my view and reverence of the English constitution, which has been known in this land a thousand years, I confess I have a similar feeling, when I hear a serious sentiment in favour of parliaments. with a duration for a plurality of years, be that plurality ever so small; because I know it is contrary to justice, and to the PRINCIPLES of freedom. In the abstract, it were as complete idolatry to believe in two gods, as in two dozen. And parliaments of only two years duration, would be as completely unconstitutional, as parliaments of two score. After the fundamental error of violating a PRINCIPLE, all beyond is mere degree; habitual deviation blunts a sense of rectitude; and one deviation always becomes a plea for another, and another. There is no safety but in resisting the primary violation; or in bringing things back tó first principles.

How few reasoners can divest themselves of the impressions made under the influences of a system under which they have always lived, although corrupt, deranged, and perverted in every part! How few reasoners can have faith in PRINCIPLES, although PRINCIPLES are truth, and truth is an emanation of the Deity, pervading all nature! It is on this account, I added a seventh proposition to the other six, given in pages 84 and 85. It is therein demonstrated, that parliaments cannot have a duration beyond one year, without violating the constitution, and the English liberties. In the teeth of a demonstration will any honest man set up a fancied expediency? In defiance of a PRINCIPLE, will any well-educated gentleman oppose his opinion. Are Mr. Brand's OPINIONS, as well as Lord Grey's, become PRINCIPLES of the constitution? * Whose next? When these principles are thus become more in number than the stars of heaven, and at the same time variable, who shall be able to understand that constitution? Mr. Brand has studied the law, and its foundations. He knows that "against him who denies PRINCIPLES, dispute is useless."

It is well, however, that Mr. Brand, against annual election— against "the quintessence, the life and soul of our constitution"against an essential to human liberty, and against an eternal principle of justice, has but one single, solitary argument, of an imagined expediency to set up in opposition. A curse, say I, on this same imagined expediency! It is a "foul fiend." It is for ever haunting the heads of our politicians. It gives us more trouble, and does us more mischief, than all the fleets and armies of Napoleon. Mr. Brand's sole reason against annual parliaments is, that "the members would not have time to learn their duty." Why, reasons to the contrary are as plenty as blackberries: But who labours at the expense of five hundred reasons to prove,

* See page 72.

that

seven and three are unequal, or that one is not more than three ? Before Mr. Brand himself went into parliament, had he not learned the GRAND DUTY of a representative, that of being an honest man? Was it since, or before, that he read most on law, on the constitution, on history? Does it follow, that after a ra dical reform, which should put an end to the packing of parlia ments, that men of experience, of knowledge, of industry, and eloquence, would have their "duty to learn," or would not have a preference at our elections? But, as an argument that will come home to the bosom of this gentleman, can he believe, that Brands, and Burdetts, and Whitbreads, and Folkestones, and Savilles, and Marvels, would not be chosen year after year to their lives' ends-till, worn out with age and infirmity, they en treated to be released?

I trust Mr. Brand will seriously reflect, on what must have been the joy of the BOROUGH FACTION on seeing him depart ing from the constitutional rectitude of Sir Francis Burdett, in all its three principles, of a correct union of representation with direct taxation, in support of the poor, the church, and the stateof a fair distribution-and of a constitutional, or annual duration of parliaments! How, at the moment, must they not have rejoiced, that the foe, whose dread voice makes their hair to stand on end, was caged, like a fell tiger, in the Tower! They knew that, had he been present, the courtesy of the house would have restrained any other gentleman from taking the question out of his hands. How, then, when it was so taken out of his hands, softened down to a tone not hurtful to their feelings, and-above all-departed from in its essence, which broke in upon the unanimity of the reformers, must they have rejoiced!-Must not Mr. Brand, on reflection, suppose them to have exultingly cried out→ 'See! the apple of discord is now, happily for us, thrown down < among the reformers. Their invulnerability is flown, their ' dreaded unanimity is already at an end. The second leader ⚫ essentially differs from the first. Their disagreements and disputes will be our triumph. By themselves they are divided. By themselves they are conquered.'

The immediate cause of all this mischief is the fatal error I have noticed, touching this superficial, this strange notion of "moderate reform !" This error again has an origin in a certain moral timidity, inspired by the bestial yellings of the corrupt against reformers, as mischievous persons. The character of Mr. Brand ought to place him on a lofty eminence, whence he might look down with contempt on the profligate wretches, and, in scorn of their viperous tongues, boldly preach the constitution, and nothing but the constitution. But he apologizes, he sophistically labours a vindication of his motives, because he puts that vindication on wrong ground; and finally, instead of being called a violent, or

even a "sudden" reformer, he walks into the trap of the MOCE REFORMERS, by cutting down his plan to a half measure. This very circumstance of its being a half measure renders it utterly IMPRACTICABLE. In my view of this half reforming, it is just as rational, as to seize by the heel a drowning man and drag him half ashore, leaving his head still under water.

Mr. Pitt himself, while out of office, started a moderate reformer. Perhaps he had not then looked deep enough into his subject. Perhaps from the very first, his grand object was to arrive at power. In 1785, when minister, and prior to his subsequent attempt, I was informed by the late Duke of Richmond, that on Mr. Pitt's accession to power, the King left in his hands the question of parliamentnry reform to be disposed of as he should think fit; and the Duke at the same time gave me the perusal of the plan then to be brought forward, in a manuscript bill. Aware how deficient it was in those principles on which his grace and I had formerly so perfectly agreed, he intimated to me, that, with the advantages afforded them by their situations in the ministry, respecting a legislative measure, they had drawn their line at what they conceived to be the point of practicability, and when I had read the bill, he asked my opinion of it, which I gave to this effect; that I could not discover the prospect of success, because it was too defective in simplicity and constitutional principle to arouse and animate the people in its favour. Experience, and reflection, however, afterwards convinced me, that even thus early Mr. Pitt had become a MOCK REFORMER, whose game it then was to put on the mask of moderate reform: a mask which must of course be worn by every MOCK REFORMER, who knows the value of public opinion.

