pressed man presents his petition to the House of Commons, through the member for Westminster, he intrusts his cause to the zeal and exertions of one who is returned to Parliament by men of the same rank and condition with himself. The inequality of our representation has this advantage, that, where religious bigotry interferes not, there is no description of persons in England, not dependent on alms for their subsistence, who are altogether destitute of political power. No regular system, except universal suffrage, could give us this species of excellence."

A Parliament so constituted as this, and so conducting itself, who, in their sound seven senses, would dream of subjecting to any experimental Reform? It seems to approach as near perfection as any imaginable model of earthly mould. Accordingly, its judicious eulogist, in the Edinburgh Review, though sorely dissatisfied with the Ministry, who, one year before he wrote, had, in opposition to the patriotic hopes and fears of the Bonaparte-bitten Whigs, sent a British army to the Netherlands, that settled the affairs of Europe, by the battle of Waterloo,

"Just hints a fault and hesitates dislike" of some trifling matters, to the removal or abatement of which he seems as nearly indifferent as a person of the Whig persuasion, and belonging to a party long out of place, can reasonably be expected to be to any thing rejoiced in by triumphant Tories. Our friend, after some very general proposals of plans whereby to diminish the power of the Crown, the old bear, bugbear, or bugaboo that used to keep perpetually prowling through this Periodical, says, "We hesitate about proceeding farther;" and then very frankly admits, that "Parliamentary reform has never been popular in this country." In 1780, retrenchment, not reform, was the cry;-in 1792, men of rank and property feared and abhorred the very name, as well they might;" and at present, (1816,) as far as we can judge, it has still fewer supporters of weight and consequence, than at any former period." In the midst of this universal apathy, which he condemns not, or but

gently reproves, our friend shews himself so very moderate a reformer, that were he to speak so now, the Sun would cry, "a borough-monger, a borough-monger!" and, should no merchant-ship be sailing to Van Dieman's Land, nor transport to Botany Bay, propose ridding the island of him, by flinging the monster into the sea. Unworthy of breathing the air of a country long enslaved, but now about to be free, must the man be, who only some dozen years ago, was such a wretch as publicly to utter this shocking sentiment, even in a Whig publication-" We must begin by stating, that we are under no apprehension from the influence of Peers in returning members to the Commons!" In our county representation he knows no practical defect but the great size of the counties, and consequent expense of contested elections, and proposes therefore to diminish the size, and increase their numbers. Some, he says, have recommended the extension of the elective franchise to copyholders, but that, he thinks, would only multiply the number of voters, and increase the expense of elections. With the representation of towns having more than five hundred resident voters, he has no fault to find, except with the non-resident voters. Of the representation of towns having less than five hundred resident voters, he thinks unfavourably; and as in the instances of Shoreham and

Cricklade, the boroughs were disfranchised, by act of Parliament, on account of illegal practices, and thrown the one into the rape of Bramber and the other into the adjacent hundreds -so he would recommend the extension of that principle to all boroughs of that description, where the election had been vacated under the Grenville Act, on the ground of bribery and corruption, proved against a majority or large proportion of the electors. But instead of throwing the seats into the adjoining hundreds, he would recommend transferring them to the larger counties, which would at once increase the county representation, and enable us to remedy the only defect in our present county elections. And the electors of the disfranchised boroughs, who were not disqualified by their participation in acts of bribery, might be

declared freeholders of the county. Against those close boroughs, the members of which are returned by one or two individuals, without assistance from government, and without the risk of an election, although the strongest prejudices prevail, he is far from considering them the worst parts of our representative system. Nay, he pronounces on them a high panegyric. "The members of close boroughs are often the men of greatest talent and independence in the House. There is one advantage attending their situation, which belongs to no other description of persons. Firmness to oppose the people is sometimes as necessary a quality as independence to resist the crown. But the members of close boroughs are the only persons in the House who stand in awe neither of the crown nor of the people. ***** If the lists of the House of Commons for the last forty years were consulted, we should find that a large proportion of the steadiest advocates of the people have been members for close boroughs." Yet, in a conversational debate about the Irish Bill, the Lord Advocate, in the face of the above incontrovertible sentence, had the imprudence, impropriety, and presumption to say of the self-same persons, Is it not true, that the representatives of these boroughs have been sent here, like Knights Templars in disguise, to advocate the views of those who sent them here? Have they not almost invariably been the concealed champions of aristocracy?" For party purposes, how pitiable here is this flaring inconsistency and glaring contradiction. Yet was Mr Jeffrey's former opinion just. Not a doubt of it-and yet Mr Macauleywho is always puerile-tried to pass off on the House an argument against this part of the present system, which, however witty it might have sounded there, looks here the most childish of jests. "Every system of government that can be devised has its happy accidents-men of great ability come into power under every system-and I have no doubt that, if it were determined that the representation of the people should be confined to the hundred tallest men in the country, some of them would be found to be men excelling in qualifications for their functions. If the first one hun

