is too much art and finesse in their account; but there is nothing luminous in it, and yet the writers have laboured hard, and are men of great ability. They have not however been able to make me hate the constitution; but I fear they will make many hate it, who will take their word for its being only a theory, and who feelingly know it to be a very specious and successful one for fleecing the people: this is the practical construction which they will make of influence. But Sir, I maintain, that the Reviewers have libelled the constitution, and that its excellence consists in being directly the reverse of what they have described it; it being, not the instrument of extortion, but a guard against it; being, not a fiction, but a reality; in short, Sir, it is a possession of inestimable value; for without it every, other possession becomes uncertain, and with it, every man is assured in the OWNERSHIP of what he hath. This I trust has become in some degree apparent by the remarks that have already been made, and the proofs that have already been advanced, for the purpose of elucida ting the real constitution; and I will yenture, Sir, to assure your readers, that the further we proceed in these investigations, the greater cause shall we have to be persuaded of this important truth,--that the government bequeathed to us by our ancestors, contains the best means that can be devised by the wisdom of man for insuring to us the freedom of our persons, and the safety of our property; and if those institutions are at present defective in attaining these great ends, it is because we have suffered them to become corrupted, and are too indolent to restore them to their genuine purity."

I am, &c.

TIMOTHY TRUEMAN.

Devonshire, Dec. 1.

REMARKS ON A PASSAGE IN THE EDINBURGH REVIEW.

SIR,

In your number for October, you had the goodness to insert a few remarks which I sent you, on an article in the Edinburgh Review, on the subject of a Reform in Parliament. The object of those remarks was, to point out the inconsistency of a writer, who had maintained, with considerable force and effect, that most of the public calamities which now stare us in the face, were owing to the imbecility and incapacity of the existing ministers; and yet, in the same breath, attempted to convince his readers, that a Parliamentary Reform would be of no use in removing the evil. It appeared to me, Sir, next to impossible to believe that a man of so much shrewdness and ability as this writer undoubtedly is, would venture to affirm two such propositions, unless he were in the interest, if not in the pay of a party. This suspicion is, I think, greatly corroborated by the following extract from an article in a succeeding number of the Review; and which article is evidently the offspring of the same writer as the former. "If, again," says this Reviewer, “ every measure and every "minister be covered over with its "(that is, the parliament's approba

tion) then we will venture to pre"diet, not that the government is

acquitted, but that the parliament "stands condemned; and we shall "most unwillingly be compelled to appear, in the foremost rank of "those, who must acknowledge that

66

they are convinced and converted.— "For it is needless to disguise the "matter. A refusal to punish the

"authors of our misfortunes can

persons from the government. In "the one case, the parliament will "show that it is not the representa "tive of the country; in the other, we shall have a conclusive proof, that "the ministers of the crown are irre"movable."* Now, Sir, whatever may be the conduct of the parliament in its approaching sessions, we may fairly ask this writer;- Did you not tell us last March, that the disgraceful convention of Vimeira, and the disastrous campaign in Spain, under the immortal Moore, was to be attributed to the weakness and incapacity of ministers? Did not you exclaim, in the same indignant tone as at present, against the Copenhagen expedition, as a lasting disgrace to this country? Well then! Have not you seen the present parliament acquit ministers of all these disgraceful transactions, and cover them over with large majorities? You are compelled, in the very article I am quoting, to acknowledge, that you have repeatedly witnessed such conduct. Why then not acknowledge now, what it is evident you believe, that the parliament is not the representative of the people? Why do you defer pronouncing this opinion, till you see the majorities on the motions, which you expect will be brought forward in the approaching sessions, respecting the conduct of the war in Spain, and the expeditions to Walcheren and Sicily? You You seem to be aware that a change must také place in the government; and in case the change be not in favour of your party, you are preparing to become a convert to reform; and to abandon your former opinions with former opinions with as much grace as possible.-But this ruse de guerre will not succeed : you stand convicted of inconsistency, and are suspected of dishonesty ;-of having written against a measure, which you knew to be not only sa

*Ed. Rev. for October. See the quotation at large in a preceding article.

lutary, but absolutely necessary to the salvation of the country.-Should the ministers go unpunished (which it is very probable will be the case) you will be bound to proclaim, that you are a convert to a reform in parItament; 'but you may depend upon it, no man of sense will give you credit for discovering in 1810, what you had the same means of knowing in 1809. W. X. Y.

Newcastle, Dec. 4.

ON THE PROPRIETY OF CABINET MINISTERS HAVING SEATS IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The letter of your correspondent Mr. Stephen Leach, inserted in your last number, contains more asperity than argument; I therefore find it difficult to reply to his remarks, and will only attempt to defend my own positions which seem to be by nó means untenable.-Mr. Leach affirms that retaining the eleven cabinet ministers in the house of Commons, would undo all the good that might be obtained by a reform in parliament; but he does not condescend to give one single reason for so thinking.--Does he imagine that there is something so contaminating in the very look and aspect of ministers, of state, that their merely sitting in the house, would corrupt the representatives of the people when freely chosen? It is not the presence of the ministers, nor their individual votes in the house of Commons that has caused all the evils we now suffer from a corrupt representation; but the influence they possess in sending their friends, and dependents there, to occupy the places of more honest representatives. Let us deprive them of this power, and of that enormous extent of patronage which enables them to bribe even the members for counties and independent boroughs, and we need not much fear their personal influence in the house.

