| HOOL
liſhini
W A. lºgº
º
R
N
i
º
f
sM.º
*
&
tºN*...> *ºzºº;
Aº

º i
f
º -
º º º
a- º
º * . * *
. . .
- d
- º
º - w
t Nº.
º º “ . . º. º
. Nº. - w
, , ,agºº NY
... ‘. - º * .
* . . º g w º º { '. * * * - tº
º i t - - a . . . º,
- W. - 2 º, º, . º
W
; :
|
. A
º
º
|
\
º
^^
º
-
::
-i:
ºet
:
º
º W
º
**,
º
a
Tº ...,
º &
ſº I
-
iw
4.
:
-o->-of THE-º-o-
CITY OF DETROIT.
ELEASED BY DETTOi! PUSilic Ll
3\o...º.º.
This book is the property of the people of
Detroit, and must be taken special care of,
and not allowed to lie around where injury
may happen to it. -
For damages done to the books of the
Library the following fines will be imposed:
For each grease spot, 5 cents; for each ink
spot, 5 cents; for each leaf torn, 10 cents;
for each leaf turned down, 5 cents; for writ-
ing in a book, from 5 to 10 or more cents;
and for other damages, including soiling the
book or injuring the binding, proportionate
fines up to the full value of the book, where
seriously injured. For self-protection, ex-
amine the book and report imperfections
when drawing a volume from the Library.
É
W º: ^^^^^ º º ſº
ºf NAN/~\ſº º
º º
º
º º
|
t
N.,"
ANA ſº
. . . “. - :* A " AAAAA Nº
W . ‘’A 5 * * º | \ | \
; ºf ſº ºr, ſº º
tº . ." . º º - -
º' Mº R
* \ . A f
W * * .
ºf A A.
*: * * º


... *
3+ -
ºf
2 tº gº
*
THE 4. / 3/ º
SCHOOL FOR STATESMEN,
OR, THE
t - - - &
§ * - º
#4 iſ “ ...; tº • \\
PUBLIC MAN's MANUAL;º
§Nº. *~~ -
- $º. tººk A
& * **
BEING A CoMPLETE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION SINCE
THE REFORM BILL.
BY AN O L D M. P.
* I know no Party but my Country.”
Lorto CHATHAM.
L O N DO N :
SMITH, ELDER AND CO. CO R N H J LL.
tºmºses




1837.
LONDON :
I it INTED BY STEWART AND CO.,
OLD BAII.E.Y.,
$42,42 SA-
TO
HER MO ST GRAC I O U S MAJESTY
VI C T O RIA,
THESE LETTERS,
ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THAT GREAT COUNTRY
WHICH SHE GOVERNS AND AD ORNS,
ARE INSCRIBED,
BY ONE OF THE HUMIBLEST
AND MOST DEVOTED OF HER SUBJECTS,
THE AUTHOR.
ADVERTISEMENT.
THE new features that have arisen in the
condition of the Country and Constitution
since the Reform Bill, seemed to render some
such undertaking as the present not without
utility. Various directions suggest themselves
for shaping a course of Public Action, as re-
gards conduct towards Electors, and duties
as a Representative and Statesman, under the
present altered condition of circumstances.
These are offered the reader in the shape of
“Letters,” with a view to adding, perhaps, to •
his interest from its more dramatic character.
Every precept, moral or political, which an
aspirant entering on the arena of Public Life
vi ADVERTISEMENT.
can require, is endeavoured to be embraced;
and the extent of the subjects entered upon
may be seen from a reference to the “ Index
of Letters” prefixed. The various and com-
plicated interests of the Country, both natural
and artificial, together with our Religious,
Political, and Social Institutions, regarded
as they are more or less likely to be affected
by the “Progress of Change,” open a wide
field, no less for reflection, than curiosity and
anxiety.
“Public Opinion,” the “Spirit of the
Age,” wrought much in accomplishing the
Reform Bill. The “Signs of the Times”
were obeyed. New matters of account have
arisen between the politician and the public;
between the Candidate and the Constituent.
New anomalies in the Constitution have
sprung up. New corrections have taken
place, and also new abuses. New remedies
remain to be applied. As an instance of
which proposition may be adduced the con-
tingency of a “Cabinet Minister in the pre-
dicament of being unable to secure a return
AdvertisBMENT. vii
to the House of Commons,”—of “a Collision
between the two Houses of Parliament,”—
and other circumstances that demand atten-
tion, as having particularly arisen since the
Reform Bill. The remedies for these diffi-
culties are attempted to be shown. The pro-
position again,_that a Minister's parlia-
mentary strength should be based on the
confidence of the country, and that the
Monarchy has means it had not before, of en-
dearing itself to the people—are not amongst
the least interesting that present themselves
for consideration. In a word, the field of
action is no less novel than it is extended;
and, consequently, many novel, and, often,
better rules for shaping public conduct have
suggested themselves. It may be here
noticed, that as far as the Constitution is con-
sidered under the operation of the Reform
Bill, an Appendix is endeavoured to be offered
in the following pages to Blackstone's Work.
A complete, but compendious View is given
of instructions spread through four volumes
of Blackstone, as relates to the Analysis of
viii ADVERTISEMENT.
the Spirit, Practice, History, and Plan of the
Constitution. With respect to the conduct
of these Letters, the “qualis ab incepto pro-
cesserit et sibi constet,” as regards the different
characters and sentiments of the “Tiro” and
his political Mentor, is kept up to the end of
their correspondence. Of course party, and
party feeling, are out of the question. The
more exalted views that ought obviously
to shape any such inquiry as the present
forbid considerations so narrow. The work
in fact, while it is of no party, belongs to
all parties. Truth is all that is sought after;
and the “Pros” and “Cons” are set forth
with this object alone in view. It is requisite
to observe nothing further than that these
pages are the result of long public observation
and a close scrutiny of the English character.
With respect to research, none but the
soundest authorities are admitted. Amongst
others, may be adduced, those of Hallam,
Burke, Montesquieu, Pitt, Blackstone, De
Tocqueville, and MacCulloch.
CONTENTS.
LETTER I.
New Era of Political Conduct.—“Old” and “New Style” of
Politics.-Caution to a Beginner, with Hints by the way to
Veterans as well; with reference to their dealings with Elec-
tors, and against mistaking the objects of the Reform Bill.
f page 1
LETTER II.
In Reply to the Preceding.—The Beginner at Fault; or, the
Effects of “Change.”... . . . . . . . . . . . . • - - - - - - - - - . . . . . 5
LETTER III.
Rejoinder of a Man of the World, and an Old “M.P.” to the
preceding.—Consolations for Mortified Self-Love, being of
no slight importance in encouraging Political Enterprise.
—The Course of “Greatness.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
X CONTENTS.
LETTER IV.
A Dilemma on the part of the Beginner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 1 1
LETTER V.
Reply to the Preceding. — Hints as to Character.—Political
The
“Pledges” considered both as regards the Electors and
Candidate: these being a sort of “Shibboleth” at Elections
since the Reform Bill.—On what Subjects a man may
unreservedly pledge himself. . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
LETTER VI.
“Best Intentions.”—The Liberal Beginner in Politics dis-
covers himself. — The Institution of the “Three Estates”
arraigned, together with the Connexion between the Church
and State. He speaks openly what many Agitators aim at
insidiously, while they profess their attachment to Institutions,
and pursue measures such as this letter proposes for their
subversion.—This letter is quite characteristic of the style of
“ embryo Politicians” and unfledged Patriots who are
“eager for a Republic ſ” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
LETTER VII.
Answer to the preceding letter.—The arguments of the “tiro”
turned against himself—Limited Monarchy compared with
Republican Legislature.—Its hereditary characteristics pre-
ferred.—Real liberty is security for person, property, and
opinion, under the law.—The estate of the Peers regarded as
a social institution.—Its political characteristics reserved for
a future letter.—Its merits compared as a main feature in the
ranks of society, with what is termed equality.—The absurdity
CoNTENTs. xi
of this term.—America.-Nobility shown to consist in its
hereditary characteristic.—The law of Primogeniture.—The
whole letter keeps in view as its principle, (both as to
Monarchy, and the hereditary claim of Peerage,) the fallacy of
regarding only the individual, and not the institution as
established for the interests of society.—Duty of a statesman,
and his view of subjects... . . . . . © e º 'º e º e º e . . . . . . . .page 28
LETTER VIII.
In continuation of the preceding.—The policy of a connexion
between the Church and State.—Ordinance of Religion a
Principle and Law of sound Government.—The necessity of
some Law above that of man to control the passions and
preserve order.—The duty of a Statesman.—The contingency
of non-recognition of religion by the state; inducing utter
neglect of religion, or degradation of the priesthood.—Edu-
cation to go hand in hand with religion.—The Voluntary
principle exposed.—The Protestant character of the British
Monarchy requires the maintaining a church as protecting
the Reformed Religion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
LETTER IX.
The Tiro is perplexed between his own inexperience and the im-
portunities of the Electors.—The question proposed is, that
granting the fact of our Institutions being the best, is not the
spirit of innovation so great, that it will eventually overwhelm
them, however mischievous such a result may be 1–This is
the principle of his opposition.—What is the prevailing bias
of the English, and in favour of what form of Government?
- 58
xii CONTENTS.
LETTER X.
Hints to a Waverer.—Wavering in politics is but a snare for
future inconsistency and error.—Present course for a Politi-
cian to pursue, grounded on a knowledge of the English
character.—The national disposition in favour of a Monarchy.
–Montesquieu.-Duty of a Statesman; and rule in Govern-
Inent. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . & © tº e º e º 'º e º e º 'º º & ‘e & e º ºs e e page 61
LETTER xi.
In continuation.—The bias of the nation against any great politi-
cal convulsion, considered as regards its interests and pre-
judices.—Sect. I. The selfishness and insincerity of dema-
gogues exposed, no less than the folly, as well as injustice of
revolutionary extremes. – The maintenance of security to
property, and the funded system necessary.—The artificial
state of the country.—The cry of “Sponge out the debt”
considered.—The Birmingham Union.—Sect. II. The ancient
prejudices of the country.—Conclusion, that naturally, artifi-
cially, and habitually, the Nation is in favour of supporting a
Monarchy, and retaining the stability of our Institutions,
independently of the question whether they are in themselves
the best.—They are best fitted for the English.--This is the
argument. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
LETTER, XII.
objections on the part of the Tiro.—“Knotty points” that have
perplexed “Political Wisdom” since the Reform Bill:—
namely, how to prevent “Collisions” between the two Houses
of Parliament, and how to remedy the difficulty of a Minis-
ter of State being unable to secure a return to Parliament in
the House of Commons.—Elective system proposed with
respect to the Peers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
CoNTENTs. xiii
LETTER XIII.
Answer to the preceding and the “Riddles” proposed in it
examined.—In the first place, the responsibility of the Peers
to the Country considered.—Their interest one with the
Commons.—The Elective System opposed, as applied to them
either by themselves or the People.—Its fallacy.—The remain-
ing “Riddles” reserved for another Letter—In the present
it is shown that no Vote for re-organising the Peers’ House
has any validity.—And that the very opposition of the Peers
to the Measures of the House of Commons, in which they
conscientiously dissent, is an exercise of that counterbalanc-
inginfluence,—thatobject, for which the Constitution ordains
them. The Exercise of this Authority is their characteristic
feature. They, at times, protect the Commons from—them-
selves! . . . . . . . . . tº a tº º e º e º e º e º ºs e º gº º g º ºs º º ..... Page 92
LETTER XIV.
Explanation of the “riddles” proposed in Letter XII. continued.
—Sect. I. Collision between the Upper and Lower House, as
a general result, shown inconsistent with the uniformity of
feeling that characterises both the Peers and the People at
large in upholding our institutions.—The political bias of the
people to be considered as the only true way of solving the
difficulty.—Sect. II. Corroboration of the evidence of this
bias in the popular distrust, shown as regards any Govern-
ment party injuring the Institutions of the Country.-
Sect. III. The difficulty removed of a minister unable to
secure a return to Parliament.—The remedy arrived at, from
the same arguments as in the question of Collision.—Conclu-
sion that the Constitution has derived strength from the
Reform Bill, which, in giving the people the power of choos-
ing their own Representatives, gives it an opportunity of
showing its attachment to the Constitution, and securing a
Government that shall possess the confidence of the country.
* 101
xiv. CONTENTS.
LETTER xv.
The “Tiro” at fault again.—He desires to know what he may
safely promise his Constituents that he will “reform.”—With
a view to this knowledge, he requests instructions as to the
LETTER XVI.
Reply produced by the “Tiro’s” preceding Letter—To answer
this, a view is entered upon of the Law of the Constitution.
—Definition of it.—Its Spirit analysed, and Moral Charac-
teristics shown.—Abuse of the term “Unconstitutional,” by
mere selfish Agitators and Demagogues.—Plan of the Con-
stitution, being a compendious view of the whole Constitu-
tional Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 48
LETTER, XVII.
Subject continued, according to the “Plan" set forth in the pre-
ceding Letter.—Course of Study proposed—Principle and
Practice.—Sect. I. The Law of the Monarchy, embracing
the subjects of Prerogative—Allegiance—Distinct functions
of the Executive and Legislative authority — Protestant
tenure of the Crown—Stability of the Monarchy since the
Reform Bill.—Sect. II. Parliament considered.—Common
privileges, as well as distinct features of the two Houses.—
Lords' House, a Court of Record, and why.—Commons’
authority over Taxes and Supplies.—Sect. III. Privileges of
, the Clergy.—Sect. IV. Corporations.—The Constitutional
spirit illustrated throughout these topics, and the effect of the
Reform Bill on the stability of the Monarchy and character
of Parliament... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 128
CONTENTS. - xy
LETTER xviii.
The “Tiro” interposes a word.—Flaws in the Charter of Liberty,
and fit matters for Reform, viz. Violation of the Liberty of
the Subject, as to his Person, in the instance of Impressment,
Military Flogging.—As to the expression of Sentiments in the
Uncertainty of the Libel Law.—Preventions of Justice from
Technicalities of Pleadings.-False Imprisonment on Suspi-
cion.—Caution as to Committals by Magistrates... page 159
LETTER XIX.
In continuation of the preceding.—Abuses demanding Reform in
the instance of Debtor and Creditor.—Their mutual injury
to each other shown. —“Spongeing-houses.”—“Credit
System.”—Law for Rich and Poor prevented from being the
same by Circumstance.—Local Courts-Equity: its iniquity
in expense and delay.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
LETTER xx.
Reply to the preceding Letters—Historical Sketch of the Restitu-
tion of Liberty from the period of its subversion at the
Norman Invasion.—Struggles, (1st) of the Nobles agains
the Crown.— (2dly) of the Crown against the Church.-The
first achieved Magna Charta-Debt of gratitude due to the
Lords by the People.—The second ended in the Reforma.
tion.—Effects produced by these events.-Increase of Po-
pular Intelligence, and commencement of the People's pro-
gress towards Power in Government.—The struggles of the
People: Sect. I. Against the prerogative of the Crown,
ending in the Revolution, 1688–Sect. II. After the Revo-
lution, against a Ministerial Oligarchy in Parliament, up to
the achievement of the Reform Bill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
xvi CONTENTS.
LETTER XXI.
The Second Section continued: being that of the People's struggle
with the Parliamentary Oligarchy; it was their second bat-
tle for liberty in this “Historical sketch” of the Constitution.
—Picture of Oppression.—Constructive Treasons.—General
Warrants.-Fox’s Libel Bill.—Special Jury “packing.”—
Ex-officio Informations.— Barbarities of the Criminal Code,
especially in Forgery, to secure the safety of the Paper Credit
system of Currency—The increase of intelligence gives
strength to the People, and achieves their victory over the
Oligarchy by means of the Reform Bill.—Measures in favour
of Liberty since that enactment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . page 200
LETTER XXII.
Reply to the preceding.—Remarks on it.—The People's inherent
love for the Monarchy combated.—Subjects demanding ame-
lioration under a Reformed Parliament. — The “field 6f
Change” explored.—Standing Army.—Ireland and Agitation.
—The Church.-The Poor of Ireland.—Misgovernment.—
Absenteeism. — National Education.—Voluntary Contribu-
tion.—Diminution of Crime.—Civil Disabilities of Jews.-
Ecclesiastical Commission.—Objections to it.—Remarks on
the principle kept in view of the existing progress of
“Change.”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • e - © tº e º ſº tº e g º º tº e º tº e º e 221
LETTER XXIII.
In continuation.—Further objections that Reform has not pro-.
ceeded as far as it ought.—Sect. I. Remarks on extending
the Suffrage.—Vote by Ballot.—Duration of Parliaments.—
Ecclesiastical Reform.—The Spirit of Toleration.—Catholi-
cism.—Tenure of the Monarchy.—Revolutions anticipated
CONTENTS. xvii
both in Church and the Monarchy.—The Spirit of Change
and power of innovation insisted on in opposition to the
national Predilection for Monarchy.—Principle and Profes-
..sion of Reform Bill.—Sins of “Omission.”—Sect. II. Sins of
“Commission” since the Reform Bill.—New Poor Law.—
Separation of Paupers.-Centralization Monopoly.—Go-
vernment Patronage unconstitutionally extended.—Pitt.—
London University Charter.—Remarks in Conclusion.
page 236
LETTER XXIV.
A difficult question proposed.—The Old M.P. is desirous to
know the result of his instructions on the mind and public
conduct of his Pupil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .257
LETTER XXV.
An attempt at a reply, ending in a “Query,” showing the diffi-
culty the “Tiro” experiences in the effort—“Principle”
meantime is wavering in the balance with “Vanity.”—
The “Tiro” would fain please himself and his Correspondent,
as well, in his answer; for which very reason he effects neither.
259
LETTER XXVI.
The reply of a Man of the World, and what is more, an honest
man to a Political Waverer—The subject and state of “Party”
considered.—Union amongst Reformers of both the old
Whig and Tory parties recommended.—Since his honesty is
opposed by the whisperings of Vanity, advice, tho’ it may
not be over-palatable with the “Tiro,” is still offered him.
262
xviii CONTENTS.
LETTER XXVII.
The words of the Preacher exemplified “Vanity, Vanity, all is
but Vanity l’”—“Principle” “kicks the beam.”—The cha-
racter of the “Tiro” is consistent throughout.—He post-
pones considerations of Principle to the “love of display.”
—“Qualis ab incepto processerit et sibi constet”—Expe-
diency.—Reconciling oneself to Conscience.—A fair speci-
men of the main-spring of human action which is Self-Love,
rather than Public Spirit or Disinterestedness.-Illustration
of the weakness of a mere Political Character.—The force of
Opposition in stimulating Genius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
LETTER XXVIII.
Reply to the preceding.—Reflections on political Abandonment
of Principle appropriately illustrated in a correspondence of
this nature.—New arguments for not unsettling existing In-
stitutions.—View of the condition of the Country.—Its
Social Aggrandisement arising from scientific Improvements.
—“The new rage for Rail-roads” considered.—Machinery.
—Resources of the soil.—Coal and Iron.—Manufacturing
and Agricultural interests reciprocal.-Corn Laws and arti-
ficial system of “Prices.”—Picture of the present and past
Condition of Rural Æconomy.—“Large and Small Farm”
system.—The aera of the War and High Prices.—Paper Cur-
rency.—Effects of change in the Standard.—Credit System.
—Rents.-The Farmer.—The Peasant.—The Pauper—his
improved condition.—“Poor Allotments.”—Poor Rates.—
New Market for labour.—Brief inquiry as to the fallacy of
the “Malt-tax Repeal” cry, under existing circumstances.—
Mischief of exciting discontent: as retarding any chance of
the Farmer's fortunes rallying.—Reflections in Conclusion.
f 270
CONTENTS. xix
LETTER XXIX.
A word in “sorrow more than anger,” to the Delinquent from
his Political Mentor.—Hints as to Character—Public In-
tegrity—Fortitude—Knowledge.—Analysis of Courage or
Confidence in public.—Its sources.—Danger of young Poli-
ticians “talking” to show cleverness.-Dignity of character
in a Public Speaker.—“ Men and Measures.”—Further ad-
vice for the conduct of a public Man-Brief survey of
Society previously and subsequent to the Reform Bill;
when the People became their own masters, and the sym-
pathies of the different ranks in Society more approximated—
being a “word at parting.”..... tº e o e º e º e e e e º 'º e e page 290
THE
SCHOOL FOR STATESMEN.
LETTER. I.
New Era of Political Conduct.—“Old” and “New Style” of
Politics—Caution to a Beginner, with Hints by the way to
Veterans as well; with reference to their dealings with Elec-
tors, and against mistaking the objects of the Reform Bill.
So, you are going to canvass the borough of G–?
Well! I wish you success — but mind you must be
candid with the electors. It will not do now to pro-
mise one set of measures, and when you are safely
seated, vote for a contrary set. You will be un-
seated the next time you meet your old constituents,
and you will deserve it, as much for your folly as
your dishonesty. For, let me tell you, there are

IB
2 NEW FASHIONS.
fashions in politics, as in the gay world: and intrigue,
however well it might do for a politician who was
always sure of his return to parliament under the old
close-borough system — will not do now. Intrigue
must no longer be the fashion, now the people have
the upper hand. Your political life must exist in
their confidence, or you are defunct at once, and the
sooner the better. When I say the “people,” I do not
refer to mere popular advocates of liberty, I mean the
electors; and what their bias is, at the present era, I
shall have an opportunity of expressing hereafter.
Meantime, it is sufficient for me, wishing you well,
to insist upon your observance of the one great prin- *
ciple that should be the guide of every one who enters
on the political field under this new régime. No min-
ister can exist by any other means. No candidate
can ever face, with a chance of success, his consti-
tuents again, if he has forfeited it. It will be an
ample recompense to the minister for the loss of his
close-borough aids in gaining majorities. It will do
yet more—it will give him majorities* on a prouder
tenure, and on a better principle. If this should
startle you on the first consideration, it will not do so
after the remarks I shall have, at a future period, to
* Letter XIV. sect. iii.
SLIGHT MISTAKES. 3
make. At present considering that you are determined
to act like a prudent and honest man, in rejecting all
Machiavelianism and intrigue as out of date, and
taking as your text “Candour' and the securing
‘public confidence,”— I will, with a view to your
attainment of the last result so desirable (nay, the very
vital essence of your political strength)—I will, I say,
just give you one hint, which is, that you mistake not
the objects and purposes of the “Reform Bill.”
The brawlers for rank liberty, and unqualified change,
view it as a charter not of wholesome correction, but
of revolution—the ultimate goal of a series of violent
innovations. They do not hesitate to tell the people
that they have now in their hands the instrument of
entire change, and that they are fools if they do not
use it for such purpose. But, in so saying they
belie the spirit of the Reform Bill, which was not
called into existence for revolution but restitution.
It was a good in itself in its correcting qualities
and like all other good, however liable to abuse, is yet,
not to be permitted to be abused. The prudent
electors will take care of this, by-the-by, if they un-
derstand their own interests. The Reform Bill ex-
hibits not an offensive principle but a defensive. In an
opening letter I can say little more than lay down
principles of action for you. You asked my advice,
B 2 *
4 GOOD WISHES.
as you say you do not precisely see the bias of public
opinion,” and I am happy to give you the benefit of
my political experience in coming to a right conclu-
sion, satisfactory to the electors, and safe no less
than honourable for yourself. How far you may be
influenced by my views I shall be happy to hear
before I say anything more.
* Letter X. on the natural bias of the English character, in
favour of a Monarchical Form of Government and an Aristocracy.
LETTER II.
In Reply to the Preceding.—The Beginner at Fault; or, the
Effects of “Change.”
NEVER was anything more blank, more dishearten-
ing than your letter! It has damped all the charm
of politics for me! You reduce the whole matter to
a plain “settling accounts;”—a plain “matter-of-
fact” exposition between the representative and the
constituent. All the romance—all the diplomacy—
in a word, all the zest—which intrigue and acting
gave to politics is at an end All the display of in-
genuity in explaining away apparent inconsistency is
lost! All the glowing apostrophes to Liberty, dumb-
foundered ' That very theme which, I had imagined,
the spirit of the reform bill inspired, is rendered a
dead-letter! What am I to say to the electors ?
How animate them 7 How rouse them 7 Where
glow in virtuous indignation ? Where rise as the
vindicator of their rights?—as the avenger of their
6 REMEMBRANCES AND RIEGRETS,
wrongs?—the redresser of their grievances?—the
restorer of their claims encroached on, or over-
whelmed ?—Alas! alas! all the sources of feeling,
of emotion, of passion, are dried up ! Eloquence
may retire into some sequestered nook, fling aside
her immortal scroll traced with the names of Pericles,
Demosthenes, Hortensius, and Tully,–Pitt, Fox,
and Canning—and con over the pages of a primer,
or thumb a horn-book in mixed sorrow and derision
—in mournfulness and self-contempt While the
pride of nobler enthusiasm is lost in the land, and
the dignity of man, which once formed the topic of
public expression, falters on the lips, and dies into an
echo |
P.S. On second thoughts, as your advice was
well-meant permit me to make my acknowledgments
for it, however dispiriting and discouraging the
general tone of your recommendations might be felt.
LETTER III,
Rejoinder of a Man of the World, and an Old “M.P.” to the
preceding.—Consolations for Mortified Self-Love, being of
no slight importance in encouraging Political Enterprise.
—The Course of “Greatness.”
I was not a little amused at your answer to the Sober
sadness of my “experience!” It is difficult to face
the chaste but somewhat demure aspect of Truth,
after gazing on the dazzling illusions of Fancy. I do
not wonder, with your mind heated with the ha-
rangues of antiquity,+with the glowing sentiments
breathed through those pages which your recent
academical pursuits have busied you over, —that you
should wish to display a little of the ardour with
which they have imbued you, and that you feel any
exposition of “matter-of-fact,” as damping the fire
and obscuring (come, confessit!) the scintillations of
your own brilliancy! I do not find fault with you.
A wish to display is a very excusable vanity in a
8 A WORD OF COMFORT.
young man, and the checks he meets with in this par-
ticular, are the bitterest shocks that human pride
knows. But to be sensible of these shocks, and
to rise superior to them, is the victory he must achieve
if he wishes to aspire to greatness. You are indig-
nant and piqued, because your self-love is mortified.
Be above this—and as I tell you, above it you must
be if you wish to be “great.” Perhaps I shall
mortify you yet more by telling you, you are unjust.
But I do not wish to irritate you. I would rather
console you. Or, if such compassion tend to offend
your pride,-let me rather say, I will show you rea-
sons for considering that there is still ample field
for the display of all those sentiments which dig-
nify and elevate human nature: and which you
would have an honourable anxiety and pride in
avowing. In fact, you shall have no reason to feel
your worthy “self-love” mortified, nor the spark or
spirit of nobler enthusiasm deadened or degraded.
What! Is there no such topic as vice to lash! As
mischievous innovation to expose? As fraudulent
and self-interested professions to detect 2. No theme
on which to arouse the slumbering energies of the
good but unwary, or the too confiding and credu-
lous? Are there no portrayals to be drawn of the
deformity of inconsiderate measures of change: or
of the beauties of our own institutions? Are there
FALSE PATRIOTS. - 9
no proud names of virtue, candour, and disinter-
estedness to exhibit in contrast with the dissemi-
nators of mischief, the preachers of guile, the traitors
to the public weal, and to their country? I fear
there are too, too many of the bad examples to lash
and expose !—would there were not! But human
vanity will ever be offering incense to its idol: and
individual consequence, and individual display is an
incentive to action beyond the interest of even a
Country. The patriot in name, is but the aggrandizer
of his own importance. Every one pushes forward
with his peculiar “measure,” and lets fly his shaft
at the public target, regardless that he is but aiming
at the heart—after all—the lacerated heart—of the
public weal. So much for idle vanity. Do you
despise it; and base your principles on sound philo-
sophy. Men will soon discern your rectitude, and
acknowledge your merits. So imagine not, that all
worthy love of distinction will not be answered.
You will perceive that without sound principles of
moral action — of philosophy — politics are but a
paltry material. If you do not understand this, you
have studied to little purpose, and have not com-
muned aright with the great minds that have lately
engaged your attention. Leave to dull pert Sophists
* See “Notices of Motions” in any Parliamentary Sessions' Paper.
B 5
10 Bly RKE.
—to quibblers in argument, and not lofty debaters—
their bald sentences merely detailing facts, or abus-
ing an adversary. Do you take a bolder flight, on a
loftier intellectual elevation—and let your practical
plans be ever guided by the ray of an enlightened
truth—or else you do but grope in a fog—benighted
and bewildered—lost alike to utility or distinction.
Burke's political works and the study of his mind
will give you a very forcible illustration of what I
have been inculcating: unless you act upon, and ex-
press, and are guided by, some great principles, you
can never be a great man, or of the order of great
minds. But let me pause here : I think I have said
enough to show you, you had no cause for regretting
a lack of lofty matter for public oration since the
“Reform measure.” And I have ventured to add
a hint as to the character your speeches as a public
man should be, to give you credit, or render them im-
pressive. As to any instructions relative to our in-
stitutions, and the extent of amendment you may
safely promise your electors to enter upon, I shall
speak of these topics in good time.
1]
LETTER IV.
A Dilemma on the part of the Beginner.
HERE is a business! They are, some of them, asking
me for pledges of my conduct in parliament, as to
various measures I had not considered so fully as I
should have wished, previously to making up my
mind upon them. I said this at once; adding, that
they might rest assured, that if I did not show myself
worthy of their confidence in my parliamentary career,
I was ready to resign the trust forthwith. This
quieted them at the moment, but as I shall no doubt
be applied to again, my independence of feeling would
lead me at once to refuse giving any pledges at all—
what do you say?—Thank you for the remarks in
your last.