VOL. XXIX. NO, CLXXXI.

dred names in the Court Guide were chosen for that purpose, or if one hundred gentlemen of tawny complexion were selected, the same thing would occur; and these happy accidents would form quite as just a ground for preferring any of these modes of election as the one to which I am alluding does for the present." How vastly clever! Mr Shiel much admired this reasoning: "The answer given by the member for Calne is a strong one." And then himself exclaimed, "Who are those that press round the backdoors of Parliament? How few are the statesmen, orators, political economists, compared with those by whom they are surrounded! I admit that a splendid catalogue, and emblazoned muster-roll of genius has been produced by the advocates of the borough system. Mark, however, over what a vast space they were dispersed-in how black a firmament they sparkle!" The Lord Advocate follows Mr Shiel on the same side, but rather prosily-though any prose or prosiness is preferable, surely, to such poetry as the above about the black firmament. "The right honourable baronet [Sir Robert Peel] looked back through a period of fifty or sixty years, and he found in the list of those who had been returned from a great number of places during that time, about twenty or thirty talented and great men. Now, I must say it appears to me, that, considering how many individuals these places returned in the course of fifty or sixty years, the quantity of talent was not so very great." This is either a shallow sophism or a weak misapprehension. Sir Robert Peel took the names of almost all the celebrated men in the annals of Parliament, and asked, whence came they? From close boroughs. Three-fourths of them, at least, and more, from close boroughs-one-fourth, or less, from populous counties-that is all. The fact is the argument-and the argument stands fast, in spite of Mr Macauley's blacks and tawneys-Mr Shiel's splendid muster-roll of genius dispersed over a vast space of black firmament-and the LordAdvocate's silly assertion that Sir Robert Peel had " picked out a few illustrious men who happened to come into the House from close boroughs!"

3 T

True, that twenty or thirty illustrious men are but few, my Lord Advocate, in proportion to the many thousand sumphs that have grumphed in that House, or lain asleep on the benches like swine in styes. But still fewer are they in proportion to the many hundred thousand million men who come and go out of existence, without ever being heard of out of the street in which, like good Tories, they fear God and honour the King, or, like wicked Whigs, do neither, but keep bellowing-a few millions of them at least-periodically on Parliamentary Reform. Small, alas is the number of illustrious men that sit, stand, lie, walk, canter, or gallop, either for close boroughs, open counties, or any other spot on this our earth. But that close boroughs should have sent forth some score or so of such characterswhile the whole country, with all its counties, cannot shew-during the same time-another half dozen, we must continue to think either creditable to close boroughs, or a mystery and miracle to be believed in by faith, not understood by reason-though we admit that a man of talents may be as tawny as Lord Durham himself, and-though neither the Lord Advocate, nor Mr Macauley, nor Mr Shiel, be so-six feet high without his shoes, and a member of the Club.

The 66 stream of tendency" in this channel, so beautifully overhung with Blue and Yellow banks, has, we have seen, hitherto flowed with a gentle current towards moderate reform. Some sparkling shallows some calm long flat dull deeps-some waterfalls making a pleasant din, and a pretty mist across which came the not unfrequent rainbow-but no great periodical risings, as of the Nile-no capricious floods from the mountains of the moon-no spates with a blue fresh invading the foamy saltness of the sea. Nay, summerdrought drank it sometimes almost dry, to the discomfort or death of the minnows; while some huge reformer, "wallowing, unwieldy, enormous in his gait," was seen plunging like a porpus in some pool, his posteriors praying as it were for the knout with their e profundis clamavi. Thus, in an article on universal

