"the land." If the reviewers then ever enjoyed it before them; and consequently that all the complaints made respecting a fraudulent or defective representation of the people in parliament are groundless. Asi to the first part, there will not I presume be found any man so foolhardy as to deny, that the people constitute a third branch of the le gislature by virtue of the fundamental laws of the monarchy. There is hardly a man so grossly ignorant as never to have seen an act of parliament, consequently not to know, that such laws are enacted, "by and "with the advice and consent of the "Lords and Commons in Parliament "assembled, and by the AUTHORITY had any objection to make to the constitutional principles of Sir Francis Burdett, that was the arena on which it behoved them to attack hiin, in an open and manly way; -they ought to have come to the question of right, to matter of law, and matter of fact;-but this they did not dare to do; because here the enemy was, they well knew, invulnerable he was entrenched around with Magna Charta, and the Bill of Rights; with those bulwarks of the constitution against which the power even of kings, and the efforts of despotism have for ages been exerted in vain. What then was to be done in this emergency? They determined to construct a rival system; by the magic power of words, and the delusions of sophistry they have raised up an enchanted castle, whose foundation rests upon the clouds, and which like an ignis fatuus may allure and deceive the unwary; but with this land it has nothing to do, nor with the charter of the land, the lex terra, which according to our great lawmen is attached to the soil, and which every man born thereon, may claim as his inheritance. Here then let us take ourstand; on this strong ground where God and nature have placed us, and let our only rule be the standard of right which our forefathers have erected on this land of freedom. It was incumbent on these Caledonian critics, if they hoped to oppose Sir F. Burdett's plan of reform with any success in the public estimation, or credit to themselves, to prove one or the other of these two points-Either thatt he people have not by the law of the land the indisputable right ofconstituting one third branch of the legislature; or, admitting they have that right, that they do now enjoy it in as full and effective a way as it can be enjoyed; or as their forefathers have Political Review, Aug. 1809. p. 86. OF THE SAME." Now these words are held to be operative words, and indispensably necessary to constitute an act of parliament; every man must have learnt from them, that the Commons of England must be in parliament assembled; and that being there by their delegates or representatives, for personally they cannot be, they must give their con sent and their authority to those acts without which they cannot have force of law. So much for the first point, that is the constitutional right. As to the second, it is a question of fact:-Are the Commons of England really and truly in parliament assembled, or are they not? Now if it be true, as hath been asserted and offered to be proved, that 154 persons do send a majority of members to the house of Commons, it is very clear that the Commons of England are not in parliament assembled ; for who will say that these 154 individuals do verily and indeed constitute the whole Commons of England?” * On the 6th of May 1793, Mr. Grey (nów Lord Grey) presented a petition to the house of Commons, in which it was " offered to be proved at the bar of "the house, that one hundred and fifty"four individuals did, by their own au thority, appoint or procure the return "of three hundred and seven members, "to the house of Commons !" Who that is but one degree above an ideot will make so extravagant and ludicrous an assertion?And if the Commons of England are not in parliament assembled, how can they give their consent and their authority to the acts of the legislature? If 154 individuals do by their representatives in parliament command a majority there, will it be said that the present representation is as full and effective as it can be, or as it has been wont to be during the time of our forefathers? Will the Edinburgh reviewers descend from their castles in nubibus, and, instead of aiding an indistinct perspective with the help of a fertile imagination, take a closer and clearer view of things as they really are upon earth? Will they examine the population, wealth and strength of this great and free nation, (too powerful surely to be treated with contempt and ridicule!) and will they after this, tell us, that the friends, agents or retainers of 154 individuals do actually constitute the Commons of England in parliament assembled? And if they cannot with common decency answer this question by a serious affirmative, will they then be so good as to tell us where we are to look for the constitution? I mean, Mr. Editor, to look for it in "a tangible "shape," to lay hold of it in propria persona, not in semblance or theory, or as these northern intruders have been content, perhaps imperfectly to behold it when they took a general and Pisgah view of this promised land! Far Sir, be it from me to harbour any narrow and illiberal prejudices towards any description of our fellow subjects. If there has been no intrusion on the one side, there has at least been a generous admission on the other. We learn from Buchanan, that Scotland had once as free a government as our own; but it was preserved with less care, or at least with less success, In calling in these near neighbours, - these brethren if you please, to participation of our birthright, the fruits of the blood shed by our an cestors, do we not act with gene rosity; and would it not be a most ungrateful return if by their means we should be deprived of these inese timable rights? But to return from this short di gression to the subject of our en quiry. Will the Edinburgh reviewers be so good as to