12
LETTER. V.
Reply to the Preceding. — Hints as to Character.—Political
“Pledges” considered both as regards the Electors and
Candidate: these being a sort of “Shibboleth” at Elections
since the Reform Bill. — On what Subjects a man may
unreservedly pledge himself.
YoU answered those good people quite rightly. I
think they showed wonderful forbearance in not press-
ing for a pledge at once, which is the general method
of these confiders of their public trusts into the hands
of a candidate. But they acted more becomingly,
and showed the difference between a reasonable consti-
tuency and—a mob. In return for their complaisance,
you must be studious of an increased assiduity in
rendering them satisfied with you. But always keep
up a tone of authority with them. They will respect
you more if you act and express yourself in such a
way as to command their minds, so that they shall
look up to you—not you be a sort of political lacquey
to wait upon them. Accede to them whatever you
CONDUCT TO CONSTITUTENTS. 13
conscientiously can; but they will respect you for
openly and boldly declaring the points of your dis-
sent, and a candid statement of your reasons for such
dissent. They will despise you and treat you as a
“king log” to spurn; if you humble yourself to a
mere tool, and act merely at their beck and bidding.”
No! every constituency ought to have reason to take
a pride in its representative, on the score of his
independence of character. On the other hand, every
representative ought (as far as justice and policy will
allow him) to further and promote the wishes of his
constituents; and where he cannot go with them—
show them why they ought rather to go with him—
for it is always better they should be agreed as far as
possible. As to “pledges”—every man may be said
to be pledged to a certain extent, who comes forward
as upholding a particular principle and line of action.
Every man, for instance, that comes forward as a
supporter of a reforming or non-reforming line of con-
duet, is so far pledged on this broad principle. There
may be also particular points between him and his
constituents, on which a uniformity of sentiments may
be known, and which he has declared he will advo-
* See Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol, on the Duties
of a Member. “His independence is demanded by the Constitu-
'tion. He is a representative not only of any particular constitu-
ency, but of the whole ‘Empire.’”
14 INDEPENDENCE,
cate. Here, again, a man may be said to be pledged
—that is—it is understood by his constituents and the
public how he will act. This is, of course, supposing
he is determined to pursue this line. But wherever
he is not so determined—wherever he entertains a
doubt—wherever there is a chance that circumstances
may vary the policy of a measure—here, it is idle
to talk of the propriety of either asking a pledge on
the part of the elector, or granting it on the part of
the candidate. To ask it under these circumstances
is an act of tyranny on the part of the elector, utterly
alien to the spirit of the constitution, either as regards
himself or his representative; as it is establishing the
relationship of master and slave in individual in-
stances, rather than preserving the independence of
the legislator for the good of all his fellow-country-
men. This feeling again will influence the candidate
in rejecting any proposition so unworthy of the dig-
nity of the function he aspires to. In fact, your game
is very simple here—you know what principles you
come forward on—you may be said to be pledged
thus far. As for pledging yourself to a whole poli-
tical catechism, after what I have hinted, I am sure I
need not repeat that you will disdain to think of such
a thing. To this I may add, that, as an “English-
man,” you will unhesitatingly pledge yourself to up-
hold our institutions—our orders of Society—(no less
RUBLIC OPINION, 15
than of State)—I mean those of the King, Lords, and
Commons—our establishment of a church connected
with the state—the independence of the executive, and
its freedom from interference with the legislative—
and while you uphold these—(for in these are con-
tained the sum of our greater institutions)—while you
support their due privileges—at the same time be
ready to cure them of any mischiefs they may har-
bour for disease within themselves, You will perceive
that in the last particular you are but going along
with the course of that mighty spirit which rules
every thing at the present day, viz. “Public Opinion,”
which, speaking through its mighty mouth-piece, the
“Press,” is the real governor of this country;-the
“Press,” for which the same “Public Opinion” achieved
liberty. But, be assured, that while this “Opinion”
is jealously alive as to watching the interests of the
community in checking abuse, and hence reaping the
benefit of the Reform Bill—it is no less jealously alive
to guarding against attacks ruinous to our institutions.
Let not, therefore, the ardour which I know you pos-
sess, in favour of principles of freedom, lead you into
a Quixotic experiment of improving the condition of
society, by impairing or changing those institutions
* This is the real Sovereign Power after all ! It vindicated for
itself the triumph of Catholic Emancipation and the Reform Bill.
(See end of Letter XXI.)
16 LIBERTY DEFINED.
under which it is at present shaped. At first sight,
inequalities may appear, but on a narrower inspection,
as I shall have occasion to point out hereafter, you
will find that such inequality would exist under any
shape, or modification of the social scale, without
any improvement, nay, with much positive evil. At
the same time, I am perfectly aware, that if ever you
could be so rash as to wish to impair our institutions,
I know the experiment would be entered on with the
“very best wishes” for the interests of society, and
from the most conscientious motives—and no doubt
all for the love of “divine”—of “rational”—Liberty.
Forgive me if I indulge in a little irony, in saying this.
Do not consider me obtrusive, if I take the liberty of
calling to mind some words I had the honour of
addressing to certain constituents of mine, some time
past, on this subject:-‘‘Liberty is a rank plant, and
like the ivy that luxuriates over the wall, it works
decay in that which it insidiously decorates: and if
fostered to the extent you applaud, I see the fabric
of a Republic rising on the downfall of our Constitu-
tion.”
You have thus been told generally where your field
of action lies, since the Reform measure. I shall have
to enter more into particulars as we proceed.
17
LTETTER VI.
The “Best Intentions.”—The Liberal Beginner in Politics dis-
covers himself. — The Institution of the “Three Estates”
arraigned, together with the Connexion between the Church
and State. He speaks openly what many Agitators aim at
insidiously, while they profess their attachment to Institutions,
and pursue measures such as this letter proposes for their
subversion.—This letter is quite characteristic of the style of
“embryo Politicians” and unfledged Patriots who are “all
for a Republic l’’
“RARE words, brave world !” says Falstaff— I ad-
mire your harangue, which would carry me away on
its current swelling with the praise of our Institutions,
and making the hustings echo to its murmur as it
hurries along; but, gently “Festina lente” is one
of the pieces of advice I have gleaned from my classi-
cal monitors. It recommends me, at the present mo-
ment, to act with that laudable caution which you
yourself were so good as to “hint,” some little time
ago; and I really cannot help thinking that the rap-
ture you would infect me with requires a little cooling.
18 CHANGE.
The praise you would wish me to reciprocate requires,
I think, not a little qualification You look with
fondness upon our old institutions, and cling to them.
I confess I have at present no particularly warm sym-
pathy with you. Be not offended with me for avow-
ing this. Unless I am candid, in expressing my
sentiments, how can I hope to be benefited by your
instructions, or reap advantage from your experience?
My electors are all of them “liberally” inclined: some
are for extreme measures of reform, but I think the
majority are against what you would call “tamper-
ing” with our institutions. Still they would support
no one who was not warmly bent on the correction of
abuse, and will willingly forgive me a little zeal in the
outset in “the cause of reform.” To arrive, then, at
a safe conclusion as to what I had best address my-
self to correct or not, I must express fully my senti-
ments to you. I confess I regard the “Reform Mea-
sure” as an invitation of Change! you may say it is
“defensive” merely, I cannot help thinking that the
common course of natural and moral progress is, not
to stop short when an opening is afforded to its pro-
ceeding further. You are inclined to be pleasant
with me, in saying that I should act with the “best
intentions,” no doubt, in any changes I should advo-
cate: be assured this is true, I seek for instruction,
and speak sincerely. To proceed, then, with the topic
why NoT A REPUBLIC 7 19
of our institutions, about which there is so much talk-
ing at present. In a word, I do not see, – to speak
of the monarchy, in the first place, — that if it were
at an end to-morrow, and the government a republic,
— I do not see, I say, that the interests of the coun-
try, and the well-being of society, would sustain any
detriment. Why quarrel about forms? Look to the
essence of the prosperity of this country ! Look to
the vital source of its interests, and it will be seen to
exist in its trading energy. That this would flourish
as much under a republic as a monarchy, there is no
question; with the additional advantage of saving to
the people the expense of supporting the trappings of
royalty. Away, then, with the “sacro-sanctity” of
the monarchical form of government. From “pre-
scription,” it has attained ascendancy over the minds
of the English, so that their judgment is not allowed
to exercise itself on the question. Besides this, we
feel that interested motives actuate too many, in fact
the great majority, in maintaining a system by which
they hope to acquire honours, and such baubles as it
is the privilege of royalty to dispense. The idea, then,
of the superior excellences of a monarchy is a fal-
lacy: an imposition on credulity, an error blindly
worshipped through prescription ; and fostered from
interested motives. As to its real uperiority over
a popular form of government, such is the re-
20 HEREDITARY GRANDEE-SHIP.
sult of my considerations: if it be a necessary in
stitution, still, be assured that it is but a necessary
evil, but an evil most certainly . With these opi-
nions, then, the calm result of reason, how can you
expect me to laud our institutions in the unquali-
fied key you would prescribe 2 Having said thus
much on the first of the “three estates” of the realm,
let us see what better opinion I have to express on the
no less commended sacro-sanctity of the “second es-
tate,” viz. the “lords.” What I have to say here
will be very short. A precious institution, truly, is
the hereditary * grandeeship and legislatorial func-
tion!—The absurdity of any institution establishing a
man a legislator by the mere accident of his birth,
and not from any qualities inherent in his own merit,
not from the very qualities that perhaps gave this title
of legislation and nobility to his father The father
proved himself fully worthy of this ascendancy over
his fellow-men : but does the father's merit, too, de-
scend to the son? If not, the principle of conferring
the same functions to one not equally capable of dis-
charging them, is not only absurd, but mischievous
to the interests of the people. Besides which, the
constituting any body of men, separated by artificial
* All this plausible theory and republicanism is duly retailed,
as a provocative to sounder advice, which is the object of these
Letters of instruction.
DRONES IN THE HIVE. 21
distinctions and privileges from their fellow-men, is
invidious to the rest of the community. It occasions
in the persons so separated and privileged an artificial
feeling of self-importance and false superiority, that
makes them believe themselves a different order of
beings; a porcelain of infinite worth, in comparison
with the baser and untitled clay of common humanity.
It destroys those sympathies for mankind that ought
to exist in the breasts of all, and in this point of view
is as morally bad and mischievous as in the former
point of view the hereditary function appears politically
so. In fact, it is an institution for the formation of
an arrogant, inefficient, and callous set of men, and
drones in the hive of society, rather than bees, and
efficient workers of good. Should you ask, here, if
I am bent on abolishing the institution of the peerage,
I say no : not entirely. I would, as in France, con-
fine the claim to that of the life * of its possessor. I
would also recognize the principle of election. # Of
this I will speak more at a future period. I fear I
shall shock you in so desecrating, as you would con-
sider it, the sanctity of these two first “estates of the
realm.” Should you give me, however, sufficient
reason for considering my conscientious opinions
* See the next Letter for the exposition of the necessity of
hereditary claim as constituting nobility.
+ See Letter XIII. at a future stage of the considerations.
22 THE ROYAL PUPPET,
wrong, do not doubt that I will make atonement for
my error, and change them. That this country is
going on in its political career towards a republic, I
cannot help thinking. My conviction of this ten-
dency, and of the “Spirit of Change” existing since
the Reform Rill, will be the characteristic of all my
remarks throughout our correspondence. To return to
the king. He must himself feel that he is little better
than a puppet placed at the mercy of circumstance,
driven to feel the humiliation at times, of selecting
his ministers from those in whom he is least inclined
to confide.* Meantime, almost all the decorations
that dressed up the puppet of royalty are torn from it!
“The vain pantomime at the coronation,” to use the
language of the “liberal press,” of “a country squire
dressed up as a champion, and parading about a
gage which nobody takes up, is passed by and
sunk in the oblivion it deserves, in these enlightened
times.” A very “republican economy” characterised
* This allegation is contradicted in a future Letter which shows,
that the Reform Bill, so far from favouring republicanism, has
strengthened the monarchy, and given it the power of choosing
popular ministers. This conclusion, however, is not to be jumped
at. It is arrived at through considerable argument, and demon-
stration, requisite in instructions of this nature. See Letter XIV.
ad finem, and Letter XVII. sect. i. on the Monarchy.
LORIDS AND COMMONS, 23
the coronation of William the Fourth. If, then, gran-
deur and independence, the two attributes of “sove-
reignty,” are stripped from it, what remains of it but
the name? And if so, why keep on, bowing to the
shadow of what it was? Why not avow the “people,”
the republican body, in fact, to be the government at
once, if in substance it is so? The monarchy was be-
fore the passing of the Reform measure, a puppet no
less, in the hands of ministers; but then an oligarchy”
governed by the aid of the close boroughs; but now
that these are abolished, the “people” is the sovereign,
and has a strength that subdues the oligarchy that
tyrannized over both monarch and people. You will
say, the Lords have still a check on the “House of
Commons;” that is, on the “people” in their repre-
sentatives. The Lords can thwart the people by a
conflicting vote. But do you consider that if there
were ever to arise a contest between the “two
houses,” determinedly pursued, on both sides, that it
could last long, on the side of the Lords? Impossible!
The greater force of the popular current must over-
* The reign of the parliamentary oligarchy is hereafter con-
sidered in examining the effects of the constitutional spirit of the
people in favour of liberty. But the conclusion drawn is not
one of subversion of our institutions, but greater security, as re-
mains to be proved. See Letter XXI.
24 CHURCH AND STATE.
whelm the barrier opposed to it. But, I will not yet
proceed to question you on the subject of collision*
between the two houses. The answering this diffi-
culty, I shall not trouble you with just yet. At
present, if I have shown the popular power to be
everything, and that of the monarchy and peers to be
such mere shadows—I ask, of what avail are these
two institutions?
The next great head of our institutions—that, of
the connection between a Church and the State, I must
no less dissent from, than the unassailable excellence
of the “three estates.” What? shall a system be .
tolerated in a country vaunting the pure doctrines of
christianity, which makes a “state-market” of reli-
gious functions? Is the church to be a hot-bed for
aristocratical minions? For the friends and allies of
the ministry? For the ascendancy of the higher
nobility? Where is decency? Where is religious
feeling? Where is shame? . . . But yet more, not
only is this the case, but it is accompanied with the
effect of disregarding and passing by many exemplary,
many talented, self-denying, and truly Christian
labourers in the field of religion | Reciprocally,
again, if church preferment is a matter of state-patron-
age, it will render aspirants for such patronage politi-
* The constitutional as well as natural remedy for this difficulty
is fully shewn in the conclusions arrived at in Letter XIV.
VOLUNTARY SYSTEM. 25
cal intriguers for favour and elevation, rather than
Christian pastors, whose minds should alone be
directed to the decent discharge of their sacred duties,
and to affording a good apostolic example. You see
then, I cannot admire this “church and state connec-
tion.” I have no objection to a particular Protestant
code being acknowledged as the “Church of Eng-
land.” This the dissenting body itself would even
wish; or else what becomes of them ? since they would
have nothing to dissent from!”. Yet I would make the
induction to preferment on a more legitimate plan of
promotion, according to the merit of individuals, taking
seniority and merit both into consideration. I cannot
enter into all the particulars I have in view on this plan;
I merely state the principle I would adopt, which is
sufficient for my purpose, and which it is but right
to advance whilst condemning the system, in the
place of which I would institute it. Meantime, I
should never wish to see what is called the “volun-
tary principle” of church stipend established. I
would have the church paid in a manner that would
* The principle of opposition (no doubt conscientious) made
the Dissenters what they are. The love of cavil and strife is in-
herent in human nature. Should the Church of England be
overthrown, under what other church-supremacy would dissent
meet with similar toleration? Certainly not under the Catho-
lic
26 “THE HOT-BED,”
destroy the invidiousness” occasioned by the present
method of payment by the parishioners, and I give due
credit to any measures in progress for this object.
As to our other institutions—there are various blots I
would wish to see erased. Now, for instance, the
term I applied, of “aristocratic hot-bed,” to the
church, is no less applicable to the system of promo-
tion in the army and navy, of the sons “of the princes
of this earth,” as the Scripture says, to the exclusion
(this is what I complain of) of men as estimable as
they, except in point of nobility of blood—as much
gentlemen, and of older families (in many instances),
than the nobility. Men of honour and just claim to
reward from services done to their country.
* See the measures introduced, 1835, for commuting tithes by
voluntary consent of parishioners. As to the proposition ad-
vanced by some of paying the church by salary, and making them
stipendiaries of state, it would render church provision insecure
in case of any state commotions—general insecurity of property
or caprice of parliament. Again, to pay stipends to the church,
the people must be taxed, so that little would be gained by the
change, except what was invidious in the parish system of pay-
ment. This, however, is better corrected by the commutation
measure. As to the voluntary principle, as far as support of the
priesthood went, it is synonymous with its begging! and as far as
religion is concerned, it is synonymous with its overthrow. See
Letter VII. on the Effects of a Voluntary System, as deteriorat-
ing the character of the priesthood, if it did not entirely sub-
vert the order.
MY COUNTRY. 27
I will close my observations here, and trust again,
you will do me the justice to believe that I have
spoken quite as much for a desire for instruction, as
for the pleasure which political aspirants feel in de-
claiming at what they consider grievances. I have
expressed to you the characteristics of my political
creed and conviction. My sole desire is to satisfy
my constituents, have the full benefit of the reform
bill,—and serve my country!
C 2
LETTER VII.
^.
Answer to the preceding letter.—The arguments of the “tiro”
turned against himself—Limited Monarchy compared with
Republican Legislature.—Its hereditary characteristics pre-
ferred.—Real liberty is security for person, property, and
opinion, under the law.—The estate of the Peers regarded as
a social institution.—Its political characteristics reserved for
a future letter—Its merits compared as a main feature in the
ranks of society, with what is termed equality.—The absurdity
of this term.—America.-Nobility shown to consist in its
hereditary characteristic.—The law of Primogeniture.—The
whole letter keeps in view as its principle, (both as to
Monarchy, and the hereditary claim of Peerage,) the fallacy of
regarding only the individual, and not the institution as
established for the interests of society.—Duty of a statesman,
and his view of subjects.
HEY-DAY here’s a piece of work! most modest and
ingenuous youth! so you ask the benefit of my ex-
perience. Fly, begone; snatch yourself across the
Atlantic—hie to America, and learn (you who dislike
our monarchy) how much better a president is than a
king! How much —(to quit irony)—he is the same
WHICH IS THE BEST 7 29
in effect—all, excepting in the name! You object, it
appears, against our monarchy, that it exists but in
the name. You praise a republican” form—I place
that of the “greatest republic in the world” before
you: yet, still, it appears, that there must be, for
purposes of social and political expediency, safety
for the interests of the community, and certainty
for the dispatch of state-business—some acknow-
ledged head of society, either elected or hereditary.
Now, of these two characteristics nobody doubts
which is the best, as saving a world of intrigue, jea-
lousy, dangerous ambition, and conflict. The heredi-
tary is to be preferred. If then our monarchy, ac-
cording to your own statement, is stripped of its
more expensive trappings, and serves merely as a
head for the order of society, it is the same as any
other head under any other name—president or chief
consul, or what you will; and as far as it is heredi-
tary, it is, for the reasons briefly stated, better. You
have, in fact, no real cause of complaint; on the
contrary, you are better off, thus far at least, than if
you had a republic. You say monarchy exists merely
* The arguments in this letter are humbly recommended to
“tiros,” who come hot from their debating societies at college, in
favour of Republicanism—the endless theme of these assemblies.
30 HEAD OF SOCIETY.
in name, and object to this as showing its inexpediency;
—but here is the blessing for the people! It serves
the necessary purpose of a head of society, whilst the
real strength of dominion is in the people. If they
tossed down any existing monarch as a puppet, they
must constitute some functionary or another as a
leader of society. This functionary would only be
under another name, what we now call monarch.
Were the monarchy not the shadow which you, from
a mistaken principle deride, it would be—what—if a
substance? Why, a despotism! Farewell then to
the ascendancy of the people? The reason why you
mistake is, that you look to the individual “perse,”
who fills the office of leader. You do not look to
the necessary claims of society, (with all your vaunted
philosophy!) and the fashioning of its body. This,
you would blindly detruncate of its head to find your-
self obliged to stick another less legitimate upon the
unsightly figure you had mutilated! You overlook,
also, the circumstance that the monarch, in filling the
office of leader of society and the government, pre-
vents, in so doing, the conflict which this leadership
would exhibit if shared by a plurality. Suppose you
overthrew the monarchy, you would not do so except
through the stage of previous anarchy and revolution.
CROMWELL–N APOLEON, 31
With what result?—to make way for a military des-
potism, as in the instance of Cromwell and Napoleon's
dominion. How much you gain by the change!
Suppose you accomplished your desire of establishing
a republic. You govern then by a national council,
or congress, or parliament. What do you gain?
Government there must be. Beware, lest you find
this legislature only a many-headed tyrant! You
have a “set” of popular leaders, in this instance,
proud of exercising kingly authority, keeping the
tyranny of each other in countenance. With this
feeling men are more likely to exert arbitrary power,
than where an individual feels he acts, solely, and as a
moderator, rather, of arbitrary power and stern preroga-
tive. It is this last subdued and wholesome feeling that
characterises the constitutional exercise of power in
our limited monarchy. In corroboration of what I have
surmised, as to the “many-headed” tyranny of a
mere popular legislature, I refer you to De Tocque-
ville’s view of the political institutions of America.
You will there see whether your dream of republican
excellence is realized. What would you have?
Society must be governed! There must be order and
law maintained! The maintenance of this, is really
liberty! The liberty of safety for person, for opinion,
32 , DE TOCQUEVILLE.
for possession! The mildest exercise of authority is
exhibited in our limited monarchy. Remember the
utter annihilation of all safety for person or possession,
under the parliament at the commencement of the
rebellion* in the reign of Charles the First. Consider
the testimonies of history, as to the authority or rather
despotism of democracy. Remember Fox’s words,
that “no form of government could be good but a
mixed one.” See again what De Tocqueville says of
the vaunted new republic of the United States.
I shall have, at a future stage of these considera-
tions, to show you how the monarchy is controlled in
various respects by the “law of the constitution,” on
the subjects of its Protestant tenure, its executive
characteristics, and other features. At present, I
am considering it as the head of the “three estates,”
which you were willing to see displaced for a re-
public. To proceed, to the second of “these estates”
—that of the peerage. This topic resolves itself into
two divisions of consideration, as a “social” and as a
“political” institution. In speaking of it under the
first designation, I regard it as characterising the
features of a society formed of ranks, in opposition to
* See Clarendon's interesting picture of the temper of the
times at that period. And Alison on the French Revolution.
EQUALITY. 33
that “citizenship” of a republic, which you would
prefer, No doubt the original equality of mankind,
renders the view you take of the question at first sight
plausible. But the question is, where is this original
equality to be found at the present advanced stage of
civilization?
I propose, then, in this letter, to view the subject
of the peerage in the first character specified as a
“social institution.” I shall have hereafter” to con-
sider it more particularly in its political character and
functions. This latter part of the subject I shall not
approach in this Letter. *: -
There is nothing then, more absurd, since nothing
can be more visionary, than the idea of establishing
equality of condition in mankind. Look even to the
most savage and unreclaimed state of society, and you
will there see that superior strength will gain and
maintain ascendancy, a leading rank in the subjuga-
tion and domineering over the weaker. Fraud and
wile will, in this state of things too, be no less exercised
in escaping the open violence of strength, or sub-
* In answering the question of “collision between the two
houses,” where the topic of the counterbalancing characteristic of
the House of peers is considered, as well as the responsibility of the
peers, and their sympathy with the commons. (See Letter XIV.)
c 5
34 CIRCUMSTANCE.
duing it, than they are witnessed in the more refined:
stages of civilization. The difference is, that in the --
last instance, they will be exercised for more en-
lightened, though not perhaps much more commend-
able purposes. So that fraud and intrigue are not, as
they are often said to be, the sins of a refined state of
society alone. Well, look then to a republic—to a
community of citizens—a fraternity of society. Where
is the equality? It may be all very well for a wretch
without a rag to his back, to call a wealthy and
flourishing trader, “brother,”—but if there is any
equality of feature or circumstance between the rags.
and tatters, and lean pale visage of the one, and the
warm clothing, and “rubicund” contented face of the
other, I should like to know where it consists?
Money, money, Circumstance in this state of things,
—as Nature in the savage state, places divisions—ay,
fixes “great gulfs” between the conditions of men!
Then, again, genius, mental energy, enterprise of
spirit, are endowments nature has given, which in
any state of civilization, in any form or stage of
- Society, must always make vast distinctions. Men
will look up to the powers of mind that can aid,
enlighten, and elevate them ; and pay homage to it as
superior, and own its more puissant control. Well,
COMMERC E. 35
then, as you cannot have equality, the questionis, if
you must have inequality, what will be the features that
will chiefly reconcile us to it? If any such struggle
is indeed requisite. Commerce it is, that first brings
about civilization. Commerce first subdivided society,
necessarily, into its scale of consumers according to
their means — the indulgers in luxury — and the
sharers of the bare necessaries of life. The first divi-
sion has various gradations. But it was debasing to
the mind, as it grew more enlightened and refined, to
acknowledge the superiority of mere wealth. The
tawdry consequence money secured was looked on
with loathsomeness and disgust. Some claim
founded on more generous motives was looked to for
fixing precedence. Those then, that were renowned
in arms, of old, or in latter years for attainments,
or services to the state—or such great wealth as
threw into the shade those around them—have been
elevated by the decorative distinction of nobility to aid
merely the necessary distinction which nature and
circumstance had made. At the present day, how
invidious would it be to feel that the only distinguishing
mark of condition rested, and was displayed in, opu-
lence? The “game of society,” amongst those ambi-
tious to figure in it, would then be a contention of the
*
t
\
36 “GENTLER DISTINCTIONs.”
superior strength of purse !—What a vulgar con-
test How debasing in idea and to the character of
society How much more willingly do we admit the
precedence of claims derived from sources of honour
in their origin And if they are of long date and
far descent, the respect attached to their antiquity,
enhances their respectability, and more readily elicits
our deference to them. If a claim, again, is of more
modern date, the admiration due to the merit, per-
haps, that attained it, is scarcely less impressive,
may, more so in the example of emulation it exhibits,
than the deference due to antiquity of descent. But
what a different subject of feeling ! how much more
chastening ! more elevating ! more enlightening is
this, than the dull, dingy reflection of a precedence
founded on an higher account of pounds, shillings,
and pence l—There is a perpetual example afforded
in the precedence of nobility. It is addressed to call
forth the highest spirit of emulation, and the best and
loftiest powers of the mind. How this soars above
the shop-board, or the warehouse, and the “cur-
mudgeon” ideas (if I may so express myself) that
haunt them The last tend to narrow the mind, and
render it worldly, and selfish. The other to expand,
animate and exalt it ! What a benefit, then, to
|
A PRIZE FOR MERIT. 37
society, and the cause of civilization In itself
therefore, the distinction of nobility is a good; not
only as an embellishment to society, but a moral im-
provement. And though distinguished from the
community, yet it no less belongs to all, being pro-
posed as a reward to the exertions of all.—A prize
which they may indeed,—or may not attain,_ac-
cording to the steps they take to pursue it—with
those contingencies of better or worse fortune that
attend on all enterprise; but still if the attainment
be arduous, it renders the honour of the reward
greater as the struggle is keener. It would be but
a base and grovelling feeling, indeed, that would
annihilate the distinction, because it is so far to stretch
for it ! This does not show any fault in the dis-
tinction itself, but a weak despairing jealousy in
those who would covet it, but have it not. I think
then, in a social point of view, in a moral point of
view, and as I shall hereafter add, political too,” the
“Order of Lords” is to be commended, and worthy
to be reverenced. It should be guarded for the good of
* To be considered in Letter XIV—where the sympathy with
the commons and responsibility of the peers is considered. These
characteristics existed previously to the Reform Bill, though by
no means so strongly. d
38 NEW SYMPATHIES.
society, against being impaired The emulation ex-
cited in the community to attain the rewards nobility
holds out, is politically a good—while the power of
political mischief is justly (as before said) taken away
from the order. It is doubly commendable then; forbe-
fore the reform bill, no less than since, it held out a good
to the community by its incentive totalent and energy;
and it is further, now, divested of the power of abus-
ing popular rights which it then had, and which,
alone, rendered it invidious. This control which the
reform bill has now attained over the “Lords,” gets
rid of your objection, which perhaps was in many
instances, but too true, before that measure was
enacted. I mean, where you express the want of
sympathy with the rest of mankind, which any par-
ticular class separated by ceremony and elevated by
rank, might be chargeable with. The nobility, feel-
ing now their comparative * reliance on the good
understanding with the people, will answer their own
interests but badly if they do not sympathise with
them. That is to say, as far as remembering what
* It is certainly true that the peers are now less independent
of the people; but see Letter XIV. where their sympathy with
the commons is spoken of in a particular point of view pre
viously to the Reform Measure. -
REAL IN OBILITY: 39
is due to men with as lofty feelings, and as acute
perceptions as themselves. They will understand
better than they once did, the great truth, that real
mobility exists in estimable and exalted qualities, and
not in a mere pageant of rank or sound of title.
This leads me to the subject of hereditary claim con-
stituting mobility, and grounding its claim on the acci-
dent of birth, rather than individual merit. Your ob-
jection to this again is great: you would consider it
as fostering a spirit of insolence, which piquing itself
on the honours of blood, would forget what was more
truly the essential of nobility. You would decry the
idea of a man's inheriting his father's reward or de-
coration, without his merit. You say “the father
may be a wise man and worthy of honour, but the
son . . . . may be but an idiot—an arrant fool!”
