strictly prescribed by the constitution. Of the fourteen propositions that day unanimously adopted by twelve hundred Englishmen from all parts of the kingdom, no one of those propositions has, to my knowledge, been since disputed by the adversaries of reform. The cavil raised in the House of Commons a day or two after by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting the fifth of those resolutions, is no exception: because he first falsified the resolution itself, and having fabricated in its place one of his own, it is no wonder he had ingenuity enough to refute it.

This invulnerability of the proceedings on that grand day of revival, was a happy omen of final success. With a due impression on his mind, of the cause of that invulnerability, our chairman, Sir Francis Burdett, made his first motion in parliament, on the 15th day of the following month, on the eve of the prorogation. It having been laid down, in the 12th resolution of the general meeting, that, to remedy the evils of which we complained, it was not necessary to have recourse to dangerous 66 experiments in government, but to recur to the PRINCIPLES "handed down to us by the wisdom and virtue of our ancestors;" Sir Francis kept strictly within those PRINCIPLES, carefully abstaining from dangerous experiments," or from mixing with them any thing of his own which could break in upon the PRINCIPLES themselves. He explained his object in five propositions, two of which were matters of mere regulation, and of course subject to alteration or modification, on discussion in a committee: but the other three were PRINCIPLES, not subject to alteration or modification by any power on earth, and which could not be intentionally broken in upon without acting the part of a dishonest man, by violating the constitution, and the English liberties.

Those three PRINCIPLES detailed by Sir Francis are the 4th, 5th, and 6th in the following series of seven.

1. That there can be no hope of our country's salvation, without a radical reform of the House of Commons.

2. That there can be no such reform, without much unanimity and ardour among the people.

3. That there can be no hope of such unanimity and ardour, without proposing to the people that which, by its simplicity, its truth, and its evident sufficiency for individual protection and national salvation, shall convince their understandings, interest their hearts, and animate their hopes.

4. That representation ought to have as wide an extent as taxation in support of the poor, the church, and the state.*

This, as far as it goes, is unquestionably a true principle. But I am among those who hold, that men have a right to be represented because they are men, capable of being rendered happy or miserable by those who are set over them. As it is probable, however, that the extent of representation here proposed, would secure public liberty; and as some ages of truly-free government may be necessary.

5. That such representation, as a common right, ought to be fairly distributed throughout the community.

6. That parliaments ought to be brought back to a constitutional duration.

7. That when parliaments have continuance for seven years, or for three years, or for any term exceeding one year, they are of a duration that is not constitutional; because all that great proportion of the nation who, since the last preceding election have successively attained the legal age for inheriting their birth-right liberties, are then denied those liberties.

Here, then, parliamentary reform had taken a second, and a very important step, still all was invulnerable. PRINCIPLES equally defy faction and sophistry: but expediency is a reed that shakes with every wind. In this state of things, it behoved every conscientious, considerate, and truly enlightened reformer, carefully to avoid doing mischief, by scrupulously treading in the path of rectitude; as that alone is the path of safety, and which can lead to success. The sarcastic observations of the borough faction, that the reformers will never agree,' as it is ever in their mouths, so ought it to be ever in our minds. How are millions to be made unanimous? This question merits the maturest consideration. In a million of men, there are a million of minds. If each man is to start a fancy of his own, as a ground of unanimity, the consequence is obvious. On On any given question submitted to a million of men, errors may be innumerable. It is only in TRUTH there is unity. In truth alone, therefore, can they be unanimous. Here is seen the unspeakable importance and the omnipotence of truth-that pure emanation of the Divine mind!

It is, with these reflections impressed on his sound understanding, for Mr. Brand to reflect how his parliamentary movement on the 21st of May last, must have been viewed by the BOROUGH FACTION. We always said the reformers would never agree; and what a triumph have we already; for even the second < leader in their cause, essentially disagrees with the first!' Mr. Brand's difference of opinion with Sir Francis Burdett, touching the voting in districts, instead of members being returned by districts, being mere matter of regulation, not of PRINCIPLE, could do no harm, and is not at present of importance; but unfor enlightening the minds of aristocracy, and reconciling it to the universality of representation, as the wisest policy, and laying the surest foundations for peaceful and happy government, I am content to take representation as here proposed, as the basis of parliamentary reformation.

Nor am I aware that there is any thing in the opinion and the conduct here noticed, which can justify an insinuation, that I am one of those "men, who "under the pretext of reform, would drive us into wild extravagant theories, "wholly inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our system." (64).Actually to join Sir Francis Burdett in proposing (against my own opinion) that we shall stop short of universal suffrage, is an odd way, methinks, of attempting to "drive us" into it. But let that pass.

fortunately he likewise differed with Sir Francis in every one of those three principles, which, according to my conception, and for the reasons repeatedly given, are not subject to alteration or modification by any power on earth. This having been fundamentally adverse to unanimity, should we not be able to get back to our safe ground, it must inevitably defeat our final object.

It has been with a view to a general concurrence that the arrangement of the seven foregoing propositions has been adopted, and in which the true foundations of unanimity will be found. When moral or political inaxims are laid down with such simplicity as to be self-evident, or with such clearness of deduction as to require no effort of the mind to understand them, men are apt not to feel the use and importance of reflecting upon, of repeating, of enforcing, and of arguing about them; but, in favour of all this, I have the authority of that potent reasoner, and great master of the human heart, quoted in page 30.