suffrage in the December number 1818-which tickles the tobys of the Burdettites, the Benthamites, and the Bedlamites, an ingenious disciple of the moderate school, under the tuition of Head Master Jeffrey, prefers the prevalent principle of our representation to any "uniform right of suffrage" that could be imagined-that of L.10 householders included. His reasons he says, are shortly these,-" Every uniform system which seriously differs from universal suffrage must be founded on such a qualification as to take away the elective franchise from those portions of the inferior classes who now enjoy it. The only reasonable ground on which an uniform qualification of property could be founded, would be its tendency to secure the independence of the voter; but it is evident that such a principle, if pursued to its proper consequences, would disfranchise great multitudes of the present electors. After what we have already said on the general subject of representation, it is needless for us to add that we should consider such a disfranchisement as a most pernicious mutilation of the representative system."

Mark that, ye Eleven Deaconsand ye Twenty Thousand Signatures. Lo! the Right Honourable Francis Jeffrey, Lord Advocate of Scotland, the Man of the People-nay, their Idol-assisting an unprincipled Ministry to bring in a bill which in his own opinion (why changed?) perpetrates "a most pernicious mutilation of the representative system." Such wickedness, if unrepentant, may not go unpunished even on this side of the grave.

But the Reviewer has other objections to "uniformity." "It exposes," says he, "the difference between the prosperous and the indigent in a way offensive and degrading to the feelings of the latter;" and he says truly that no system can be other than a very bad one "which thrusts forward the qualification of property in its undisguised state, thereby teaching the people too exclusive a regard for wealth." We perceive from the newspapers, that all L.10 a-year householders are, by the Bill, to be given " their right" to vote for their own member; pray, why doth it take away" their right" from all be

low that rent? Do the children of the former come into the world with "L.10 voter" written in clear blue lines on the whites of their eyes? Of the latter with the melancholy word "Disfranchised ?"

Come we now (in 1820) to the last elaborate Essay, we believe, in the Edinburgh, on the general question of Parliamentary Reform-the review of Lord J. Russell's speech in the House on the 14th December, 1819, for transferring the elective franchise from corrupt boroughs to unrepresented great towns. The

same moderate measures of reform as before are here advocated-and Mr Jeffrey, or his mouthpiece, says, "it would be a gross deviation from those principles of prudence and expediency on which moderate reform is founded, if its partisans were unwilling, at a crisis like the present, to make some mutual sacrifices of opinion."

As far as Lord J. Russell's resolutions he is prepared to go-but no farther; and what are they? First, that it is expedient that all boroughs, in which gross and notorious bribery and corruption shall be found to prevail, shall cease to return members to serve in Parliament. Second, That it is expedient that the right of returning members to serve in Parliament, so taken from any borough which shall have been proved to have been guilty of bribery and corruption, should be given to some great towns, the population of which shall not be less than 15,000 souls; or to some of the largest

counties.

On this scheme the Reviewer makes a few observations, which seem rather hostile to the Bill, and the whole Bill. For in the very first place he proposes "the immediate addition of twenty members to the House of Commons ;" whereas, the majority who t'other day prevented Ministers, for the time being, from taking away some sixty or so, have, by universal acclamation of the Reviewer's party, been carried to be the enemies of their country, and by that their vote for ever held disqualified for sitting in a legislative or deliberative assembly of free men.

Secondly, the Reviewer shews by a long historical induction of facts, that his proposed reform is agree

able to the ancient practice of the constitution; to wit, to transfer the elective franchise from one place to another, under wise regulations, and only in cases of convicted corruption. And he adds, "No man who adopts this reform, is bound by just inference to support other changes, not warranted by the practice of the constitution."

So sensible is the Reviewer here whether Mr Jeffrey or his mouthpiece-that his doctrine will not please" the Reformers," that he says, some may perhaps wonder that disfranchisement is so strictly limited to the cases in which corruption has been proved." All such cause of wonder is swept away by the Bill; and we most earnestly direct the attention not only of the eleven Deacons, and the seventeen thousand signatures, and the thirtytwo thousand petitioners, and the one hundred and forty thousand "inhabitants" and "citizens" of Modern Athens, but the two and a half millions of the nation of gentlemen, the Scotch-and also the twelve millions of the nation of-(what without offence shall we call them ?)-the English-to these arguments against the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, which Mr Jeffrey held to be conclusive, and which we will thank the Lord Advocate to answer, or any other moderate reformer, metamorphosed into a radical by the mighty magic not obscurely storied of in many demonologies.

