy amidst such Members when the Catholic question was carried, as amidst the mercenaries of the borough mongers. They are just as ready to sacrifice every thing to interest, and they can be bought by a Ministry with as little trouble, and at as cheap a rate, as any other Members. On the most important points of being duly influenced by the national voice, they form the most deaf, insensible, and intolerable part of the House of Commons. If indeed this voice happen to be in favour of their own opinions and schemes, they insist that it ought to be implicitly obeyed, even to the ruin of the State; they proclaim that the " Sovereignty of the People" is a despotism which cannot be opposed without the commission of unpardonable iniquity. But if it be against them, they take the lead in treating it with derision; they depose the " people" forthwith, and substitute for the despotic sceptre the chains of the bondsman. It was unanimously acknowledged that the feeling of the country was decidedly opposed to the Catholic Bill in the last Session, yet the members in question were the most obstinate and shameless in despising it; they even went beyond the rotten borough members in heaping derision and insult on public meetings and petitions. The passing of this Bill, looked at with reference to public feelings, constituted a most grave and dangerous act of tyranny; nevertheless Sir Francis Burdett and similar representatives of the "people" were amidst the most active in forcing it upon the nation, in utter scorn of constitutional feeling and usage. Their conduct is always the same on like occasions. At present, when the distress of the great body of the community, and especially of the working classes, is so severe, it might reasonably be expected that these representatives of the "people" would insist on enquiry, and the application of proper remedies. What is the fact? They are either silent, or they oppose enquiry, and instead of proposing rational measures of relief, labour to pervert the distress into an instrument for promoting their own factious objects. They constantly act in the same manner. They have in late years, when the labouring orders have petitioned the Legislature to extricate them from the horrors of starvation, vied with the most abject slaves of the Treasury in disregarding the petitions and defending the sources of the suffering. On every motion for investigation and the granting of relief, they have voted with the mercenaries of the Ministry. At present, and on all occasions, they shew less compassion for public distress, are less obedient to public feeling, are less the guardians of public interests, and are more the menials of party and faction, than many of the rotten borough Members. It is from all this very clear, that |