This may be all very true as to the individual; but
it by no means possesses any force as an argument
addressed against the institution. And if you take
the hereditary characteristic of the peerage, you get
rid of mobility altogether. I am considering it as a
claim of superior quality, and family attribute. For
who would look with equal respect or reverence on a
body of men however deserving in themselves, who
exhibit the mere elevation of the day, as, on those
f
40 MOCK NOBILITY,
who are living memorials in their name and descent
of the greatest warriors and statesmen of past times?
The answer cannot be doubted on. The lustre re-
flected on the men of to-day, whose merit has ele-
vated them to the peerage, is enhanced by their fra-
ternity with the descendants of the illustrious names of
antiquity. And if nobility is to exist with one feature
more truly flattering than another to after-times, it
must be by keeping uninjured its hereditary attribute.
Take away this, and nobility is comparatively nothing.
. It is a mock nobility, when divested of that cha-
racter of veneration which really gives it its ascendancy
over the mind; and which is more readily acknow-
ledged by the community as its true claim to prece-
dence in the orders of society. In addition to this, I
will say that the hereditary dignity requires that cir-
cumstance should second and support it. History
records the degradation, and consequently, extinction
of a peerage, in the predicament of there being no” ade-
* In ancient times, Moor says, the king could degrade a peer.
But in later times the parliament alone is recognised as having the
authority. See the instance of George Neville, Duke of Bedford,
by act of parliament in the reign of Edward IV. The power has
never been exerted but in this single instance; and rightly, for
it affords a dangerous precedent for the subversion of the institu-
tion of the peerage, and endless inquisition into the circumstances
of Peers. See Blackstone, vol. i. 402.
FRANCE AND MAJORATS. 41
quate means to support the dignity. A “pauper
peer” is but a burden to the public by whom he is
supported, and a subject of mortification to himself.
But in keeping up the available means for the sup-
port of his dignity—the effect of the law of primogeni-
ture is witnessed. It is on this law in fact, that the
solidity of the “order of nobility” is founded.
What a miserable mockery of the name does France
afford previous to the law of Majorats, in its nobility,
where fortunes were dwindled down to nothing by
subdivisions on subdivisions ! Yet more, this “law
of primogeniture” acts with a double advantage both
in strengthening and embellishing not only the peerage,
but the whole order of society. For it creates a kind
of nobility in the right of the eldest son, all through
the community.* While, in leaving the younger branch
of the family to elevate itself by its own exertions, it
has been the source of affording some of our greatest
men to their country in every state-department—in
the cabinet and in the field. Those, then, who
clamour against the invidious distinction of this law,
do not understand what they speak of, and “hood-
wink” themselves between narrow objections, with-
. * See Letter X. In analysing the aristocratic character of the
English as an argument for its love of Monarchy.
42 STATES MAN AND PHILOSOPHER.
out looking to that great moral and political strength
which is afforded to society, and the state in its
operation.
Come ! now, my friend, I trust you will think
somewhat more justly of the two estates of the realm I
have offered you these hints upon. And, further, let
me request you to elevate and expand your mind a
little, if you ever wish to be a statesman. Scorn to
cavil upon grovelling points, such as an individual
blemish, where the institution as a whole is good.
If your constituents argue in this way, I have shown
you, I trust, how to instruct them better. You should
ever consider what is most for the exaltation and
dignity of mankind, and the well-being of society.
To be a statesman or legislator, you must be a phi-
losopher, (I do not use the word in the bad—the
“cant-sense,”) I mean, an enlightened moralist that
looks not to patching a part, but protecting and im-
proving the whole. One who does not shock feeling,
while he persuades sense, and satisfies reason. And
with this preface, I will proceed to say a word on
* Which is that of sophists and quibblers—vague theorists—
political charlatans,—innovators for the mere love of change
and acquisition of individual importance: lovers of self—not of
their country
CHURCH AND STATE, 43
the next head in rotation of our institutions—viz. the
connection between church and state, from the policy
of which you dissent. But this will more properly
form matter for a separate letter.
44
LETTER VIII.
In continuation of the preceding.—The policy of a connexion
between the Church and State.—Ordinance of Religion a
Principle and Law of sound Government.—The necessity of
some Law above that of man to control the passions and
preserve order.—The duty of a Statesman.—The contingency
of non-recognition of religion by the state; inducing utter
neglect of religion, or degradation of the priesthood.—Edu-
cation to go hand in hand with religion.—The Voluntary
principle exposed.—The Protestant character of the British
Monarchy requires the maintaining a church as protecting
the Reformed Religion.*
FIRST of all, then, as to the recognition of a church by
the state, as the religion in particular of the country.
Never rely, my young friend, too much on the weak-
* On this subject see Letter XVII. where the tenure of the
Monarchy, and the terms of the coronation oath are con-
sidered as enjoined by the “law of the constitution.” And
again, in the same Letter, where it is further expressed, that by
a neglect of a reformed church establishment, we stultify and
render void the efforts of our ancestors, and the expulsion of
James II, in defence of the Reformed Faith.
RELIGION IS GOVERNMENT, 45
ness of others, or of your opponents, but in your own
strength. What holds good in the individual instance,
is of no less force as applied to nations. And, hence,
however firmly you may consider, at this period of the
world, Religion is established—however trifling and
weak you may consider the probability of its being
generally impaired,—its observance set aside,-its con-
trol shaken and subdued,—be it your care, would you
deserve the character of a statesman, to do nothing
that should have a chance of weakening it ! Be it
your duty to consider that it still demands and requires
support. And when you reflect on the great interests'
at stake, involved in the security of a religious
establishment, and a respect for religion, you will not
hesitate to acquiesce in giving it all the weight and
stability a state recognition secures. What interests
are these that I speak of, as at stake? Those of
mankind, good government, the public weal! I need
not tell you, an accomplished scholar — that originally
religion and government were one and the same.
The cause of this, is simple. It was found, that to
subdue more fully the lawless passions of human
nature, it was necessary to hold up to it some law
above man's control; an influence that would reach
it, where man could not — reward it or punish it as
46 JHU MAN AND DIVINE LAW.
the monitor conscience told it it deserved. Man was
not to be subdued or regulated by the laws of mere
men like himself! His pride would often spurn these,
and in considering them “self-constituted” by their
enactors, he challenges a right to raise a law for him-
self, against their laws, which had but the authority
of man to give them sanction. The law of his own
will he followed, where strength could secure him the
victory. What a picture does this unfold of savage-
ness, rapacity, outage, violence, insecurity, conflict,
and bloodshed! But you will say in a ruderstate of so-
ciety this might be very true; but the long prescription
of human laws and municipal enactments in a later age
of civilization, does not admit of such an objection?
Human nature, I answer, is ever the same in all ages,
from the rudest to the most artful and refined. It
is still the slave of passion, with, perhaps, more
incentives to the pursuit of guilty inclination, as
society requires more of men in their appearance and
condition; and as seduction and luxury yield more
incentives to the impulse of desire. The frauds, the
debauchery, the manifold “lusts” of gold, of sway,
of sensuality—exhibit a greater field of crime in a
civilized age than the rude force of a less enlightened
era. The control on the conscience, requires being
THE BRITISH BABY LON . 47
strengthened rather than weakened in a civilized age;
as the engagements of society become more multiplied
and intricate, and consequently the opportunities to
err more frequent. Walk down one of the crowded
streets of the mighty Babylon—the British metropolis
—and scan the moving mass that floats along
What regulates the moral movements or action of that
living Phantasmagoria 2 What, but a law which it is
above their control or power to deceive, or shun, or
oppose! A law to which they must bend if they
know their own interests. The laws of man they may
elude; and strict as these laws are, and dreadful as
the denunciation of the supernatural law is, yet still
how much crime is there ! But take away the con-
trol of the last, and the country would be deluged
with crime, in contempt of human law | Necessity is
(I will say for mankind,) the great motive of derelic-
tion from observance of the laws; but take away the
force of a law of religion, you would have not neces-
sity alone, but rank passion, — unbridled will,—the
mere frenzy of lust and oppression rampant through
the land I Knowing, therefore, what human nature is,
trust not to the prescriptive force of long-established
religion over the mind, but still keep up its strength.
That you would impair this, and by degrees sap its
48 IBEAUTY OF RIELIGION.
control over human action there is no doubt, if you
leave its observance to mere caprice or inclination,
and do not acknowledge it as an institution reverenced
by the state. Even as it is, how many are indifferent,
sceptical, nay, opposers of religion 1 Many who are
followers of their own views of wisdom, and yet are
not wise enough to reflect on the awful truth of their
own utter helplessness beneath some supreme power,
of whose design their very bodies, their very breathing
simulacra, show them the creatures | Still these are
but a comparatively small proportion to the great
mass that are wise enough to uphold what is for their
own good, and the good of society. But, putting the
control of conscience aside, religion, regarded merely
as chastening and exalting the mind to sublime ob-
jects above low, sordid, and grovelling ones, or, as
affording consolation to the humbler class, or soothing
the mortified pride of the less blessed with worldly
adjuncts—as raising the poor to a level with the rich
and haughty in this earth, and warning these last
again that they are but clay,+I say, in all these
effects, religion aids the cause of order, as well as
blessing in society. In this “tuning” of the mind, and
chastening of the passions—the good government
of society is no less answered, than in the control re-
PoPULAR RESPECT. 49
ligion has over the conscience! The effect is thus two-
fold, as far as government is concerned; and as to the
ruder and less enlightened portion of society, which
cannot so well appreciate the blessings of order and
harmony, for order's and harmony's sake, utter mental
barbarism would be the result of sweeping away the
engagements of religious observance | Society well de-
mands this of the lower orders, and to enable them to
fulfil it, “Education” is dispensed to them, the foun-
dation of which is always religion, or should always
be so. To store the mind with knowledge is not
enough, unless it is guided how to act on the social
arena where such knowledge must direct its views.
It should be bound to act on such principles as may
not be detrimental to the well-being of the whole
mass. You will say, that, take away the recognition.
of the church of England by the state, religion would
not be impaired: I say it would lose respect with the
people. By many it would be neglected, where there
was no longer the injunction that there was accus-
tomed to be, to observe it. Many would consider
themselves dispensed from the necessity of any furthel
attendance on the public observance of religion, and
consider “private orisons” sufficient. This duty
might be fulfilled in some individual, (in many indi-
D
50 FRAILTY OF HUMAN NATURE.
vidual instances, perhaps,) but as a general institution,
and as of general effect, human nature is too frail
to permit it. Any relaxation of its being constantly
brought before the minds and eyes of men, would
eventually ruin it. Men must be perpetually put in
mind of the necessity of the obligation “Out of
sight out of mind,” is a humble, but no less true
adage; and blot out a religious observance, or knock
down a church, and you abolish a memento of duties
which the weakness of our nature demands should
exist. Formed as men are, much effect is produced
what is offered to the senses. Hence the very trap-
pings of the church have their influence, in keeping in
view the solemnity and injunctions of religious ob-
servance. Where these “trappings,” (as I call them,)
are rather exhibited for disgust of the beholder, than
a chaste memento, by all means I will agree with you
in curtailing them, and rendering them more modest,
and more effective. I would make them more consis-
tent with their religious character, and less bloated with
worldly vanity. I will not go the whole length of
Burke, in upholding the extravagance of worldly
pomp, where he talks of the “church rearing her
mitred head in palaces.” “ In this, more is implied
* There is no expression, perhaps, on the subject of upholding
PROPER APPEARANCES. 51
than the mere proper dignity, and proper decoration
of the ecclesiastical function. But thus far I would
church dignities that has been so much cavilled at by its enemies
as this. One great object of the opponents of “worldliness”
in the church, is to deprive the bishops of a seat in the House of
Lords. They argue that the mind of an apostle of Christ should
not be agitated and sullied by intermixing in political and secular
disputation. They argue that clerical commoners are excluded
from eligibility to a seat in parliament—why not the bishops
also 2 Now, there is a great difference in the situation of a
bishop and a clergyman. The state of constant excitement and
popular turmoil into which a clergyman, ambitious of represent-
ing a constituency, would be forced, would, indeed, be incom-
patible with the calm routine of his parochial and clerical duties.
His excitement would be a perpetual state of uncertainty. Such
is not the case with a bishop ; his parliamentary duties do not
interfere with the constant attendance on a parish the clergyman is
subjected to. The government of the church is the subject the
bishop has to superintend; therefore, a place in the Legislature is
very properly conceded to him. The ministration of duties pre-
scribed is the province of the clergyman, which, belonging as it
does, to a servant of the church, would be incompatible with the
authority of a controller of such ministration, which would be the
case were theclergy legislators. They would then infringe on the
episcopal province. What are called “parson politicians,” are
ill adapted to the sacred duties of the church, the care of the poor,
the administering of religious consolation. No matter, then, what
the tenure is on which the bishops sit in the House of Lords. Their
presence as legislators is wise, since our law upholds a church
establishment. It is well to see it guarded by its ecclesiastical
leaders, in the capacity of legislators. This argument in our
Protestant establishment is of much weight; that of giving greater
decorum in debates by the presence of bishops, is of less weight,
though not without truth. The tenure of the bishops is not
D 2
52 BISEIOPS IN PARLIAMENT,
keep it up; or what is the result 2—It falls into con-
tempt from its shabby appearance, and the misery of
one to inflate their worldly minds. They cannot consider them-
selves, in secular dignity, as equal to the peers. This is a due
check on worldly vanity. They merely sit as “Lords of Parlia-
ment,” by virtue of the baronies annexed to their bishoprics, but
their blood is not ennobled by hereditary succession—so they are
not peers. They, in fact, sit in the House of Lords on precisely
the tenure most requisite.—(See Blackstone, vol. i. ch. 2, p. 137,
ch. 12, p. 401 ; and vol. iv. ch. 19, p. 264.)— In fact, the king
might, and may, still hold a parliament, without any spiritual
lords. The judges declared so by their judgments, 7 Hen. VIII.
sec. 2. Coke Inst. 585, 6, 7. No bishops were summoned in the
two first parliaments of Car. II., nor until after the 13 Car. II.
repealed 16 Car. I. c. 17. The king, as head of the church, may
still, if he pleases, decline summoning bishops to parliament.
And in court of parliament, or Lord High Steward they have no
place.—(See 264, n. vol. iv. Blackstone.)—They are not tried them-
selves by the peers either, but by the common tribunals. So that
their feelings of worldly pride are properly admonished and
checked, and their presence to protect an established church and
reformed religion, placed on its proper footing, in a station where
they otherwise have no right to be. Surely this reflection ought to
satisfy an opponent of the ecclesiastical dignity. As to the case of
clergymen in parliament, — that of Horne Tooke corroborates
the arguments already stated. He was a clergyman and politician,
tried with Hardy and Thelwall, for high treason, but acquitted in
1796. He came to parliament for Old Sarum, in February, 1801,
and his seat was at an end by a vote of the House of Commons,
which, in the July subsequent, declared clergymen ineligible to be
members of the House of Commons. Horne Tooke is known to
posterity from this circumstance, and from his correspondence
with Junius, whose freedom with his character may be seen in
Letter LIV., and others.
LOOK AT AMERICA. 53
its functionaries This result should be sedulously
avoided; for, as I have said before, our nature and
senses are necessarily influenced much by appearance,
and our minds consequently; and whatever would in-
duce contempt and derision, would, in abolishing re-
spect, stifle devotion, and annihilate the public Call Se
of religion. You will say, “Look at America! reli-
gion is respected there; and yet there is no state re-
ligion P’ In answer to this, I must remind you that
you, in common with many others, draw a parallel
from American institutions, where the circumstances
in this country bear no such analogy I have already
shown you the fact, which I here add, makes the
wide difference in the two countries, namely, that in
this we have been habituated to the state recognition
of religion, to withdraw which would diminish its in-
fluence, and in leavng its observance optional, would
soon leave little or no religion at all, (I speak of the
mass of society,) to the ruin of social order, and wel-
fare. The contingency of another aspirant* church
taking the vacated ground of the abandoned one,
would indeed supply such a defect, and keep up re-
* The Catholic.—See Letter XVII. where the tenure of the
Monarchy is considered.
54 SYDNEY SMITH's LETTER.
ligion, but not the religion which is by any means
consistent with the principles of our constitution,
which does not recognize an “imperium in imperio,”
which the priestly power of catholicism (which would
supplant us) exhibits. I shall have to notice this
in speaking of constitutional law to you. * The state,
in recognizing the protestant religion, does so to keep
up a creed independent of any such control, which is
subversive of political faith; since a priestly intriguer
too often counsels the person he absolves or confesses,
on state matters. But to return to America: I deny
your proposition that religion is equally respected.
From the very appearance the priests make ‘f there,
religion is by no means so much respected, in the per-
sons of the clergy, or in itself; by either the richer
* See Letter XVII.-The Catholic religion is unconstitutional
in its principles, as it militates against free exercise of opinion.
+ See Sydney Smith's letter to Archdeacon Singleton for re-
marks on the vindication of the clergy, supposing they were
supported so meanly as not to admit of gentry exercising the
clerical functions. His remarks are suggested by the proposal of
equalizing benefices. But they also apply to the effects of a
voluntary system of payment, which would leave the clergy un-
provided often,_deter gentlemen and men of education from
taking orders, and weaken religion no less than the church.
The text shews what the feature of the American clergy is. In-
finitely inferior to that of the English.
“HEDGE-PRIESTs.” 55
sort, who look down with contempt on the often beg-
garly mouth-pieces of salvation: or the poorer, on
whom in this country the influence of gentleman-like
bearing, character, and station in the clergy, have no
small effect in adding weight and force to religious
precept. The source whence such precept is delivered
should in itself be such as commands respect. Both
this latter evil, and that of the indifference and neglect
which would ensue, if religious observance were op-
tional, and not upheld by the state, are arguments
against the voluntary principle. If, then, you wish
to preserve the constitution, and its principles, which
I will explain more hereafter, you will maintain the
religion established by law, as it is called; that is,
which is recognized by the state. * In this country,
and with our peculiar form of government, this is in-
dispensable. This form of government, I think I
have already shown you to be the best, in its up-
* Cromwell himself supported the order of bishops when he
was Protector, and said they merely wanted some dross purged
away. He well knew that government required the mainstay of
religion. But yet more, as a future Letter will show, he supported
the Peers' house; and felt that a Monarchy and the church were
ranks better for the nation, and more congenial to their pre-
dilections and disposition, than a Republic. He wished, in fact,
to be king. But see Note, Letter X., p. 63.
56 PECULIAR POSITION.
holding the three estates. If you lived in a republic,
you might disconnect more easily the state and
church,--where you did not fear Catholic ascendancy
as controlling political independence. But as you are
in a peculiar position of circumstances in this Pro-
testant country, take care what you are about ! I
have given you hints to act on this subject, and have
shown you the two-fold contingency of evil that would
arise on the disconnection I have spoken of: the first
leading to no religion at all, comparatively speaking;
the second, to the alternative of its being usurped by
one at variance with the principles of the constitution.
The conclusion from which is, that if such is the case,
no wonder our state recognizes the Church of Eng-
land it would be mad if it did not, for its own pre-
servation, for the succession of the crown, the peace
of the empire, and the weal of society
P. S. I need say nothing on curtailing all redun-
dancies which cast odium on the church, or the cause
of religion; I refer to pluralities, and non-residence.
I agree with you entirely as to this. A commutation
of tithes, also, on an enlightened plan, (not on the
weak mistaken method I remember being once
ALL IN GOOD TIME. 57
brought forward,) is much to be desired. * As to
other heads of our institutions, the laws and usages
of the land, as affected by the Reform Bill, I shall
give you some hints on them in their proper place, as
the subjects arise, and as you require to satisfy your
constituents on them. Farewell.
* See Letter XXII. Observations on the Ecclesiastical Com-
mission and Church Reform, and Note p. 26, above.
D 5
58
LETTER IX.
The Tiro is perplexed between his own inexperience and the im-
portunities of the Electors.-The question proposed is, that
granting the fact of our Institutions being the best, is not the
spirit of innovation so great, that it will eventually overwhelm
them, however mischievous such a result may be 7–This is
the principle of his opposition.—What is the prevailing bias
of the English, and in favour of what form of Government?
THE electors, whom I am endeavouring to propitiate,
are, as you know, “liberally” inclined. If they were
not, I should not have addressed myself to them. In
this respect, I know that they, at the present moment,
form a minority in opposition to the numbers who
have become Conservatives, from having been Re-
formers. Now, my opinion, as I think I have suffi-
ciently shown, of the Reform Bill, is, that there is so
decided an invitation to change afforded by it, that
the progress of innovation will ultimately make great
inroads on the settled order of things. In fact, I think
SPIRIT OF CHANGE. 59
it is not impossible that the “spirit of change” may
ultimately work its way to a republic. I am aware
that you have shown that our institutions, as they at
present stand, are, perhaps, the best that exist. But
the question is, will they not be undermined by the
progress of change? Will the British nation adhere
to the form of monarchy, and resist the tide of inno-
vation ? I should like to have my mind made more
certain on the probabilities of this result, in order that
I may shape my course in the most prudent manner I
can. I do not at present see my way quite clearly.
My ideas of the great impulse given to the “spirit of
innovation prevail with me, over any ideas that our
institutions will remain unshaken, however good they
may be. I confess, I should wish to obey the pre-
vailing impulse, whatever it may be
It will, perhaps, be premature in me to add, until I
I have received an answer to my first interrogatory,
that I have had many difficult questions proposed
to me by the electors. I confess I am unable to
answer them. They refer to various new political
features that have arisen since the Reform Bill. Such
as a “collision between the Lords and Commons.”
The predicament of a “minister not having a seat in
Parliament.” How these difficulties are to be solved,
60 TOUGH QUESTIONS.
I cannot say ! But I will express my mind more at
length on these topics, when I ask your opinion
more particularly as to the “political character” of
the House of Lords.” This you have promised to
give me, as a sequel to the social view you have taken
of that body. At present, however, satisfy me on the
point to which my letter refers in the outset. I feel
I have no sound footing in politics, until I am able to
judge of the prevailing bias of the English nation—
whether it is in favour of the existing “order of
things,” or not? This is a question quite independent
of the excellence or defect of our institutions.
* See Letter XIV. + Letter VII.
61
LETTER. X.
Hints to a Waverer.—Wavering in politics is but a snare for
future inconsistency and error.—Present course for a Politi-
cian to pursue, grounded on a knowledge of the English
character.—The national disposition in favour of a Monarchy.
—Montesquieu.-Duty of a Statesman; and rule in Govern-
ment.
You have done wisely in asking the question your
letter proposes. A man should well weigh the dispo-
sition, no less than the prejudices of a people, before
he enters on the path of politics that concern it.
Should he fail to take this precaution, he only pro-
ceeds on a career of plunder, and lays himself out for
endless inconsistencies, which he will find it difficult
to reconcile. Endless will be the embarrassments that
will hamper him, and from which he will scarcely be
able to extricate himself! I see you are wavering.
Now, this will never do in politics | You must be
decided. You will do well to fix at once which
62 MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
course you consider the most salutary and prudent for
pursuit. I am aware your supporters are of the liberal
school; still, I trust, that they are not bent on sub-
verting our monarchy or institutions. You augur
much of innovation, from the spirit of reform that
exists. You are right, perhaps; but do not suppose the
people will permit it to overthrow their institutions.
You cannot see clearly the result that the present
uncertainty of politics will arrive at. I can, certainly,
I trust, demonstrate to you, that it will never end in
a subversion of our monarchy. Your indecision
arises, you will excuse me for saying so, from your
ignorance and want of observation. I hope to be
able to show you where the “trembling needle” of
your uncertainty shall cease from its oscillation. It
will, or ought, to leave you, no doubt, how to steer
Your sailing ought to be plain, though you appear, at
present, to be afraid of grounding amongst the rocks
and shallows that surround you.
. In considering the course, then, that any people
will take as to an eventual disposition of their po-
litical interests, you must look to their nature and
character. Now, the English disposition is haughty.
It is not at all of a humour to pay respect to a republic.
An Englishman does not readily pay deference to any
ENGLISH CHARACTER, 63
authority that he does not perceive others look up to as
well as himself. He would feel less deference for a
government made up of his equals in station, and
“appliances to boot,” then for a Monarchy. In this
latter instance, he willingly pays deference to one
constituted as the head of a great nation, from exalt-
edness of lineage, and the consent of all. This
authority he unhesitatingly acknowledges as properly
representing sovereignty. To this the lofty and the
humble bow in unison, and recognise init a fit feature
to represent the government. The Englishman is not
ashamed to bow, but feels, on the contrary, an honest
pride in the debt of deference | No such feeling existed
amongst British republicans with respect to the Pro-
tector Cromwell.” “He is one of us,” they cried. “We
* Ayl but Cromwell on his side felt what this letter endea-
vours to prove, viz., the natural bias in favour of Monarchy in the
English. The people shewed this so much, that, in 1657, a peti-
tion of both Houses of Parliament recommended him to take the
title of King, as suited to the temper of the people of England.
But he, though he would have been glad to accept it, as Richard
the Third was, could not do so from the jealousy of his immediate
connections and military commanders mentioned in the text. He
was at that period popular with all parties; with the Lords, whom
he protected in the “other house,” as the House of Peers was
called; and with the bishops, (though they were suffering from
the effects of the revolutionary system,) for he always said there
was much good in the “Order,” if the dross were scoured off—
See Note, p. 55.
64 THE PROTECTOR's DILEMMA.
Scorn to pay him deference, while indeed we dread his
power l’” Such were the feelings of discontented pride
that spoke in the breasts of Fleetwood, Ireton, Brad-
shaw, and others, whose friendship and interests were
most closely allied with the Protector. Their feelings
were quite separate in their character from that of
the general jealousy that an elective supremacy
excites. The men mentioned here, felt this peculiar
jealousy, and Cromwell was deterred by it, from at
once proclaiming himself king. At the same time,
had he never harboured a wish for this “style and
title,” his authority would no less have been looked
on with invidiousness and reluctance, from that un-
willingness of submission to an equal, that so strongly
belongs to the English character.
From this natural cause, then, in favour of a
monarchy, it would be an idle experiment to attempt
to wrest the popular inclination into any other chan-
nel! For a period, dissension and discontent will
perhaps arise. A love of change may manifest itself
under any particular grievance; but are you to be
so short-sighted as to shape yourself to a general line
of action, on the persuasion of a particular and tempo-
rary excitement 2 I cannot think you so blind.
Had the instance of Cromwell, and those who
THE RESTORATION. 65
eyed him with jealous pride and ill-suppressed envy,
never existed,—still, my arguments as to English
character, would have been the same. They would
have been so, from the reasons that truth and nature
are always the same. As it is, the instances cited
corroborate my analysis. Ineed not call to your mind
another corroboration of it, from the circumstance of
universal exultation which marked the “restoration”
of Charles II. You will say, that the people were
glad to escape from the military tyranny of Cromwell.
This is true. But independently of this, the feeling
of the people was in favour of a legitimate Monarch,
and an undisguised Monarch The people were tired
of the false position it had for some time maintained
of crouching where it denied allegiance in its heart.
Its nature, its disposition, revolted from the un-
wonted control, and gladly reverted to that where its
inclinations directed it! As to the tyranny that existed
during the republic,+this unfolds another theme of
argument—namely, that the pretence of liberty,
under a democracy, is idle and false. There is no
more liberty than under a monarchy, nor so much.
When I say, monarchy, I mean a legitimate monarchy
—as in Charles's time; and subsequently a limited
monarchy—as established at the Revolution. The art
66 MONTESQUIEU.
of statesmanship by this last qualification, improved
what naturally was the favourite form of government
with the English. I shall not touch here, on the
comparative merits of the republican and monarchical
form of government. It is alien to the present object
of my letter. It has been already set forth too, in a
former letter.” Nor will I exhibit any picture of
the jealousy arising in a government where there is
no settled authority, as in a monarchy. That sub-
ject I have also discussed in the same letter. The
“English character,” is the only topic that this
letter proposes to illustrate. I think I have shown
you its bias; and, consequently, the folly of thwarting
that bias, or imagining that if it swerved for a period
from its natural course, that it would ever do so perma-
nently. No, no Adhere to a monarchy through all
state-disorders, or popular commotions. You will be
safe and steady in the end, when persons less saga-
cious are still afloat in the storm, or wrecked on the
breakers! Meantime, in concluding this letter, let
me refer you to Montesquieu, for a confirmation of
the great principle it inculcates. He enjoins a states-
man to consider the genius, and natural features of
* See Letter VII.
HOW TO STEER. 67
a people—to know how to arrive at a right conclu-
sion, as what form of government is best suited to
them. Let this, then, be a “principle,” a first con-
sideration. When you know this, you know how to
govern them. Ignorance in government, and ruin in
states, no less than ministries, often takes place from
ignorance of the disposition of the nation governed.
In conclusion, I shall say, that though I am aware a
certain degree of republican feeling exists at present,
yet it is shadowy as the mist before the sun I Look
round to the mighty re-action existing in favour of
monarchical principles, and the maintenance of our
church, state, and institutions ! Remember what the
country was a few years ago, a mass of disaffection
to the existing order of things. What is it now?
A body determined to preserve the same constitution
from danger, or innovation. I think you will find in
the feeling that has animated such a re-action,” some
corroboration of the arguments of this letter.
* This is remarked as a curious historical event in the fluctua-
tions of popular opinion. It is exemplified particularly in the
circumstance of Peel's election for the Lord Rectorship at Glas-
gow; and in the election of Sir Francis Burdett for Westminster,
1837. No question of party politics is considered here, but merely
an historical fact.