Mr Jeffrey, or his moderate mouthpiece, has been telling us that the plan of Mr Pitt proposed to purchase the elective privilege from fifty of the more inconsiderable boroughs who should be willing to part with it-a plan, which, in a previous article, is called "wicked and profigate!" And then he mentions the plan of "Mr Lambton, a gentleman equally respectable for character, talents, and public principle, which proposes to abolish all corrupt, decayed, and dependent boroughs." This plan, out of courtesy to the living Lambton, which there was no reason he should shew to the dead Pitt, he does not call " wicked, profligate," and thin; but he says," it will be sufficient, for the present purpose, very shortly to state one or two of the numerous objections

which present themselves to these more extensive plans." Now, this more extensive plan is neither more nor less than the very grand measure itself, "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill!" Here they are the one or two of the numerous objections-in themselves a host. "In the first place, no such disfranchisement is known to the prac tice, or even the principles, of the British Constitution. It has often bestowed the elective franchise on grounds of general utility; but it has never, on such grounds alone, taken that franchise away. All political questions, indeed, are to be determined on the principles of utility. But it is very useful to a free commonwealth to adhere to its fundamental institutions; and whenever a substantial reform can be effected, agreeably to their principles, it is generally unwise, for the sake of quicker reformation, to act on maxims hitherto untried. The reform here proposed, (see the Review), is limited by the practice of the English constitution. It proposes nothing unauthorized by that practice, and it offers that security to all who adopt it, against its leading to consequences which cannot be foreseen or conjectured. The more extensive plan, on the other hand, quits the solid ground of the practice of the constitution, and ventures on the slippery path of general speculation. It necessarily appeals to principles, which, in the hands of other men, may become instruments of farther, and of boundless, alteration. Secondly, we doubt whether the caution hitherto observed in this respect, be not founded on true wisdom. It is the policy of a free state to keep up the importance and dignity of popular privileges. The right of election, the first of them all, ought to be held high. The body of electors ought to be considered as a sort of nobility, from which the members are not to be too easily degraded. As a monarchy and aristocracy have their splendour, eo democracy has its own peculiar dignity, which is chiefly displayed in the exercise of this great right. There is something, in our opinion, truly republican in the policy which places the elective franchise and the royal dignity on the same footing, which secures both

from being mere speculations of general convenience, and which pronounces the forfeiture of both, only where there is a gross and flagrant violation of the trust from which they are derived. Thirdly, it must be observed, that the power of disfran chisement is capable of great and dangerous abuse. The majority of a legislative body might employ it to perpetuate their own superiority, and to destroy every power that could withstand them. If the example were once set, of using it on mere grounds of convenience, it would be easy to find, on every occasion, plausible pretexts of that nature. As long as it is confined to cases of delinquency, it cannot be so abused: but if it were once freed from that restraint, it would become unlimited, or, in other words, despotic."

So much for the Body of our article-the Head you will find upon its shoulders-and now for the Tail.

The "inhabitants," the "citizens" of Edinburgh declared to a man, woman, and child, through the Eleven Deacons, the seventeen thousand signatures, and other public organs, that they must have the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill." Very well. Let them have it. But, not contented with the Bill, the greedy dogs (we go no farther) must also have " the Right Honourable Francis Jeffrey, Lord Advocate of Scotland," for their member;-and why? Because they swear that he has ever been the bosom-friend of Reform, and has undertaken, as accoucheur, to deliver her of the Bill. The teeming matron is near her time, and from her bulk you may back her for trins. Yes!-she will, to a certainty, produce three chopping Bills. But will the expecting grey-headed sire trust his pregnant consort in the hands of a man, who, through the long space of twenty revolving years, so far from ever having promised to deliver her, has been publicly threatening, if ever Reform should conceive, and his obstetrical services be called in, to strangle her Bills in the birth

all her three pretty little Bills "at one fell swoop," and leave her like Rachel in Ramah heard weeping for her children?

Let us try to be serious. Suppose on the day of the Edinburgh election, the Seventeen had, through Mr Black