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

號

"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 suff cient 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 Lingdom, than it now is in the counties. The only difficulty with which it appears to us that this great question is attended, 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 Banner; and this gives an appearance of guiltiness to the thing itself, which naturally 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 be admitted to be sufficiently auswered.

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 theinterference 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 defamation 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 the 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, however, 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 gras

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 lead ing 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 cors 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

minal indifference to religion itself, but from his attention to the various kinds and degrees of influence, which the more and the less rational modifications of it appear to have, under various circumstances, upon private morals and the public peace-from his knowledge of the instructive lessons which history furnishes, upon the inefficacy as well as the injustice of multiplied restraints, and from his dread of the mischievous consequences which have arisen in our own, and in other countries, when persecution, direct or indirect, has long preyed upon the spirits of honest men, and when opportunities have suddenly started up for religious zeal to unite with political discontent, in avenging by one effort, without discrimination, and without mercy, the real or supposed wrongs of many preceding generations. He therefore acted, as well as reasoned, in conformity to the well known observation of Mr.Burke, “That our constitution is not made for great, general proscriptive exclusions"-and that, sooner or later, it will destroy them, or they will destroy

it."

66

Mr. Fox, of whom it has been truly said, that no English statesmen preserved, during so long a period of adverse fortunes, so many affectionate friends, and so many zealous adherents, could be infinitely below such a character as Lord Grenville is depicted by Mr. Bell? Can it be truly said, that Mr. Fox, of whom Mr. Burke (six years after all intercourse between them had ceased) emphatically exclaimed, "To be "sure he is a man made to be loved!" was infinitely inferior to any man "in decorum and character?" Great allowance ought undoubtedly to be made for editors of newspapers, who are often obliged to write in great haste; but no circumstance can be an excuse for malice and deliberate falsehood; and Mr. Bell, or his hired writer, should have remember

*It is not the least of the many evils which attend this country at the present moment, that the vehicles of news and political information, with but few exceptions, should have fallen into the hands of a set of mercenary, ignorant, and inconsistent writers. Whether the

editor of the Weekly Messenger comes properly under the exceptions, the fol lowing extracts will assist in shewing.

"If there were any previous doubts of the complete defeat of the French, they must now vanish.- -Though we will not venture to predict the immediate downfall of Bonaparte, yet we should not be surprised to find that he had reached his assigned limit."

Weekly Messenger, June 19. "Whatever doubts might have originally been maintained, they must now have vanished. The most incredulous have sustained a defeat on the Danube, must now acknowledge that the French which has effectually crippled all their future operations!"-W. M. July 10.

"We lament to say, that what we have so long anticipated has at length happened: that the fate of Austria, in the language of the 24th. bulletin, has been decided in a single battle.For our own parts we have invariable made the same statement; that the French Emperor had indeed received a check, but that the very circumstance of the