68
LETTER XI.
In continuation.—The bias of the nation against any great politi-
cal convulsion, considered as regards its interests and pre-
judices.—Sect. I. The selfishness and insincerity of dema-
gogues exposed, no less than the folly, as well as injustice of
revolutionary extremes. – The maintenance of security to
property, and the funded system necessary.—The artificial
state of the country.—The cry of “Sponge out the debt”
considered.—The Birmingham Union—Sect. II. The ancient
prejudices of the country.—Conclusion, that naturally, artifi-
cially, and habitually, the Nation is in favour of supporting a
Monarchy, and retaining the stability of our Institutions,
independently of the question whether they are in themselves
the best.—They are best fitted for the English.--This is the
argument.
IT must not be forgotten, in speaking of the English
love of monarchy, that not only is this the case, from
natural inclination, but from artificial causes as well.
Habitual predilections, and “circumstance” both
corroborate the arguments of the preceding letter,
which advise your support of a monarchy as a perma-
NATION AL CREDIT. 69
ment and general rule of political conduct. Let us,
then, consider the stability of interests that are
involved in the cause of stability of the form of
government as, at present, constituted.
In the first place, connected with the present “order
of things”—(the present “form of government” that
is,)—is the “national credit.” In this, again, and in
its stability, how many interests are involved Of
what importance is it, to keep this “credit” inviolate
What ruin it would occasion were it to be violated
Do you not see, what madness it would be to enter
upon any experiments that might unsettle security, *
and plunge the whole fabric of society into disorder
and ruin?
It is true that the “national debt” is a clog and a
burden about our necks, but to annihilate this, by
means of a revolution, would exhibit a remedy more
detrimental than the disease. Yes! the agitators and
*
* See Allison's History of Society, previously to and during
the French Revolution. The temper of the times at the period of
the Birmingham Union, was much more like what he portrays
than now. The worst crisis of passion is past, generally speaking,
in England. It was such as Clarendon describes previously to the
Rebellion. It is now much more like what it was at the period of
Charles the Second's Restoration. Since the spirit of democracy
and convulsion is much subdued now.
70 MOB-ORATORS,
democrats. hold forth that it would be of infinite
Service to the nation to bring about a revolution, since
such a contingency would (as they expressit) “sponge
out the debt.” The country, they plausibly say,
would then be relieved of the burthen under which
it groans.” You have here presented you a very fine
topic of declamation But you will not want
sagacity to perceive that there are two reasons for
being diffident in giving credit to all the flourishing
themes of these orators. In the first place, the
violent method of “sponging out the debt” would be
most fatal to the interests and peace of the country.
In the next place, if the havoc of property, which
such an event would entail on the country, were
likely seriously to take place—these democrat leaders
would be the first to change their style, and resist its
shock in order to save their own property. Their
selfishness* is as criminal as the mischief they would
entail; and their perjury and hypocrisy equal to
their selfishness.
I have now, in view, as an example, the upholders
* Not one of these leaders who had any property would sacrifice
one penny of it to redress the popular grievance. If asked to do so,
their answer would be that of Canning’s “knife-grinder!” In
fact, mock philanthropy is their characteristic. Patriotism exists
alone in disinterestedness.
TALKING AND ACTING. 71
of a certain great “Union,” on which a few years
ago the eyes of the whole country were turned. Do
you imagine these men, who had any property to
lose, would not, for the sake of themselves and their fa-
milies, resist any course of political action that would
tend to place their property in jeopardy ? If they
thought they were likely really to compass the disor-
der their arguments led to, they would not have done
so As it is, they felt they could flatter the passions
of the multitude, and secure popularity with impunity
to themselves. And why with impunity? They knew
well enough that all those who had any property
to lose would be opponents to revolution, its con-
sequent anarchy and danger to property. The
whole “proprietary body” of England, would be
leagued against any innovation that would shake the
present order of government and society.
There are those who say, that it is idle to talk in
these enlightened times of any danger to property
through the means of a revolution. They say, the
times now, are not the times of the first French
revolution! They point triumphantly to the last
French revolution, as a testimony that there might be
a change, a subversion of the existing government,
without danger to property. What shallow nonsense!
72 “sponge ouT THE DEBT.”
and how false the assertion is! Was there really in
the second French revolution any subversion of the
form of government, any annihilation of monarchy?
No! no such thing! A mere substitution of a better
set of ministers, and a better trustee of the charge of
monarchy, than was found in the former abjured set!
So that the “triumphant testimony” fails in its
cogency of proof. Again, in England, where the
outcry is to “sponge out the debt,” as the great ob-
ject of revolution,--why, it here stands to reason that
property must be affected | The very terms convey
such a result of action, and those who say it would
not, and yet support the proposition of revolution,
contradict themselves. A “national bankruptcy”
would be the result of a revolutionary declaration that
“ taxes should be at an end!” “Interest of the
debt” would be at an end of course, simultaneously!
Incomes would be at end . . . . and then, all those who
were without means would make the few monied
proprietors, (what the French call “millionaires”)
their prey! For things, now, in a state of extreme
necessity would return to their first elements. Ap-
propriation, or individual proprietorship, would be at
an end; and all the property that remained would be
resolved into the common stock, in the extremity of
NATIONAL BAN KRUPTCY. 73
the emergency. The monied few would then have
their property claimed as public property. They would
be the victim of the multitude. The necessity of a
“bank restriction” is a terrible thing even, (as it was
in the time of Pitt,) with the authority of government,
and a country fully taxed to pay the interest of the
debt. But only imagine the contingency of a revolu-
tionary cessation of all public resources! Of all pay-
ments into the exchequer!—Of the funds! Who
would willingly support any democratic measure that
could promote such a result? “Sponge out the
debt” indeed! . . . If it is to be effected through plun-
der, anarchy, and ruin, it is better to groan even under
the weight of taxation, and to live on circumscribed
means, than to effect ruin and loss universally The
“bank-restriction,” just referred to, at any rate, was
but a temporary cause of alarm. Society trembled
even then, but was not utterly convulsed. Pause, then,
before you ignorantly look with favour on any line of
conduct that may lead you towards an invasion of the
security of property, and of the sacredness of public
faith. Were you more acquainted with the subject
of our “funded system,” you would perceive that if,
indeed, it is theoretically bad that society should be
living on an artificial system of interest, or credit,
E.
jºy
74 SMALL FORTUNES.
yet, that practically there is much of convenience and
security in the plan. It would indeed be a more
legitimate mode of improving capital to place one’s
money in some fructifying and profitable mode of pro-
ducing interest for its owner's support, than that it
should lie dormant in the funds, in the shape of stock,
while the owner lazily receives his dividends. This
is true to a certain extent. But consider the great
security that is afforded by the deposit of investment
of money in the funds, to small capitalists, whose
habits and situations in life, often, do not admit of
their venturing in trade or speculations for the im-
provement of money? How many of the weaker
portion of the community, such as poor widows, and
single women, of small incomes, are now enabled to
draw their humble fortune from the funds, in perfect
security and regular payments. What would be the
condition of these persons were there no such public
security for their money? They would be thrown
into the hands of lawyers, petty and rapacious at-
torneys—agents of some sort or another—in all in-
stances of pecuniary speculation on their part. The
result would be, that most of them would be defrauded
and injured, and some (many!) ruined. To a great
portion of society (the smaller capitalists), there is no
TOPSY TUR.V.Y. 75
doubt, then, that the funded system is a great blessing.
But to take the instance of the larger gradations of
capital in the funds,-in the downfall of these would
be entailed the downfall of the whole property of all
such as had no investment in trade, in land, or other
interest, except the funds. Who would be the gainers
in this mass of ruin and confusion? Where would be
the justice of the position that would ensue? The
lawless mob, whose numerical force would overrun the
rest of the community, would self-appropriate the earn-
ings of their plunder, merely to substitute a new pauper-
set in their own place! Here is justice in a political
course of conduct! But I need point out to you
no longer the selfishness and falsehood of the instiga-
tors of such mischief, nor the crime and injustice of
the measures they profess, I shall only ask, sup-
pose the debt were indeed thus “sponged out,”
through the process of revolution, could the country
remain without any liabilities? No such thing! A
new debt must be incurred to set the state-machine,
however constituted, in motion. This, at any rate,
can only be avoided, either by compulsory taxation,
or voluntary surrender of means to promote the
national object, so that the end proposed, in an
annihilation of the “debt,” by a change of govern-
E 2
76 SOUTH AMERICAN STATES.
ment, is at once stultified. Look to the instance of
all the new republics in South America, and the new
Spanish government of some years past—were not “na-
tional liabilities” at once incurred? Yes! to a greater
amount than any of the states in question have ever
been able to liquidate! They have been, and are, in
a state of insolvency, as all holders of Spanish,
Columbian, and other “republican” bonds well
know.
You will understand better then, than to profess your-
self a partisan with the men, or in the measures, that
at once exhibit so much baseness in the first instance,
and folly and mischief in the last. The strength of
the democratical leaders of the late unions above re-
ferred to, was in the weakness of the poor blinded
and hungry populace they led. A great want of
employ existed at the period in question. When that
paramount source of popular disaffection was
lightened, the country exhibited greater tranquillity
and peace. The order of things is no longer ar-
raigned by collected multitudes. Private distress
makes men raise their voices against general dis-
pensations. It leads them to look for individual
benefit or improvement, in universal change, and a
subversion of those institutions which they idly com-
RAILROADS. 77
plain of as the cause of their calamity. Government
there must be, under any form of society. And to
keep the people in cheerful obedience, and the per-
formance of their duties as good subjects, is to keep
their minds at peace by affording them employment
To supply this, will be the object of the most con-
stant anxiety to a statesman. The rail-roads* of late
have at least had one good effect, viz. that of having
afforded constant and general employment to a vast
number. And if employment—that best means of
quieting passion, and mental disturbance—had ex-
isted, the “Birmingham Union” would have called the
popular bands together in vain Having become
decidedly hostile to the safety of society, it was at
length self-dissolved, from its glaring illegality. Had
it even not been so, it could not have survived long,
on the healthful occupation of the people coming up
* Because the speculation of the Manchester and Liverpool
Railroad had promised permanent success, a mania arose for mak-
ing railroads in all directions, without considering if there was a
similar promise of profit, from an equal traffic. Liverpool is the
outlet and high-road to America. Unless the speculation be
sound in this respect, the shareholders who were desirous to invest
capital must be losers; this was soon discovered, and a system
of jobbing and transfer arose, that has now worn itself out pretty
nearly. It is hoped the rail-road from London to Liverpool,
through Birmingham, may succeed.
78 BRITISH CHARACTER.
to their relief. All public speculations on a great
scale, where natural industry is exercised, natural
resources employed, capital invested, and the poor
occupied,—are worthy the care and attention of the
statesman. Whatever is the secret of maintaining
order by legitimate and wholesome means, is a pub-
lic man's care. Such order will generally be found
linked with prosperity, and certainly happiness, or
contentment, to use a more moderate term. But to
seek to redress a national grievance by a course en-
suring its misery—by declaiming on a summary mode
of abolishing taxation—is absurd and wicked; as
criminal as it is unstatesman-like. In talking to your
constituents on the subject on which they are no
doubt clamorous, “I mean the abolition of taxation”
—how should you speak? You have not forgotten
my rules to you of candour* to the people, now they
have the power of choosing their own representatives.
The people are not unreasonable when frankly dealt
with. The British character is more influenced by
frankness and open dealing than by any other means.
Tell them, at once, as to taxes, that they must pay !
Recapitulate to them the difficulties—the struggles
that this country has borne—and the necessary ex-
* See Letter I.
Plj BLIC FAITH. 79
penses that have been entailed on it. Tell them the
perfidy of those who try to beguile them with the
promise of reducing taxes, which it is impossible, con-
sistently with any maintenance of the “public faith”
can be reduced. How often have they been de-
ceived and betrayed by plans and promises of relief
that never could in the nature of things be verified
No! do not deceive them. This country is in an
artificial position of circumstances; and a total repeal
of a malt tax, or a window tax, are not things to be
promised at once, without reflection as to the feasi-
bility or not of such a measure. Be candid with them,
then, above all things! and as a friend, explain to
them the real position in which, they, and all classes
stand. Meantime, whatever unjust excrescences of
expense, exist in unmerited pensions, or exorbitant
salaries, or the scandal of sinecurism—let these, if
you please, awaken your just indignation in their de-
nunciation.
Thus far, and no farther, permit yourself to promise
the people relief on the score of their public burdens.
But, as for the republican and revolutionary school,
to which some of your constituents belong, at once
eschew and despise it! It is in the long run (as I
have shown you) hostile to the “English character.”
80 PROPERTY AND NO PIROPERTY.
The support of our monarchy is safe no less from an
attachment to itself, but, its preservation—and that of
the present forms of society and government—is com-
pulsory also, from the mischiefs that would ensue in
seeking to shake their stability. I have unfolded
to you the truth of the circumstances of a revolution.
It would be a struggle between “no property against
property,” and would be urged on by those who
had every thing to gain, and nothing to lose.
Selfishness would be the predominant feeling in
those who were sincere in the struggle. In those
who led the commotion, betrayal of its cause would
be a certain consequence, when they felt their own
property at stake. The English nation has dis-
covered this truth during the reflections it has made
on the demagogues that have been, and that still possi-
bly exist. Perhaps from an over confiding disposition,
it is too readily open, to be deluded, for a time; but
it has strong common sense, and soon discovers its
mistake, and with the discovery, feels indignation
for its betrayers. Such is the state of feeling at
present. Beware how you rashly act in the face of
it; however much you may be flattered by the Sup-
port of a few, who are still rashly willing to adhere to
false principles of action.
NATION AL PREJ U DICE, 81
I shall only insist on one other point, in testimony
of the prospect of stability that marks our institutions,
and the monarchy.
It is difficult for a nation to wean itself from an
institution to which it has been long accustomed, and
acquiesces in as a second nature. The feeling is here
habitual, and of the nature of all habits—which affect
national instances as they do individual. In the
instance of nations, this feeling is termed a “national
prejudice.” If there were no other reason for Sup-
porting a monarchy, you would find a strong one in
“national prejudice ſ” No matter how mistaken it
might be, in adhering to what was in itself not the
perfection, perhaps, of government. This would be
of no consequence; as long as the predilection existed,
it is of itself a sufficient, a paramount reason for sup-
porting what was beloved by it. How different, then,
is the situation of this country, to that of America,
in the present respect | Let those who would re-
organise things here, according to the model of a
republic, consider that it is a very different thing
to commence a state, where its elements are all new,
and, to remodel a state with old and inveterate pre-
judices and predilections ! Away with the folly of
placing things by the side of each other, which are
E 5
82 John BULL's PREDILECTIONs.
not, nor can be parallel ! Our natural character then,
—our artificial state of public economy, our habi-
tual predilections, and natural prejudices—all bind
us strongly to a support of the existing order of things.
All conspire to strengthen the love of monarchy, in
our hearts, and repel, as an invasion unnatural and
absurd, the idea of revolution and republicanism.
No revolution, I need scarcely suggest to you, (as a
classical scholar) ever succeeded, without it was pro-
moted by the leading persons* in society. But, here,
the aristocracy is all in favour of supporting a mon-
archy, which is the fountain of honour, and which
gives its complexion to society. “The aristocracy!”
(you will exclaim) “is this the only body where pre-
dilections are to be considered? Are not the wishes of
men though in a lowlier class than the aristocracy
glitters in, to be, also, considered ?” Certainly.
But have I not explained to you how the interests of
the lowliest classes are uniform—are identified with
those of the aristocracy 7 There is not a poor pea-
sant that may not rise by talent and industry to this
aristocracy. There is not a peer whose interest is
not one with that of the commons, for his sons are
* See Letter XXI.
pºlº RS AND PEOPLE. 83
commoners. Here is at once an argument amongst
many others, against the want of sympathy alleged
to exist between the peers and the people ! I shall
have to show you in another place that, if such
want of sympathy ever existed or was encouraged by
an independence of the higher body as opposed to
the lower, that it has been remedied by the effects
of the Reform Bill. But once more, learn the unity
of feeling that exists in the whole body of British
society. The pride and aristocratic feeling, are uni-
form, in all classes. In England, we are all nobility
with our “law of primogeniture.” This claim of
heritable blood, the right by birth of the eldest son
to look forward as the representative of his family,
and to maintain and prolong its name, gives a feel-
ing of pride and aristocratic loftiness to all. The
law is the same in this respect, in the instance of
the lowest as well as the highest; and its effect on
the mind (according to circumstances) the same.
If there is one characteristic trait that has excited the
attention of foreigners, it is this. This is one great
source of that English pride so everlastingly referred
to by them. It is a corroboration of that argument
* See Letter VII. p. 41.
84 TJNIVERSAL INOBILITY.
which I set out with, of the dignity of monarchy
being dear to the English character, from its native
haughtiness. Since this native pride is increased and
confirmed by the hereditary institutions that consti-
tute the English a universal nobility. I repeat to
you, the English are not the people to talk to, about
abolishing a monarchy. Do not stumble on such an
error
*...* It is hardly to be expected, that in speaking of national
distress in the above Letter, the subject of the currency should be
entered on. Our limits do not permit it. Suffice it to point out
the principles of the evil. The influence, then, that the condition
of the currency has in affecting national prosperity, may be con-
sidered under two heads. The first a temporary, the second a
general cause of distress. Under the first, the caprice of the
monetary market exhibits itself, in the wayward expansion and
contraction of the currency. This is the cause of the late and pre-
sent distress in America and this country. Under the second head
comes the prevailing evil of England, and the real secret of its
difficulties, commercial and agricultural. It is needless to say
that the alteration of the standard of the currency, by Peel's bill
of 1819, is considered here. It would require a work in itself to
expatiate on the convulsion occasioned by the disproportion of re-
turns under the gold standard, to engagements entered into under
the paper standard. The debt was contracted in the last, and the
grievance is, we are paying its interest according to the higher
standard. Hence, the reductions that have been made, (as in the
Wellington ministry,) in the interest of the debt. But we cannot
escape from the evil. It is a “vulnus immedicabile.” And no one
would be so mad as to restore the false standard of a paper cur-
rency, to which we owe our misfortune.
85
LETTER XII.
Objections on the part of the Tiro.—“Knotty points” that have
perplexed “Political Wisdom” since the Reform Bill:—
namely, how to prevent “Collisions” between the two Houses
of Parliament, and how to remedy the difficulty of a Minis-
ter of State being unable to secure a return to Parliament in
the House of Commons.—Elective system proposed with
respect to the Peers.
YoUR last letter has gone a great way towards fixing
my mind as to the course of politics most prudent for
me to pursue. According to your exposition, I
ought, at once, to renounce a system based on the
principle of change. I ought to adhere to the exist-
ing order of things. Why? Not only because it is
the best both socially and politically, but because it
is most agreeable to the disposition and feelings of
the English! I should, therefore, as far as regards
my political interests, maintain it. But no! I am
not so entirely convinced yet, as you would wish me
86 REFORM of THE “LoRDs.”
to be. You may remember my suggesting one or
two knotty points, which my constituents proposed
to me to unravel. Now the consideration of these
excited in me very great misgivings as to the policy
of our institutions, in the instance of the House of Lords
in particular. I am speaking entirely, now, in a politi-
cal point of view. Do not imagine I would signify
any wish of sweeping away the House of Lords, but
merely of bringing the spirit of change to work certain
salutary reforms in its character.” In a social point of
* The political questions that arise on the subject of the
Peerage, are, 1st, The attacking its hereditary claim, and, as in
France, constituting Peers for life only. This topic is not con-
sidered in the present correspondence, since in Letter VII.
it was fully concluded, that the claim of Nobility was constituted
by its hereditary character. Therefore, it would be utterly incon-
sistent to raise the question of a life-tenure for the nobility, since
it is regarded as the same as an extinction of nobility, and contradic-
tion in terms. 2dly,The election of Peers. 3dly, A collision between
the Peers and the House of Commons. These are the two main
topics considered in these Letters, with respect to the political in-
stitution of the Peerage. 4thly, The abolition of Vote by Proxy.
This will not be considered any further, than by observing, that
the policy and propriety of its extinction is loudly clamoured for
by some. If this is just, then, the question arises as to the pro-
priety of abolishing the system of “pairing off” in the House
of Commons,—an evasion of the actual presence of members
in debates being equally committed in either instance. This
is true; but the difference is, that any number of Peers can put in
their proxies to produce a majority, which is unfair to the other
RoussBAU. owe N. 87
view it has my acquiescence and praise. I do not envy
it the “decorations of circumstance,” and social dis-
tinction. I smile with no less contempt than yourself
at the vain doctrine of equality of ranks, and feel, that
in spite of all the reveries of the Rousseaus and
Owens, society must necessarily be divided into
stronger and weaker, or richer and poorer, the more
or less talented. Consequently, then, as there must
be “ranks” or grades, it is as well, nay, infinitely
better, that the distinction of such “ranks” should
exist in some moral decoration, rather than the vulgar
and invidious distinction of mere wealth, for example,
to cite the strongest instance” which you have sug-
gested, of that influence that renders one man more
powerful than another. Hence, I am fully reconciled to
the social institution of the nobility. In a political point
of view, however, I am inclined to be sceptical. The
idle and indolent mode of voting by proxy, is on all
hands repudiated. Who can doubt it ought to be
side, unless their opponents have notice, so that they may put in
their proxies too. Now, in the House of Commons the pairing off
system is as fair for one side as the other. Not so with the proxy
system. The cases are, in fact, not parallel.—See Debate, May,
1837, House of Commons. Duncombe's motion for abolition of
Vote by Proxy.
* Letter VII.
88 SCOTLAND AND IRELAND.
abolished as unjust 2% Blackstone has nothing to
say in its support; I shall therefore pass it by, to pro-
ceed to weightier subjects. I cannot then understand
the justice of not making the peers responsible to the
people for their actions. I mean to say responsible,
not merely in their consciences, and morally, but
responsible, through the form of election. For such
a system as this, there is a ready example afforded
us, in the election of representative peers for Scotland
and Ireland. Now, I submit that the collisions
which sometimes take place, between the two Houses
of Parliament, are highly detrimental to good govern-
ment, and the peace of the country, and I think that
the . chance of their occurrence would be wisely
avoided by the system I should propose of instituting
elections with respect to peers. When I speak of
electing the peers, of course I do not mean anything
short of popular election! You will perhaps say, that
the Scotch and Irish nobility elect their own’t repre-
sentative peers. Yes! peers represent their own
body in this instance. I do not want this in the
* For the reasons given in Note, p. 86.
+ The election is justly made of Peers, by Peers. This insti-
tution is on the principle of a man being tried by his Peers. The
rule is constitutional.
DAMAGED MACHINERY. 89
change I contemplate. I desire the peers to repre-
sent the people. A word from you on this point
would much interest me, as I feel a difficulty on the
question of collision between the two houses, which I
cannot at present smooth away. But I have not
finished my objections (or suggestions if you please)
just yet. If then, I felt my admiration for our well-
balanced state-machinery somewhat impaired, when
I found one of the three wheels, by which it is worked,
jarring against the other—imagine what was my con-
sternation when I found actually that one of the
wheels, the “great wheel,” if you will permit me
the designation, would not, under certain circum-
stances, work at all! By the “great wheel,” I mean,
that by which the “popular power” is worked. In
fact, the predicament to which I allude, is this. You
boast of your Reform Bill—of the people choosing
their own representatives—you say too, that under
the constitution every thing should be straightforward
—above suspicion—publicly avowed,—that the minis-
ters of state should explain to the representatives of
the people, openly, all their measures, all that re-
quires to be accounted for, and yet it may occur,
may, has occurred, that a man may be a minister and
yet not in parliament! That changes of state, the
90 NEW MISC HIIEFS.
most important, may be recommended in a king's
speech,-nay, may have been brought before parlia-
ment, and yet the minister may be incapacitated
from either carrying them forward, or explaining what
may appear amiss in transactions that have taken
place! Here is a predicament! The public business
is impeded, is delayed! The “great wheel” (I think
you will agree with me) is stopped now! In the time
of the close-borough “convenience,” no such evil as
this, at any rate, took place! I will grant you the
balance of good in other respects was very much in
favour of the Reform measure; and, in fact, it was
idle to talk of a constitution while an oligarchy ruled,
and forced measures on the people against its con-
sent. This result was indeed a mischief attaching to
close-boroughs, that cried aloud for redress; but the
evil I have just represented was avoided. The peo-
ple, at any rate, were always sure of having their
tyrants (if you please to term them so) called before
them. There was no embarrassment of the nature I
have described. If bad measures were carried by a
slavish majority, and the constitution was violated in
this respect, under the circumstances I have been re-
presenting, the constitution is certainly grossly in-
vaded under this new birth of mischief! The people,
JIFALOUSY AND STUSPICION. 91
in fact, may be left in ignorance of what the govern-
ment is doing; meantime, all that is abhorrent to the
constitution, arises in the jealousy and suspicion, to
say nothing of delay, that is excited.
This difficulty, which I consider a more serious
one than the first I suggested, I would be obliged to
you, also, to endeavour to remedy for me.
§
92
LETTER XIII.
Answer to the preceding and the “Riddles” proposed in it
examined.—In the first place, the responsibility of the Peers
to the Country considered.—Their interest one with the
Commons.—The Elective System opposed, as applied to them
either by themselves or the People.—Its fallacy.—The remain-
ing “Riddles” reserved for another Letter—In the present
it is shown that no Vote for re-organising the Peers' House
has any validity.—And that the very opposition of the Peers
to the Measures of the House of Commons, in which they
conscientiously dissent, is an exercise of that counterbalanc-
ing influence,—that object, for which the Constitution ordains
them. The Exercise of this Authority is their characteristic
feature. They, at times, protect the Commons from—them-
selves |
So you propose riddles to me! You think now you
have dumb-foundered me ! I dare say you thought
you had discovered an argument altogether unanswer-
able, when you suggested that the peers were irre-
sponsible to the people, and consequently that they
should be rendered responsible by the mode of popu-
lar election.
ARISTOTLE's LoGIC. 93
You have not yet forgotten your Aristotelian
Primer! I mean your syllogisms' Your “Barbara
celarent l” You will remember that unless the
major of a proposition is indisputable, the conclu-
sion must fall to the ground. In the first place then
I deny, as you supposed I would, your “major,”
which is, that the peers are “irresponsible.” You
do not consider that the peers, as members, in the
first place, of society, have an interest in being on
terms of amity with the commonalty; for the mere
sake of avoiding that invidiousness which otherwise
would attach to them to their danger and detriment.
In the next place, a stronger tie of interest binds
them to society. They have large possessions,—a
great stake in the country—and for the stability of
these claims, they are necessarily compelled, again, to
maintain a good understanding with the people, even
were they not voluntarily inclined to do so. But if
these reasons are not sufficient to show that there is
a connection between the people and themselves, let
me ask, who were these peers originally 2 You will
perceive that a great proportion of them were but
within the scope of a few years past—a short date
past — members of the commonalty themselves.
Their sons are still so | They are commoners.
94 PITT's PEERs.
Again, you will find many of the peers have their
origin in the middle classes” of life, and have at-
tained to the eminence they possess through their
own exertions, and their own merit. Do you imagine
then that the interests of the commonalty, of the
people, from which they themselves, f many of them
have sprung, (and to which their children still belong)
are regarded with indifference by them ? Certainly
not And if regarded with interest, and with a de-
sire to support, assist, and improve measures affecting
the people, you cannot say that the peers act without
feeling themselves accountable for what they do
On the contrary, they must be anxious to account
for their actions, since the good intentions and sin-
cerity which they profess can thus alone demonstrate
how far the interests of the people are dear to them.
* See Letter VII., where these representations are of equal
validity in supporting another conclusion, viz., the utility of an
ennobled order of the State. Here, the unity of interest of the
Peers and the People is the object in view.
+ The raising of Peers from the obscurer commonalty began
with Henry VIII. Anciently they were great landed proprietors,
in capite. Pitt, for the support of Toryism, carried his creations
to an unconstitutional extent; perhaps, the danger of the period,
however, made the anomaly excusable. Since 1784, the total
creation of peerages may be taken at 160; of which, 50 are men
raised for professional merit; 60, country gentlemen; 50, Scotch
and Irish.
COBB]ETT. 95
This is not a mere speculative representation. It is
the result of experience in what the peers have done.
The late William Cobbett, used endlessly to be
thanking the peers in his Registers, for throwing
out some measure mischievous to the people ! Their
very enemy is in this instance seen praising them.
Many measures might be appealed to as further cor-
roborating the fact that the popular interests are dear
to them, and amongst others, one as being a con-
spicuous benefit, shall be cited, namely, the “Lords’
Act.” You will meet me here by suggesting, that
though some measures passed by the Lords might
have been salutary, and though their prevention,
also, of certain measures might be no less so, yet,
there may arise occasions when their acts might be
of a different nature, practically, however good their
intentions should be. The disposing of this objec-
tion, would bring me to the topic of that “collision”
* For discharge of persons, in particular, who are charged in
execution upon a judgment, for any debt not exceeding £300.,
32 Geo. II. c. 28., made perpetual by 39 Geo. III. The appli-
cation for discharge must be made by the prisoner to the court
before the end of the first term of his arrest. This is but one of
many instances in which the Lords have been friendly to the
liberties of the subject. They are consistent in this conduct, for
to them the people owes its liberty originally.—See Letter XX.
where a view of our Constitutional History is taken.
