whom the people regard with abborrence; who vote thanks when the public opinion calls upon them, for impeachment; who are eager to grant, when the general voice demands reckon ing and account; who in all disputes between the people and administration decide against the people; who punish their disorders but refuse to inquire into their provocations,

this is an unnatural, a monstrous state of things in this constitution." "And this (continued Mr, Erskine) is the degraded and disgraceful state of this assembly at this moment. There was a time, when the right honourable gentleman admitted this to be the truth. He confessed, during the American war, what he now denies, in order to maintain the cause of his own war. It has been said, that the American was at first the war of the people; it was so, as every act of government would be popular which began from the people's representatives, instead of the crown. The crown secures all the men of influence, property, and consideration in parliament, and they carry the people with them until they are brought at last to their senses, by calamity and impending ruin. By the crown having in its hands the management of our mighty revenue, together with the manner in which the members of the house were elected, the house of commons had totally lost its original office and character as a balance against the crown. By the concurrence of accidents,rather than by the operation of permanent causes, great events of the world were brought to pass. The seeds of reformation came up at first but slowly, but they had been carefully gathered and re-sown by the right honourable gentleman himself. That which a man soweth shall he also reap.' It was

in vain, at the head of a corrupt government, that he now endeavoured to repress the doctrines which himself had propagated, or to extinguish the popularity of a reform in parliament, without which he had himself solemnly maintained that the liberties of this nation were undone. The only cure for the evils of government was, to make it what it had been in the days of our fathers, when it preserved the freedom of the people, and was crowned with their love and veneration. Upon that sound principle, Mr. Grey had brought forward his former motion in the year 1793, which Mr. Erskine said he considered it his duty to second, as he was now seconding the motion of this night; that they then thought, as they thought yet, that the only mode of giving a safe direction to a spirit turbulent in the demand of liberty, was to give to Englishmen the substantial blessings of their own government. The surest antidote against those visionary and dangerous theories which constantly spring up from the heat of revolutionary movements, was to hold out to the people the real advantages which the British constitution in its native purities was calculated to bestow-to raise a standard, around which the lovers of English liberty might proudly rally, which would secure allegiance, not by terror (which always fails in the moment of peril), but by the enjoyment of solid happiness, by the return of lenient laws, of personal security, and the possession of the fruits of their own industry, which now were squeezed to the very husks by the grinding machinery of an overwhelming revenue. This was the proposition set forth, and rejected. The right honourable gentleman, not contented with apostatizing

apostatizing from the principles he had often professed, resisted them in a spirit and language of the lef tiest pride and arrogance, which had since received their just rebuke in disgrace and humiliation-but unfortunately this once great nation had also been humbled and degraded. The cause of reform was to be put down, and all who maintained it were to be stigmatized, persecuted, and oppressed. The reformers had mixed with their cause an enthusiasm for the liberties of France, and for that reason the liberties of France were to be crushed. But the insolence with which the changes of the rising world were denounced within those walls, was an awful lesson to mankind. It had taught us, that there was an arm fighting against the oppressors of freedom, stronger than any arm of flesh, and that the great progressions of the world, in spite of the confederacies of power and the conspiracies of corruption, moved on with a steady pace, and would arrive in the end at a glorious consummation. The object of ministers, it seems, was to maintain the subordination of the laws, to uphold public credit, and preserve the regular system of things. What had been the consequence? In this new mode of supporting monarchical establishments, they had absolutely changed, and were hourly changing into republican establishments the whole face of the earth; in support of public credit, they had broke the bank; in pursuit of public order, they were driving Ireland, as America formerly was driven, to seek emancipation in the arms of France; and if the present system was not overturned, England would shortly be what Ireland was."

We regret that it is not within the limits of this work to present

to our readers the whole of Mr. Erskine's speech; the substance of its remaining part was an exami nation whether the plan proposed by Mr. Grey was likely to produce the practical benefits we desired; and if it, was, whether the present was a fit moment for making any alteration in the constitution of our government? Respecting the former, Mr. Erskine was clearly of opinion that it would be beneficial: the houss of commons, he said, ought to emanate from the people, and this plan attained the object with safety; the representation of land would continue, only be more equally extended and widely dif fused. No good reason could now be assigned for excluding copy. holders from the right of voting; their estates only differed from freeholds in the mode of conveyance, and the privileges of lords were no longer what they had been in feudal times. They were not privi leges of property, but merely connected with authenticity of title. Leaseholders of a certain value, and for a certain term, which amounts to property, were in the same situa tion. Inhabitants and householders paying scot and lot, through all their ranks and gradations, completed the system of rational representation. How could a people be better described? Who could pretend to say, that the masters of families, householders, every one of whom had some relation, some tie, some members of a little circle round his fire-side to whom he was attached, had no stake in the public fate, and were unworthy to enjoy political rights? Such a body of constituents would, to a considerable extent, remove the disgraceful practices which elections now exhibited. Suffrages were sometimes bartered for money, for a place, for a ribband,