inform us, suppor sing that they should consider these 154 individuals as truly and bona fide (not ludicrously and pantomimi. cally) the Commons of England, who it is that defrays the present enor mous annualexpenditure amounting, as officially stated, to no less than 90 millions sterling? If they are the commons they ought to pay this sum, which would come to more than half a million each person. If however, it should happen that they do not pay this sum, but by a mock representation of the commons, in the farce duly acted in St. Stephen's chapel, vote it regularly every year to be paid by those who are really the commons of England, can it be denied that, in this case, these 154 persons are so many conspirators, cheating the people of 90 millions yearly, by fraudulently and surreptitiously assuming a right which does not belong to them, but to others? Can it be supposed that the real owners will not in this case claim their property; and how can it be withheld? Doth not the same law of the land, which assures to the monarch his crown, and to the Edinburgh reviewers the coats on their backs, assure to the people this right as their property? And indeed we may call it their first property, for without that they would have nothing that would deserve the name of property.-That is not mine which I hold only so long as another person shalt forbear to take it from me; and by the same rule if 154 persons can legally exercise a taxative controu over the property of the people of England, they are the real proprietors of all the estates, goods and chattels In the kingdom. What a preposterous doctrine is this in a government pretending to freedom! Yet this doctrine appears neither monstrous nor revolting to these sagacious critics. When a Scotchman is admitted to partake of the blessings of our free constitution, I really think Mr. Editor, that the first thing incumbent on him to do, is carefully to peruse Magna Charta! Had the Edinburgh reviewers done this, the article" Nul“lum Scutagium vel Auxilliam pona"tur," &c. must have struck their eye, and informed them that it was the fundamental principle of our government, (as indeed it hath ever been of all free governments), that an English freeman can only be taxed by his own consent. But I find, Mr. Editor, it is time to put a period to this letter, in which I have only been able to advance some of the grounds that justify the people in the claim they now make for the restoration of their legitimate constitution and government, I shall on a future occasion add other strong and irrefragable arguments to the same purpose, after which I shall take the liberty of examining the changeling which these reviewers endeavour to palm upon us for the real constitution, and doubt not to be able to satisfy your readers of the true nature of that imposture. I am, &c. TIMOTHY TRUEMAN, Devonshire, Sept. 15, 1809. CONDUCT OF THE EDITORS OF SOME OF THE LONDON NEWSPAPERS TOWARDS MI, WARDLE, Though the subject of the few lines I am going to address to you, does not, at this time, attract much of the public attention; yet, as in all probability it soon will do, I trust the following remarks will not be regarded as quite out of time. When Mr. Wardle gave notice of his intention to prefer certain charges against the Duke of York, it must be in the recollection of every one, how furiously he was assailed by the ministers, their dependants, and all those whose interest it was, that the said charges should not be proved; and it must also be remembered, that it was not before a great part of the evidence was gone through, and the truth of the allegations became manifest to the whole nation, that a few of the London daily papers ventured to utter a syllable in favour of Mr. Wardle's patriotic exertions. When, however, the public opinion was unequivocally ascertained, and the late commander in chief, pronounced guilty by the united voice of the people, the editors of these papers thought it prudent to discover, in the indefatigable labours of Mr. Wardle, something like patriotism; and by degrees, as their interest prompted them, they gave hin unbounded praise. I cannot be supposed to allude to the venal Morning Post, or to any other paper known to be in the actual pay of government, or any other set of people: my remarks are confined to such only as have, comparatively speaking, the character of indepen. dence. So little sincerity however, was there in the praises of these editors, that the trial" Wright versus Wardle," was no sooner known, than, without a moment's consideration of the merits and bearings of the case, they used their utmost endeavours, conjointly with the hirelings, to defame and ruin the character of a man, whom they had acknowledged, deserved well of the nation; and whom the people had distinguished in a most singular manner, These writers used every art which malice or deadly hate could invent, to lower, in public estimation, the most useful, because the most practical, patriot of the present day: had they taken the least time to consider the evidence produced on the trial, before they passed their judgment, there would not be the same ground to suspect, their principles, and the goodness of their motives. The verdict itself would have led them to suppose, had they felt any concern for the character of Mr. Wardle, that there was foul play at the bottom. They would have asked, how is it likely, that an honest tradesman, well acquainted with his business, could send in a bill, including various items to a considerable amount, which had never been contracted for, and which Lord Ellenborough and the jury, declare cannot attach to the party to whom they are charged? Candour, however, was out of the question with a set of writers, who were determined to condemn whether right or wrong. They wished to lessen the popularity of a man, who had been endeavouring to open the eyes of the public, and they laid hold of the first opportunity, to form a conspiracy