96 SLIGHT IN CONSISTENCY.
between the two Houses, which you regard as so
probable to occur, and so formidable. I will dispose
of that question by and by, but have not yet done
with your first objection, namely, that the peers
ought to be elected by the people, in order to de-
stroy any exclusiveness of interests or feelings that
may belong to them. I have already said there is
no such distinction or exclusive feeling ! And in
the next place, I have to ask you how you can with
any justice, represent yourself as admiring a con-
stitution composed of three counterbalancing estates,
and yet wish to merge the second of them in the
third 7 I ask you, how with any consistency, you
praise the counterbalance, and then in the next
breath propose measures for annihilating it? Do
you not do so in proposing a popular election of
representative peers? What more do you do in this
predicament, than make an increase or extension
merely of a House of Commons? You destroy all
distinguishing characteristics of a body independent
in its functions, and yet united, as I have shown, in its
interests with the people? You destroy the very
essence, the very virtue and vitality of the institution
of another house of parliament. The check, the
salutary check on the Commons House,_salutary
ELECTION OF PEERS. 97
not only in repressing the tide of democracy, but in
preventing the people from often doing mischief
to itself—you destroy! You may as well abolish
the House of Peers, at once, as pretend to talk
of it as existing in any thing more than name, if you
make the peers elective. With the fall of this one
estate of the realm, that of the monarchy would also
fall. Therefore, talk no longer of upholding the
three estates while you propose the popular election
of representative peers. Driven from this ground,
you will suggest, perhaps, the election of the peers
by their own body, as in the case of the Scotch and
Irish representative peers. The recognition of Scotland
and Ireland, as accessories to the throne of England, is
preserved in the circumstance of the nobility of these
countries appearing in parliament through their re-
presentatives; the supremacy of England, as a king-
dom, is held in view by the appearance of all the
English peerage in parliament. And not only this,
but the English peers all appear in parliament, as
constituting that high court of appeal which the House
of Lords will be described to be, in a future Letter on
its legal attributes.* Consequently, there would be
* See Letter XVII. where a view of Constitutional Law is
taken.—(Sect. ii.)
98 “MIGHT * Is NoT “RIGHT.”
an inconsistency in permitting the whole English
body of peers to constitute a court in the last resort
of adjudication, and yet not consider its assembled
strength equally requisite as a convention on political
matters! It appears to be incompatible with the
dignity of the nobility, to recognise its universal par-
ticipation in one province, and disallow it in another.
Such, in the older periods of our history, was the
feeling with respect to the peers of England, and the
testimony of its ancient records meets us with the
law, and charter by which it performs its functions.
These functions it would not willingly yield, and as
long as it was unwilling to betray or sacrifice its
own legal and prescriptive rights, no measure passed
by the House of Commons with a view to retrench them
could be effective. The question of a Reform of the
House of Lords, implies at once revolution. The
measure could not have any legal effect on the peers.
A law is not rendered valid until their sanction is
yielded to it. The peers, indeed, may be driven
away from their house of parliament, and from their
hearths, by violence,—but this is corroborating merely
what I have expressed, that any measure on the part
of the Commons for “reforming” or “controlling”
the Lords against their consent, is “null and
IRELAND. SCOTLAND. 99
void.” Therefore, there was never any thing so
ignorantly broached as a mere matter of law, as the
question of reforming the peers, or altering the nature
and tenure of the institution of the peerage. But to
remark, once again, on your suggestion of letting the
peers of England elect representatives, as in the case
of Ireland and Scotland. Consider here, how im-
mense an empire that of Great Britain is! A less
number of peers would be but a mere shadow of a
house for legislating on interests and for territories so
extensive! I would meet your argument by saying,
you will talk with more reason of enlarging the num-
ber of representative peers of Ireland and Scotland;
but as to reducing the total numbers, it is impolitic to
do so—there are none to be spared. I have, I hope,
sufficiently expressed to you the fallacy of your argu-
ment, of making a House of Peers elective by the
people. I have shown you it is to sink them into a
mere extension of the Commons—and hence, to an-
nihilate the attribute which renders the peers valuable
as a counterbalancing power. And when I say this,
then—I speak of nothing more than the extinction of
the peerage. What now becomes of the incentives to
merit?—of the reward proposed to talent, to en-
deavour, to honourable ambition, and persevering
F 2
100 INDEPENDENCE OF THOUGHT.
virtue? The country owes much of its greatness to
the reward held up in the attainment of the peerage
by those who pursue the lofty path of honourable
exertion and great endeavour. To this incentive we
owe most of our illustrious men; and detrimental
indeed, to the cause of public advancement, will be
the measure that should ever sweep away so exalted
a stimulus of action.
And now to approach your objection of the “colli-
sion,” of which you dread the effects. Certainly, a.
want of harmony between the two Houses of Parlia-
ment is to be deprecated, where there is any spirit of
faction at work: but if a difference between the two
houses takes place conscientiously, the “collision”
loses its name and application, since this difference is
merely the exhibition of that independence of think-
ing which gives the peerage its value, and in which
it exhibits the inestimable “balance” already men-
tioned.
101
LETTER XIV.
Explanation of the “riddles” proposed in Letter XII. continued.
—Sect. I. Collision between the Upper and Lower House, as
a general result, shown inconsistent with the uniformity of
feeling that characterises both the Peers and the People at
large in upholding our institutions.—The political bias of the
people to be considered as the only true way of solving the
difficulty.—Sect. II. Corroboration of the evidence of this
bias in the popular distrust, shown as regards the Whigs.--
Sect. III. The difficulty removed of a minister unable to
secure a return to Parliament.—The remedy arrived at from
the same arguments as in the question of collision.—Conclu-
sion that the Constitution has derived strength from the
Reform Bill, which, in giving the people the power of choos-
ing their own Representatives, gives it an opportunity of
showing its attachment to the Constitution, and securing a
Government that shall possess the confidence of the country.
IF my principle be a true one, and based on a well
considered estimate of English predilections,” you will
at once perceive that such a juncture as a collision
between the peers and the commons as a general re-
sult is not probable.
Sect. I.-The Peers will always act for the main
* See Letter XI. p. 81.
102 IIDENTITY OF INTEREST.S.
tenance of the institutions under which they exist as
an independent body of the state. The people, then,
if I am right in my estimate of their partiality% for
that constitution under which England has grown so
great, will be for maintaining it, and consequently,
they are in unanimity with the peerage. I say, as a
general result, I am certain that I speak advisedly,
and that putting aside occasional differences of opinion,
no collision can properly take place whereallareequally
concerned for the maintenance of one form of institu-
tions. The interests on either side are uniform. On that
of the peers to preserve their station in the state: on that
of the commons, to preserve the social and political
form of the monarchy and peerage under which civili-
zation and the public weal are best secured:f —and
not only this, but to preserve also that reward which
the peerage holds out for merit down to the humblest
in the scale. f. I say, then, that the interests being
identified of the peers and the community, it is im-
possible that as a general result, any danger of a
collision should be anticipated. The occasional
differences that take place, and ever will take place,
between the two houses, are rather desirable than
* See Letter X. and consider the present state of opinion
through the country,
+ See Letter X. I See the preceding Letter.
DE LOI.M.E. MONTESQUIEU. 103
otherwise, as I have before observed, since they are the
marks of that independence which constitutes the
counterbalancing * power. But to imagine that the
variance should ever proceed to any irreconcileable
extent, is groundless. Have you forgotten the effect
of the Reform Bill? It is to permit the people
adequately to express their sentiments through their
representatives. And it follows as a necessary con-
sequence on the constitutional bias of the English,
that a majority in favour of this feeling, and, hence,
in accordance with the peers, will, as a general re-
sult, be returned to parliament. There is an end,
then, of collision, as a permanent source of alarm
For even suppose that a rank republican majority
should be returned from the “ten pound” house-
holders, when, in an emergency of distress, they are
deluded by the promises of demagogues, such a
crisis as this, is only to be regarded as a passing
storm ' You may be certain, I repeat, from the
analysis I have given you in a former Letter, of
English predilections, that the sun of the Constitution
will shine again with renewed force and lustre, absorb-
ing and dissipating in its light, the clouds that
* See De Lolme. Montesquieu says, the destroying this
equilibrium will ruin the Constitution, and he anticipates such a
result. See Note, post, p. 110.
104 CHANGE OF NAMES,
obscured it! And, mark the truth of my words, you
will find through your political career, that when the
friends of our Institutions are in power, any adverse
party will attempt to weaken them, not by opposing
their line of policy so much, as by trying to excite an
unjust and vague disaffection in the lower classes, and
possessors of the humbler borough franchise. To
provoke difficulty even, to persuade the people it is
distressed, will be the means by which an adverse
party will work, to shake the strength of the upholders
of the Constitution, and real friends of the people.
Sect. II.-The country will not place confidence
in any Government that does not defend the con-
stitution. To illustrate this, take the instance of
those parties which have been heretofore recog-
mised in the state. That of the Tories has now
3.
changed its name to “Conservatives,” in as much
as the principle of Reform having been recognised, the
avowal is meant to be conveyed, that a stand against
Revolution is now to be made, and an effort to save
our institutions from being annihilated, under the
pretence of Reform. This is the terminus ad quem to
which the progress of Reform has arrived, with those
who wish to maintain the three estates inviolable.
But is not this maintenance of the constitution, also
A PARTY EXTINCT, 105
the profession of the other (once great) party in the
state—the Whigs’ Assuredly They are of the
highest families in the state, and as warmly inte-
rested for the security of the peerage, as the Conserva-
tive party. But what is the predicament in which they
stand? Why, that in all wholesome Reform they are
met by the quondam Tories and now Conservatives;
and, therefore, as an opponent body to those conserva-
tives they are negatived, and of no longer service in the
state. They should, according to any just principle,join"
with them against revolution. What, however, is their
next expedient to maintain any appearance of distin-
guishing feature and claim to importance? Why, to pro-
ceed in thepath of innovation—in fear,indeed, and trem
bling—since the path, now, is one on which the enemies
of the institution of the peerage, and of the established
church lead them, or rather hurry them away. In fact,
the old Whig party is annihilate; and the only con-
scientiously opponent body to the party that upholds
our constitution, is that of the Radicals or Republicans.
The Whig party, to use an expression of chemistry, is
& & precipitated.” It is absorbed by the Conservative
* As in the instance of Lord Stanley and Sir J. Graham, for the
cause is common. See Letter XXVI., on the subject of Party.
And see the historical note subjoined at the end of this letter.
F 5
106 A PRIEDICAMIENT.
party in respect of all wholesome reform, and when it
steps beyond this, it leagues with an enemy, and is
absorbed in the spirit of radicalism There is an
additional misery in this last predicament to the
“former” Whig party—(for I have shown it does not
exist any longer,)—this misery is, that it knows
it is acting contrary to its own real inclinations, and
to the safety of the constitution.* The people of
England no longer recognise its existence—it has
transgressed the pale of wholesome Reform, and is
plunging forward toward the ruin of the constitution.
The constitutional spirit of England, then, if it op-
poses radicalism and republicanism, cannot but
oppose what was, (rather than is,) Whiggism. No
party rightly remains for it to support but that of the
wholesome Reformers. The Conservative body, then,
is certain, as a general result, to maintain its ascen-
dancy, and to exhibit a majority of strength as the re-
presentative of popular feeling. In fact, the benefit of
the Reform Bill is conspicuous in this respect, that it
gives the people an opportunity of more fully express-
* In leaguing throughout with a decidedly revolutionary
party; for nothing less is the Radical body, that would introduce
so much of democracy as unlimited suffrage embraces; besides,
a sacrifice of the Protestant Church interests, and an annihilation,
in effect, of the House of Lords.
PICTURE OF ENG LAND. 107
ing its constitutional bias; and hence amalgamating
its interests with those now before us, of the Peers! The
aspect the country presents, in this point of view, is most
interesting, since it exhibits the whole community,
Peers and People, as one great family, living together
in harmony —the country, in comparison with other
countries, to be hereafter” regarded again as one great
family, from the superior facility of internal communi-
cation it exhibits, by its canals and rail-roads. How in-
creased is the interest of this picture, when its unity and
harmony is contemplated in a social and political point
of view, as well asphysical. I use the word physical here,
as a term of distinction merely; for the beneficial cha-
racter, of course, in any great physical improvement,is
inits moral result. I say, that the picture I have drawn,
is one that is actually being realized. It is no vain fleet-
ing sketch, but its colours are limned in the very heart's
blood and vital affections of the English. The country,
I have shown you, is essentially, both by natural dis-
position and artificial bias,t no less than interest, in
favour of our institutions. Hence that there can be any
prevailing cause of collision dreaded is impossible.
You will ask, will there be no opposition, then, what-
ever, in the House of Commons, to any constitutional
* Letter XXVIII. + Letter XI.
108 CONSERVATIVES AND DESTRUCTIVES,
Ministry that will be in power? Yes, assuredly But
no conscientious one, except an openly avowed spirit of
republicanism. There can be, legitimately or naturally,
no other. The opposition of Whigs to Constitutional
Reformers is a contradiction in terms, as I have shown.
And republicanism need not be dreaded, since it can
never prevail with the English community. As a mere
opposition it will be useful; it will urge to exertion any
feeling for wholesome reform that may chance to slum-
ber. It will keep the friends of the Constitution on its
guard against dangerous and extraordinary innovation.
But there can be no such permanent opposition, so as to
bring the question of collision between the two Houses
into consideration. That there should be a republican
party openly avowing its sentiments, is rather to be
desired than deprecated. All men, then, can canvass
the comparative benefits of contending views—on the
one side in favour of Monarchy, on the other of
Democracy; and there is little fear which of the two
questions will triumph. The conflict has been waged
already in this country, and all my representations of
the bias of the English, are corroborated in the resto-
ration of Charles the Second.* All my representations
of the salutary effect of the Peerage, as a balancing
* Letter X. p. 65.
NAPOLEON. LOUIS PHILIPPE. 109
power, are corroborated in Cromwell's re-establish-
ment of the House of Lords, under the name of the
Other House—in the fact that he found the Commons
required to have their measures supervised by some
independent body. The more, I maintain, that the
question is canvassed, the more the result will be of
triumph in favour of the Constitution. Cromwell
knew well enough that it was absurd to talk of any
thing like self-government in a mere republic. He
governed by his army”, as Napoleon did, and as Louis
Philippe effectively does now. Take the instance of a
republic in America. It, indeed, exhibits the name,
but effectively it bears the shape of monarchy, in the
controlling power of its president; while the course of
civilization lagst behind, wanting those decorations of
society that a court and rank affords. These, so far from
being regarded as “useless trappings of a monarchy,”
are essential moral benefits in humanizing and refin-
ing social manners and feeling. I will not state how
far my own reflections lead me to consider that Ame-
rica is making progress j towards a condition more
* What was called in Ancient Greece a “Stratocracy.” See
Thucydides.
+ See Letter VII.
1 See De Tocqueville's America; and Letter VII. p. 31.
De Tocqueville paints the tyranny of the Legislature in vivid
110 A ‘REFORM DILEMMA.
assimilated to that of the mother country in its
social features. I do not doubt that they will one
day be so assimilated. In fact, I am as much inclined
to look forward to this result, as I am disinclined to
fear any thing like the establishment of republicanism
or democratic ascendancy in this country.
What becomes, now, of the fear of collision, the first
of the difficulties you require solved ? It is at an end.
All the arguments, then, that apply to this question,
are of equal availability, in considering the second
point you bring forward for discussion.
Sect. III.-You ask, “How is the government of the
country to be satisfactorily conducted, in the instance of
a minister not being a member of parliament, which, un-
der the “close-borough system,” he was sure of being?
Here, then, is a dilemma, on which the wits of num-
bers have been at work | Had their views been any
thing but the most narrow and ignorant, they might
have spared themselves the trouble they have taken.
One was, on the ground of public expediency, for open
violation of the constitution, in giving seats in parlia-
ment to ministers, by “virtue of their office,” without
colours. Montesquieu augurs the ruin of the British Constitution,
through its Parliament, if the counterbalance becomes spoiled of
its due equilibrium.
OUT OF PARLIAMENT . 111
any election The constitution is indeed at an end
here; much more, even, than in the instance you
justly object, * of measures being unexplained in the
House, by the absence of the ministers! Well, ano-
ther says, let the ministers out of parliament be called
to the “bar of the House,” to be examined as to their
measures | What? the government to be rendered
mere instruments, and subjects of reference to the
parliament, to deal with as it pleases, without a voice
to protect or support its measures against the enemies
of the state? This will never do, again! No; the
difficulty of such a situation as that under considera-
tion, is to be met in a more enlightened and elevated
view of the question. It is to be regarded by ex-
amining again the political bias of the country; by
analysing its prevailing predilections; and coming to
a conclusion as to what political professions it will
ultimately support. The result of this view will bring
us to that conclusion, which the arguments I have above
set before you arrive at, namely, that the constitu-
tional strength will be paramount, in the representa-
tives sent to parliament. Of this body, then, will con-
sist those, (as a necessary consequence,) to whom the
reins of government will be confided by the people,
* Letter XII. p. 90, 91.
| 12 ALL ARE REFORMERS.
and the monarch, acting for a constitutional com-
munity, and himself at the same time. There is an
end, then, of the difficulty you objected; and an end
of it, too, by the only safe or secure means. To argue
on it, on any more satisfactory grounds is impossible !
It is idle to suggest the weak expedients I have set
before you, of those who would apply an inefficient
and awkward remedy to the difficulty, - a remedy
which, if they looked at the question in the elevated
point of view in which I have endeavoured to place it
before you, would have been found to be merely tem-
porary, and utterly unconstitutional.
Nothing more now remains to answer to your letter.
Your main objections I have answered. Not a word
is necessary in reply to your conclusion, in which you
speak of the “spirit of change” being paramount. I
have already expressed to you that the only serious
opposition now existing is that which would go be-
yond the charter of the Reform Bill. You infer, *
rightly, that every one, according to this charter, is a
reformer by profession : yes, but not a revolutionist;
and I have nothing to dread from the attacks of a de-
mocratic body, when I think I have said enough to
show you the strength of the constitutional predilec-
* See Letter IX.
SWIFT. BOLINGIBROKE, 113
tions to oppose and defeat it. In fact the constitu-
tion has gained strength from the Reform Measure.
Note ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE HISTORY OF “PARTY.”—What
is said of parties in the foregoing Letter, is expressed with the
strictest impartiality, and mere review of historical facts. The
history of the Whig body has been, indeed, a curiosity from its
earliest recognition as a State party. It has been constantly placed
in a false position, from the circumstance of its profession and
practice being so often at variance. Its principle is, to favour
and befriend the liberties of the People, and, consequently, much
has been expected of it, which it failed to perform. This is said
of times past, of the period at, and previous to, the return to power
of the Whigs, on the accession of the House of Brunswick to the
throne, in the person of George I. Swift says of them, “I was
educated among the Whigs, but at length attached myself to the
Tories, (Bolingbroke, Harley, and others,) because the Whigs have
renounced the old principles, and recognised others, which their
forefathers held in utter abhorrence.”—(Hawkesworth.)—This
may certainly be expressed of the Whigs at the present day; the
principles of their forefathers was to maintain the Constitution
inviolable. This they do not do, though they profess to do so.
Their measures are at variance with the principle, so long as they
attach themselves to men whose politics are adverse to our Institu-
tions, religious, hereditary, and of duly-mixed feature of Nobles and
Commons. But yet more, than this;–the Whigs of the present day
not only go beyond the wholesome limit of Reform, and become
Revolutionists, but they fail to give the people many just reforms
expected of them.* They do too much one way, and too little
another. It is not to be denied that the people are indebted to
them for the Reform Bill, and manyi great measures subsequently,
But why not, if they have gone as far as wholesome Reform
* See Letters XVIII., XIX, XXIII. + Letters XX, XXI.
114 ONLY TWO GREAT PARTIES.
demands, acknowledge it ! Why, because they wish to maintain
power to themselves, and hold patronage and place. Magnanimity
would suggest that they should join with the Conservative party,
as the text explains. However, they will punish themselves by
their want of prudence, no less than principle, and will be, in spite
of all they have done for the people, only in the condition of a
sweeper, who has cleared the way for others—the Conservatives
— to walk dry over ! Why not, if the Whigs are for preserving
our Constitution, although they are Reformers, make common
cause with those whose principle is precisely the same. For every
Conservative is also a Reformer of all real abuses, under the
Reform Charter. A corroboration of the above statements, that the
Whig party has offended the people, and excited their alarm for
the safety of the Constitution, is plain, from the fact, that in any
Whig address, it claims popularity, not on its PRESENT measures
and conduct, but on a RETRosPECTIve view of its achievements l
When this is the case, it is plain a party is on unstable ground and
fast sinking. The Radical creed is intelligible. It raises the
question of the expediency or not of the Constitution! It pursues
measures in open defiance of the safety of our Institutions. The
Conservative creed resists such measures in defence of the Con-
stitution. In fact, there are really and effectively only Two great
parties in the country—for and against the Constitution. Any
third party that professes itself for the Constitution, and yet
leagues with the enemy, is unprincipled, and effectively belongs to
the enemy. As a self-existent and separate party it is an at end.
Such is the case with the “late.” Whig party.
115
LETTER XV.
The “Tiro” at fault again.—The desire to know what he may
safely promise his Constituents that he will reform.—With
a view to this knowledge, he requests instructions as to the
Liberties of the Subject, under the Law of the Constitu-
tion.
I FEEL what you say as to the necessity of guiding
ourselves by certain great “principles of action”—as
landmarks to prevent our wandering amidst the
labyrinth of detail and the uncertainty of speculation.
Your analysis of the English character, is one of
those important principles which I shall certainly
keep in view; but I want to know something more
about this “ constitution,” of which you boast so
much! It appears to me that there are many great
defects in it, and many particulars in our legal polity
and practice inconsistent with freedom. What is the
constitution? Define it to me! The term is, to me,
in my inexperience, somewhat vague! Give me a
116 whAT ARE OUR RIGHTS 7
definition then of it! Give me a plan of it that I may
see its scope It is the very syntax by which I
ought to construe all my political conduct. I am un-
qualified to enter on the stage of public life without
some knowledge of what is called the “law of the
constitution.” You have explained to me the whole
subject of the frame work, political and social, of our
constitution; but I want to know something of the
spirit and essence of what is recognized as its “law,”
its practical energy and character, as operating on
our individual liberties. I do not know how to dis-
cuss, with my constituents, the “rights of English-
men,” without some insight afforded me on this
subject. You will be much obliging me in supplying
the deficiency of which I complain. In fact, your
kind explanations to me of the policy of our institu-
tions, will be incomplete unless you analyse to me
the spirit that aught to pervade them in maintaining
that universal freedom which would otherwise be
forfeited or much encroached on. In a social point
of view, the dignity of a peerage may be very benefi-
cial. In a political point of view, the limitation and
hereditary character of the monarchy may be excel-
lent, in preventing the jealousies that would other-
wise arise; but still there might be much oppression,
UN CONSTITUTIONAL. 117
and much injustice practised, unless there were cer-
tain legal principles, certain controlling energies at
work to obviate such a result!% What these are, I
am desirous to be informed. You perceive I am
vigilantly looking towards the correction of abuses as
my great practical principle in public life. It appears
to me, there are many such abuses existing under
our boasted condition of liberty. I allude particularly
to the rights of the subject. But I shall forbear, at
present, to say what occurs to me on this topic. I
wish first to hear from you what are the principles,
and what the spirit of our “constitutional law.” I
shall then be better able to understand what is, or is
not, consistent with it. I shall then be better able to
answer my constituents, who are endlessly complain-
ing “ that such and such a measure, or grievance, is
unconstitutional!”. You forbid me to let the “spirit
of change” exercise itself in “tampering” with our
institutions. I shall now, I dare say, be able to dis-
cover subjects where it can safely be employed.
* “The law of the land is the supreme power.”—Coke.
118
LETTER XVI.
Reply produced by the “Tiro’s” preceding Letter.—To answer
this, a view is entered upon of the Law of the Constitution.
—Definition of it.—Its Spirit analysed, and Moral Charac-
teristics shown.—Abuse of the term “Unconstitutional,” by
Demagogues.-Plan of the Constitution*, being a compen-
dious view of the whole Constitutional Code. -
I AM happy to obey your request, to the best of my
endeavours. The field of the “constitution” is wide
indeed! The characteristics of it are threefold.
Political, moral or philosophical, and practical or
legal. The first characteristic is that which applies
to the three estates of the realm. The law of the
constitution declares, that these institutions should
* It may be observed, that the Letters to which this is an intro-
duction, and which particularly illustrate the law of the constitu-
tion, since the Reform Bill may serve as an Appendix to Black-
stone. The whole contents of the work, indeed, illustrate the
principles and practice of the constitution; but those that imme-
diately follow, apply to what is more specifically termed, the Law
of the Constitution.—See the Plan at the end of this Letter.
CHARACTERISTICS. 119
remain unshaken and unassailed, and the letters
which I have heretofore had the pleasure of sending
you, have endeavoured to explain why they should be
thus unshaken and unassailed. The two characteristics
then, that remain to be considered are, the moral or
philosophical, and the legal or practical. The first
of these regards the spirit of the law of the constitu-
tion;—the second, its practice as to the rights of
nations, of corporate and privileged bodies, and of
individuals. You do perfectly rightly to ask me to
“define” the constitution, as no term is more used
at random. Every one talks of the constitution: few
can define it, succinctly or satisfactorily. The de-
finition of it will be apparent in proceeding to analyse
the spirit that pervades it; which is the first of the
two heads at present to be considered. I cannot then
do better towards a general elucidation of the term
“constitutional,” than by saying, that whatever
operates in preserving the liberties of the people, and
hence recognizing their share in the organs of govern-
ment—is constitutional. This acceptation is plainly
the true one; since history confirms the import of the
term “constitutional,” as marking the “constituted”
authority and power of the people in resistance to
the older feudal and despotic domination. It is true,
120 . HALLAM.
that the term Constitution implies the “apportion-
ment,” or “ partition” of power and the counterbalanc-
ing influence of the three estates—King and Lords as
well as People. But, emphatically, it refers to the
popular feature I have specified. It designates the
constituted power and recognized control of the
people. You can, thus, only arrive at a real know-
ledge of the term in question, from a consideration of
the history of this country. As corroborating the
above acceptation of it, a reference to the impartial
pages of Hallam’s Constitutional History of Eng-
land is recommended. You will there see the
popular resistance traced in its earliest working. You
will mark, from its origin, the indignant endeavour to
cast off or lighten the feudal yoke, which, since the
Norman conquest, was imposed on the people. As I
shall have hereafter to remark, Blackstone traces the
great landmarks of change in favour of liberty. But
his survey is superficial, and his assertions are to be
received with caution,” when he speaks of constitu-
tional law. You should read him not by himself, as
* See Letter XX. Sect. I.-The struggle against prerogative.
Fox's opinion. Blackstone explains the frame-work of our con-
stitution, and its counterbalancing power admirably. But he
does not draw able or just deductions as to the working of the
constitutional spirit, from public measures and events.
THE CONSTITUTION DEFINED. 121
regards this topic, but with the accompaniment and
comment of history, or you may be led to erroneous
conclusions. .
To return, however, to our definition. Having ex-
pressed its general acceptation, and illustrated it
from historical testimony, it is easy to give it more
precise terms. It may be stated, then, as “a law of
government constituting the supremacy of the people,
as controlling the prerogative of the Crown, and vin-
dicating the rights and liberties of the subject.” The
great illustration of the popular authority in govern-
ment, is the privilege of the people to tax themselves
through their representatives. This topic will pre-
sent itself in due course of consideration in the
second- branch of the present inquiry. Meantime,
from the definition you have been afforded, you will
readily understand the converse of it. You will per-
ceive, that whatever trenches upon the rights of the
people, and their legitimate privileges, is “uncon-
stitutional.” Hence the latitude of the term is con-
siderable, for it applies to all that is intriguing, and
liable to be viewed with jealousy in the conduct of pub-
lic men and measures. It illustrates whatever is un-
* See Letter XVII.
G
122 SPIRIT OF THE CONSTITUTION.
candid, oppressive, or that shrinks from publicity. It
denounces all dealings that bear marks of evasion,
indecent haste, want of due deliberation, or anything
like manoeuvre in any public functionary. For these
characteristics mark a line of conduct that trenches,
or has a tendency to trench, on the liberty of the sub-
ject. Such being the latitude of the term “uncon-
stitutional,” it is often used, much at random; and is
applied, by the lovers of lawless agitation, as a pre-
tence and excuse for the most mischievous violations
of truth and justice. To you, then, as a political
“tiro,”
understanding should be afforded of it. On the other
hand, the spirit of equity, of leniency, and forbear-
it is of the utmost importance that an exact
ance in our laws, of candour in our ministers, of
publicity in our proceedings, of impartiality in the
administration of justice, of free participation in civil
and commercial privileges, to the extinction alike of
corruption or monopoly—is all agreeable to the
genius and operation of the “constitution.”
From what has been thus far stated, then, the law
of the constitution presents itself as a great moral
“energy,” rather than any positive law. The moral
feeling, in fact, and control, has acquired the force of
MISCHIEF OF CIRCU MSTANCE. 123
a law by prescription. Every one feels the authority
of this, and comprehends its workings, as much as if
the precise letter of such law were placed before him.
Its sway is like that of the control of public opinion, of
which mention has been made in an earlier Letter in
this series.* Hence a man, to know how to act con-
stitutionally, wants no positive law to prescribe his
conduct. He knows, that unless he acts according to
the spirit of equity, and in favour of liberty, he is in-
fringing the law of the constitution. He knows that
he is violating that compact with the rights of the
subject, that every one born under the British govern-
ment virtually enters into, the moment he is able to
think or act for himself.