In the Epistle to the Caledonians, Mr. Brand, I presume, must have discovered the cloven foot of the MOCK REFORMERS. Then, if, in the line of conduct be lately adopted, he was com pelled even to speak in their manner, and in their language, of "dreading sudden reform”—of desiring "moderate reform," and of calling triennial parliaments, and other half measures" prac"tical reform," must he not begin to suspect, that he has been the dupe of these mock reformers, and of the BOROUGH FACTION, who, by their sophistries attempt to mislead, and by their insolent and noisy bellowings, to intimidate those who respect the constitution?

Having myself, from the very first, despised all corrupt clamour, and feeling no terror at being stigmatized as a republican, a leveller, a jacobin, a fire-brand, or any thing else the base can invent or the stupid repeat, it was ever in my power calmly to contemplate my object itself, independent of any other consideration on earth. Hence I saw the intrinsic wisdom of taking the constitu

tion for my sole guide; and the fatal want of wisdom in palliatives, petty amendments, and half measures. The day for such feeble policy--if ever there was a day for it-I thought gone by when I first entered on my career. I sincerely thank God that it never was my policy. I have ever held a different doctrine. I have ever pursued a different conduct. And the invariable experience of more than thirty years, has given to my opinion, in its effect on my own mind, all the force of certainty. If, after the conversation with the Duke of Richmond, just alluded to, I offered by letter suggestions for rendering the half-measures of others which had been merely communicated to me, and I found was determined on, less an evil, I still lamented that such men as Mr. Pitt and the Duke should attempt reform in such a way.

Had my conviction not been complete, it would have been rendered so, by the recent acknowledgment of a friend of high rank; but whose talents and whose virtues place him infinitely higher than the accident of his birth. He and I sat together, among the deputies from the petitioning counties, cities, and towns, in the year 1780, now just thirty years ago; and he has honestly adhered to the cause of parliamentary reform ever since; and without being more doubtful as to the "strength and certainty of the remedy,' -or without having made the discovery that " a more limited reform" than thirty years ago, is now" preferable!" He formerly, however, was a gradual reformer;" that is, in the words of Lord Grey, he was for the adoption of the salutary "principle of reform, gradually applied." Mark the consequences !—

66

22

"Chevening House, near Seven Oaks, Kent, "July 25, 1810.

"Dear Cartwright,

"I never was a friend to that foolish thing, which has lately "been technically called "moderate reform." I was once a "friend to gradual reform, in order, first, to obtain that which "was right per se; and in order, secondly, to lead to a sufficient "reform, with a fair prospect of success; and my opinion still "is, that, my opinion was right, at the time I held it. For, in "the year 1783, I carried one measure through the House of "Commons, and had for it, even a majority of the lords present, "in the House of Lords, where it was lost only by the proxies, " and that, only by a majority of two. That was an excellent bill

for preventing bribery and expense in elections of members "to serve in parliament. A second measure, namely, a bill for the better securing the rights of persons qualified to vote ""at county elections,' I carried through both Houses, in 1788, "before the enemies of reform felt its utility.-But, upon their

"perceiving its full extent, that act of parliament was suspended, " and thereby rendered ineffectual, previous to the first general "election, and before that plan of partial reform had been tried " even in a single instance.

"A third measure passed the House of Commons, as suggested "by me to the member who proposed it in that House; but (what is quite unusual, and I believe then unprecedented) it was rejected in the House of Lords, on the first reading, in a thin "house, by a few persons, who appeared quite afraid even of "taking the sense of a fuller house upon the object of that bill.

"When I was last in town, I informed some of the modern "moderate reformers,' that I was against this weak attempt at "moderate reform,' as they are latterly pleased to term it; " and that I conceived that very gradual reform would be far "too slow for the critical situation of affairs. I do not know "whether they were, or were not, all of them over well pleased "with my frankness and sincerity.

"Let any man of common sense but look at the state of "things at present.-No sufficient nautical measures taken, "against invasion. No sufficient constitutionally military

measures, to meet it. Nothing done to prevent famine, in the 66 case of a short harvest; my plan for public granaries, and for "encouragement to the farmers, &c. having been rejected. No"thing done upon that very important subject of providing the <l means of making payments, either public or private, in the case of alarm, when money will be buried, and paper refused. "Nothing done to give satisfaction to the friends of liberty, poli❝tical, eivil, or religious. Nothing done of importance about "Ireland, except the burdening of that country with fresh "taxes. New constitutional jealousies started, when the reverse " is indispensable; and that, not merely by ministerialists; but "also by persons in opposition. What a state of things!"Good Heavens! I went up to town to attend fand to oppose "Lord Grey's motion about privileges, by moving an amendment "to it. I did so, to prove that I was the same man of principle "I ever was, but without the smallest hope of doing any good."In fact, I did not find scarce half a dozen in the house of my opinion; nor do I know that one half of that handful would "support me, on any other such subject. The people are yet,

as it were, asleep. Nor do I know that you and your friends "will wake them, till EVENTS SHALL; events that the very "stones of the streets will feel.-May God grant that it may then "not be too late to save the country, and the freedom of its an❝cient constitution. I can make ships, printing presses, ste"reotype plates, and telescopes; but, I cannot make men, who "who will see and feel as I do. I have laboured hard in the vineyard for six and thirty years, but to no effect. Past expe

66