of making peers or bestowing pensions, sinecures, &c. more than it has been abused for these twenty five years past, that is from the commencement of the PITT administration? The house of Lords has increased in number during that period almost double, and were an impartial inquiry to be made into the merits of a great majority of the new made peers, we should find they consisted in the extent of their influence as borough-mongers, and makers of members of the house of Commous. With respect to sinecures, pensions, &c. is it possible for any men to grasp at them with greater eagerness than the men now in office? Would not Mr. PERCEVAL have been in possession of a valuable sinecure for life, the chancellorship of the Dutchy of Lancaster, in addition to his other sinecures, (to say nothing of his places,) had he not been prevented by an address of the house of Commons requesting that the office might be bestowed during pleasure only? Has not his brother Lord ARDEN, a sinecure amounting to upwards of 20,000l. per annum? Has not Mr. Perceval secured to himself the reversion of this enormous sinecure? We might ask questions somewhat similar respecting Lord LIVERPOOL, and other members of the cabinet, their relatives, minions, &c. Have not this phalanx of place and sinecure holders, with persevering obstinacy resisted too successfully resisted the repeated attempts of the house of Commons to abolish the practice of granting places in reversion? And these truly, are the men who pretend it would be dangerous to trust the Prince with those portions of the royal prerogative, the exercise of which they have so selfishly and shamefully perverted. Their most ardent hope, it is evident by their perpetual delays in settling the regency, and by the very sanguine expectations they are in the habit of expressing of his Majesty's speedy recovery, is, that they shall remain out of place for a very short time, and accordingly it seems to be their determination that the royal prerogative shall in these instances be suspended until the exercise is again under their influence, so that the choice favours of a court shall be bestowed on no persons but themselves, their friends and supporters. No greater insult could possibly be offered to the Prince than insisting on such restrictions as the condition of his acceptance of the regency; and the calm, respectful and dignified manner in which his royal highness has expressed himself on this subject, proves that the insult is not more gross than it is unmerited.

From the mean, selfish and disgusting conduct of administration, who are fearfully clinging to their places, we turn to that of the opposition, the majority of whose leaders appear to be eager to dispossess their opponents of situations on which they have been in the habit of casting a "longing look," and which now approaches to exulting expectation. It affords us pleasure to observe any excep

tions to the general conduct of the party. Lord HOLLAND who has hitherto proved the uniform and consistent advocate of reform in general, and of parliamentary reform in particular, has placed tire subject of "restrictions" on its true grounds. Referring in a recent debate to the opinions he had frequently expressed respecting the increased influence of the crown, he objected to the proposed restrictions as arguing a want of confidence in the Prince Regent, and insinuating the danger of his abusing the exercise of the royal prerogatives entrusted to him. This constituted the plain, simple, proper, and we will add, the only ground of objection which the opposition ought to have taken; had this been the case, many useless, and worse than useless debates, might have been spared, the government would not, in all probability, have so long remained without a head, and the Prince of Wales would ere now have been entrusted with those prerogatives of which he ought to have been in possession three months ago. But what have been the principal grounds taken by the opposition members in general? They have proclaimed to the world that the full exercise of all these prerogatives is absolutely necessary for the support of what they term a strong government; and as the hon. Mr. Lambe has neatly expressed it, "that so much has been said and written "by sensible men to prove the necessity of the increased influence "of the crown, that doubts may reasonbly be entertained whe"ther it ought to be diminished!" Thus in the opinion of the opposition the strength of the government consists in the influence of the crown; and to this opinion is to be attributed the long and ardent debates respecting the management of the royal household. It appears that nearly 200,000l. is annually paid in places, and pensions to noble lords, and hon. and right hon. gentlemen, who are under the immediate influence of the crown; and we are assured that if this influence is divided, the government will be so weakened that there is great reason to apprehend the ministers of the Prince Regent will scarcely be able to carry their measures!

For the honour of the British constitution; for the honour of the two houses; for the houour of the people at large, we most earnestly hope these statements are unfounded. What must be the reflections of foreigners when they read the debates on these subjects? How often has it been loudly proclaimed in the senate, and echoed and re-echoed from every part of the kingdom, that the British constitution is the admiration and envy of the whole world, although it has we confess made us hesitate as to the accuracy of these panegyrics, when we find them sounded almost wholly within the limits of Britain, and that in the various revolutions which have taken place in Europe and America, no great inclination has been discovered to adopt this universally "admired and envied" constitution. We have

at times suspected that this "admiration and envy” is confined to the theory of the constitution, and that the actual administration being in so many respects opposite to that theory, the "envy and "admiration" boasted of bas somewhat diminished. In what does the strength of this constitution consist? Our best writers answer, in the free, equal, and frequent representation of the people; in the independence and integrity of the democratic and aristocratic branches, and in the free exercise of the constitutional prerogatives of the crown;-that the different branches of King, Lords, and Commons are to be considered not only as acting in union for the benefit of the community, whose servants they are, but that they are likewise to be considered as checks on each other, should either branch attempt to encroach on the constitutional powers entrusted to each, and that in this union and coutroul consists the excellence and the strength of the government. But now we are informed, even by those who have been long complaining of the increased influence of the crown, of the baneful tendency of the power of granting reversions, of the number of placemen and pensioners in the two houses, and of the abuse of the prerogative of peer-making, that the full possession of all these powers and all this increased influence is indispensibly necessary for the Prince Regent, and that on this" full possession" depends the strength of his government. If this statement be correct, we may venture to affirm, that it is of little consequence which of the parties prevail, how much they jostle one another by the divided powers and influence of the executive authority, or, in short, whether we have a PERCEVAL or a GRENVILLE administration.

