VOL. XV. No. 22.] LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 3, 1809.

"

[Price 1s.

[834

"As it is essential to the very being of Parliament that Elections should be free, therefore, all undue influences upon the electors are illegal, and strongly prohi"bited; for Mr. Locke ranks it amongst those breaches of trust in the executive "magistrate, which, according to his notions, amounts to a dissolution of government, "if he employ the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt the represen"tatives, or openly to pre-engage the electors, and prescribe what manner of persons "shall be chosen; for, thus to regulate candidates and electors, and new-model the "ways of election, what is it but to cut up the government by the roots, and poison "the very fountain of public security."-BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND: Book I. Chap. 2.

"

EARL MULGRAVE.

Bur, my lords, there is another kind of incapacity worse than this, I mean that " of parliament men's having such places in the exchequer, as the very profit of "them depends on the money given to the King in parliament. Would any of your lordships entrust a man to make a bargain for you, whose very interest is to make you give as much as he possibly can? It puts me in mind of a farce where an "actor holds a dialogue with himself, first speaking in one tone, and then answering " himself in another.”—EARL MULGRAVE'S SPEECH, in the House of Lords, Déc. 22, 1002. Cobbett's Parl. Hist. vol. 5. p. 749.

THE GREAT LORD CHATHAM.

MR. PITT, when contending for a Reform in Parliament, in 1782, told the House, that he personally knew, that it was the opinion of his father, that, "without recurring to first principles in this respect, and establishing a more solid and equal "representation of the people, by which the proper constitutional connection should "be revived, this nation, with the best capacities for grandeur and happiness of any "on the face of the earth, must be confounded with the mass of those whose liberties K were fost in the corruption of the people."

MR. PITT.

"THE defect of representation is the national disease; and unless you apply a remedy directly to that disease, you must inevitably take the consequences with "which it is pregnant. Without a parliamentary Reform the nation will be plunged into new wars; without a parliamentary Reform you cannot be safe against "bad ministers, nor can even good ministers be of use to you. No honest man can, according to the present system, continue minister."- MR. PITT'S SPEECH, 1782.

"

MR. FOX.

"THE whole of this system as it is now carried on, is as outrageous to morality as it is pernicious to just government; it gives a scandal to our character, which not " merely degrades the House of Commons in the eyes of the people, but it does more ; ❝ it undermines the very principles of integrity in their hearts, and gives a fashion to dishonesty and imposture. They hear of a person giving or receiving four or five thousand pounds as the purchase-money of a seat for a close borough; and they "hear the very man who received and put into his pocket the money, make a loud "and vehement speech in this House against Bribery; and they see him, perhaps, "move for the commitment to prison of a poor unfortunate wretch at your bar, who "has been convicted of taking a single guinea for his vote in the very borough, perhaps, where he had publicly and unblushingly sold his influence, though that

"miserable guinea was necessary to save a family from starving under the horrors of "a war which he had contributed to bring upon the country. . . . "are the things that paralise you to the heart: these are the things that vitiate the "whole system, that spread degeneracy, hypocrisy, and sordid fraud over the country, "and take from us the energies of virtue, and sap the foundations of patriotism and "spirit." -MR. FOX'S SPEECH, 1797.

MR. GREY (NOW EARL GREY).

"Has the House of Commons shown either vigilance of inquiry, or independence "of spirit? Have they investigated the origin of their misfortunes, or checked "ministers in their ruinous career? Nay, the very reverse. In a war remarkable "only for misfortune, and distinguished on our part solely by disgrace, they have "suffered ministers to go on from failure to failure, adding misfortune to misfortune, " and madness to folly, without either investigation or inquiry.-As a remedy for "these evils, Mr. Grey recommended a Reform of Parliament; and to obviate the charge of making complaints without prescribing some specific mode of relief, he proposed, that instead of 92 county members there should be 113, and that the right of voting should be extended to copyholders and leaseholders who are bound to pay rent for a certain number of years. To prevent compromises he proposed "that every county should be divided into grand divisions, each of which should <return a representative. He also proposed that the remaining 400 members should be returned by householders."". -Mr. GREY'S SPEECH in 1797.

MR. WINDHAM.

