fluence in that assembly which virtual"ly engrosses the whole power of the legislature."

"With these impressions," he infers it will easily be understood, that he has no great indulgence for those notions of reform which seem to be uppermost in the minds of some of its warmest supporters; considering such a change in the constitution of the "house of Commons as Sir F. Burdett appears to think essential to its purity, as by far the greatest calamity which could be inflicted upon us by our own "hands!" After deprecating the de struction of this influence by a democratical house of Commons, the subject is thus concluded.

If we apprehended, therefore, that the house of Commons would be freed from all but popular influence, by making the scheme of representation more comprehensive and more consistent, we should certainly be vehement against any such change in its present constitution. We have no fears, however, on this head; and are perfectly satisfied, that so long as the administration retains any consider able share of its present patronage, and so long as the great families retain their popularity and riches, there will always be a due proportion of their influence to prevent that omnipotent assembly from being guided by the feelings of only one class of the community. There is a very tolerable proportion of that influence even among the county members of the parliament as it now stands,-such a proportion, perhaps, as would be suffcient for the average of the whole house: -and by raising the qualification of an elector, both in the counties and in the burghs, this aristocratical influence would be made rather greater over the whole Kingdom, than it now is in the counties. The only difficulty with which it appears to us that this great question is atended, arises from the circumstance of this interference of the crown and the nobility in the representation of the commons, not being avowed or regulated by the public law of the land. It is practised in a sort of covert and underhand anner; and this gives an appearance of guiltiness to the thing itself, which na turally embarrasses those who are called on to defend it, and excites a natural apprehension of its danger and illegality. If the thing, however, be proved to be actually beneficial, the argument drawn from appearances and presumptions must

admitted to be sufficiently answered.

But the truth is, that there is a twofold reason for those appearances—one drawn from history, the other from a feeling of expediency. The exercise of this influ ence was gradually resorted to by the King and the nobles, as their only defence against the annihilation with which they were threatened by the formidable increase of the popular power; and it was naturally practised in secret, that it might not be defeated by the interference of that great rival. Even after it came to be universally known and recognized in practice, it was not thought either pecessary or safe to subject it to any formal regulation, both because this could not be done without distinctly acknowledging it as a legal and constitutional practice in itself, and because it was of such a nature that no limitation, which admitted at all of its existence, could possibly be effectual. To have attempted to limit the amount of this influence, therefore, would really have been to increase and encourage it beyond the bounds which necessity had assigned to it. If the King were allowed openly to return ten members, and the nobility as many, the only consequence would be, that they would obtain those twenty members beyond what they now have, and get the present number more easily elected into the bargain. It would be like a permission to smuggle a certain quantity of any commodity, or to publish a certain number of libels in the year; the infallible consequence of which would be, to increase the average quantity of smuggling and of defaination by all that quantity. If there be a contraband, therefore, that is necessary to the comfort of the country, or a certain quantity of reviling that must have vent, the wiser policy is, to keep up the law, and connive at its violation within certain limits, It is a breach of privilege to publish thẹ speeches of members of parliament; yet it is highly proper, and, we will say, necessary to the freedom of the country, that they should generally be published. It has not been thought necessary, how ever, to recognize this right in a formal manner; but the practice is commonly commived at,-at the same time that a power is retained of repressing it, when it may appear to be tending to any abuse; the reason is, as in the case before us, that it might be dangerous to grant an unlimited sanction, and that it is impossible to fix on a just limitation. It is equally criminal, in a political point of view, to give a seat or a vote out of gra

titude for personal favours, or out of deference to a parent, or affection for a son, as it is to give them for a sum of money. The gradations by which motives of this kind slide into mere subserviency or venality, are too fine to be made the subject of regulation; and a tacit permission of what is inevitable, is found to be the best way of retaining the power of checking what may be prevented.

It is not easy to resolve to conclude, on a theme so copious and so interesting; but there is one remark, which is a necessary qualification, and key, and conclusion, to all that we have said, or should wish to say on the subject. The people must be the keepers of their own freedom. Nobody else either can or will keep it for them. All governments have a tendency to become arbitrary; and all legislative assemblies, whether elected or hereditary, have a similar propensity. The only check to the encroachments of power, and the oppressions of inceptive tyranny, is the spirit, the intelligence, the vigilance, the prepared resistance of the people. A king with a single regiment of body guards, might, and most certainly would, make himself absolute, if he did not know that, on the first or the second instance of oppression his thousand men would be set upon and torn to pieces by many thousands of his

irritated people. It is the same feeling which prevents all parliaments from de claring themselves perpetual, and all ministers from making themselves vizirs. The main point, then, is to keep alive this spirit, this intelligence, this alacrity of observation, this determination to resist oppression by force, if necessary: and the chief constitutional use of par liaments and elections, and all the machinery and apparatus of government, is to afford occasions and incitements for the exercise and display of all these qualities. While the nation retains its curiosity and interest about public events

while there are men of all parties and all sorts of opinions in parliament-while there is publicity and freedom of speech there and throughout the country, we have no fear of losing our liberties; or even of any serious attempt being made to infringe them. However constituted, and even however corrupt, no parlia ment would dare to rouse the indignation of the people. We have had recent and comfortable examples of the terrible force of their opinion; and, while we would eagerly patronize every scheme of reform which has a tendency to increase their spirit, their knowledge and their self-estimation, we must consider every thing that has not this tendency as of very subordinate importance.