The restrictions in themselves abstractedly considered, and were they not designed to mark the Prince as unworthy of that confidence reposed in his royal father, do not appear, some of them at least, to be very objectionable. The limitation of the number of peers was an idea entertained by that wise, perhaps the wisest monarch of the Brunswick race, GEORGE I. and had there existed some restriction on the exercise of this prerogative it could not have been so grossly abused by Mr. Pitt for the purposes of his own unprincipled ambition and love of power. After the numerous batches of peerages which have been baked during the present reign, we do not perceive any great harm would result to the nation were the ministerial oven to be closed for a year or two. As to the power of granting reversions, no persons have called more loudly for its annihilation than the opposition members. Were the restrictions in these instances to last as long at least as the restriction on the Bank from fulfilling its promise of paying its notes in cash, the real strength of the government so far from being thereby di-, minished would be increased.

Ministers have professed, in the business of the Regency, to follow pretty closely the precedent set them by Mr. PITT, and the opposition of the present day seem to have followed in a similar manner the example set them by their predecessors. The complexion of the debates in the two houses, in the year 1788, have been justly characterised, by one who took a conspicuous part in them, and from whom few would have expected so frank and candid a confession. Mr. SHERIDAN in a recent debate alluding to the transactions of that memorable period, observed as follows:-" The whole argument of the other side of the house is the "precedent, the whole precedent, and nothing but the precedent "of 1788. That seems to be the whole burden of their song. I "have the HIGHEST RESPECT for the great man who was then "at the head of the administration; but I will venture to say that "if ever there was a precedent on your journals which disgraced "this house, it was that precedent. This is a time when we must "speak out. I say that those times were disgraced by party heat "and violence, and that they are not fit to be remembered. As an "instance of the improper length to which that heat and violence was carried, I should have only to bring to the recollection of "the house the language which was spoken by Mr. Burke on that "occasion; language which I will not disgrace the house by men"tioning. When I say that a gentleman in this house, [Mr. Pitt] "went the length of stating that the Prince of Wales had no more right to the regency than any other member of the house, I have "said enough to shew the improper length to which party zeal was "then carried."*-Yes! Mr. Sheridan, you have said enough to enable us to form a tolerably correct opinion of the different parties of that day, and you must excuse the friends of consistency, if they too deem it their duty to "speak out, and after your pro"fession of the HIGHEST RESPECT for the great man then at the "head of administration," whose measures you for many years steadfastly opposed as ruinous to his country in the extreme; whom you frequently declared, deserved to be brought to the scaffold for his crimes; you must excuse us for thinking that your recent profession of the " HIGHEST RESPECT for this great man," reflects as little honour on you, as you confess the debates on the Regency did on your party. And if your remarks were applied to the debates on the same subject which have lately taken place, the ap plication would we fear be nearly as just. The opposition of the present day, and those who are expected to form the cabinet of the Prince Regent, instead of leading a long insulted, abused, and oppressed people to expect a new system in which PEACE and RE

Report in the Morning Chronicle, Jan. 3, 1811.

FORM shall be the objects pursued, hold out nothing but a conti nuance of the old system of WAR and CORRUPTION, and all the abused prerogatives, and increased influence of the crown are now represented as constituting the strength of government, and indispensibly necessary to be exercised, as hitherto, by the cabinet of the Prince Regent.

What can induce those members of the senate, who for so many years were in the habit of warmly opposing the measures of Mr. PITT as the most detrimental to his own country and to Europe; who described his system as a compound of injustice and impolicy, tyranny and oppression; who charged him with being the author of all the blasted coalitions, and the disasters on the continent; who recollect the fatal stabs he gave to the liberties of Britons;—who profess to be the followers and admirers of his grand opponent Mr. Fox, who told "the great man now no more," that " he had shed more blood in wars of injustice abroad than Lewis XIV. and "aimed at more innocent lives at home than Henry VIII."--What can induce these opposers of Mr. Pitt and his system, now to become his panegyrists? Are we to understand that they are more reconciled to that system, and intend following it should they be able to get into place? If this is not their meaning and design, all their panegyrics on" the great man now no more," are equally hypocritical, worthless, and ridiculous.

66

Mr. WILBERFORCE, to the degradation of his character, not only as a British senator, but as a man who has made high professions, and written in the defence of evangelical christianity, has recently repeated his extravagant encomiums on the administrations of both Mr. PITT and Mr. PERCEVAL. It is one of the most unfavourable signs of the times, that christianity, although more generally professed, is less practised than at almost any period since its first promulgation, and that many of its principal professors, who pay some regard to its precepts in private life, instead of cousidering it as a religion which in its effects is " pure, peaceable-without partiality and without hypocrisy," are too apt to consider it as having nothing to do with their conduct in public life. We therefore find them, as in the present instance, glorying in their friendship with, and in the memory of " the great man now no more;" that is, of a vicious man in private, and a corrupt man in public life :—a statesman who equally outraged the laws of his God and his country; a Bachanalian Sabbath-breaking duellist, and who, towards the close of his guilty career, appeared so conscious of his crimes,— of the oppressions which, contrary to the laws and the constitution, he had heaped on the heads of his innocent countrymen, that, to protect himself from the demands of justice, he applied to a corrupt and infatuated senate for a BILL OF INDEMNITY; which being as