Circumstance indeed has been felt in great measure
to warp the better action of these rights. Circum-
stance (that either in morals or politics will have its
sway) has had terrible effect in narrowing and weaken-
ing the blessings of freedom in the instance of the
effects of thenational debt, for example. The shackles
it imposed on liberty through the means of taxation,
cannot be sufficiently regretted. The circumstances of
* Letter V. p. 15. and XXIII.
G 2
124 CLOGS ON FREEDOM.
the country were so pressing at one time, a period of
great difficulty, that not only articles of luxury were
taxed but the merest necessaries of life, the very air
we breathed, and the light of heaven In many
instances taxation was to be regarded as a necessary
evil: but the mischief of the system, was, that under
the excuse of assisting the emergencies of the country
it was used as an engine of oppression in cramping
the free expression of thought and independent cha-
racter of the people. The worst times of the country’s
difficulty are now passed ; though the weight of the
“ debt” still hangs upon us. But as far as cheerfully
relieving the engagements it imposed on us in a time of
danger and warfare, no lover of his country will resist
legitimate taxation. The difficulty our Government
must ever be placed in, is its inability to answer the
often unreasonable demands to reduce an indispensa-
ble amount of taxation But not to dilate on this
subject, suffice it to say, that though the circumstances
of the country certainly have occasioned, in effect, an
encroachment on its full liberties; yet that the claims
of the constitution have still remained unimpaired.
The right of the subject, the spirit of freedom still vin-
dicated its privilege. Liberty still declared herself.
LAW OF THE LAND. 125
She still preserved the beauty of her features, though
somewhat obscured. Her sacred “idol’ was still
the palladium of the constitution, though the shrine
in which it was deposited was indeed defaced.
The moral portion, then, of the law of the con-
stitution has been placed before you. You will per-
ceive it to be much illustrated by the legal portion
which next presents itself for consideration. You will
see its agency confirmed, in many instances, in the
letter of the law, in many maxims and precepts of
the law, both theoretic and of daily operation,-in
many statutory enactments where legal improvements
have been made in conformity with the spirit of the
constitution. These topics, however, remain for the
survey of another letter, to be devoted to this second
branch of constitutional law that demands our atten-
tion. Previously to proceeding with it, I will afford
you the plan, for which you asked, of the whole
range of the “constitution,” as I have traced it out for
you. It may be given succinctly as follows. It
will bring under your view at a glance all the topics
of discussion treated throughout these letters.
^I. The Political Branch ſI. The maintenance of the three Es-9 1. Socially, (Lett. 7.) and
regulating the Frame- —Ki { 2. Politically, considered
work of Government, tates—Kings, Lords, and Commonsº (Lett. ić, 13, 14.) 2
considered in the fore- * -
going Letters. II. Connexion between the Church and State. (Lett. 8.)
II. The Moral or Philosophical Branch.-As regards the spirit of the Constitution; considered
in the present Letter. (16. and p. 143.)
ſ1. As regards International Law.
Law of the Consti-
*† < ſ i. #.
COIIll.) TeſlēInCIII] e tº • - || 11. LOTC1S.
i. †. - 2. Pāvilº, ºuis in. iii. Commons’ House of Parliament.
III. The Legal or Prac- the State. U. S.
tical Branch.-(To be < v. Corporate Bodies.
considered in continu- *.
ation.) Lett. 17. ſ i. Freedom of : (1) Civil instances.
Person. (2) Criminal instances.
3. Rights of the
Subject. ſ (1) By the press. */
Lett. 18, 19, 20, j :: tº º 2) By meetings to petition
( 21.) 2 * v3 | ii. Of Op inion.3 (2) 'p. for redress
s U l of grievances.
COURSE OF STUDY. 127
And now to proceed with the remaining branch of
the subject of constitutional law. As a preliminary
to which, I think it my duty to lay before you, the
course of study, that you should adopt as a founda-
tion for any adequate or enlightened knowledge of it.
128
LETTER xvii.
Subject continued, according to the “Plan” set forth in the pre-
ceding Letter.—Course of Study proposed—Principle and
Practice—Sect. I. The Law of the Monarchy, embracing
the subjects of Prerogative—Allegiance—Distinct functions
of the Executive and Legislative authority — Protestant
tenure of the Crown—Stability of the Monarchy since the
Reform Bill.—Sect. II. Parliament considered.—Common
privileges, as well as distinct features of the two Houses.—
Lords' House, a Court of Record, and why.—Commons’
authority over Taxes and Supplies.—Sect. III. Privileges of
the Clergy.—Sect. IV. Corporations.—The Constitutional
spirit illustrated throughout these topics, and the effect of the
Reform Bill on the stability of the Monarchy and character
of Parliament.
It was objected to Burke, that he dealt too much in
principles, and too little in practical precepts and
necessary detail. In answer to this objection, it may
be said, that Burke wrote as a philosopher, and was
ambitious of laying down landmarks which should
prove guides of action beyond the mere day at which
he wrote, and serve as political and moral texts for
PRINCIPLE AND PRACTICE. 129
posterity.” In offering, then, “rules of action” to
yourself, I should recommend you by all means to
begin by placing before yourself “principles” in the
first instance.f. I believe you are alive to the expe-
diency of this; but it is requisite I should bestow a
word on the subject. After this, let it be your care
to exercise yourself in the “details” of the question,
whatever it may be, that interests you, with a view to
bear out its principle. There never was a great
mind that did not always keep in view some import-
ant principle in whatever question or undertaking it
might be engaged in. There never was a successful
man who did not further make it his endeavour to
bear out by action and detail, by practice and per-
* His contempt for a mind merely conversant with detail, and
narrowed by petty niceties, is interestingly witnessed in his well
known declaration, “That the mind of a special pleader was as
little capable of embracing the great principles of legislation, as
the womb of the rabbit was able to conceive the mighty gestation
of the elephant.”
+ It is interesting to see the principles of the constitution prac-
tically illustrated by reference to debates on great constitutional
measures. In particular, see the debates on stopping the supplies,
and on the Regency, which also eminently show the power of Par-
liament. At a later day, see the debates on the Reform Question.
See also Pitt's speeches on the India Bill, (1784.) In fact, all
the speeches of our great men, Chatham, Pitt, Fox, Grattan, are
splendid authorities on constitutional law, with the advantage
of their practical application, and not mere theoretical assertion.
G 5
130 HOW TO STEER •
formance, the principle so placed in view. In a word,
the principle is the rudder to steer by in the course
of all your undertakings. If you set out without
keeping in view some such principle of action, your
head with its details will be but like a confused
lumber-room, containing a promiscuous heap of facts
or measures, without any order or well defined object.
Consider it, next, a weakness to propose to yourself
any principle without endeavouring to work it well
out by practice. Consider again, that you will show
no greatness of mind, any more than clearness of pur-
pose, unless you keep in view this principle, which is
the more requisite the more intricate the details are.
Thus much seemed necessary by way of introduction
to my future observations.
To proceed then with the branch of constitutional
law which this Letter regards,-its legal or practical
branch. According to the plan offered to your notice
in the preceding Letter, this head was divided into
three branches. The first of these was that of inter-
national law, which suggests some considerations of
interest, in the course of study I am laying before
you. The explanation already afforded you of the
moral acceptation of constitutional principles, suffi-
THE BRITISH IN SPAIN. I31
ciently showed that the spirit of liberality, equity,
leniency, and freedom, should characterize it through-
out its practice. Hence, you will understand why your
attention is directed to the law of nations, since it is
under this code, that these grand principles are mainly
inculcated in the negotiations of man. The highest
spirit of equity operates through cases where the
situations to be adjusted are most difficult, as must
be the case for instance in the crisis of war, where the
consequences of a state of hostility are often entailed
on third parties friendly to both of the belligerent
powers, or entirely neutral as to the question of dis-
pute, but from the circumstance of their intercourse
with one or other of the principals, assume an aspect
of affording assistance to one side, and of enmity to
the * other.
* At a recent period an interesting subject for consideration, as
to the question of neutrality and non-intervention, presented itself.
This regards the case of Spain. The British troops served in the
Spanish service, but they should not have been permitted to do so,
if the British government declares itself neutral, and against inter
vention. For, in national law, the acts of subjects, in large bodies,
are the acts of the government, of which they are the subjects. The
case of a mere individual serving here and there is different.
Then, of course, a particular treaty can alter circumstances
and general principles of law. It may be observed, that no
132 THE LAW OF NATIONS.
This instance is offered as an illustration merely
of the subject, for it is not either my province or
purpose to lay before you a code of international laws,
but to point out to you generally, those aids which
will conduce to the better understanding and appre-
ciation of the main question in view. The maxims
then that you will find as the results of decisions in
the law of nations, will unfold to you a code of equity
and lofty arbitration, which as a beginning to your
studies, are invaluable in elevating the mind and
expanding and strengthening at once the judgment.
The works of Bynhershoéké, of Wattel, of Grotius De
Jure Belli et Pacis, are recommended to you as
lessons not more of law than philosophy. I might
indeed, have recommended to your notice, previously
to your taking up these, the perusal of the “Natural
Justice” or “Law of Nature,” by Puffendorſ. But
as what is laid down here is less applicable to the
emergencies of human action, and the difficulty of
artificial circumstance, I did not mention it. How-
ever, although elementary, it affords a fine illustra-
British subject can enlist in a foreign service by law, without
permission from the government; therefore, legally, as well as
politically, the act of the subject is that of the government. The
Foreign Enlistment Bill was suspended in the case of the British
troops in Spain.
MARCH OF CIVILIZATION. 133
tion of those great dictates of natural justice, which
ought always to be kept in view, and which though
often warped by circumstance, yet still are such as
we readily recognise. Again, there is topic for en-
tertainment and reflection in the consideration this
subject affords, in witnessing not only the encroach-
ment that Circumstance has made on the plain
straightforward path of natural action, but to see how
far the unrestrained vehemence of nature is softened,
curbed, and modified by artificial introductions. Here
a wide field of contemplation is thrown open before
you, in the progress of civilization, of commerce, of
letters, of the arts—in fact, the great history of the
progress of human-kind. You now gaze on the
picture with admiration, sometimes with regret, to
see how far man has become elevated in the one in-
stance, and how far nature has in the other become
vitiated and debased. Habit has now universally
become the fashioning power of man, and you recog-
nize it as his second nature, the nature in fact of
civilized society, and artificial life. Here then is the
stage where the adjustment of interests and conflict-
ing claims calls in the arbitrement of law. And this
shall lead me on to offer to your notice the first great
“Social code” that presents itself, and which will be
134 CIVIL LAW.
rightly classified in the same order of study as that
of the international law already noticed. The code
then of which I now speak, is that of the Laws of
Rome, commonly termed the civil law, on which the
principles of the English code of equity are based.
You will, then, derive infinite advantage from a pe-
rusal of Justinian's Institutes, and one chapter entitled
“Maxims of the Civil Law,” selected from the Pan-
dects, will afford a sufficient as well as succinct view
of the whole civil law. To these may be added, a
work entitled “Doctor and Student,” which is interest-
ing as affording a parallel between the law of Eng-
land and that of Rome, or in other words, between
the “common” and “civil” law. Blackstone’s Com-
mentaries, ought also to be mentioned here, as afford-
ing a similar parallel, with the advantage of being on
a more extended scale, and of a more enlightened
and elegant feature. I am speaking of municipal
institutions, and civil rights. Whether your views
are directed to the senate or the bar, you could pur-
sue no better elementary course than that, which I
have prescribed to you. In either case, the studies
pointed out form an agreeable and judicious link
between your classical pursuits, and those of public
life.
EXECUTIVE FUNCTION. 135
I need say no more on the first of the three heads,
into which my plan was divided, but shall now pro-
ceed to the second, which regards the law of parti-
cular and privileged bodies of society, and in the
State.
To consider the legal attributes that invest the
monarchy, as the first in rotation.
Sect. I. The executive function is, then, the pecu-
liar law acting in the monarchical order of the state;
and as reflecting this authority of the king, the judge's
duty" is to administer the law. He follows therefore
but a prescribed rule, and though his duty is to in-
terpret equitably what may appear to admit of doubt
in its construction, as is sometimes the case in statutory
enactments, yet he can exhibit nothing so offensive to
the spirit of the constitution, as where he takes on
* William the Third refused his assent to a bill, for the settling
the independence of the judges, and confirming their salaries.
This was established under the act of Geo. III. for that purpose.
See “Hallam's Constitutional History,” p. 262. See also postea,
on privileges of Parliament, as being independent and above the
control of judges, and on the authority of the judges as independent
of Parliament. The dispensing power of the crown in the instance
of the Test Act was declared by the judges in the reign of James
II. (See Hallam, 83.) When judges are thus servile to the
Crown, there is an end of liberty, and the wholesome dispensa-
tion of justice. See note, p. 150.
136 LAw of PREROGATIVE.
himself to comment on the propriety or not of the
law he has to administer. As for the prerogative of
the Crown in extending pardons for offences, or
for conferring dignities, or for the dissolution and
convening of parliaments, I will not* regard these
attributes so much as the law of monarchy, as be-
longing to it as a portion of its rank and decoration.
I would therefore rather refer you to the portion of
my observations, which considered the question of
degrees and dignities in society, and you will find
that it is to that chapter, that what is called the “law
of prerogative” more particularly belongs. It is
termed by those who sneer at the kingly dignity and
degree, as the “trappings of monarchy,” but how
far I have defended the proper privilegest that attach
to ranks in society, and the kingly rank in precedence
of the rest, I leave you to consider. The first great
legal feature, then, which the code of the constitution
presents to us is, that of the distinction drawn be-
* That is, as considered since the Revolution, and much more
since the Reform Bill. Hallam shows us the Stuarts thought
this prerogative was a right divine to control statutes, and the
judges acquiesced. (83.) The Stuarts had no notion of a limited
Monarchy, (ib. 115.) The Revolution established the sovereignty
of parliament against prerogative. e
+ See Letter VII.
LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION. 137
tween the executive and legislative functions. The
former are wisely confided to the monarch and the
officers who represent him, alone. The latter may
be said almost to exclude the monarch from any par-
ticipation in them: for though in all legislative enact-
ments, the king's consent is legally requisite, yet his
voice in this respect is but the voice of those who
govern by parliament. In other words, the consti-
tution, unwilling that any odium should attach to the
monarch, has considered that the sole power of legis-
lation should exist in parliament. The policy of this
is evident. The stability of the throne might be
called in question were the monarch filling it to in-
cur odium by any measures unpalatable to the coun-
try. As a natural consequence on this predicament,
would be the convulsion of society; so that the legis-
lative function is wisely confined to the parliament.
Meantime, the recognition of the king as head of the
state, is well observed in not permitting any legis-
lative measure to be complete until it has been sanc-
tioned by majesty. The stability of the ruling power
should always be the first thing in a social point of
view to be secured. For the well-being of society,
and the preserving it from dissension and disaster, it
is as important as establishing the people their own.
*
138 PETITIONS OF THE PEOPLE.
legislators through their representatives. The king,
if he is not considered as the author of good mea-
sures himself, yet has the credit of having appointed
the ministry that has brought such measures for-
ward; while, on the other hand, he escapes all the
odium of bad measures, and is rendered doubly the
friend of the people, if, while he is conscious of his
own weakness in not being able to prevent bad enact-
ments, he yet expresses his dissent from them where
they are to the prejudice of his subjects. All the
brunt of reproach in this instance falls on the head of
his ministers, and if the state of parliament renders it
available, he can at once secure popularity by dis-
missing them. The people, meantime, have the power
of petitioning the monarch through parliament or not,
to dismiss such ministers, and in the present state of
a reformed parliament, when a ministry cannot secure
a majority by the former means of close boroughs,
the voice of the people, expressed through petitions,
is no longer a dead letter.” The king can now look
* The mockery with which the people were treated previously
to the Reform Bill, in being told they were free, while their
grievances were not even listened to, at once exhibits what a dead
letter the constitution was. The text, at present, affords a supple-
ment to Blackstone's remarks in his first volume, on a Limited
KING OF THE PEOPLE. . 139
more to the inclinations of the people, and hear their
voice, not to lament his inability to listen to them,
but to address himself to obey their call. Suppose a
bad ministry, however, has a decided majority in par-
liament, its dismissal would be of little avail. A dis-
solution of parliament is in this instance the only chance
of remedying the evil. But the expediency or not of
such a step as this, will be judged of by the cha-
racter and number of the petitions of the people.
Suppose, however, that the respectability and pro-
perty of the country should not be strong enough to
outnumber the forces of disaffection and insurrection,
and a dissolution of parliament would not be available
for any good result, still the king is relieved of all
odium or reproach which is incurred by a mis-
chievous policy on the part of his government.
In fact, previously to the Reform Bill, the king in
giving his sanction to legislative enactments merely
recognized the power of his ministry, but now he
may regard himself as recognizing the inclinations of
the people. The effect, under this consideration, is
of increasing the popularity of the monarchy. The
Monarchy, by shewing here the position of the Monarchy since
the Reform Bill. The conclusion arrived at is, that the Monarchy
is strengthened, and rendered more popular.
140 TRIUMPH of REFORM For THE KING.
people are now always able to return what represen-
tatives they please, which they could not do previ-
ously to the Reform Bill, therefore the consequence
is, that the king in selecting such a government as
ratifies the choice of the people, acts especially for
them, and in their favour. The people, if it pretends
to support a constitution, can never do otherwise than
repel democratic measures; the monarchy, therefore,
is safe, in resting on a people so determined, safer than
ever it was previously to the Reform Bill, as it now
lives in the affections of the people. * If, indeed, the
people gives up the idea of supporting a constitution
in church and state, and as formed of the three es-
tates, then there is an end to the question we are now
illustrating. The democracy then declares itself:
we have no further need to talk of the functions of a
monarch, they are at an end. If he existed in name,
it would be so but for a short time: his presence in the
state would inevitably be soon dispensed with. But
as long as the question of supporting a constitution
exists, and is dear to the nation, then the monarchy
is witnessed as stronger, more secure, and more be-
- *
* Realizing what Fox, and other assertors of constitutional and
limited monarchy have expressed a wish to see. Illustrating also
Bolingbroke's “Patriot King.”
cRow N PROPERTY. 141
loved since the reform of parliament than it was be-
fore. The monarch, in his attribute of sanctioning the
laws that pass, rather echoes the voice of the people
than that of the ministry, since the ministry should
now be supposed to exist by the peculiar recommen-
dation of the people. If it does not, it is the people's
fault. * Thus much it appeared requisite to state,
with reference to the legislative function as one of the
three estates exercised by the monarch, according to
the law of the constitution.
As to the property of the crown, the law in this
* respect offers no favour, as regards the question of
mere right to the crown, any more than to a subject.
The only difference in favour of the crown is a sort of
privilege of precedence, it may be called, in acknow-
ledging its superior dignity as to being above the con-
trol or limitation of time. It is in fact allowed all
latitude of time in bringing forward its claims, but
such an exception as this from the general rule, may
* For there is no close-borough system now to keep up a ma-
jority in the House of Commons, the people being at the same
time hostile to the ministry, supported by such majority. On a
dissolution, the people can now prevent those they would wish
to place confidence in as governors from being in a minority.
Pitt, in his earlier minorities in Parliament, was upheld by the
public confidence, though overcome by majorities in the house.
Public opinion, is, after all, the supreme authority,
142 LAW OF ALLEGIANCE.
well be viewed without any constitutional jealousy,
and as to the real merits of the case, justice is im-
partially dispensed.
The law of allegiance demands notice, under
the present chapter of our consideration; and, here,
the monarch will be found to be no less strictly
bound than the subject. If, as in the case of the
second James, the monarch violates the tenure by
which he holds the sceptre, his claim is void at once,
and he absolves the subject of any further allegiance
to him, by breaking the terms of the contract under
which such allegiance was due. The reason why an
Englishman,” a dweller under our constitution, is
bound to uphold the supremacy of the Protestant
Church, is because it is the very basis of the throne
itself. In fact, the throne is rendered doubly sacred
with us, since it is based on religion, independently of
the sacro-sanctity of old attached to royalty. It exists in
the maintenance of a particular creed, in the preser-
vation of a “Reformed ” faith. It is idle then, in many,
* Not only regarded in a religious point of view is the re-
formed church to be upheld, but in a political also, inasmuch as the
Catholic tenets are inimical to free opinion, since the priesthood
has power in controlling opinion. In both points of view, the
law of the constitution upholds the reformed religion, in its esta-
blished connection of church and state.—See note, p. 54.
PROTESTANT MONARCH. 143
to talk of separating Church from State, by thenon-sup-
port of the church establishment, now maintained in
preference to the various religious sects that exist, or
the Catholic persuasion. We are bound to keep the
Church and State united; or if we do not show par-
tiality to the “ Reformed” and “ Established Church,”
why then, there is no further need” for us to be anxi-
ous, in particular, to support a Protestant king! At
present, a king professes this persuasion, as his claim
to the throne. No legitimacy of descent, without the
Protestant qualification, can give him a claim. As
we have cited maxims of law, as conveying lessons of
the spirit recognized by our constitution, so we may
cite the coronation oath as the sort of Shibboleth by
which to estimate a claim to the empire of this country,
since the Protestant Reformation. The law of alle-
giance then, and that of the monarch's tenure of the
throne, may be regarded as identical. As to any
* See Letter XXIII-As a proper opposition to the Catholic
titular pretensions, it is our duty to keep up a Protestant hierarchy.
This is said in opposition to those who are for sweeping away
church dignities. If the church hierarchy were abolished, the
Protestant cause is lowered in estimation, and there would soon
be indifference as to the protestant succession of the Monarchy.
Government requires the support of a church and hierarchy—and
the British monarchy is identified with the maintenance of a
Protestant church.-See Letter VIII. p. 44. . . .
144 THE “LAw” LoRDs.
other measures affecting his subjects, he cannot act.
His government and the parliament are the agents.
Sect. II.-It now follows then, that we proceed to
the House of Lords, as the next estate in rotation, of
which we are to consider the attributes strictly
“legal.” These will be witnessed more pre-eminently,
than in any other respect, in the circumstance of the
House of Lords being a court of justice, a court of
record, as it is called, for the dispensation of justice
in the last resort. In this respect, as being a national
tribunal, it has an attribute above that which is pos-
sessed by the House of Commons. This last-men-
tioned house exercises judicial functions, solely as
regards offences against its own privileges. It has
the power of arresting and calling before it, by its
officer, all offenders against itself. The process be-
ing, by means of the Speaker's warrant, after motion
made to the house.” It has the power of fine and
* The most interesting instances are those of the printers, Wheble
and Thompson, in theyear 1771, for misrepresentation of a member's
words, which was a breach of privilege. They were apprehended
by the serjeant-at-arms, after having absconded; and were dis-
charged by Wilkes and Crosby the mayor. Crosby, and alderman
Oliver were imprisoned in the Tower by the house, for breach of
privilege of the house, in negativing the authority of its warrant,
and discharging the prisoner; and, not only this, apprehending
the messenger of the house.—(See Belsham, vol. i. p. 300.)—They
BREACH OF PRIVILEG. E. 145
imprisonment. Thus far extend the judicial functions
of the House of Commons, but it has no further au-
thority as a court of justice. The antiquity of the
House of Lords, as a general tribunal, is great. The
reason why it is a “court of record,” is, because it is
the substitute or succession of the ancient “Aula
Regia,” which was an ambulatory court attendant on
the king. In the time of John, the king's court was
made stationary, for greater convenience and facility
in obtaining justice. This enactment took place in
“Magna Charta.” The “Aula Regia” was composed
of the barons of parliament, who delegated to the
justiciars,” or justices, the cases brought before their
court. The appeal from these decisions remaining with
the barons. Hence, on the dissolution of the “Aula
Regia,” as an original court, it still retained its fea-
applied to the Court of Common Pleas for a habeas corpus; but
being found in the wrong, the privileges of the house were main-
tained, and they were remanded to the Tower till the house liber-
ated them. These cases of imprisonment for breach of privi-
lege, together with that of Sir F. Burdett for the same cause, in
1810, March 6 to 9, are the most interesting in modern times.
Breach of privilege is the principle of the proceedings. This is
often asserted in calling printers to the bar of the House, for mis-
representing debates. Every offence, in fact, whether committed
by a member or a stranger, comes under the denomination of breach
of privilege.—(See Hatsell.)
* Blackstone, vol. iii. chap. iv. p. 37. 57.
H
*
*
146 CHARLES THE FIRST.
ture of a “court of appeal,” and such is the present
‘House of Lords;–not a court for original causes,
but merely for appeals; and its decision is final.
Such is the main characteristic difference between
the Upper House of Parliament and the Lower. The
characteristic which distinguishes the last, is one
which places the real power of government in its
hands, and illustrates the law of the constitution. It
consists in the privilege of originating” all supplies,
of exerting the tremendous power of stopping them."
This last step can only be resorted to on a great state
emergency, and when the power of the prerogative
encroaches dangerously on the liberties of the people.
An instance of the exercise of this authority, when
the strength of popular power arms itself in all its
terror, is given in the history of the reign of Charles
the First. The subject was advanced with much
menace, at a period of great parliamentary contest
* This is the great subject of jealousy on the part of the Com-
mons. All money bills commence with them; and in 1772, a dis-
tinguished instance of this jealousy is given, when they threw out
two bills which had been altered by the Lords, asserting them-
selves as the sole framers of all money bills. Sir M. Hale makes
a nice distinction on the subject of “altering” by the Lords. He
says, “That if their alteration is consistent with the grant, it is
valid.”—See Blackstone, vol. i. ch. ii. p. 169.
+ See note further on in this Letter.
STOPPING THE SUPPLIES. | 47
at a later day,” but with the mild exercise of the
prerogative, at present, such a measure as the stop-
ping the supplies may be considered as obsolete. A
power “in posse,” rather than “in esse.” This
characteristic of the sovereignty of the people, was
recognized by the Bill of Rights, under which the
privilege is secured to the Commons of taxing them-
selves and granting supplies. This is but reasonable,
since it is on the body of the people that the taxes
are raised. The privilege is a very ancient one, f it is
confirmed by Magna Charta, and by the successive
statutes corroborating the great bulwark of liberty.
These statutes are the “confirmatio cartarum,”f and
various enactments of less celebrity from the period
of Edward the First, to that of Henry the Fourth.Ş
Then came, after a considerable interval, the well-
known Petition of Right, so painfully celebrated in
the convulsions of the reign of Charles the First. And
afterwards, the “Habeas Corpus Act” confirmed
Magna Charta, with respect to liberty of person,
* 1784.—Postponement of the question of supplies proposed by
Fox. See his speech in the contest against Pitt. The Op-
position not having been successful in prevailing on the ministers
to resign, or the king to dismiss his ministers. -
+ Coke, 4 Inst. 29, and see note above, p. 146.
f 25 Ed. 1. § Blackstone, vol. i., ch, i. p. 128.
H 2
148 FREEDOM FROM AR REST.
while the Bill of Rights, at the Revolution, confirmed
it as to the subject at present in consideration.
Such is the great characteristic distinction of the
House of Commons. The privileges common to both
houses are that of free speech,” and of person, as far as
regards freedom from arrest. I shall say a word, by-
and-by, on the constitutional reason for this immunity.
The privileges were formerly much greater than at
present. Their restraint has been a wholesome one,
as they luxuriated into an insolence alike offensive to
the spirit of the constitution, and unjust as affecting
the sympathy and relation that ought to exist between
man and man. Consequently, members of either
house are subject to any civil suit, f themselves or
their servants, who were formerly sheltered under the
indemnity that screened their principals or masters.
The persons only of members are exempted from
arrest. Their lands and goods are liable. And
* St. 1 W. & M. c. 2. + 10 Geo. III.
I Only in civil cases, not in criminal or indictable offences.
See 11 & 12 W. III. c. 3., and Com. Journals, 17th August, 1641.
Blackstone, vol. i. ch. ii. In Wilkes' case, Lord Camden laid it
down that arrest for libel was a breach of privilege, which last
could only be forfeited by treason, felony, or breach of peace.
Now, libel had only a tendency to break the peace. An “ex
officio information” was filed against Wilkes, which he refused
to answer to. The information, however, was legal. It was
the arrest of his person that constituted the breach of pri-
INDEPENDENCE OF THE BENCH. 149
they are subject to the bankrupt laws of traders, by
the 4th Geo. III. c. 53, confirmed by the Bankrupt
Act, 6th Geo. IV. c. 16.” The privileges of parlia-
ment are independent of all control or interference
from the courts of law, which are unable to take cog-
mizance of, or determine any question concerning
them...f. On the other hand, the courts of law are
independent of any control of parliament; as for in-
stance, on an intimation made by the Speaker to the
judges, to stay proceedings against a member under
arrest, it was rejected by them as contrary to their
oath of office, while, at the same time, they pro-
vilege. The serving a subpoena to answer an information
was in due course of law. —(See Belsham, vol. i. p. 92.—
This case derives additional interest from the subject of general
warrants connected with it. They received their death-blow
from this case.—See note, infra, Letter XXI. Wilkes's case
is a most interesting one, historically, on four separate accounts,
1. The unconstitutional character of general warrants confirmed by
it to their extirpation. 2. The vindication of the privileges of
parliament in case of arrest. 3. The vindication by the laws, as
administered by the great Camden, of the liberty of the subject.
4. The due mode of proceeding against a member prescribed, viz.,
not to imprison for attacking a minister, but to proceed for libel
before the courts of justice on information.
* The new Bankruptcy Act of 1 & 2 W. IV. c. 56, refers only
to the administration of the Bankrupt Laws, which it remodels.