EDINBURGH REVIEW FOR

JULY, ON REFORM.,

To the Editor.

I have heard, that, prior to the publication of the last number of the Edinburgh Review, it was generally known, among those who are best acquainted with the arcana of literary projects, that some interesting political articles were to be brought forth in the number for July of that celebrated work. Whether the leading article in this number, on Parliamentary Reform, be one of the interesting subjects alluded to, I cannot pretend to say; but I believe the real friends to our constitution will lament to find the editor of the

self among the enemies of reform, and profess his attachment to cor ruption, in a laboured essay of nearly thirty pages. It is not my intention, Mr. Editor, to attempt to confute any of the arguments in this tirade against reform; your own writings, the leading part of the Political Review, furnish a most satisfactory confutation of every position, advanced by this northern critic.Morcover, we can bring in array against him, the opinions of all our profoundest lawyers, and most able and upright statesmen:-an host of mighty strength. With your leave, however, I will make a few remarks upon one or two passages in the above article, with the view of shew

ing that the writer has not taken due pains to state the question fairly; and that consequently, his honesty may be justly impeached. The reviewer observes, (p: 278.) "The weight of our taxes is owing to the wars, in which the government has always been seconded by a great majority of the people,-if indeed, it would not be more correct to say, that it has engaged in them on their instigation." I am not disposed to deny the truth of this assertion; but it was the duty of the critic to inform us, how it happens, that the present war, which he elsewhere tells us has been unfortunate in the extreme, should be so popular; how it should have been, throughout, approved by a large majority of the people, seeing it has been the means of loading us with taxes almost too grievous to be borne, at the same time that it has failed to obtain one single object for which we have been fighting so long, and at so enormous an expence. That such a war as the present should be popular, is quite a political phenomenon. But the difficulty is easily solved, when we reflect upon the state of delusion in which the people of England have been, and continue to be held. It is well known, and to no one better than the writer in the Edinburgh Review, that every art has been used to hoodwink and gull the nation into a belief, that our very existence depended upon the continus ance of the war. At one time we were alarmed by the horrors of jaco binisim; at another, we were firigh tened by the cry of invasion.-Every newspaper in the kingdom, with the exception of two or three, joined in the general clamour; and these pers have unfortunately for the nation, kept up the cheat to the present hour. If the popularity of the war has been obtained by means like these, (and I think the reviewer will not deny it) is it a fair argument, on which to rest the defence of government, for

pa

bringing the nation into a situation of unparalleled difficulty; a situa tion in which our dangers are no longer remote or imaginary, but at hand, and staring us in the face. Are we then to be told, that a minister, who brings his country to the verge of destruction, by an unjust and unwise policy, is not to be blamed, if the people have been duped to approve of his measures! Let us suppose a case: (for logicians say every thing is fair in argument, that is possible to exist) In a time of great stagnation of trade, it is sug gested, that the possession of a cer tain neighbouring post, or island, would be of great service in assisting the merchant to get rid of his goods; and be a certain means of making trade brisk. The scheme becomes very popular, and great benefits are anticipated from the execution of it. The minister, in consequence, fits out a large armament, and the island is captured in a few days; but discovering, in a short time, that the cli mate is very unhealthy; that even the inhabitants are not free from the ague nine months out of twelve; that the mortality among the troops is so great, as to render it impossible to keep possession of the place a quar ter of a year; orders the island to be evacuated, and abandoned to its proper owners. Would such a minister be free from the charge of ignorant rashness, because a majority of the peo ple, influenced by artful stories, had been in favour of the expedition! But this doctrine is not merely advanced to screen the government; it is urged as an argument against reform: for, adds the reviewer," while "the people are for the war, every "administration must continue to

state of stupor and blindness they are in at present. That the critic in the Edinburgh Review should be an ene my to reform is perfectly unaccountable; the picture he has drawn of the state of the nation is so gloomy, that it might be reasonably concluded, he would be the last person in the kingdom to discourage the efforts of the few virtuous patriots, who, in the late session of parliament, la boured so strenuously to arouse our representatives to a due sense of the danger that attends the present system of openly avowed corruption. When," says this writer," the people look to the condition to which they are now brought, and the lamentable issue of the many proud promises which their rulers have made to them in the course of the contest ;-when they look back upon the whole foreign policy of England for these last twenty years UPON THAT STRANGE AND HUMILIATING SCENE OF IMPROVIDENCE, INCONSISTENCY, INSOLENCE, AND PALTRY RAPACITY—that sad series of preposterous hopes and discreditable disappointments that sickening alternation of boasting and disgrace, of blustering apologies, rash councils, and tardy performance; when they look back upon all these things, and recollect that their affairs are still in the guidance of the remnant of these unprosperous counsellors, by whom they have been so often deceived; is it not reasonable to expect that their incredible credulity should at last be exhausted, and that they should begin to ask, whether there is not in the nation some better judgment, and cooler temper, to save them in the crisis of their fate?" (Ed. Rev. for July, p. 297.)