"MANY join in the cry of Reform from ignorance, many from folly, many from "fanaticism. Some are incited by the vilest passions, and some from more pure, but "not less dangerous principles. Numerous are the knaves and numerous the dupes "desirous of change."-MR. WINDHAM's Speech, in the House of Commons, 26 May,

66

66

self, and some part of that I shall notice; but, first, let us look at what this gentleman is reported to have said respecting those in general, who wish for a reform in parliament. These are the words attributed to him in the report. "If the deIsign of the noble lord who had just sat "down was to prove himself an honest "man, he might just as well have remain"ed silent, for certain persons would never "think either him or any one else so, who "did not acquiesce in all the chimeras of the "hon. baronet (Hear! hear! hear!) It was the design of him and his friends "to excite such an opinion among the people; and he believed, in his soul, it "was also their wish not to have many 66 supporters in that house, lest their designs should fail, and the public would begin to think too favourably of the "house. It was their desire to raise a po"pular ferment, by talking of abuses which "often had no existence, and by vaunt

66

ing of remedies which they never meant "to put in execution! Far was it from "their thoughts to come manfully and "constitutionally down to that house. "and state their complaints, if any such

ther argument for a reform in the representation? Is not this disgraceful state of things the natural result of the present system? Could there possibly exist any case like that supposed by Mr. Windham, if the system of election, were such as that | proposed by Lord Grey? That there could not every one must be satisfied; and, therefore, unless Mr. Windham likes the character and conduct of his Attorney or Brewer, he must, one would think, wish for such a change as would extinguish such characters.There is one passage in Mr. Windham's speech, which, I must confess, astonished me beyond measure. He makes a comparison between the sacrifices made by Sir Francis Burdett and by those whom he opposed, and represented as selfish; and instancing Mr. Pitt, he is reported to have said, that Mr. Pitt gave a "proof of his magnanimity in leaving office, in 1801, which had became "almost a second nature to him, because "he could not conscientiously abandon a "measure, to which he had pledged him"self." This did astonish me. The selection was so very unfortunate; for, it is notorious to the whole nation, that Mr. Pitt came into that same office again, three years after-" they really had. No, it suited them wards, without making any attempt to redeem that pledge; and, further, that he united with his former opponents for the purpose of turning out the man, whom he had pretailed upon to take his place, under a promise of giving him his support. Nay, does not Mr. Windham well know, that, after Mr. Pitt had regained his place and his power, he resisted an application for the adoption of the very measure, which Mr. Windham says he left his place because he could not conscientiously abandon" tified." when he was in power before. Will Mr. Windham say, that the times or the circumstances were changed? If he does, then we ask him, how he came to press the measure in the last instance; to insist that Mr. Pitt was bound by his former pledge, and to reproach him with an abandonment of that pledge?—This, I think, is pretty complete a happy instance of Mr. Pitt's "magnanimity:" a lucky hit at Sir Francis Burdett a most striking proof of Sir Francis's injustice in denominating Pitt the link of corruption.

Leaving Mr. Windham to a full and undisturbed enjoyment of this triumph, let us go to the reported speech of MR. TIERNEY, which has not only been published in the report, in the common course, but republished separately.A great deal of the speech related to Mr. Tierney him

It

"better to make harangues at taverns, to
"mount the tables at the Crown and An-
"chor, to tell the people to meet as peo-
ple, and look not for redress to their re-
presentatives, who were no longer fit to
"be called an House of Commons.
"was their plan to raise a cry by which
"the infatuated people might be hurried
"to their ruin, by hinting at corruptions
"which never had existence, and rousing
expectations which never could be gra-
"tified."Of all the charges that the
mind of man is capable of inventing, I
should have thought, that the charge of
clamouring against undefined abuses and
corruptions was the very last, which any
man would have thought of, as applicable
to the conduct of sir Francis Burdett,
Mr. Wardle, Mr. Madocks, and the
others, who wish for a reform of the House
of Commons. This is the very last charge,
which one would now expect to hear from
those, who, four months ago, cried out for
joy at the appearance of something in a

66

tangible shape." Have these gentlemen contented themselves with "hinting" at corruptions? Have they dealt in broad and general imputations? Had the abuses, of which Mr. Wardle complamed, "no existence?" Was there no ground for the charge of Mr. Madocks? Have these gentlemen "deluded" the people with

