dissolved the Grenville parliament that they might pack a Perceval parliament) he was asked why the Grenville ministry of 1806 dissolved a parliament which had not run much more than half its course; his lordship somewhat incautiously replied, "it "was thought necessary to have as long a parliament as possible.' He was then consequently for septennial parliaments; and did not, as it should seem, contemplate the bringing in of any bill for a parliamentary reform for seven years at the soonest; which, it must be admitted, perfectly accords with his new ideas; and was, methinks, a very sufficient disclaimer of "theoretic perfection!"

But possibly the principles of the constitution, which it has been intimated to us depend on the "practical views" of statesmen (note 13) may once more, now his lordship is out of office, have changed back again to the point at which they stood in 1797, and, he may join in his friend Brougham's Scotch interpretation of the English constitution, sanctioning the gross fallacy of "three years" being the "right duration" of parliaments.

The conduct of this gentleman leads me to offer a few remarks on the office of a reviewer. If executed with ability and probity, it is of first-rate benefit to society; but if corruptly, it has in it all the odiousness of poisoning the waters of knowledge. In this office are combined the several functions of judge, jury, and counsel; but what are all these without a LAW? How is a judge to interpret that which has no existence? a jury to decide, or a counsel to advise, without a rule or criterion? I was ori-. ginally led into this train of thought, by an article on parliamentary reform in the Edinburgh Review for July 1809, filling about 30 pages of close print; which was any thing but a review of two pamphlets whose titles served as its introduction.

Throughout that elaborate article my disgust was strongly excited by the licentiousness of the reasoning, if reasoning it might be called; for in treating a subject of highest constitutional importance, it was not to be discovered that the writer had any conciousness that a constitution really existed, or was entitled to the smallest regard. Having before me at the time an English lawyer's opinion on the claim of a person to the right of voting in a borough; I could not but remark the striking difference between the English lawyer and the Scotch reviewer. The former, although merely considering the right of an individual; and although his argument contained only forty-two lines, had yet sixteen distinct references to high legal authories, in support of his opinion. The latter, although discussing the rights of the whole nation on the most important of all political questions, had not a single refer

*Times, 27 June, 1807.

ence to the constitution; and, indeed, had none existed, he could not have argued more extravagantly.

How must sensible foreigners smile with contempt at a people, whose eminent scholars are without any fixed principles of the constitution under which they live? and what ought we to think of men who assume the dignified office of literary censor, an office requiring the greatest talent, the profoundest knowledge, and the sternest integrity, who, instead of faithfully interpreting to the nation their unwritten constitution by it PRINCIPLES, studiously keep those principles out of sight, licentiously substitute their own arrogant dogmas, darken the subject with the dense clouds of mystery and sophistry; and, in short, turn teachers of ignorance, in the service of faction!

Earl Grey's sarcasm against "theoretic perfection," is nothing new. As a dealer in that prohibited article, I have long been a butt of the court wits, as well as of their saturnine imitators; but none of them found wit enough to make me laugh at myself, not even the facetious Soame Jennings. I have, however, oft laughed at their folly; and particularly at the foolish reason they have commonly given for my imputed error; that I thought better of the people than they deserved. No such thing. It was because I thought them not so good, nor so happy as they would be, provided we could improve the securities agains our having knaves in parliament and in power, that I conceived the more perfectly they could enjoy their RIGHTS in the ENGLISH CONSTITUTION,that most admirable nurse of liberty and virtue !-the more improved the people would be in morals and in prosperity; while the knaves would be lessened in number and ininfluence. Even a vicious man who might share in a really-free election, would naturally prefer a wise and good man to rule over him, to a blockhead, a fool, or a rogue.

I therefore hold, that, to sneer at "theoretic perfection" is a strong symptom of a vulgar mind, turned aside from the contemplation of wise legislation and enlightened government, by some confusion of intellect, or some sordid passion.

Although, for the reason assigned, I think the people want improving, my mind revolts. at such a libel on them as I find in the Edinburgh Review of January 1810, p. 504; where it is insidiously said, "the root of our misfortunes is in the state of the people, "and NOT the constitution of the legislature." "If the body of "the people be corrupt or depraved, it is in vain to talk of im"proving their representation." In January, this philosopher finds the sole root of all our misfortunes" in the corruption and depravity of the PEOPLE; for which, however, he does not propose any remedy. In April " the single but fruitful cause of all "our calamities at home and abroad," is the enormous ແ INFLUENCE OF THE CROWN," for which he does propose a ridiculous remedy.

But, to return to the philosopher's libel on the people in January, so little in reality is it his own opinion, that, as he proceeds, he gradually loses sight of it. In the course of three pages, he pays the character of the people a compliment; and by the time we have travelled eight pages farther, fact and reflection extort from him this confession, that "The people are, upon the whole, both more moral and more intelligent than they ever were in any "former period; and, therefore, if they are discontented, we may "be sure they have cause for discontent." And in the same page he tells us why, in particular, they have cause to be "discon"tented" with "the whig royalists," namely, " for the haughti"ness of their deportment," " the marked displeasure and contempt with which they have disavowed most of the popular pro"ceedings," "the tone of needless and imprudent distrust and reprobation with which they have treated pretensions that were "only partly inadmissible."* Also for taking "offence" at "the "terms in which their grievances were stated," and for shewing themselves "too proud." He also says "they have disdained too much "to be associated with coarse coadjutors, even in the good work of "resistance and reformation; and have hated too violently the "demagogues, who have inflamed the people; and despised too "heartily the people, who have yielded to so gross a delusion ;” that is, the delusion of believing salvation is to come from a reformed representation, and not from a ministry of “ whig "royalists!"