Mr. Leach in his next sentence is so much at variance with himself, that I do not wonder he is at variance, with me, though it is not very difficult to make out that he is one of those reformers who are desirous to new model the constitution according to their own fanciful theories, conceiving that the nature of man is capable of unlimited excellence; for he allows that in such a reform of parliament as the nation requires, it will be impossible to do good without introducing some theoretical principles; and by his question to me, he seems to deny that the constitution by a return to its original principles is equal to answer all the purposes of reform; which last sentence contains a gross contradiction in terms, for it is as much as to say that reform will not answer the purposes of reform; or if construed into plain English, it means to say that we must not merely have a reform, but a revolution ;--and yet the writer acknowledges that the constitution does shew, that it is possible to combine the liberty of the subject, with the power of the rulers. That the constitution was ever formed upon any regular principles it is impossible for any man to shew; it has arisen like language, from the wants and necessities of its framers, and as such is superior in regard to practical convenience, to any visionary theory the principles of the constitution are like the principles of grammar, they are formed from practice, and not the practice from any preceding theory; and therefore all we have to do is to restore those customs which have been found beneficial, and to add such as may be required from the nature of circumstances now existing. Thata cabinet council is an infringement of the constitution I deny; for it is nothing more than the privy council upon a smaller scale; and it is impossible for a government to be conducted without such a council, for the mea

sures of the executive power must first be debated and digested in private before they can be laid before the great council of the nation; and the excellence of our constitution con sists in our having such a council, not as it is at present under the con troul of the executive, and aristocratical branches of the government, but freely and truly elected by the nation.

Mr. Leach either displays great ignorance of human nature, or a misguided republican zeal if he ima gines that the affairs of any government can be carried on solely by a popular assembly; for though such an assembly is the great guardian of liberty, by finally sanctioning the measures of the executive and sometimes originating such measures, it never can be imagined, that all public acts can originate in the house of Commons; and that the ministers of the crown are of no use but to execute the decrees of the senate.— I neither wish parliament to be under the controul of ministers, nor ministers wholly under the controul of parliament; they must have a discretionary power of pur suing such measures as they think advisable, subject in cases which relate to the imposition of taxes to the authority of parliament.

Mr. L. asks me what security there is against the return of the evils we endure, while ministers are suffered to retain their seats in the house of Commons, with the whole revenue at their command ?—I an swer, it is not their merely having seats in the house that has caused all the evils we deplore, but the rotten state of the representation which has enabled them to increase the revenue, and place it all under their own controul.

the balance of the constitution; nevertheless I do believe that the regulations I have suggested would greatly restore the purity of the representation, and remove that corrupt influence which has so long been working the ruin of the nation. Mr. L. seems to me to expect a great deal too much from a reform in parliament, and indeed from the nature of man; for in my opinion, all men are born with a propensity to do evil, which can only be checked by balancing the interests of some men against those of others, and making it the interest of as many as possible to do good.-Evil will never be wholly eradicated from the system, because it is essentially mixed with it; yet it may be at all times counteracted and diminished by the efforts of reason, and the action and re-action of opposite principles. In my zeal for the good and happiness of mankind, I will not yield to Mr. L. nor to any man fiving; but I am not so ignorant of human nature and the system of the world, which I have studied with no small degree of intenseness, as to imagine that any scheme of reform, can either make or keep men at all times, free, happy and benevolent. I remain, &c.

W BURDON.

No. 38. Somerset Street, Portman Square, December 3.

the pope and government of Rome consider the different pretensions of both the old and new monarchs of those countries to sovereign power: such a subject cannot in the present situation of affairs be deemed uninteresting.

We live Sir in a period somewhat remarkable, a period when a month is sufficient to decide the fate of a dynasty; when princes have shewn their wisdom and magnanimity, not by devising and executing schemes of defence, not by enacting whole-. some laws, and endeavouring to make the throne the last rallying point of freedom; but by heroically crossing the ocean to find other subjects to enslave. We have gazetted accounts of the exportation of" royal infallibility" from the old world to the new. We have the advantage of perusing the state papers and proclamations of two Kings of Spain, of Portugal, and of Naples. Surely Sir, these are rare times for the ac quisition of knowledge, and the least endeavour to treat, however superficially, such subjects, must be suc cessful!

But supposing the subjects were of less importance, still the discussion might be beneficial, especially if it should be the means of detecting a train of prejudices, which are but too apt to intrude themselves on us, when a part of the education of our youth, is to instill into their