ally plundered? Mr. WHITBREAD we are happy to perceive declared his decided " aversion to any compensation being made to "the holders of boroughs;" adding, "there was not a feature of "right connected with such a principle. The thing here was dif"ferent from that of Ireland, where compensations were made. “There it was admitted by the right hon. gentleman who was now "at the head of its exchequer, that every thing connected with the « Union was BOUGHT!"--If this admonition from Mr. Brand's honourable friend should not induce him in future to abstain from again blemishing his plan of Reform by offering a compensation for criminality, we hope he will attend to the observations of a statesman whose memory he holds in the utmost respect and veneration. This odious principle of compensation to state criminals was proposed upwards of twenty years since by that most consummate hypocrite WILLIAM PITT, when, to save appearances, and before he had lost all sense of shame, in the early part of his administration, he brought forward his plan of Reform. He then proposed robbing the nation of a million of money for the purpose of filling the pockets of the boroughmongers. On which Mr. Fox remarked, that “he would never consent to admit the purchasing from a part of "the electors the property of the whole. In this he saw so much "injustice, and so much repugnance to the true spirit of our con"stitution that he could not entertain the idea for a moment."As the house of Commons seem determined not to permit any plan of Reform to go to a committee, there is the less occasion for apprehension on this subject; but could we suppose there were any danger of such a proposal as the voting of millions to boroughmongers by way of compensation for their surrendering those rights of which the people have been so long robbed, receiving the sanction of a committee of the house of Commons, we should hope that the table of the house would be covered with petitions against such an act of national degradation being suffered to pass into a law.

Mr. Brand's motion, not deemed worthy the attention of more than one half of the house of Commons, and rejected by a majority of two to one, was violently opposed by some, and lukewarmly, if not insincerely supported by others. Mr. CANNING in particular, not content with urging the usual pretences in favour of corruption and depravity, proceeded to pour forth a torrent of the most unwarrantable, and contemptible abuse against those who have distinguished themselves as the friends of Parliamentary Reform, terming them" a party, who pretending Reform, were seeking anarchy, "the object of whose views was, not the improvement but the de"struction of the house of Commons-a vain, contemptible, degra “ ded crew, who magnified themselves into the nation, and dimi"nished the nation into a faction; who were too weak to be re

spected, too despicable to be feared

cr

... •

He saw no necessity 'for ANY reform; the house of Commons was all that the honestly patriotic could dseire it!" We hope that the scurrility of this scholar of PITT, and who like his master cares not however outrageously he violates the laws of God and his country, of this cabinet duellist, will not soon be forgotten; and that the author of these foul slanders will one day receive the proper reward of his services. Mr. Brand very properly remarked in his reply to the opposers of his motion,-" That not a single argu"ment, or shadow of an argument had been adduced to controvert "the position on which his motion rested, namely, that the housə "was NOT the representative of the people of England."

Of the hundred and fifteen votes which were given for Mr. Brand's motion, some we are persuaded would not have been given, had there been any probability of the question being carried. Mr. TIERNEY in the preceding session, declared himself unfriendly to the proposed reform, because, " he did not perceive that the "people were sincerely desirous of it." No one however, has expressed greater contempt for popular opinion than the right hon. gentleman. Mr. PONSONBY and some others of the GRENVILLE and GREY factions, and to whom may be added their scholars and parti sans, the Edinburgh Reviewers, confess that a reform of parliament is necessary, "because the house of Commons has sanctioned the "conduct of the authors of the Walcheren expedition; and has "continued to repose its confidence in the present ministers." It is very easy to perceive how long these gentlemen will be friends to some sort of a reform,—just so long as the present ministers are in office, and no longer. The men who waited for the evidence arising from the Walcheren Expedition to convince them of the necessity of reform CANNOT be sincere friends to the measure, They merely want a change of ministers; and then, by their own confession, the general system acted upon for this half century past will do very well.

In the list of those who voted for Mr. Brand's motion, we perceive the name of Mr. WILBERFORCE; but it since appears he gave his vote, not without doubts and fears, lest the motion should be carried, or be attended with the most direful consequences! A few days after the hon. gentleman had given that vote, "he rose "for the purpose of performing a duty, which, notwithstanding his "continued indisposition he was proud to discharge. He derived "great pleasure from presenting a petition," which proved to be from the ministerial party at Sheffield, the purport of which was "to disavow all connection with the persons who had carried a "petition in favour of parliamentary reform, which petition the

house had rejected," The counter petitioners" placed their confi

"dence in the wisdom and justice of the house of Commons, con"vinced that it would take the proper means of effecting such an "economical and parliamentary reformation, as to them would seem fit and proper." Mr. Wilberforce, in rising to move that the counter petition should lie on the table," took the opportunity "of observing, that the house must feel the propriety of its course, "when it called forth such concurrence from the public as was "expressed in the petition just presented. He entered into a "panegyric upon the many and great blessings which the people "of this country enjoyed, by that constitution which was the "object of admiration with all nations." How comes it to pass, we may just ask by the way, that not one of all these admiring nations have, amidst the various opportunities that have occurred in this revolutionary age, ever thought of adopting this most blessed constitution? If however, they have attended to the administration of it for many years past, their discovering so little partiality for the British constitution need not excite any great surprise. Mr. W. proceeded" With respect to parliamentary "reform, he, who was a moderate reformer, preferred a time of "coolness rather than one of public heat for the discussion of that "great question, because the greater danger was, lest the house "should go too far, rather than not far enough, in following up "such a principle."