SO

lord Henry Petty? to produce the saving without any diminution in the expence? As if a saving was to be effected by a scheme drawn out upon paper. We have had schemes enough of that sort; quite schemes enough for that sort of saving, which is accompanied with an increase of taxation and an increase of the number of paupers; quite enough of those schemes, which, in order to pay off the national debt, causes its augmentation. What we want is a scheme for lessening the expenditure. A scheme that should put a stop to the paying of lady LOUISA PAGET 300l. a year, under that name, and another 300l. a year, under the name of Lady Louisa ERSKINE. This is the sort of scheme that we want: this is the sort of "plan," and no other plan is worth a farthing. We have had hocus pocus plans enough; but, still the taxes go on increasing; steadily increasing, and increase they will, and must, unless retrenchment take place.—Mr. Wardle has pledged himself to prove, that this great saving might be made, without any injury to the nation's affairs; but, he has not pledged himself to obtain a vote of the House of Commons, signifying, that they are satisfied with his proofs, any more than he so pledged himself in the case of the other day. He only says, the thing is so, and not that the House of Commons will say that it is so. What he may think useless expenditure, they may think very necessary, perhaps. As he states his items, one by one, he may be told: "Oh! you "must not touch that." And, of course, he would, in the opinion of those who differed from him, "stand convicted" of having uttered "the vilest and most erecrable insinuations." Come, says he, "lop me off this pension to Lady Louisa;

falshoods? Hare they not "come manfully
"down to the House and stated the com-
plaints of themselves and the people?"
-The public will answer these ques-
tions; they already have answered them;
and Mr. Tierney may be assured, that the
answer has been such as is warranted by
truth, and not by that falshood, which his
speech imputes to those who wish for a
reform. What is it at this day, that we
are to be told, that abuses and corruptions
are imaginary? Who would have thought,
that any man would have told us this now?
-Mr. Tierney, adverting to what Mr.
Wardle had said, at the Crown and Anchor,
about the saving in the public expence, which
would be produced by a Reform in the
representation of the people, is reported
to have observed thereon, that "one hon.
"gent. of the worthy baronet's friends
(Mr. Wardle) had made a great dis-
covery it appeared-he was to demolish
"the Income Tax! (a laugh). Now he
"liked this- indeed he never was
pleased in his life as when he first heard
"of the discovery. It was the pleasantest
"way of laying the axe to the root he had
"ever imagined. (Hear! hear!) He
"was sure it would gratify the Chancel-
"lor of the Exchequer wonderfully to
"be able to strike off eleven million and a
"half of taxes. Now he had at last found
❝out the reason why the hon. gentleman
"and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were
"perpetually complimenting each other.
"No doubt they were pulling together all
"this time. Indeed if the plan was rea-
"lized, it would be exceedingly diverting;
but if it was only a fallacious assertion
"held out for the wicked purpose of exciting
"discontent, it was one of the vilest and
"most execrable insinuations. He now called
upon that hon. gent. to produce his plan,
66 or stand convicted in the face of the
"world."- -Something of this sort was re-
peated by MR. BARHAM; and, it is a second-
chapter of the threats, pronounced against
Mr. Wardle when he brought forward his
Charges against the Duke of York. He is
to "stand convicted" unless he can prove,
that a Reform of the House of Commons
would, without any injury to the affairs of
the nation, be followed by a reduction"
of the annual expenditure to the amount
of 11 millions and a half; and he is called
upon for "a plan." This is pretty rough
treatment, to be sure; but Mr. Wardle
has already experienced, that such treat-
ment does a man no harm.-A "plan!"
Why, do they think, that he means to pro-
duce the saving in the way proposed by

"

stop this to Mrs. Fox and her daughters; "take this immense sum from such an one, "and this from another; and discharge "these foreign troops; and see that no "public property is disposed of in the "same way as that at Chelsea, to Colonel "Gordon." But it is very clear indeed, that all those, who think that these propositions ought not to be adopted, will say: "there! there, you stand "convicted in the face of the world."- -In short, as Mr. Wardle assumes, that a House of Commons, freely chosen by all those who pay taxes to the state, would save all that could be saved, without danger to the independence or honour of the nation, all he has to do, in order to make good his pledge, is to show, that the amount of the Income tax is now annually expended in a way,

"

"who had neither money nor land, and who "condemned fortune for not seconding "the views of nature, and placing them at "the helm of affairs."