+ See Selden's Baronage, part i. c. 4., and Blackstone, vol. i.
ch. ii. p. 163.
j See Blackstone, vol. i. ch. ii. p. 165.
150 LORD DENIMA N.
ceeded by the legitimate form of a writ of supersedeas,
to stay the process, which was irregular and illegal.
This was previously to the statute 11 & 12 W. III.
c. 3. Since which enactment, should a member be
arrested, he is liberated on motion. On either side,
the law of the constitution is witnessed as keeping
the executive and legislative functions independent
of each other. Of the independence of the judges, I
shall have to remark on a future occasion.*
Thus far I have spoken of the privileges common
to both houses. In addition to which, should be
mentioned, that the power of proroguing or dissolving
parliament, is placed by the constitution in the king;
for if it was left with parliament, the danger might
arise of its making itself perpetual. It would then
incur the probability of encroaching on the executive,
* See Note, p. 135, in this Letter, in speaking of the “Execu-
tive.” A fine instance of independence of the Bench has been
given in the decision of Lord Denman, that no man is privileged
to publish and offer for general sale matter which is libellous, not-
withstanding such matter be printed from a Report to the House
of Commons. In the case of Stockdale v. Hansard, the Com-
mons, on this decision, instituted a Committee of privileges, and
their report was confirmatory of the right of the House of Com-
mons to authorize a general publication of its Reports with im-
punity, being in opposition to the opinion and decision of the
Lord Chief Justice, 1837. See Letter XXI, Note, on this subject.
D'URATION OF PARLIAMENTS. 151
as was witnessed in the reign of Charles the First.
The evil being no less great on this side than it is on
that of any king, who, like Charles the First, and
subsequently Charles the Second, would wish to
govern without parliaments.” To prevent the pos-
sibility of either of these contingencies, it was enacted,
by the 6th William and Mary, c. 2, that parliaments
should be triennial, and it was only extended to the
period of seven years, f on the ground of the great
expense attaching to the frequent recurrence of con-
tested elections. It was argued also, that this “fre-
quency,” (however much in accordance with the
maxim “that parliaments should be held frequently,”)
* This arose from advantage taken of the vague manner in
which the 4th Edward III. speaks of convening parliaments, viz.--
“Every year, or oftener if need be.” This annual convention
applied only to the session, not to a general election or new
parliament. But the Charles’ said, “there is no need for holding
a parliament; in such case I am authorized by the act of Edward
for not convening one.”
+ 1 Geo. I. st. 2. c. 38.-And see Blackstone, b. i. ch. ii.
ad finem. A dissolution of parliament may be defined as an
appeal to the People, to the sense of the country. Independently
of the reasons given in the text for not dissolving parliament for
a period of seven years, it was considered an interference on the
part of the crown to dissolve it before it had run its full course.
See Fox's Speeches, Debate, 9th March, 1784: in fact, as un-
constitutional as refusing assent to a bill that had passed the two
houses. -
152 PRIVILEGEs of MEMBERs.
was mischievous, as disturbing the peace of the
country in endless political contests.
The power of adjournment of itself rests, of course,
with each house respectively. Having spoken of
privileges, as between the public and parliament, and
of the privileges common to both houses, it is
requisite to add, that each house is governed by a set
of laws, or rather “usages of parliament,” peculiar
to itself, and regulating also the usages of the two
houses in their intercourse with each other. The
authorities, in this instance, are the Journals of either
house, and “Hatsell's Precedents” in particular. And
now a word as to certain objections on the subject of
parliamentary privilege.
The privileges of members of the House of Com-
mons, have been regarded with some jealousy. That
of franking letters, for instance, and above all, of
freedom from arrest. But the answer to these jealous
objections is, that the constitution recognizes no
privilege in the representatives of the people, as for
the good merely of the representative, but as enabling
him more unrestrictedly to serve his constituents. In
the very immunities then afforded him, a member is
recognized as a servant of the people. The object is
not one of selfish indulgence, but of public expediency.
EXPEDIENCY OF PRIVILEGE, 153
The member in olden times” was actually supported
by his constituents. He was paid to enable him to
pursue his duties. The object, then, of permitting a
member's correspondence to be free to a certain
amount of letters dispatched , and unlimitedly as to
those received, is merely to avoid the chance of the
public interests being impeded by any drawback of
expense. It is the duty of a member also, to give all
his acts publicity: therefore, the taking away any tax,
or drawback, on such communication, is but due to
the interests of the public. The spirit of the consti-
tution is apparent in this last point of view. So,
again, in an immunity from arrest for debt, the rea-
son is, that the constituency may not be deprived of
a member's services. This is the object, and deserves
to be regarded as more worthy consideration, being
for the general good, than the fact, that now and then
a member has screened himself under his privilege,
and defrauded his creditors. Even were the instances
of this abuse of privilege more extended than they
are, they ought not to prevail in overthrowing an
enactment based on the principle of public expediency.
In speaking of the law of the constitution, with re-
spect to the House of Commons, its operation since the
* Hen. VI.
H 5
154 THE GN AT AND THE CAMIEE,
Reform Bill may be designated, as recognizing the
House as really representing the people. As I shall have
hereafter to speak of the infringement on the rights of
the subject, by the existence of a ministerial oligar-
chy,” through the means of the close-boroughs, I shall
not dwell here on this topic. I cannot, however, re-
flect on the insults imposed on the claim and character
of the “Constitution,” in calling the people free, while
the members were half of them slaves. I say “mem-
bers,” and not “representatives.” Meantime, how
anxious was the legislature for the checking “bribery
and corruption!”. It is amusing to consider this!
The circumstance of the whole representation being
corrupt was overlooked all the while. This was straining
at a gnat and swallowing a camel indeed I shall Say
no more then, of the character of parliament since the
Reform Bill, here, since all the greater views of the
question, such as the minister ruling in the confidence
of the people, the contingency of a collision between
the Lower and Upper House, and the improved fea-
* See Letter XXI.
+ Both the person taking, and the person offering the bribe, are
liable to the penalties of the act; which were extended and the fine
increased by 49 Geo. III. to 1000l. from 500l. for such an offence.
The Grenville Act, 19 Geo. III. c. 16, regulated committees for
trying returns petitioned against.
EXEMPTIONS OF CLERGY, 155
ture of the representation, have been already dis-
cussed.
Sect. III.-The third body in the state, whose pri-
vileges are constituted by the law of the constitution,
is the clergy. These privileges are conceded, on the
“principle” of their religious duties requiring “ex-
emptions” from certain civic and other duties. They
cannot be compelled to serve on a jury, nor to appear
at a court leet, on view of frank-pledge. Nor can
they be chosen to any temporal office, as sheriff, bailiff,
constable, They cannot be compelled to serve in
war. During divine service, and in going and re-
turning therefrom, they are privileged from arrest
in civil suits, as in the case of parliamentary privilege.
They formerly were entitled to superior indulgence in
criminal cases, by benefit of clergy, but now stand on
the same footing with other subjects. Their capability
to sit in parliament was abolished by 57 Geo. III.
Subsequently to the case of Horne Tooke, concerning
which, mention has been made in a note subjoined to
Letter VIII. p. 52. The policy of this measure is there
discussed, and the fallacy of the argument, that the
bishops ought to be deprived of their parliamentary
distinction, because the clerical community are. As to
the restrictions of the clergy under the authority of the
156 CONVoCATION courT. SACHEveRELL.
bishops, it does not belong to these pages to enter on
them.* The government and property of the church is
entirely under control of parliament; and though many
argue for putting in force the “convocation” court of
the church, for the taking cognizance of ecclesiastical
matters, it is repugnant to the principles of the con-
stitution that such an event should take place. Par-
liament being the only supervisor of all national
subjects of interest. The ecclesiastics would in con-
vocation settle everything for the interests of the
church, and not of the lay community. The lower
clergy would hardly have a voice against the higher,
from fear of opposition. For the power of the bishops
is great over their inferiors, curates and others. There
would be much polemic discussion,-new Sache-
verells, and new Atterburys. The Convocation Court
is never summoned now, though it exists in abeyance.
It is impossiblein speaking of the privilegest of re-
ligious body, to forget the great concessions also made
to a large portion of the community, viz. –the Quakers.
All for conscience sake! Cobbett used to inveigh
against them as drones in the state. They are exempt
* See Hooker's Eccl. Polity, and Blackstone.
f The subject of Privilege is distinct from that of Toleration,
as with referenée to Dissenters. See Index, ‘Dissenters.”
“MONOPOLIES ARE OLIOUs.” 157
from serving in the militia. Their affirmation is re-
ceived for an oath, by 7 & 8 W. III. c. 24. in civil
cases, not criminal. They are now enabled to sit in
parliament, by the repeal of the Test Act, 1828. To
this followed the Catholic Emancipation Bill, 1829.
The 5 & 6 W. 4. abolished all unnecessary oaths, and
permitted a declaration. It came into operation in
October, 1835. -
Sect. IV.—The last topic of law, relating to pri-
vileged bodies, will be that concerning Corporations.
Charters were in former times granted to particular
places, not only for municipal government, but for
purposes of trade. -
Every good is liable to abuse. Many corporations
so constituted by charter, were possessed of consi-
derable property for the public good. The corrup-
tion that in many instances crept into these institu-
tions, exhibited corporate bodies as mere “ monopo-
lies,” and not trustees of the public. In this point of
view their history affords a strong illustration of that
principle which I have pointed out to you as charac-
terizing the law of the constitution. The jealousy of
this law can regard nothing of selfishness, or exclu-
siveness with patience. “Monopolies are odious" to
it! Public good is its object, and universal partici-
158 CORPORATION REFORM.
pation of benefits. The corporations in question,
offended in their dereliction in all these points.
Consequently, in the cleansing these bodies corporate,”
the original object of their formation has been sought
—namely, of affording unanimity and strength in
boroughs—good internal government—and a due
distribution of the benefits with which they were
endowed.
The third division of the present branch of con-
stitutional law under consideration remains to be
noticed. But my Letter has now proceeded to some
length; so this branch, relating to the “rights of the
subject” shall form the topic of another Letter.
* See Act for regulation of Municipal Corporations in England
and Wales, 6 W. 4. c. 76, (amended by 7 W. 4.) The report of
the corporation commissioners gives a painful testimony of the
violation existing of constitutional principles in the vicious dege-
neracy of corporations, private jobbing, intestine discord between
the community and the municipal authorities; boroughs loaded with
debts and reduced to poverty, petty oligarchies and public discon-
tent. The new feature of the law is that of widening the privilege,
and admitting all duly qualified to participate in their own inter-
mal government.
159
LETTER XVIII.
The “Tiro” interposes a word.—Flaws in the Charter of Liberty,
and fit matters for Reform, viz. Violation of the Liberty of
the Subject, as to his Person, in the instance of Impressment,
Military Flogging.—As to the expression of Sentiments in the
Uncertainty of the Libel Law.—Preventions of Justice from
Technicalities of Pleadings.-False Imprisonment on Suspi-
cion.—Caution as to Committals by Magistrates.
THE “liberty of the subjectſ” the “rights of the
subject l” is this the theme you are about to con-
sider ? Excuse me if I interpose a word here to tell
you that you will have a very difficult task to explain
to me the meaning of the words ! Excuse me if I
express that having always understood England to
be emphatically a “land of liberty,” I have in vain
endeavoured to discover any adequate proofs that
the boast was a just one I am aware, it is true,
that every man is on British soil “free,” until he
comes under the censure or jealousy of the law.
160 THE SAILOR's RETURN.
When I say “free,” I mean “free” merely as being
so far master of himself as not to be forced to serve
another against his inclinations, nor to be liable to
be sold, as a piece of merchandize. But even to
this boast of “liberty of person” there is a direful
exception — I mean the impressment for sea-service.
What? can you talk of a free country where a man
on his return from a long voyage, perhaps, on his
very landing on British soil, is liable to be seized
and dragged on board again to undergo the penance
of another long service 7 Just as the gleam of hope
had lighted up his heart, that he should again see
those he had left behind, and the thought of whom
had rendered his long toils endurable — I say, just
as this gleam of hope had brightened on him, it is
at once extinguished by the barbarous condemna-
tion I have specified And yet the land in which
this monstrous tyranny takes place is styled a land
of liberty The wrong is doubly great in this re-
spect. An Englisman is mocked with the name of
a “freeman,” while all the while he is hurried
against his will into slavery | What signifies the plea
of state expediency in answer to this? This is always
the plea of tyranny. I say the law is in gross fault
here. Do not talk to me of the spirit of the constitu-
IBU ONA PARTE. 161
tion, in our laws as relating to the “liberty of the
subject,” when such monstrous violation of all jus-
tice and freedom is perpetrated. “State expe-
diency” indeed Again the odious sound grates on
my ears in excuse of the barbarous and sangui-
nary rule of military flogging. Here, again, the
Englishman’s situation is worse than the slave's.
He is mocked as in the former instance with the
name of freedom, and is mutilated by the lash that
is even now considered as too barbarous for the
slave | * But these instances if they excite our disgust
at their inhumanity do not excite our impatience more
than the amount of slavery, persecution, and injus-
tice, which meets us in a survey of our municipal
and civil condition Buonaparte might well say that
the boast of the English as possessing a greater
share of liberty than any other nation was vain and
delusive. In the first place, look to our boasted
privilege of free expression of thought ! Who shall
be able to pen a single line of comment on another,
that may not bear the construction of a libel?t
* See Slave Emancipation Bill. •
+ The Law of Libel, and its uncertainty, was originally an im-
portation from Constantinople. It is a Civil law writ, and alien to
the spirit of the English law.
162 UNCERTAINTY OF LIBEL LAW.
And mark the consequence. Not only the author
of the libel is liable, but the poor wretched being
who gains a scanty pittance by the sale of papers,
(in which perhaps, this alleged libel may be,) is
liable. He may be stripped of his all, under a legal
process, without ever having been conscious that the
article in question was ever penned Without any
knowledge of the existence even of the person ;
good, bad, or indifferent, to whom it applied. This
poor wretched dispenser of information or instrument
of publicity, by unconsciously selling, only, the of
fensive matter, and without any wrong intention,
mark 1 is ruined and sacrificed as a victim a victim
to what? To a capricious construction of words and
misrepresentation of meaning, which, perhaps, is no
more a libel than to say a person is plain or not
talented | Yes! the injustice, in the present particu-
lar, of consideration, is, that, an innocent party suf-
fers, and that an arbitrary and capricious significa-
tion is attached to words. That they are construed
as a libel undeterminedly, capriciously, and vaguely.
Who can then talk of freedom of thought, that is,
the free expression of it in writing, if an uncertain”
* This circumstance is the greatest obstacle to the Liberty
of the Press. See the remarks on Libel Law, in a future
THE CENSORSHIP. - 163
terror haunts it like a phantom, under this bugbear
of a libel law The misery and injustice I have re-
presented is two-fold. It is difficult to say which of
the two particulars is the most cruel. That both
are equally unjust, is plain. Do not then, whilst the
evil of this “undefined law” exists, talk of the
privilege of a free expression of sentiments. At one
minute a man may write that, which will bear no
offensive construction—at another, he may incur the
chance of ruining himself and his printer, publisher,
and errand-man for inditing the very same words.
The censorship, however rigidly exercised in other
countries, is at least understood, is certain in its
visitations. A man cannot hazard saying any thing
Letter. The remark then applies to the province of the jury, and,
in fact, the rule ought to be, that nothing should be a libel till it is
so pronounced by a jury; they must come to this conclusion, from
considering the intention of the matter at issue. The judge, before
and since Fox's bill, gives his opinion on the intention and tendency,
but the jury are to decide of course. The mischief is, the judge gen-
erally disregards the intention, and only looks to the tendency.
See Letter XXI. See also Hone's case; the preface to Finnerty's
trial; and Blackstone on Seditious Libel, vol. iv. ch. ii. p. 152.
In the time of the successors to Pitt, there was a war not on the
licentiousness, more than the liberty of the press. Pitt followed
his great father's maxim, of taking no notice of the press, as regards
virulent prosecutions by the Attorney-general. Lord Chatham
smiled in speaking of the subject, and said the press was like
the air, a “chartered libertine.”
164 TRUTH SOMETIMES A WRONG.
under its menace. He knows that if he does, it will
be crushed in the bud. w But under our insidious law
of libel, he may on a sudden find that words which
passed as innocent on a former occasion, are now
branded as criminal, and himself sorely amenable to
offended justice Justice forsooth ! But I have said
enough on the score of the libel law. It is in vain
you will remind me, in reply, of the difficulty of
defining under what circumstances a thing shall be
censurable or not; or, again, why truth itself should
not be at all times fixed as a standard where comment
is admissible. I only regard the injustice that results
from the present state of the law, of the constitutional
spirit of which you boast. I seek for instruction,
but must express my objections, whilst I do so.
The law, in fact, of England appears to me as a
thorny wild, perplexed and intricate with the tram-
mels of wrong ! How often is justice, how often are
the real merits of a case obscured, denied, and de-
feated by some technical quibble, or some informality
of pleading ! Never was any system of artificial
process so perplexed and intricate, (so I am informed
by an able lawyer,) as our old form of ‘special plead-
ing, as it is called. I am aware the rules of this
jargon and chicanery are much simplified. I might
SIMPLIFICATION CODE. 165
specify how, if I pleased; but the detail is not within
the limits of a letter, it is sufficient for me to state
the fact. Yet still, in spite of this simplification,”
there are endless occurrences of the failure of justice,
and consequently, of its denial through informalities
which the judges should have the power of remedy-
ing, rather than there should be a denial of justice,
or than the more deserving party should be the
loser in consequence of an inadvertency or even
error of this kind. In the criminal department of
law, the judges have this remedying or supplying
power, f as in the instance of a prisoner refusing to
plead; the power ought to be universally extended
to them in order that justice should not be defeated,
and besides this, that the cruelty of the law's delay,
* The principle of simplification, and rendering knowledge of
the law less perplexed, may be extended to the consideration of the
whole body of our law. Many have suggested the principle of “co-
dification” as to our statutes and laws. The French code affords
an example of this. Though law would still remain a science, yet,
why not, by a good digested form of the laws, place them within
the grasp of the unprofessional as well as initiated 7 By the con-
stitution, the knowledge of laws should be open to all—not kept
a closed book to the many. (There is a commission instituted
for making a digest of the criminal law.)
t Not universally, as in the instance of a prisoner's christian
name being wrongly stated in an indictment. This is defended
as favouring mercy—it is often a loophole for the escape of guilt.
166 FLAW IN THE “ PLEADINGs.”
may also be lessened. Only conceive a case of
which, perhaps, the merits are clear, comes on to be
adjudicated, but this result is prevented by some
technical informality — what a monstrous cruelty it
is that interests should be undetermined, and griev-
ances still kept festering on, till the tedious forms are
again gone through, which might have been re-
medied by the Interposition of the judge the cause
of liberty and justice is what I am arguing for. And
I regret that under a state of society so boasting of
its liberties, there is so bitter a contradiction afforded
it; both in the forms and spirit of its laws, and their
administration. If I have already shown one glaring
violation of the liberty of the subject in the particu-
lar of impressment, I come to one no less bitter,
perhaps, but where the state is not the oppressor,
but man of his fellow-man. Is it not notorious, then,
that many a man on mere suspicion — to speak of
imprisonment for crimes first of all, has been seized
and committed on a charge of which he has been
ultimately acquitted ? Who is to afford him recom-
pense for the incarceration he has in the meantime
received,—undeservingly received ? His health, time,
prospects, perhaps, grievously injured by the loss of
his liberty during the interval 2
THE GREAT U NPA.I.D. 167
-*
You will answer me that there is a remedy in
some instances for this grievance, by an action for
“false imprisonment.” Yes, if there has been any “un-
lawfulness” in the proceeding, I grant you; but where
is the remedy where there has been no such “unlawful-
ness,” though much “injustice?” None whatever.
You will say human institutions do not admit of such
extreme and scrupulous precision and rectitude. And
here an important topic arises as to criminal charges.
If there was some redress against magistrates in case
of a charge appearing to a jury to be frivolous,” our
gaols would not be crowded so much as they are, and
magistrates would be rendered more on their guard
against issuing warrants of committal on suspicion.
The suspicion of these Dogberries, is in many in-
stances groundless. Meantime the injustice commit-
ted on the sufferer is immense, and shameful in this
* The charges made by the new police were often found frivo-
lous; but the allowing the witness his expenses, was an encourage-
ment to make these frivolous charges. The censure of the bench
has corrected this. The suggestions in the text, with respect to
the magistracy, were, at one time, very loudly expressed, and
had their good effect on the body entitled the Great Unpaid.
They seem to form a principle with the commissioners in the
County-rate Report (Nov. 1836,) for recommending local courts
to supersede the magistracy and reduce the expense of gaols.
See Note on Local Courts, in the next Letter.
168 A “ DEAD LETTER.”
“free” country ! You will say that if magistrates were
so much under restraint, they would not act at all.
It would be difficult to find persons of independent
property who would be willing to act in the commis-
sion of the peace. Is that pray an answer to my
objection, that under the present almost irresponsi-
ble power of the “justices” the most glaring injus-
tice often arises 2 I say it is none at all. And in
saying so, I offer you another serious assurance, that
the boast of liberty of the subject is a farce, and the
law of the constitution a dead letter. I have not,
however, done yet with the chapter of imprisonment;
and since you have favoured me with two or three
letters in succession, I will break off here and follow
your example by reserving my ensuing chapter of
grievance for the subject matter of another Letter.
Meantime, I think the objections which my letters
exhibit, tolerably well testify that I shall not be at a
loss for subjects of reform. I shall have enough to
represent to my electors, as calling for correction,
from a reformed parliament. To proceed then.
169
LETTER XIX.
In continuation of the preceding.—Abuses demanding Reform in
the instance of Debtor and Creditor.—Their mutual injury
to each other shown. —“Spongeing-houses.”—“Credit
System.”—Law for Rich and Poor prevented from being the
same by Circumstance.—Local Courts.-Equity: its iniquity
in expense and delay.
WHAT a fearful scandal it is then, that “man” should
be so much a “wolf to man” according to the adage,
as is exemplified in the law of debtor and creditor
Is it not notorious that a person can be arrested and
flung into gaol for a debt, until the action is brought,
and then on a balance of accounts, the party arrest-
ing may be found to be the real debtor In the
balancing the “set-offs,” the original creditor is now
discovered to be the delinquent—the defaulter, to
which he adds further, under this “happy” law, the
claim of persecutor? The injury here is exposed as
relates to a person charged with debt, but it is often
I
170 DEBTOR AND CRIEDITOR.
the case that not only is the supposed debtor thus in-
jured by a creditor, but that where there happen to be
various creditors, one of them, by arresting the debtor,
does it to the infinite injustice of his fellow-creditors.
The debtor's estate, perhaps might admit of paying a
proportion to each creditor—but, here, one rapacious
creditor is determined to grasp, if he can, all his debt,
by hastening on an arrest,-an action,--a judgment
at law in his exclusive favour. This injustice is of
endless occurrence.
You will say, this result of imprisonment is often
remedied by the operation of the Insolvent Debtors’
Act. It is so, but merely at the option of the debtor.
Meantime, the difficulty is not got over of the cruelty
of his incarceration. And we are left to wonder,
that if he is, on petition, to be liberated, why it was
not just as easy to spare him the pain and expense
too of being previously imprisoned at all ? Yes!
here another source of oppression and injustice pre-
sents itself. It is that of the immense and grinding
expense to which a man arrested for debt is sub-
jected. He is often arrested, with a menace of im-
prisonment merely, and under a hope that his friends
will come forward and supply him with the means of
liberating himself. Meantime in this blissful interval,
IMPRISONMENT. 171
he is “accommodated” with the provision and shelter
of a “spongeing-house,” as it is termed. This is in
fact as much a prison as the ulterior limit of the
King’s Bench, or Fleet. It is as much barred and
bolted: it is infinitely more expensive. It is the
purgatory previous to the ultimate hell. And it is as
much a disgrace, or mortification, as it may be—to
have been the constrained inmate of the walls of the
first “hospitium,” as of the last. And why? Be-
cause unless it had been a man’s original destiny to
have incurred the last-mentioned penalty, he would
never have been obliged to endure the first. Mean-
time, while I am exposing the oppression that takes
place under our law, I do not lose sight of the cruelty
often practised by debtors on their creditors.
You will ask here, where is the point of injury on
which I would make the punishment of imprisonment
press? On fraud, wherever it could be proved. This
is the principle I would propose to myself universally
in considering the punishment for debt. This principle
is already recognized in the instances of bankruptcy”
* In neither bankruptcy nor insolvency is a discharge given, if
fraud is discovered. The difference of the two cases of insolvency
and bankruptcy is, that when a bankrupt receives his certificate he
is for ever discharged; he can recommence business, and none of
his new effects are liable. Not so the insolvent : he may be hunted
I 2
172 TRICKS OF BANKRUPTS.
(under which the grossest frauds by debtors are per-
petrated) and insolvency. *
I cannot quit the chapter of debt, without advert-
ing to a great injustice, now, to the creditor. I have
considered the injustice to the debtor, but witness
an injustice on the other side, and not only
this but an absurdity as well. We will suppose the
action tried and judgment passed. A writ of execu-
tion on the goods, or “capias ad satisfaciendum,” is
issued to seize the goods to satisfy the amount re-
covered. Well, the very sum required may be lying
on the debtor's table, but it must not be touched. As
long as it is in money, it shines in mockery of the
through life to pay his debts in full. The bankrupt's estate pays
so much in the pound. The fraud of the insolvent, by any
voluntary preference of a creditor, or conveyance of his property
to evade its being taken by his creditors, bars him of his dis-
charge. See 7 Geo. IV. c. 57, enacted for three years, and since
extended. In bankruptcy, again, any fraud, as in a man's concealing
himself, or conveying his goods, with intent to defraud his credi-
tors, deprives him of his discharge and benefit of it, 3 Geo. IV. c.
39. To prevent frauds, if he refuses to answer, he may be impri-
soned. If, however, he “conveys,” on the marriage of his child-
ren, or for a valuable consideration, although insolvent at the time,
yet the property so conveyed is free from his liabilities, and he
may then live with his married child, or on an allowance by him or
her, and laugh at his creditors. The laws were dreadfully severe in
times past against bankrupts who concealed their effects, and for this
crime one John Parrot was executed at Smithfield, Sept. 22, 1761.
CRIEDIT SYSTEM. 173
creditor, while the table on which it glistens may
be hurried at once to the appraiser's, or broker's,
and sold, to help in making up the sum that is all
ready—if the law would permit it to be taken, and
the debtor had any principle of honesty or equity in
him. It is difficult in fact to say on which side the
greatest hardships are practised, on that of the debtor,
or creditor. The principles of wrong in either case
rest respectively, on the part of the debtor, in fraud;
on that of the creditor, in persecution and oppression.
I shall not enter into any speculation as to the credit
system. In a commercial country like this, it must
exist. As much good arises from it, as much
facilitation to the purposes of trade, and as much
promotion of its interests, on the one hand, as mis-
chief is effected by an unlimited scale of credit on
the other hand. This last grievance has been of late
greatly checked by the very increased system of
ready money payments, but this exists in retail busi-
ness, chiefly, and cannot be adopted to any extent in
great wholesale negotiations. In the last predica-
ment it is often the case that at the moment of the
order, the party ordering would really be insolvent if
called on to pay : but after trading with the property,
he is in a capacity to pay with interest after a whole-
174 LOCAL COUPTS.
some interval allowed under a system of credit. The
great benefit that arises to the interests of commerce
and trade in this particular, is too apparent for me to
wish to see it impeded. Meantime I have stated my
suggestions as to the points where amelioration might
well be introduced in the law of debtor and creditor.
At present where fraud exists on the one hand,
and oppression on the other—nay, on both—do not
talk to me of “liberty of the subject,” or any happy or
safe state of existence in our social and commercial
transactions.
I am sorry to be obliged to reflect that there is in
effect one law for the rich, another for the poor. I
am aware the amelioration of this difficulty, was the
subject of anxious consideration on the part of the
legislature a few years ago. I refer to the question of
local courts,” proposed by Lord Brougham. The
* Which existed under the Saxon institutions, and were super-
seded by the Norman Aula Regis. This is said with reference to
civil cases as well as criminal. Courts for cognizance of criminal
cases exist, as fully effective as need be desired, in the courts
of quarter sessions.—Blackstone, vol. iv. p. 415,416. Edward III.
came a little too late to obviate the mischief that this usurpation
of the county courts had occasioned. He did his best in abolish-
ing French from pleadings. Edward I. had endeavoured to restore
the county court, which had been recognised by Magna Charta,
and by Hen. II.-See Blackstone, vol. iv. p. 425. The report of
RICH AND POOR. 175
difficulty here appeared in the institution of a ma-
chinery'that would not only be very expensive, but
that it would form a plan for depriving the country
of the adjudication of the highest law authorities,
whose places would be usurped by inferior lawyers.
In fact, it was suggested, that the circuits would be
rendered nugatory: and that the poor man would be
encouraged in litigation with the rich, much to the
detriment of his own interests. It is not for me to
enter into a lengthened discussion on the merits of
the case. All I require for my argument, is, that if
it is the fact, that, in the present adjudication of cases,
a poor man is unable to meet the expense of an action,
and is ruined by the delay incurred in seeking redress
even if he can muster money to do so—there is a ne-
gation of justice. The tyranny of Circumstance is en-
couraged by the law. The malice of fortune is con-
the Commissioners (Nov. 1836,) on county rates, recommends an
improved administration of justice by local courts. The principle
is to supersede the jurisdiction of magistrates, as far as regards
indictments. Justice is to be administered on the spot, by ambu-
latory judges, or barristers, paid by the public revenue to go
circuits. Prosecutions in towns, to be charged on town rates;
rural prosecutions, on county rates. Civil causes, (which are the
subject of this note,) under a certain value, to be tried—it does
not propose the extent. The jury to be composed of six, instead
of twelve. See Note, p. 183.