a ribband, for the most trifling considerations. Toremedy these abuses, make the electors vote each in their particular parishes: they would then come with calmness to exercise the most important of political privileges, and weigh maturely upon whom they were to devolve the guardianship of their civil rights. Such a plan would have all the advantages of universal suffrage without any of its defects; properly speaking, indeed, it was a universal right of suffrage, because all who were not included in it might be said, without a figure, to be virtually represented. All the people in their various degrees were represented, if not personally, in the persons of their fathers or their nearest kindred, and bound in every feeling, as well as every interest which arose out of social existence, to support an assembly proceeding from such an universal national will: whereas, the personal inclusion of every individual might give an undue influence inconsistent with the true spirit of independent elections. Mankind have a right to be well governed, but they can have no right to insist upon any mode incompatible with the very end proposed. The system laid before the house was practicable; it had no tendency to disorganize society, or to shake the establishments of the

nation.

Mr. Erskine then discussed his last point" was the present a moment fit for making any alteration in the government?" He professed to think it singularly and critically seasonable, and that those who denied it would lay the same hold on prosperity if the same motion were proposed on the return of peace. That which men were determined to oppose from a corrupt interest in abuse, they would

equally oppose at all times, though dissimilar occasions would be alternately used as pretences. It had been the opinion of the celebrated Mr. Burke (whose extraordinary talents had since been so misemployed in supporting prejudices, and dif fusing errors which had been fatal to all Europe)-it had once been his opinion, "that the criterion which more than all the rest distinguished a wise government from an administration weak and improvi dent was this, well to know when and in what manner to yield what it was impossible to keep. Early reformations were amicable compromises with a friend in power; late, were terms imposed upon a conquered enemy. Early refor mations are made in cool blood; late are made in a state of inflammation. In such a state the people see in government nothing respectable; they will look at the griev ance, and they will look at nothing else like a furious populace, provoked by the abuses of a house of ill fame, they no longer think of regulation; they go to work the shortest way; they abate the nuisance, they pull down the edifice." This, said Mr. Erskine, is a sort of epitome of universal history; above all, of the times we live in. From the rejection of these maxims of policy and prudence, the governments of Europe fall into ruin by sudden violence, instead of being insensibly altered by peaceable reformation. To this cause the independence of America is to be ascribed: in the beginning she sought only the reasonable privileges of a dependent community; we refused to look at her grievances while they were curable, and America was separated from us for ever. He protested he saw no alternative between an immediate re

form,

form, and a revolution involving this country in blood and perdition. We were now in the most perilous predicament; government called upon the people for greater exertions than at former times; burdens which appeared insupportable and impracticable even in speculation, were now to be endured, and carried into effect; this must be done by affection or coercion, and this was the moment for the choice.

"Grant (said he) to the people the blessings of the constitution, and they will join with ardour in its defence; raise a standard, around which the friends of freedom may rally, and they will be attracted by the feelings of confidence and of attachment, It will unite all who are divided, and create a general spirit to bear up against the calamities impending."

Mr. chancellor Pitt stated his reasons for giving his decided negative to the motion. The honourable gentleman, he said, who had introduced it, had disclaimed very distinctly, and, as far as he went, very satisfactorily, all those abstract principles of imprescribable right on which those without doors had rested the propriety of their demand, and upon which alone they would be contented with any species of parliamentary reform; but in disclaiming these views upon the subject, he had not stated all the considerations by which the conduct of a wise statesman was to be regulated, and the judgement of an upright senator to be guided. The question was not, whether some alteration might not be attended with advantage, but whether the degree of benefit might be worth the chance of the mischief it probably or possibly might induce. The danger of introducing an evil of a much greater magni

tude than that we were desirous to repair must be considered, and how far it was prudent to give an opening to principles which aimed at nothing less than the annihilation of the constitution.

The learned gentleman (Mr. Er skine) had remarked somewhat insidiously, "that those who formerly supported parliamentary, reform, had sown the seeds of eagerness for it, which were now displayed;" to which he answered, that it was no inconsistency to forgo a present advantage for a future benefit, or to avoid impending evils; was it not better to endure some little inconve nience rather than hazard the annihilation of a system under which this country had flourished in its prosperity, by which it had been supported in its adversity, and ac-. quired energy and vigour to recover from the distresses which it had endured?

This moderate reform was proposed, to separate those whom such a plan would satisfy, from men who would be saisfied with none; but who by this means would only labour with more success to subvert the whole constitution. Men who could treat parliament as usurpa tion, and monarchy as an invasion of the rights of man, would not receive that reform which was not a recognition of their right, and which they would conceive as vitiated if conveyed in any other shape. Mr. Pitt affirmed, that there was no call upon the house to adopt this mea sure, in order to satisfy men friendly to moderate reform, for such men had not expressed any wish upon the subject. Before the practical expediency was discussed, the prac tical necessity must be established. The war with France, the inroads. upon the constitution, the profusion of public expenditure, were

the