Mr. Wilberforce has his fears that our very virtuous and patriotic house of Commons, may, in its zeal for reform, go too far! Surely such friends to reform do the cause more harm than its open enemies. But what can be expected from a senator whose political life has exhibited one continued tissue of inconsistencies and contradictions; who, whilst making high professions of christianity, has been the zealous defender of the worst actions of all administrations; who in his writings sharply rebukes the christian world for its neglect and disregard of evangelical christianity, and in the senate has approved of that unjust, that wicked, that diabolical project, in which every principle of piety, of morality, and even of that common honesty dictated by the light of nature, were totally disregarded, and set at complete defiance-the COPENHAGEN expedition! What are the opinions of this evangelical weathercock, is a question, in itself considered, of little consequence; but it is earnestly to be wished, that the religious world in general, and his constituents in particular, would open their eyes, and no longer imagine mere professions to be the test of either patriotism or christianity. The inhabitants of Sheffield have lately at a meeting consisting of upwards of seven thousand persons, unanimously resolved, that Lord Milton, “ by his conduct on the motion of Mr. Madocks ' respecting Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh's trafficking for

་་

"seats by his vote against the liberation of Mr. Gale Jones-and more particularly by his vote and speech on Mr. Brand's motion "for Reform, has insulted tke people of England, and rendered "himself unworthy of the confidence of his constituents."-This resolution was very proper; but we know not why Lord Milton should be singled out for censure. Mr. Wilberforce, it is acknowledged, has voted somewhat differently from his colleague; but in general he has been a firm supporter of the PITT and PERCEVAL administrations; and as to his language and conduct on the subject of Reform in general, and of Parliamentary Reform in particular, whether it does not display something of jesuitism, or hypocrisy, or of both united, is a question deserving the most serious consideration of the freeholders of Yorkshire.

The opposers of Parliamentary Reform, amongst other ridiculous pretences, have held up the example of AMERICA as a warning against the measure. Free, equal, and frequent representation, we have been told by Lord SELKIRK, and his language has been frequently repeated in the house of Commons, " has there been tried, "and failed." To this Mr. Whitbread replied, "that reform had "not failed in America, because it had not been tried: there it was "creation and not reform that had taken place." The hon. gentleman then held up to the house an awful admonition “ arising from

66

an inquiry into the causes which forced upon America the necessity "of that creation. All the evils which accompanied that unnatural" contest, all the calamitous consequences which first tore America "from England, and scattered the seeds of future desolations throughout the whole earth, might have been avoided, if the "British house of Commons had been reformed." The hon. gentleman quoted the opinion of Mr. PITT, to strengthen his own, who remarked-"That to the corrupt constitution of the parliament, was to be attributed the alienation of the colonies,-the "disgrace of the parent country." Mr. Whitbread very justly added, that "the plan of representation in America, so far from having failed, had far exceeded the extent of human hope," and for the truth of his assertion, he appealed to the general state of the country. But the more completely to refute, and we may add, confound the authors of such a pretence, we may safely affirm, that there is no country under heaven in which the political, civil, and religious rights of men are so well understood and practised as in America; and what is an additional advantage-these inestimable blessings are enjoyed at a very cheap rate. The plan of representation, although it may be stamped with that imperfection which is sure to characterise every work of mere human contrivance, is universally acknowledged to be much superior in its theory to any hitherto adopted by any other state. What is it in practice?

Under it the people have enjoyed that prime blessing RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, unshackled by those fetters and restraints which have disgraced, in different degrees, every other country under heaven. In America there are no profane, abominable TESTS, depriving men of their just rights, excluding the conscientious from civil office, and making many who comply with the terms required, hypocrites: -laws which are odious in the eye of God, and of every consistent friend to religion and morality. In America, the catholic, the episcopalian, the presbyterian, the independent, the baptist, the quaker, men of all sects equally enjoy the rights and distinctions of citizensof a free country, and are all equally eligible to civil offices of every description. America is not disgraced by that which has in all other christian countries been the grand corrupter of christianity

A CIVIL ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, every one of which establishments must by the brightness of the coming of that Sovereign, the great head of the christian church, whose sole rights and prerogatives they have so long and sa impiously usurped, be totally destroyed.-America having no such establishment, all sects are there on an equality: no one having any temptation from the civil magistrate to domineer over the other, all are peaceable, and persecution with her horrid train of disqualifications, fines, imprisonment, and sufferings innumerable for conscience sake, are banished from that land of religious freedom. Let our senators compare America in this important respect with Britain, and more particularly with Ireland, and then repeat their exclamation—“ The "experiment has failed!

The economical nature of the American government is another proof how completely the plan of free, equal and frequent representation has succeeded. It has been proved, that the whole expence of the government of the United States, in all its branches, does not exceed that of the first executive magistrate, the Sovereign of Britain. It scarcely need be added, that sinecures of" twenty thou"sand a year” are there unknown: the instances are indeed very rare, of a man having a pension without having rendered those services to his country which constitute such a remuneration the payment of a just debt rather than an unmerited favour. Let our senators compare the expences of the American government with that of the British; let them compare the plain, simple and clear statements made by the executive government of the states with the fallacious and intricate annual budgets of the Chancellor of the British exchequer, together with the voluminous reports presented to the house of Commons, session after session, on the subject of abuses in every department of government, and enforcing the absolute necessity of economy to the welfare and to the safety of the state; let them observe the very little attention paid to these re-;