How the writer of the above, if he be sincere in his avowal of our national degradation, can be inimical to a reform in parliament, is too problematical for me to solve. I must leave your readers to make their own comments, and subscribe myself respectfully yours, W. X. Y. Newcastle, Sep. 10.

VOL. VI.

THE EDINBURGH REVIEWERS

REVIEWED CONFORMABLE TO THEIR OWN PRINCIPLES.

MR. EDITOR,

The motto of Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur is strictly conforinable to justice; and extremely pro per for those who undertake the task of public censors. In fact the judge who winks at offences againstsociety is worse than the culprit who ac tually commits them: he is like the watchman who, after having undertaken to guard our property from nightly plunder, hetrays our confidence, and thereby may be considered, in a moral point of view, far more criminal than the house-breaker whom he favours. If the Edinburgh Reviewers, after having placed them`selves in a situation of such great responsibility, after having by the professions of such inflexible severity against whatever is noxious to the public welfare and happiness, obtained the confidence of their fellow citizens; if they should, after this, betray the post they have taken; and instead of defending our laws and liberties, favour, in an underhand and treacherous way, principles hostile to both-should introduce by stealth as it were, doctrines irreconcilable with the acknowledged and indisputable rights and franchises of a whole nation, subversive of the established government and constitution, and contrary to the law of the land-if they should do this, would not such an act, be far more criminal in them than in other men, who had not made the same professions, obtained the same trust, and who to hostility against our freedom, could not superadd the crime of treachery?-Would it not in such a case be proper to tell such persons, agreeably to the rule of divine justice, with what measure you meet the same shall be measured to you again ?

In their critical journal for July last No. XXVIII. there is what may

ND

be called a pretence to review the merits of two publications which stand at the head of the first article: The Plan of Reform proposed by Sir Francis Burdett correctly reported in two speeches, &c. And A Letter addressed to John Cartwright, Esq. on the subject of Parliamentary Reform, by the Earl of Selkirk.-I have Mr. Editor said, that this resembles a pretence only to review; for those critics have not bestowed above a dozen words on Sir Francis Burdett's, and have taken no notice whatever of the merits or demerits of Lord Selkirk's publication.-Instead of the information which the reader had a right to expect on these subjects, he meets with a long display of the political opinions of the Reviewers themselves, containing no less than 29 pages closely printed, being a greater bulk than either of the books pretended to be reviewed. In this voluminous display, sentiments are submitted to the consideration of the public which every individual is entitled to investigate; and he who, from his heart, believes that they are noxious in their nature, is in moral duty bound, though he may not have the presumption to erect himself into the character of a public censor, to point out to his fellow citizens what he conceives to be their deleterious tendency.

The publication above alluded to, seems rather intended for controversy than criticism; the latter name it is impossible to bestow on it: it is in fact a novel, but not a very ingenuous mode of controverting the sentiments and opinions of a writer, without the necessity of confuting or even of replying to his arguments. All proof is avoided, a general disapprobation is with much nonchalance expressed, and an ostentatious display is made of a rival and opposite way of thinking. Is this the way for a reviewer to convey to his readers, a Just appreciation of the merits of a hook? If these sharp northern cris

tics had differed materially in opinion from Sir Francis Burdett, there would have been no harm;-but then they should have assigned reason for that difference; they should have shewn cause as the lawyers call it:--they should have confuted Sir Francis if he was really in the wrong; but instead of this, they have advanced no proof, no argument, no reply to the contents of his book which they pretended to review; and, in the way they seem disposed, it may be inferred that they would not, in this instance, have willingly relaxed from their accustomed austerity; so that it is a fair conclusion,-That they would have confuted Sir Francis if they could: they would not have resorted to the expedient of setting up an adverse theory of their own, if they could have examined the principles of his book with any degree of success: they would not have had recourse to metaphysical disquisitions, and visionary hypotheses to answer matters offact, and claims of right sanctioned by law, if they had possessed any better means of attack. They could not but be sensible that by thus fabricating ærial systems, which had nothing to do with the concerns of this nether world, nor any possible application to the franchises of Englishmen, they had no chance of meeting an adversary who rejected with contempt such vain and frivolous disputations. "Let others, says Sir "Francis, deal in whimsical specu

lations, in undefined mysterious "notions of a constitution, which "eludes the grasp, and soars above “ the conception of ordinary minds. "Let them amuse themselves with "theories and fine spun metaphysics, “ whilst I shall lhold fast by that "plain and substantial constitution, adapted, to the contemplation of common understandings, to be found in the statute book, and recognised by the common law of

66

66