I shall now proceed to explain in what consisted Mr. Brand's fatal errors, in departing from constitutional PRINCIPLE, leaving it to his serious reflection, and his integrity, whether every politician, and more especially every legislator who proposes the reform of our representation, be not strictly bound in morality as well as in sound policy, to govern himself by what is indispensable for repairing the breaches in the constiution; by what is, of right, due and owing to the people; and by what is essential to public liberty. The errors now to be pointed out, it is to be hoped, may be corrected in good time; and if they shall be avoided by our counties and towns who shall hereafter declare their sentiments, the unanimity so much to be desired may still be obtained.

Mr. Brand proposed, 1st, The disfranchisement of decayed boroughs; 2dly, A transfer of their representation to such towns as Sheffield, Manchester, &c. and 3dly, Triennial parliaments. These must be separately considered,

First, then, Mr. Brand, for his disfranchisement, seemed to imagine he was sanctioned by the constitution. This was a great error. "With respect to decayed boroughs," said he, "I will "seek a remedy in the constitution itself. In ancient times it is "recorded, that when a borough fell into decay, it was customary "to relieve its inhabitants from the expense of sending members "to serve in parliament, by disfranchising them, and giving other boroughs, more populous, that right. The principle, therefore, "I contend for, is recognised by the constitution."

66

The error here, is one that is very common; but it is also of great magnitude, and very pernicious. It is the error of all those who vainly search for the principles of the constitution in the practices of parliament, where, too frequently, they are not to be found. In some recent instances of this search (on the question of privi

lege, according to my recollection) the factious parties artfully substituted the phrase "practice of the constitution," which, if not mere metaphor, is sheer nonsense. These persons do not try "the practices of parliament" by the test of the principles of the constitution; but they, with no common fortitude of face, call practices of parliament, THE principles of the constitution, merely because they were the practices of parliament. An excellent specimen of the "enlightened" minds of "practical" politicians!!!

The true PRINCIPLES in the present case for Mr. Brand's guidance, were those of the union of representation with taxation, and the fairness of distribution. But what havoc of these principles has been made by the practices of parliament !

"Disfranchising," a feature in parliamentary reformation, for the restoration of liberty! Good God! The very term is revolting, and ought to have recalled the mind from error. We must lift our thoughts above these miserable expedients, these dregs of Norman despotism, or we never can rival the patriots of Runnimead and the Revolution, in rearing up once more the overthrown bulwarks of our country's liberties! We ought to sanction no measure but what is consistent with freedom, and justice, and common right. Here, all is arbitrary, mere discretion,-(Sir William Jones calls it "the fiend Discretion,") without any criterion of justice, or any correct idea of common right, or equitable distribution. How are we to agree upon the boroughs to be disfranchised ? or the number of them? or the towns to be favoured in the transfer?-Have we not here a most prolific source of disagreements? apples of discord without end? Mr. Brand himself talks of thirty of such boroughs. Every man in a committee might differ as to the proper number. If disfranchisement were the right way of going to work, where is the borough that deserves it not? But instead of disfranchising all, it is our business to reform all, by melting them down, or in the technical language of the law, merging them in the general mass of county population, and then fairly dividing the counties into districts.

This rule of disfranchising is every way unsound. It is neither self-evidently right, nor just, nor simple. It has not the requisites for unanimity. It will not acquire "stability," it will not make "impression," that is, in its favour, but a strong impression against it. It is too much of an artificial expedient, of a petty project, to satisfy the people. They are looking for A RESTORED CONSTITUTION. Whatever shall not interest, excite, and animate, the people to a powerful exertion, will be laughed at by the

* See note 13, page 68, and Lord Grey's speech, 52, 56.

+ See Prop. 4 and 5, pages 84 and 85.

BOROUGH FACTION. By the unanimity and energy of the nation they must be made to tremble.

Secondly, Mr. Brand's disfranchised boroughs would still remain parts of their respective counties. But in the counties he allows suffrage only to freeholders and copyholders. Householders paying taxes in these reduced boroughs, might not therefore have any votes. This violates the 4th proposition. As to an equitable distribution, which is of essential importance, he takes no notice of it. According to his plan, the smallest of his remaining boroughs would still send to parliament as many members as the largest counties. This surely is monstrous injustice. Injustice is an ill basis for national liberty and prosperity. Mr. Brand had not sufficiently considered, that our representation's present inequality is its very worst feature; and the most fruitful source of all our calamities. Here the fifth proposition is violated. But the remedy is simple and easy. When the populations of the boroughs for elective purposes, shall be taken as only a part of that of the counties, as in the case of the militia, juries, &c. &c. an equal division removes all difficulty; and practically gives us the benefit of the principle of equal representation.

66

Let us proceed to the other feature of Mr. Brand's plan, which violated the 6th proposition. "I do not mean," says Mr. Brand, "that the country shall have an annual parliament." How different from that writer, who says, "The People were taught a knowledge of their constitution and duties, by the an"nual exercise of their rights"- "The annual exercise of elec❝tive power under the Saxon government, was the quintessence, "the life and soul of their constitution. The first principle of a "government, that is founded upon the natural rights of mankind,

is the principle of annual election. Liberty and election, in "this case, are synonymous terms: for where there is no election, "there can be no liberty."*

Mr. Brand, on this question, is equally concise and decisive. "Annual parliaments would be too short. The members would "not have time to learn their duty." He shall have as concise a reply: Representatives are not sent to parliament to learn their duty, but to perform it.' The pagans probably thought one god was too few, and that a divan of deities were necessary governing the universe. I believe in the sufficiency of ONE God. I also believe in the sufficiency of parliaments of ONE year. hear, in any Christian country, a serious sentiment in favour of a pagan plurality of gods, would certainly disgust me, And, with

* Hist, Ess. on Eng. Con. 7, 11.

for

Το