LORD PORCHESTER is said to have censured sir Francis Burdett for having asserted, that the House of Commons had acquitted the Duke of York; but, if this assertion be not true, what was the assertion in the Duke's letter, which he wrote to the king, when he resigned his office, and which letter was laid before the House! He there stated, that the House had acquitted him. The authorities, on both sides, being so high, it might be deemed presumption in me to judge between them; but, surely, the " loyal" will excuse sir Francis Burdett for having conceived that the Duke of York spoke the truth. The fact is, that, upon this point, the "loyal" must be very much puzzled. They do not like to say that the Duke was not acquitted, for not to be acquitted is to be found guilty; and yet, it goes hard with the "toyal" to say, in so many words, that the House of Commons did acquit the Duke. But, after all, how stands the fact? Why shortly thus: that several propositions were made for expressing, in a greater or a less degree, censure on the conduct of the Duke of York; and, after all those propositions were negatived, the House resolved, that no further proceeding in the case was necessary. If this be not acquittal, what is? Acquittals are always in the negative. “Not

which renders that expenditure of no bene-
fit to the nation at large. This is all that
he has to do; and, as to his ability to do
it, all I shall say is, that I am glad his
opponents have dared him to the proof.
-Mr. Tierney appears to have been
very angry with something which Sir
Francis Burdett had said, at the Crown and
Anchor, about his, Mr. Tierney's, retir-
ing from office with his pockets full of the
public money, which he declared to be
false. After much upon this point, ex-
pressive of strong resentment, the former
member for Southwark is reported to have
said: "It was true the worthy Baronet
"had never been troubled with office;
"the reasons for that might be various;
'perhaps the cause might have been his
"own disinclination; perhaps his immense
fortune might have exempted him from
"its cares; or perhaps he had never been
importuned upon the subject. (A laugh.)
"Certainly he (Mr. Tierney) had been in
office, for he had not such a fortune as
"could support him independently out of it,
"and he would perhaps, be compelled to
"live upon bread and onions, when the
worthy Baronet was faring sumptuous-
ly.". -Now, really, I do not see any
thing very witty in this; and as to his rea-
son for getting into office, I shall only say
that, while a man's poverty may be a
very good reason with him, it may be a
very bad one with the public for letting
him in. But, without pretending to say
whether the report be correct, which
states Mr. Tierney to have represented"
himself as liable to be compelled to live
"upon bread and onions," I will venture to
assert most positively, that a man's being
in that state is the best argument in the
world for his not being chosen a member
of that House, which has the power to
dispose of the public money. If a man
were to go to any nobleman of great estate,
and
say, "I am very poor, my Lord, and,
"therefore, I wish you would make me
"your steward," the reasoning would be
very good for the applicant; but, do you
think, reader, that it would be conclusive
with his Lordship? Yes, it would, in all
probability, be quite conclusive, but the
conclusion would be exactly the contrary
way: You are very poor, and, therefore,
you shall not be my steward.". -It is
a wonder, that Mr. Windham, in his
speech, should have overlooked this part
of the speech of his "Right Honourable
"friend," as he appears to have done,
when he was speaking of those persons of
"real or fancied superiority of talents, but

guilty" is all that an acquitting jury says; but, in this case, there was the afirmative also; for, there was a majority upon Mr. Perceval's Resolution of complete acquittal. Pray, would not any public writer be exposed to the chance of having his ears clipped off, if he were to assert, that the House of Commons did not acquit the Duke of York? Lord Porchester is reported to have said, that the House did not virtually acquit the Duke. Why, then, they virtually found him guilty. should I dare say that? No, no. virtual work is what we do not understand. We have been accustomed to hear the verdict of guilty, or not guilty; and do not comprehend any thing of your virtual finding guilty.

But, This

As to MR. CURWEN's motion itself, its fate is of little consequence. I do not believe that it will be adopted; but, it is valuable as having drawn forth a confession from a majority of the House itself, that something ought to be done. It will also be recollected, that, in the debate