true elevation of mind. From some of them, if allowed to act on their own sordid views, nothing good was expected: but there were among them those who ought to have cut off a hand, rather than have touched the reins of government on any conditions, other than on those of a radical restoration of the constitution. The unanswered letter above mentioned, was addressed to Earl Grey, then not a peer, but presiding at the Admiralty board; and was as follows:

"SIR,

28th Feb. 1806.

"As a member of the cabinet, I am to request you will do me the honour of accepting a short work entitled England's· Egis.

"If the doctrine of this work be well founded, and the ancient constitutional system of defence it explains shall be restored, it may considerably lessen the necessities of naval exertion, and the anxieties of a minister presiding in that department.

"Conceiving that, in the present situation of our country, no new system of land defence will be adopted without mature deliberation, I confess, sir, I feel extremely solicitous that you should look into the Ægis, which is intended to shew how inseparably united are the defence of our country, and the defence of our constitution.

"I am moreover anxious for its attracting your attention, because it contains several arguments upon the right use and application of a navy, which the writer conceives is diverted from its proper service, when employed in defending this country from invasion.

"The work likewise contains a full reply to a suggestion of the Duke of Richmond, in his thoughts on the national defence; of opposing the French flotilla by an English flotilla of superior force; in which reply I trust is shown the error of his grace's notion on that subject, as well as the total inutility of incurring the heavy expence and the other inconveniences of such a mea

sure.

"With much respect, I have the honour to be

"The Hon. Ch. Grey.

"Sir, &c.

"J. C."

But, speak to an English minister on restoring the constitution, or paying any regard to its principles, you find him like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ears! and so things will continue, until the thunders of the public voice shall cause the deaf to hear and the dumb to speak.

The first edition of the Ægis had in November 1803 been presented, not only to the ministers of that day, but likewise to Mr. Fox; from whom I received the following answer :

ઉંદ

"St. Anne's Hill, Monday,

28th Nov. 1803..

"DEAR SIR, "I return you many thanks for yours of the 22d and the packet accompanying it. That your plan is on a right prin"ciple is beyond a doubt. How far it might be entirely practi"cable, even if men could get so far the better of their alarms at "Democracy as to think of adopting it, may possibly be more doubtful; but those alarms put all question of now carrying it "into execution beyond all probability.

"It is impossible not to admire the steadiness with which you persevere in your endeavours at the public good; but it is in "vain to hope that you, who mean freedom, can ever get your systems patronized by those, whose wish it is to enslave the 86 country more and more.

66

"I am, with great regard Sir,

"J. Cartwright, Esq.

"Your most obedient servant
"C. J. FOX.”

It is to be observed, that the Ægis gave only the law, the principles, and the outline of the system. Its practicability could only be judged of by a careful perusal of the detail; that is, the practical arrangements for its full execution in all its parts. No ministry, not even that of 1806, ever asked me for these. A sight of them was in 1809 offered to one of the Whig Aristocracy, at that time apparently in a situation to have benefitted by a perusal but no answer was made.

Note 12. I ought not to disguise that here is doctrine which, in my judgment, is highly objectionable. This hanging back in the cause of liberty and the constitution, till "the people shall have "seriously and affectionately taken up the great question" is the epidemic disease of the whig aristocracy, or, as called by the Edinburgh reviewer, the "whig royalists." It has, to my certain knowledge, cleaved to them in a surprising degree for more than thirty years. Like hereditary scrofula, there is no purging it out of the blood. Generations pass away, but the disease gathers strength. It is one that naturally tends, as all the world now sees, to political insanity. This disease of the whig aristocracy has, in my mind, proved to our country as dire an evil as the more visible leprosy of corruption, to which it is nearly akin. It is of this disease, so impure in its origin, so deplorable in its ravages, of which at length the whigism of aristocracy is expiring: well if the state survive its pestilential effects!

Of this scurvy humour, I may feelingly complain. It hath cost me, personally, at very many periods, no small labour, no small vexation, no small suppression of my feelings, no small trials of patience. But for this very cause, the exertions of my pen had never been required. So long ago as 1777, my senti

F

ments, on observing this whig malady, were thus expressed ;"That man, amongst the opposition to the present ruinous men " and measures of the court, who shall not immediately pledge "himself to the public, by the most explicit declarations and "the most sacred assurances, to exert himself to the utmost of "his power and abilities, and perpetually, so long as he shall live, "in attempting to bring about a thorough and complete par"liamentary reformation; and shall not instantly set about it, in "preference to every other consideration, is, in my humble opi"nion, nothing better than a factious demagogue, who cares not "that his country be sunk in the pit of perdition, so long as he can "but hope to come in for a share of power and plunder."* To what extent the malady has proved curable in three and thirty years the nation has seen and felt.

"Friends of the People!"-Whig Leaders!" Enlightened Statesmen !"-is it not the characteristic of a "Friend of the People," incessantly to contemplate the Constitution; incessantly to note the neglect or the violation of it; and incessantly and actively to oppose himself to such neglect or violation; whether by exertions in parliament, by discussions of the press, or by informing and reasoning with the people in their public meetings?

What do we mean by a Leader, but one who does not wait to be led? He is properly a Leader, who calls forth the people to save them; who, having broken their deadly slumber, awakens reflection; who informs the public understanding-infuses public spirit-arouses courage-animates to action-inspires hope-aud leads on, by the safe paths of the law and constitution, to victory and the peace of freedom!