against his character and reputation. Such a pal pable act of injustice cannot be too much exposed; it proves most unquestionably, that by far the greater number of the conductors of the London papers, however they may endeavour to disguise their real motives, have no desire whatever, that any salutary reform should be carried into execution; and as it is unJikely that they should be so earnest in their endeavours to mislead and alarm their readers, without some adequate cause, it is not unfair to conclude, that they would not so uniformly be inimical to the friends of reform, if they were not enlisted under the banners of corruption. AN OLD CORRESPONDENT. September 20th. ON THE BEST MEANS OF OPPO-' SING BONAPARTE. To oppose Bonaparte with suc cess, we have yet ample means left, if we did but know how to employ them. The greatest resource is in the freedom of our constitution; and if we preserve that inviolate, we might beat the Corsican tyrant with his own weapons. We see how maby allies and confederates he has gained by the mere promise of liber ty; how much more powerful should we be by imparting the reality? Let us first renovate our own constitution, and displace those from the ministry who have shewn themselves the friends of despotism; and it will be no impracticable scheme, though we be driven from the continent, to restore the liberties of Europe, by giving freedom to all the islands, from Danish Zealand to Cyprus. The affected candour, if not the cau tious policy of a celebrated writer has ascribed the neglect of the present ministry to avail themselves of this great political engine, to a mis taken motive of delicacy which for bids one nation to interfere in the government of another; but for my part I never can give them credit for any such motive, and will never cease to impute it to a rooted love of despotism; they ought, however, to have seen by this time, that the old despotic principles of government can no longer maintain themselves against the new despotism which has sprung up from the ruins of li berty, and has employed the language of liberty for its aid. The friends of the present minis try may say, that they have begun to act upon the new system of an insular confederation, by taking the island of Walcheren; but till they impart the blessings of the British government to those who now groan under despotism, they have but half performed their duty, and given them no sufficient motive to join our standard; and this they must extend not only to the subjects of their enemies, but of their friends, for Sicily and Cyprus are even more the objects of our compassion, and more likely to promote our interests than Zealand, Walcheren, or Corsica: the two former added to. Crete and the other great isles are capable of furnishing and maintaining a naval power equal to the whole navies of France and Spain: and from this system there may be some hope of success, and much less expence either of men or money than from the present ruinous measures of continental expeditions, from not one of which have we derived the smallest good, but have suffered an immense loss of blood and trea-, sure, and happiness, so that by the two last the whole empire is left almost exhausted of its resources, and rendered an easy conquest to a mighty invader. A system so totally opposite to the true interest of the country must no longer be persisted in; other men or other measures must be tried, or we must be ruined. Could the present ministers change their nature and adopt a more liberal policy, let them say to the people of Holland, Italy, or Spain, choose your own rulers and your own form of government; we will give you support against the common foe; then there might be some hope of restoring the freedom and independence of the continent; but while they will support only the old despotisms, and refuse their aid to those nations who wish to free themselves from all tyranny, they must not expect, nor must their friends expect, that success can ever crown their attempts, The same system of extravagance, expence, and impolicy, will bring us down, in a little time, from that enviable emipence we have so long enjoyed. I remain &c. EULOGIUM ON CHARLES JAMES, FOX Among the greatest calamities of the age, and which the present unsettled state of the government, renders peculiarly so, must be reckoned the death of CHARLES JAMES FOX. The crisis in which it pleased Providence to call him from this terres. trial scene was so peculiarly and so prominently awful, that those who consider his utility alone without looking to the virtues that constitute his most distinguished claim, must afford him the tribute of an interes ted sorrow and a selfish regret. In contemplating his history, we find much wisdom, much philanthropy, much earnestness and resolution in the cause of man and his concerns, but none of that power, none of that favour, none of that connection or communion with authority, whose assistance was essential to the advancement of his great designs: while then we admire this constellation, of virtues, our emotions are not all of the pleasing kind: we glory in him as a great man, but a great man labouring under the difficulties of official exclusion; a great man struggling and working against a tide of successful opposition in the cause of human nature and her dig nity. That with so much of the ability, and so much of the inclina tion, he had so little of the power to benefit the world, was a misfor tune of the deepest dye, However modern judges may dispute,posterity will be unanimous in this opinion, and they will read the exclusion of our exalted statesman in the losses and perplexities of his era, in the dethroning of Kings, in the subver sion of republics, in the dismemberment of empires, in the captivity of a continent, and what is more, in the humiliation of Great Britain, If his sentiments were of that veering kind that could adapt themselves to the taste and prejudice of the day, |