"

What shapes and colours these masked and harlequin politicians, the Edinburgh Reviewers, to carry a point, can assume! Here, to lay in a little reputation for impartiality, they in January are the severe censors of those " whig royalists," whose, insidious game they are preparing to play in the very next number of their quarterly publication; and then, in April, we are to understand, that what we read is at least free from the taint of faction and selfishness; the mere benevolent result of the lucubrations of enlightened men, compassionately looking down on this nether world of intrigue and contention, from the high seats of political philosophy; when, unfortunately for the jugglers, we get a peep behind the curtain, and find their philosophical jargon was all hatched in the Grenville cabinet, for "baffling" the constitutional reformers.

But I am digressing from the consideration of "theoretic perfection" and practical statesmen. In page 66, I quoted what my ideas of "theoretic perfection" led me, three and thirty years ago, to expect from practical statesmen, professing opposition to mis

*Not being specified, I know not what these inadmissible pretensions are. Perhaps it was not convenient to speak plainly, for fear of being contradicted.

66

government. Did I demand that which was impracticable? The example of Sir Francis Burdett, and other men I have had the happiness to know, prove I did not. I had gone on to say that such a conduct as I recommended, "would make a man appear in the eyes of the nation as a guardian angel: they "would be ready to kiss the ground on which he trod, in re" verence of his virtue and patriotism. A handful of such honest men, acting in concert, might save their country, in spite of a " tyrannical administration, and a venal parliament."*

Did I argue justly? Who are now the factious demagogues? Who, the "guardian angels?" Is it the ground on which a Grenville or a "Whig Loyalist" has trod, the people desire to kiss ; Were the most renowned of the party expected to speak, would the floors be under-propped to sustain the multitude of hearers? Would men, with arms dislocated in struggling for entrance, fly to a surgeon, and the instant the operation was over, hurry back through anxiety not to lose a sentence of patriot eloquence.'+ No: No: Times are changed with them, as they are fast changing with their country. May they then also change, ere it be too late!

I am well aware that, in politics, the word practical bears another sense than that in which I now use it. Indeed, it is not many months since the negation of it was applied to my own political conduct, by a most worthy lady, the sister of my tailor: who, from the circumstance of her family having worked for four generations of mine, and from having personally known me for more than half a century, bears me, I believe, a very sincere regard, notwithstanding I have always had the misfortune to differ with her in opinion on state affairs. This worthy woman, soon after the laced coat, in which I kissed hands after my late naval promotion was made, lamented, but with a little tincture of friendly reproach, that I never could be prevailed on to be a practical man. 'Had it not been for your politics,' said she, with a tear in her eye, you might have been a lord!' Like enough.

When this good lady first knew me, an aspiring youth, embarking at the same time, and in the same ship, with the king's brother, under Lord Howe, I was not only in the right road for advancement, but in the right school for learning how to merit it. As, however, correct notions of those limits which the constitution prescribes to the sword of an Englishman are gradually acquired by reading and reflection, it is in time discovered, that true loyalty has objects of ambition to which the pursuit of rank, or honours, or wealth, ought to give way. Experience has accordingly taught me, as doubtless it hath taught others, that men who are most intent on their own aggrandizement, are not the

* Leg. His. of Com. Vind. 106.

↑ Simple Facts.

most likely to do practical good in politics. And the same experience has taught me, that, of all things in nature, there is nothing so truly impracticable, as obtaining a reform of parlia ment by temporizing expedients, miserable tinkerings, and puerile half measures.

Your well trained practical politicians have a very singular sort, of intellect, and as singular a morality. If, in respect of political rights, we prove ever so clearly the debt which is due to us from the BOROUGH FACTION, your practical politician, if he be one of the debtors, can neither comprehend our claim, nor is he in the smallest degree disposed to pay the debt; but if you only hint at restricting the close boroughs to their own natural, fair share of representation, then the air instantly resounds with the sacredness of "inheritance and fundamental rights," Lord Grenville, Lord De Dunstanville, Mr. Davies Giddy, Mr. Gregor, and the rest of the advocates for boroughs" in the quiet possession of a single great family," are up in arms.

Some time last year, the three last, the oracles and the orators of the Cornish corporations, together with some two or three and twenty clergymen-ministers of the Christian religion-and a few other persons, actually signed, and in the face of England, published, a " Protest"-yea, verily, a "Protest," against the successful resolutions of a meeting of the county of Cornwall, which had been carried by a great majority, in favour of reforming the national representation.

In this "Protest" I well recollect the notable phrase of "the "PRESENT constitution." Was this sheer ignorance, or sham ignorance? Was it folly, or fraud? Are we here to pity a misfortune, or to spurn at a cheat?-to correct the mistake of ignorant men, or to lash the wickedness and effrontery of impostors? at all event their phrase was not original. I had occasion to criticise it twelve years ago, when used by another branch of the BOROUGH FACTION-certain counter petitioners, that is, protesters, who professed to be convinced, that extending the right of suffrage" to every taxed householder, would tend directly and "unavoidably to the subversion of our PRESENT constitution; "that is, as Lord Grenville words it, the present happy sys66 6 tem.' ""*

Now, I would fain know from these wise men of the west, if they can tell us where to find the traces of any more than ONE English constitution; that, to which our Roman Catholic ancestors of Runnimead appealed; that to which the Protestant patriots of the revolution appealed; and that to which the constitutional reformers of the present day now appeal. I put my question in the present form, because, in a late debate on the Irish Catholic question, a Mr.O'Hara told us of " a Protestant

* Appeal, Civ. and Mil. on Eng. Con. 8.

*