An enlightened statesman" I have already described. He is equally in his proper sphere, whether in his closet, or his sovereign's cabinet; in the council of parliament, on an assembly of the people. A statesman, in a mixed government, of which democracy is the soul, who disdains the assemblies of the people, is not "enlightened," is no patriot, and unfit for power. He who cannot in a popular assembly maintain his own dignity, is unequal to the task of upholding the dignity of a free state.

Note 13. Here again, in half a dozen lines, is error, obscurity, and exceptionable matter. His lordship has indeed talked about principle, but has not "laid down" any; and it is, I believe, the first time we ever heard that "principles depend on practical views." No: principles are intractable, stubborn things. They are eternal truths, which ought to controul, not "depend on", practice. Here, in the noble lord's opinions, we have a symptom of that Burkeism which also breaks out in his letter of 1794, given in

page 54, but which has of late been more conspicuous in his political conduct.

66

In the letter he had said, that " Government being formed for "the protection and security of those rights (the rights of men) "whatever MODE is best calculated to produce those ends, whe"ther it be universal, or a more limited system of representa"tion, is THAT to which the people have a right." Here, if I mistake not, is a loop-hole in principle, by which, be a politician's practical views" what they may, he may, whenever it suits his interest, completely escape. On whose judgment are we to rely, for teaching us what "mode is best calculated" for preserving our rights.-Lord Grey says, the judgment of "great and honest men!" and in this particular instance it seems, they are to be "all "the great and honest men, who have been heretofore favourable 66 to the measure of a temperate reform." This seems a strange

mode of laying down PRINCIPLES, and defining RIGHTS. "Great and honest men" differ in their opinions one with another. Nay, at different periods, and in different situations, as in or out of office, they differ with themselves. Lord Grey himself is now for " a more limited system of representation" than when he wrote me the letter in 1794. Which of his varying "modes" is "THAT to which the people have a right?"

In consulting his friend Lord Grenville, our difficulty will not be removed. "Echoing Mr. Pitt, his lordship, in 1797, in as "many words, as it should seem, maintained, that parliament and "the king had a right to change the Constitution. If this "language have any meaning, it must mean that the legislature "have a right to annihilate the English Constitution, and to give "us in exchange a new one on the model of the late French mo"narchy, or of the present Russian or Turkish empire, or any "other whatever.- But when, two years before, the late "Duke of Bedford had declared that the most salutary change "would be, a change in the representation of the people; such "a change in the opinion of Lord Grenville went to the direct "overthrow of our present system in church and state." He likewise being then a minister, very wisely observed, "I speak "therefore on the question, though personal to myself, because "I believe that his Majesty's ministers possess the confidence of "the people; and because their continuance in office is essential "to the preservation of the present happy system." In the same debate, with the "practical view" of quashing the first tendencies towards a parliamentary reform, which he reprobated as an attempt to change the whole frame of our constitution, he asserted, and truly asserted, that "to take away the elective franchise was a vio"lation of inheritance and of fundamental rights which the two "Houses of Parliament were not competent to enact, and to

F 2

66

And now,

"to which his Majesty could not give his assent."* as we learn from the party manifesto, the noble baron has taken his seat among "the great and honest men" who are "favourable "to the measure of a temperate reform;" but still I confess I shall rather look for those PRINCIPLES on which the RIGHTS and LIBERTIES of my country depend, into the English Constitution, and the eternal laws of nature, than into Lord Grenville's practical views", or any of the "modes" which, either in or out of office, he may think "best calculated" to preserve them. They would stand full as firmly on reason and defmition, as on the summer or winter opinions of a borough-holding lord; especially as those opinions might vary, as comfortable court sunshine on one hand, or as the chilling peltings of exclusion's hailstorms on the other hand, might prevail. But I cannot conclude this note without adverting to the affinity there is between this doctrine, that "principles depend on practical views," and that other convenient doctrine of modern politicians, that we are to look for the principles of the constitution, in the practice of men who can influence parliaments to adopt measures of legislation; which is then absurdly stiled "the practice of the constitution," a phrase I meet with twice at least in Earl Grey's speech. (52, 56.)

Note 14. As Earl Grey, perhaps, by this time, is cool enough to listen to such advice as he himself tenders to his sovereign, it were greatly to be wished he would enter on 'a "temperate consideration" of the seven propositions to be found in a subsequent page, and "deliberately" tell us whether their tendency be to effect "the restoration" or "the ruin of the government," together with the reasons on which he may rest his opi

nion.

Note 15. Hey-day! What have we here? Can such have been the language of Earl Grey? I know, indeed, that Mr. Power tells us he is confident "that the substance of each sentence is carefully "preserved." It cannot however be there must needs be an error either of the reporter or of the press: For here is put into his lordship's mouth, in this short sentence, a gross mis-statement, at variance with known fact, and a declaration equally at variance with public duty.

As, however, I know not how to give a true reading, I must argue on the words as I find them. The noble lord here is made to speak of "men," dealing in false pretences," men who, under "the pretext of reform, would drive us into wild extravagant "theories, wholly inconsistent with the fundamental PRINCILES · "of our system." This is contrary to known fact. It is impossible not to discover, from the context, who the men are that are here alluded to. "Major Cartwright" has been expressly named. Sir Francis Burdett needed no naming. His is the * Appeal Civ. and Mil. on Eng, Con. 44, 292.