176 INIQUITY OF EQUITY.
nived at in this mockery of justice. I need not say, that
even if a new evil arise in the remedy proposed, never-
theless liberty demands that the present grievance
should be redressed. For, do what we can, we still
have but a choice of evils. Oppression of the poor, is
surely not the least of evils in the present considera-
tion. It is the greatest, and hence, ought to be re-
dressed, even should a less evil arise under the remedy.
I have spoken thus far of the “law,” and the
lamentable defects and denials of justice that take
place under it. It is the boast of England, however,
that the defects existing in the letter of the law, and
strict legal operations are remedied by the spirit and
practice of equity. I turned my view, then, toward
the “equitable” department of justice; I hoped for
some relief here, and if I found it sometimes in name,
yet in effect, I perceived it was too often frustrated.
The enormous delay and expense I found often oper-
ated as a barrier against seeking justice in a court of
equity I learned that a person attempting to sue for
justice, must in the interval undergo an expense, in
some cases ruinous, at others very galling, and even if
his cause were ultimately triumphant, it was not until
after a tedious and vexatious delay, enough to break
the spirit of most men. This delay and expense, I
YOUR “ HEAD IN CHANCERY.” 177
found, was often occasioned by the difficulty of bring-
ing all the parties requisite to the sustaining the suit
(that is, in any way interested in it) before the court.
Errors and inadvertencies in this respect, I found re-
quired a recommencement of the cause. Not only
this, the mere machinery of the pleadings before the
court, presented itself as a matter requiring great time,
and proceeded in with infinite and vexatious delay. I
found also, that the references in the case to the
Master in Chancery, to adjudicate the balance of
accounts which were the subject of litigation, was a
subject of further and great delay,–in fact, a virtual
denial of justice was the result in numerous instances.
Many were deterred altogether from prosecuting their
claims where any complicated details were to be en-
tered into, from fear of the expense—many with whom
justice rested. Many who obtained justice were ruined
by it; the expenses they had incurred, independently
of the costs the other party paid, were not adequately
supplied by the estate recovered. Many who were in
the predicament of fearing to enter on a prosecution of
their claims, were left to the mortification of seeing
others unjustly in possession of their property. In va-
rious instances I observed estates without any owner.
No one, unless rich, though he might claim to stand
I 5
178 PROPERTY of “THE court.”
next in relationship to the last possessor, could enter
on a suit to recover it. Property, here, was lying
waste. Meantime, in common equity (not artificial
equity—or Chancery) the estate ought really to be
conceded to those who were, of all the mass of society,
the nearest relatives. Not so | The property, if not
devised in any way, and where there is no one relative
nearer" than another to the last possessor—is left un-
claimed and unappropriated. Its rents and profits
meantime are the property of the court. The kindred
of the last possessor are, perhaps, in indigent circum-
stances; yet the means accruing from the estate be-
nefit nobody. It lies stagnate and accumulating !—a
vast “cess-pool” of money deprived of its power of
affording relief or benefit. Such again is the state of
money during the litigation of claims concerning a par-
ticular estate. All this affords a bitter theme for spe-
culation. The amount of misery, and absence of justice
it exhibits is excruciating. You will say it is the result
of the complicated nature of claims and interests under
an artificial state of Society. I cannot help thinking,
however true it may be that claims are complicated,
yet that there are many adscititious embarrassments
* As in the case of claimants, though female co-heirs, and in
certain instances of collateral kindred.
CONSOLING REFLECTIONS. 179
heaped upon this difficulty. I think that the fact
might sooner be arrived at “who are the parties
entitled,” and the distribution of claims more speedily
settled. Meantime justice and equity are a mockery
under a system of exorbitant expense—unnecessary
expense—and unnecessary delay. I speak this as a
general truth. There may be exceptions where delay
may be unavoidable, from the mere complexity of
the claims; but I maintain that the machinery of suits
might be urged forward more rapidly. The power often
of the judge to check the recommencement of suits
would much remedy the evil of delay, and conse-
quently of expense.
This particular, however, is not in my province to
dwell on. And having now expressed to you how
little of consolation I feel from the boast held up to
me of the rights and liberties of the subject, I shall
be happy to hear from you what colour is afforded by
our laws for such boast. I have anxiously scrutinized
the operations of law and equity as they mainly
affect the liberties of the subject, and can find nothing
that bears me out in considering that these liberties
are protected and secured as they ought to be, under
the constitution.
180
LETTER XX.
Reply to the preceding Letters.-Historical Sketch of the Restitu-
tion of Liberty from the period of its subversion at the
Norman Invasion.—Struggles, (1st) of the Nobles against
the Crown.— (2dly) of the Crown against the Church.-The
first achieved Magna Charta.—Debt of gratitude due to the
Lords by the People—The second ended in the Reforma-
tion.—Effects produced by these events.-Increase of Po-
pular Intelligence, and commencement of the People’s pro-
gress towards Power in Government.—The struggles of the
People: Sect. I. Against the prerogative of the Crown,
ending in the Revolution, 1688–Sect. II. After the Revo-
lution against a Ministerial Oligarchy in Parliament, up to
the achievement of the Reform Bill. -
I HAVE been much interested in your exposure of
anomalies that offend against the characteristics
of institutions pretending to liberty. I must ac-
knowledge your objections are sound, candid, and
just. But I must still maintain that the spirit of liberty
mainly pervades our institutions. I must object to
you, that you have expected too much of perfection,
THE PAST AND PRESENT. 181
in a complicated state of interests, and a corrupt state
of nature. I must also object that you have not re-
garded with sufficient complacence the state of our
& & rights,” and amount of our liberty, as they at pre-
sent exist, in comparison with that mass of deformity º,
which they exhibited in times past.
You will say, that to view the question by com-
parison, is sophistical and unfair; you will say it is
unsatisfactory. I reply, you are not authorized, in
looking liberty, naked liberty, in the face, and ex-
pecting to see her form reflected unsulliedly in hu-
man, to say nothing of “artificial institutions !” Yet
more, you are bound to consider, if you wish to argue
with justice, what this country was, and next consi-
der what she is You will then see the working of
the constitutional spirit, — the endeavour ever rest-
lessly exerted to achieve liberty, to rend the shackles
of restraint, and to surmount the obstacles that time,
prejudice, and the severity of a barbarous code, had
originally imposed on the nation. This is the only
fair way of considering the subject, or estimating the
amount of liberty which we possess.
You must consider this country as originally in-
undated with the fierce tide of feodal despotism. To
know how far the constitutional spirit has exerted, and
182 THE FEODAL SYSTEM.
is still exerting itself, you must look to the various
enactments by which the tide has been checked,
weakened, and repressed.
Previously to the Norman conquest, the country
exhibited a picture of rational liberty in its institu-
tions, that was completely effaced after the period of
that event. The monarchical authority, co-existent
with a legislative body, presented the model of a con-
stitution which no longer existed, under a military
despotism, where “might” constituted “right.” The
tenure of every acre of land was now derived from the
crown, on condition of what was termed knight-ser-
vice. The land was parcelled out among the nobles,
and held under them on terms of rigid vassalage.
Marriages were at their disposal; and their power re-
cognized by aids, fines, and escheats. * The freedom
attached to the soil, the peace and domestic happiness
that once smiled through the glades of England, were
banished, in the terrors of a “ forest law.” Trials
were no longer adjudicated by a man’s peers. Life was
the forfeit now, in offences where capital punishment
did not exist, under the Saxon dominion, during which
the extremity of death was seldom proceeded to. The
election of the magistracy by the people was at an
* See Blackstone, vol. ii. chap. v.
WRONGS OF THE PEOPLE. | 183
end. The laws which had heretofore been simple,
and distributed without delay, were now perplexed
and Sullied by the chicanery of forms which were in-
troduced by Norman pedants of the Aristotelian
school. The county courts, so convenient for the dis-
pensation of justice, at the very doors of the people,
rich and poor, throughout the country, were superseded
by the * King's court, which, though it remained sta-
tionary, subsequently at Westminster, had previously
shifted through the country as a sort of shadow at-
tending the “ progress” of the king. The interests of
the people, it is needless to say, were no longer re-
garded in any parliamentary deliberations; the king,
the nobles, and the church, preyed on the people. -
All popular rights were trampled under their despotic
ascendancy.
Such is a picture of the state of subjugation which
* Aula Regis.-See Blackstone, vol. iv. p. 415,416.-These
county courts, for civil as well as criminal causes, were called into
operation again by Henry II., by Magna Charta, and more
effectively by Edward I, our English Justinian. They adjudi-
cated in cases of small debts, though to a much greater amount
than the Sheriffs' court now. All other “personal, mixed, and
real” actions were brought, as now, before the King's courts at
Westminster.—See Note, Letter XIX. p. 174, on local courts.
County courts were reformed by Bill of Rights; and courts of con-
science for small debts established.
184 THE BATTLE FOR FRIEEDOM,
England exhibits after the Norman conquest. Her
Saxon liberties, her primaeval constitution, were
swept away. It is, then, to reclaim the rights that
have been lost, to recover the features of government
and social polity that have been obliterated, that the
struggle has been exerted by slow degrees through
subsequent ages.
It was in the contests to restrain the lawlessness
and encroachments of these three great powers,
namely, the king, the nobles, and the clergy, that any
thing like liberty was effected for the common cause
and for the people. The first of these struggles is
that of the nobles against the crown. The second
that of the king against the church. The nobles,
jealous of the king, extorted, as has been already
shown, from him the original great charter by which
liberty” was recognized. The king, jealous of the
church, repressed its encroachments, by which almost
all the landed property of the country was being in-
sensibly swallowed up. It was a sort of Syrtes, in
which all land was being engulfed and sunk. The
statutes of mortmain gave the first considerable check
to the grievance, under Edward the Third. It is not
* How much, then, are the people indebted to the Lords, who
are the earliest vindicators of their liberties 1 See p. 186.
KING, -N OBLES.—CHURCH, 185
my province to enter into details here, showing how
these statutes were evaded, and how again they were
reinforced in their operation. I am marking out the
principles of action under which liberty regained its
strength. Well, the total overthrow of ecclesiastical
ascendancy was effected by Henry VIII. making
himself the head of the church.
These principles are most important guides for our
consideration in the present inquiry. We find in the
outset, the king, the nobles, and church, all equally
oppressive, it having been the policy of William the
Conqueror, of course, to maintain his dominion by
enslaving the conquered nation, which was effectually
performed, not only by arms and the rigor of feudal
enactment, but by the introduction of a new language
in all public forms, viz., the Norman French.*
The nobles in time lost the fiercer spirit of master-
ship, their tenancy being so essentially identified with
themselves, their interests now began to be felt as
one and the same; and though they might have indi-
vidually tyrannized over their vassalage, they stil,
achieved for them most important privileges in wrest-
* Abolished by Edward III. After this period the pleadings
were in Latin, and the Bill of Rights enacted they should be in
English.
186 TRIUMPH OF THE PEERS.
ing the “Magna Charta” from the king. No right
would ever have been achieved for the people by the
nobles, unless the interests of the two bodies had
been united. Although, then, we regard popular rights
as promoted in consequence of this dependence of the
people on the nobles, there is no reason why we
should value it less; since it gave an incipient
strength, which at length rendered the people the
real masters. Meantime the debt of acknowledg-
ment is due to the nobles for the achievement of that
liberty in its first re-instatement, which had been
lost. Let this particular be borne in your mind,
then, as corroborating what we have already con-
sidered,” namely, how great a bulwark of safety the
House of Peers is, in repelling the mischiefs that
would overthrow the constitution | The people, in
fact, originally owe all their privileges and liberties
to the efforts of the nobles since the Conquest.
Never forget this. The parliament, as far as con-
cerned the people, had been at an end since the Con-
quest, but it was vindicated in favour of the com-
mons in the Great Charter, for it is here that we shall
* See Lett. XIII. p. 95.
HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT. 187
find the first traces of the separation* of the greater
barons from the less. This step towards an indepen-
dent legislature on the part of the people was
strengthened by the summoning of knights, citizens,
and burgesses to parliament. The record of the first
writ for this purpose is dated towards the latter end
of Henry III. In the next reign to this we find the
houses sitting in division. I speak of the sessions of
parliament at Acton Burrell, where the commons sate
in the 11 Ed. I., while the peers sate at Shrewsbury.
The same division of the houses is traced in the par-
liamentary records of the 8th, 9th, and 19th years of
Ed. II. and 1st of Ed. III. The elective franchise
was an achievement of a later day, when the qualifi-
cation was ascertained and settled, by the 10 Henry
* See Blackstone, vol. iv. chap. xxxiii. p. 245. Hallam shews
the earliest practical separation of Lords and Commons in 11 Ed.
I., in its present form; though Blackstone says its present shape
was not assumed till Ed. III. See vol. iv. ch. xxxiii. p. 428. The
text alludes to a period when there was but one parliamentary
authority on general questions, viz. in the greater barons,—the less
confined themselves to their own interests, and acquiesced in the
will of the greater barons on more important questions. They
were not independent of them—this is certain; but the writer of
this note dissents from the opinion of Hallam, that it is improbable
they ever intermingled.—See Middle Ages, ch. viii. p. 3.
188 STANDARD OF MO N EY.
VI. c. 2. The standard of forty shillings was pro-
posed as the qualifying value of a freehold ; and
this amount was high for those times; being equiva-
lent to the amount of as many pounds, at the * pre-
sent day. A double object was gained by placing
this limit of qualification ; it repressed the number of
the commons who had a voice in influencing the re-
presentation, and confined it to those who had some
real stake in the country. It, therefore, satisfied the
wishes of the nobles, whom Hallam (ch. viii. Middle
Ages) represents as jealous of a too great numerical
amount of the commons in parliament. And it
guaranteed an independence in voting, since the pos-
sessors of the requisite qualification would be above
the necessity of corruptly bartering or selling their
votes.
By the “Great Charter,” also, was achieved the right
* See Letter of Francis Horner on the Rate of Money; and
MacCulloch's Commercial Dictionary. See Blackstone, also,
vol. i. ch. ii. p. 172. He states forty shillings to have been equal
to twelve pounds in the reign of Anne. Then, under the depre-
ciation of money in the paper currency, during the late war, the
proportion would have been trebled. This would make the forty
shillings of Henry VI. equivalent to thirty-six, or nearly forty
pounds of the late paper currency. The proportion of our money
now, will be nearer to that which Blackstone states in his time,
viz., twenty pounds.
THE NOIBLES AND STAR CHAMBER. 189
of trial by jury. So that it was the basis of a resti-
tution of popular rights in the two great privileges of
legislation, and personal freedom.
We have hitherto, then, considered the benefit de-
rived from the struggle of the nobles against the
crown. We must not, however, forget that the feo-
dal system still gave them a barbarous and irrespon-
sible power. Justice was taken into their own
hands, in their private establishments, throughout the
country. And not only this: they were guilty of
much oppression in their public capacity as judges,
through the means of the Star Chamber court, in
which there was no intervention of a jury. This court
was of very ancient origin, and extended legally to re-
press misdemeanors against the state, and misbé-
haviour in sheriffs, as state officers; but these limits
were exceeded to a dangerous extent in the period of
the Tudor dynasty. It was a court of privy council;
and was the foundation of the High Commission
Court, in the reign of Elizabeth. The discretionary
power of fine and imprisonment was shamefully
abused in the grasping reign of Henry VII. and in the
assertion of royal proclamations, in the reign of Henry
VIII. It was a chamber of secret inquisition in the
inauspicious reign of Charles I., nor less so in that of
190 WOLSEY.
Elizabeth. But the master mind that existed, during
the reign of Elizabeth was able to wield an authority
which was too much for the feeebler genius of Charles
I. to grasp. We shall have to comment on this par-
ticular by-and-bye. In the time of Henry VIII.,
Wolsey governed without a rival; he consequently
directed the jurisdiction of the privy council accord-
ing to his own wishes and views. And hence, from
the great jealousy he harboured against many of the
most powerful of the nobility, he used the court of
Star Chamber as a means to check them. With his
downfall, however, the nobility were masters again
in this court. And at the period of the Reformation,
when the grants of abbey lands were made to the
nobility by the king, they were more than ever
assiduous in supporting arbitrary authority over the
people, and in straining the prerogative of the king
their benefactor. In this they were aided by the
pusillanimous parliament which legalized the royal
proclamations by statute. It committed, in fact, a
“self-destruction,” and voluntarily bowed its popular
privilege to the crown. * The nobility were equally
* As disgusting as the subserviency of the judges to James II.
declaring the dispensing power of the crown. In fact, the result
is the same, if the makers of law give the king's will the power
INTERESTS OF THE NOELES. I91
arbitrary in supporting the crown, and using for that
purpose their engine, the court of Star Chamber,
through the reign also of Elizabeth.
That these encroachments on the privileges and
liberties of the people are objects of serious censure
against the nobility, there is no question; but there is
much to be said in palliation of them. In the first
place, the oppressive domestic discipline which they
exercised was part of the feodal system, for which
they individually are not to be blamed. In the next
place, is it to be wondered at, with respect to their
undue support of the crown at the Reformation, that
they should have acted as they did, when self-interest
so much actuated them in maintaining possessions
violently torn from their former holders, and when
they felt themselves as usurpers. It was in human
nature that the nobility should support the crown, the
dispenser of such great possessions, during the period
when they were but newly held. Hence their strain-
ing the royal prerogative through the reigns of Henry
VIII., and Elizabeth, may be considered to be less
from ill-will to the people, than from a motive of self-
that belongs to them, or if the king's will is allowed to supersede
the law. The dispensing power of the crown was abolished by
the Bill of Rights. See Note, p. 202.
192 THE REFORMATION.
interest, and desire to secure possessions which they
apprehended might be unstable, unless they looked
vigilantly to their preservation. These excuses for
oppression, exercised by the nobles, are but founded
in candour, and such as every inquirer into the his-
tory not only of the times, but of human nature, must
admit. On the other hand, the balance of benefit
accruing to the people through the nobles, as already
set forth, was much greater than the amount of evil
from their oppression.
The Reformation may be considered as the next
great stage from Magna Charta towards the restitu-
tion of popular liberties. I speak of its ultimate result.
In the considerations just entered into, it has been
regarded as rescuing the King and People from the
oppressions of the Church, to place the people under
the oppression of the nobility, and the increased pre-
rogative of the crown; but it is to be regarded yet
more properly, as the opening to all ultimate popular
power, and here I shall notice the struggle of the
people against the prerogative, as the first division of
their constitutional battle.
Sect. I.-The monopoly of learning was taken
away from the church, by the unkennelling of the
strongholds of monkish lore. What had been before
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER. 193
confined to the clergy, was now disseminated amongst
the people, and this diffusion of knowledge, and con-
sequently of intellectual strength and positive power,
was increased by the invention of printing.
As the people acquired more strength, it was the
policy of the crown to beware of straining its prero-
gative too far. Elizabeth's individual wisdom, and
that of her statesmen, were alive to this danger.” Con-
sequently, she was cautious of oppressing individuals,
and asked for supplies with moderation, and managed
them with economy. Had she strained her prerogative
for the violation of popular rights, or oppression of
individuals, she would have dangerously called into
action the growing and conscious strength of the
people. Her prerogative was never exerted except
for some important public cause, and never for the
cause of impoverishing the people. Happy would it
have been for her successors, had they examined the
“spirit of the age,” and the “signs of the times,”—
that is, the growing strength of the people, as pru-
dently as she did This, however, was not the case
Folly and despotism both conspired to render James
the First hated and despised. His pedantic represen
tations of the “Right Divine,” roused the opposition
* See p. 213.
K -
194 THE “Roy AL PEDANT-"JAMES.–CHARLEs.
and scorn of the people, who could not be persuaded
there was any “Divine sanction” for bad govern-
ment and oppression. The mischiefs of James the
First's reign were augmented in that of Charles the
First. The popular strength was put forth : now it
was, that the constitutional battle was fought, be-
tween the crown and the people. The main principle
of popular liberty characterized the motives of the
contest—namely, the right of the people to vote its
own taxes. Charles wrought his ruin by attempting
to govern without parliaments,” and to tax the peo-
ple without their intervention. The people gained
the victory. Yet, if the constitutional spirit was
evinced in the opposition of the people to the un-
limited sway of the crown, and in punishing Charles, it
was not less evinced in the willingness+ to restore the
monarchy, in the person of Charles the Second, on a
better basis. In the events of the period last referred to,
a complete practical definition is afforded of the term
and import of the “Constitution.” Nor less is the
natural inclination of the people of England, in favour
of a monarchical form of government, evinced. The
constitution is here shown as existing, not only as
* See Note, p. 151.
+ Which circumstance was referred to as illustrating the English
bias in favour of monarchy, in Letter X. p. 65. And see p. 197.
THE REVOLUTION. 195
regarding the machinery of “three estates,” but as
recognizing the constituted authority of the people,”
as a check and limit to the prerogative of the crown.
The privileges of the monarchy, and its appendages,
were still respected. But the privilege of the people,
to be governed by the laws, f was asserted, together
with the power of making those laws themselves.
It is not then to be wondered at, that after the
awful warning which the crown had experienced in
the reign of Charles the First, the people should
expel from the throne a monarch who attempted sub-
sequently to enslave them. James the Second, in war-
ring on their religious predilections, which he did with
circumstances of the grossest tyranny, roused them to
seek a monarch under whom the reformed religion
should be secure, and a Protestant succession to the
throne established. The people had by this time
acquired too much strength to be domineered over
with impunity, and the period of the “Revolution,”
brings us thus to the end of that struggle through which
is traced the gradual restoration of popularliberties and
power, since their forfeiture at the Norman conquest.
* See definition of Constitution, Letter XVI. p. 119. 121.
t Confirmed by Bill of Rights, which in restraining the crown,
by parliament, made it thus recognised as the real sovereign.
K 2
196 RIGHT OF PETITION.
The conduct of the people, from the period of the
restoration of Charles the Second, to the abdication of
James the Second, is here worthy our admiration.
They prove their love for a monarchical form of govern-
ment, in submitting to the enormous encroachments
on popular liberty on the part of Charles the Second.
It is true, indeed, that in the reign of this monarch,
the Habeas Corpus Act was achieved, and the liberty
of the subject vindicated, as to the person. It is
true, that a certain freedom of expression, and mental
liberty was given to the people, in the “right of
petition,” as long as it was demanded without
* This celebrated Act was the privilege of meeting to petition
parliament to redress grievances.—Act 1 Car. II. c. 5.-There
has been more discussion on this Act than any on the statute
book. It was argued, on the trial of Lord George Gordon, that
this was repealed by the Bill of Rights. Dunning thought so.
Lord Mansfield knew better. They had nothing to do with each
other. The Bill of Rights refers to petitions to the king alone—
not to parliament. The Act of Car. II. refers solely to meetings,
restricted to twenty persons, to petition parliament. But these
meetings having been abused and rendered tumultuous, the Act 13
Car. II. was passed to repress tumult, and aid the common law,
which defined what an unlawful assembly was, viz., when it was
riotous and above three persons. The Act increasing the privilege
of public meetings, was 36 Geo. III. c. 8, (1795); it permitted the
number to be increased to fifty. Re-enacted by 57 Geo. III. c. 19,
(1817). Both Acts, have expired, and the law of Car. II. is now in
force. The reason why it was said that the Bill of Rights repealed,
y
FORBEARANCE OF THE PEOPLE. 197
circumstances of threat and terror. But do these
concessions to the cause of liberty palliate or excuse
the great injustice of the monarch, in his persecutions
with respect to “constructive treason;” his attempt
to govern without parliaments, his abolition of char-
ters, and his requiring sums for their restoration?”
Nothing but an inherent love of monarchy in the
nation could have induced it to support enormities of
this description, without treating Charles the Second,
as it did his brother subsequently, and under an in-
creased access of exasperation. This constitutional
predilection for a monarchy outweighed its sense of
wrong and restrained its desire to exert the popular
strength it possessed. This extremity, however, was
but retarded for a time, as we have said, in speaking
of the expulsion of James the Second.
At this period, then, ends the battle between the
crown and the people. The privileges and liberties
virtually, the Act of Car. II, was, because it referred to the case of
the seven bishops. But they were not a tumultuous assembly, and
therefore not under penalties of 13 Car. II.
* Well then may Fox complain of Blackstone's deficiency in
the attributes of a great constitutional authority, when the writer of
the Commentary declares that the reign of Car. II. was the most
constitutional in the annals of England 1 See vol. iv. ch. xxxiii.
p. 489. (See Fox's Speeches, Debate on Lord Ellenborough's
having a seat in the cabinet; and Note, p. 120.)
198 VICTORY OF THE PEOPLE.
of the latter were confirmed by the Bill of Rights, the
parliamentary power was strengthened by the institu-
tion of triennial parliaments, on the principle of render-
ing the representatives of the people more constantly
responsible, and more alive to the interests of their
constituents.” Religious liberty was extended as far
as was consistent with the safety of the state. The
right of petition it was necessary to confirm, for the
tumultuous assemblies, under the pretext of petition-
ing, had been controlled in the reign of Charles the
Second,+ and confidence in the right of petitioning the
crown, even through parliament, had consequently
been shaken.
You will then perceive, to remind you of the object
I proposed to myself to prove, how much has been
reclaimed of the ancient Saxon liberties. The feddal
terrors of the crown and nobles, are seen conquered
by the parliamentary authority of the people. In-
creased commercial strength originally, and sub-
sequently increased intellectual strength, had led the
way to the popular victory. The badges of Norman
slavery had by degrees disappeared in the abolition of
* See Letter XVII. p. 15, remarks on their being subsequently
protracted to seven years. -
+ See Note, on 13 Car. II, p. 196.
THE “ scene CHANGES.” 199
military tenures,” in the restoration of the English
languaget in pleadings, in the independence of the
judges, in the parliamentary and personal privileges
of the subject, in the limitation, in fact, of the monar-
chical prerogative. Do not undervalue the amount of
the immunities recovered by the people, from the time
of the Conquest, when they had everything to reclaim!
Sect. II.-And now the scene of contention changes.
It is no longer witnessed between the prerogative of
the crown and the people. No! But between an
“oligarchy” and the people. The people now will
be witnessed as enslaved by the ministerial control,
through the means of majorities corruptly secured by
the system of close-boroughs. The battle was hence-
forth to overcome this baneful system. The blessings of
the Reform Bill begin now to dawn on us, in the
prospect! The people were mocked by the name of
a Constitution, as we shall see in the next Letter,
which is dedicated to a view of their struggle against
the oligarchy.
* Car. I. + Bill of Rights. See Note, p. 185.
I Settled in the time of Geo. III. Sée Hallam, Middle Ages,
p. 262. See Letter XVII. p. 150, on Privilege of Parliament.
200
LETTER XXI.
The Second Section continued: being that of the People's struggle
with the Parliamentary Oligarchy; it was their second bat-
tle for liberty in this “Historical sketch” of the Constitution.
—Picture of Oppression.—Constructive Treasons.—General
Warrants.-Fox’s Libel Bill.—Special Jury “packing.”—
Ex-officio Informations.— Barbarities of the Criminal Code,
especially in Forgery, to secure the safety of the Paper Credit
system of Currency—The increase of intelligence gives
strength to the People, and achieves their victory over the
Oligarchy by means of the Reform Bill.—Measures in favour
of Liberty since that enactment.
PARLIAMENT was now paramount in its authority.
It stood in the place of the sovereign. It acted, as
will be seen by and by, with as much severity as
any despotism, with the addition besides of hypocrisy;
for the pretence was always alleged that the people
governed through the means of Parliament. Mean-
time we shall see how they were enslaved.
In illustration, first of all, of the better, and
constitutional supremacy of parliament, it will be
MINISTERIAL OLIGARCH Y. 201
well to refer to the debates” on the regency ques-
tion, where the disposing and controlling the acces-
sion to the crown is entirely vested in parliament,
while the friends of the law of hereditary succession
maintained that the regent, as heir, became at once
king, without the necessity of any parliamentary inter-
position. This case is given as an illustration of the
paramount sovereignty of parliament. But it is not
the overthrow of the prerogative tyranny that we
shall have to regard so much as the usurpation of the
new tyranny, which is justly styled ministerial oligar-
chy. The people, then, at the close of the preceding
letter, were said to be mocked by the name of the con-
stitution : when they asked the meaning of the term,
they were referred to the existence of a third estate in
* See Pitt's answer to Fox. The whole revenues of the Crown,
in addition to the regulation of the succession, were placed in the
hands of the people nominally, but rather in the control of parlia-
ment, by the 1 Geo. III., on the institution of the civil list. See
Blackstone, vol. i. c. viii. p. 331. To this illustration of par-
liamentary supremacy, I will add that Montesquieu anticipates
the ruin of the British constitution through the domineering of
parliament. The equilibrium of the three estates, he augurs, will
be broken down. It was so under the “oligarchy” until repaired
by the Reform Bill, and may be broken down again on the other
side, if the democratic spirit prevail too much. De Tocqueville
augurs the ruin of the American Republic through the legislature.
See Letter XIV. Note, page 109.
K 5
202 MOCKERY OF THE CONSTITUTION.
due counterbalance with that of the peers and the
throne. Their “constituted” right, however, was a
mockery. They petitioned in vain against measures
that were furthest from their wishes or consent.*
They were tyrannized over by an array of proceedings
more hateful in their moral blackness, more grinding
in their moral violence, than the feodal barbarities of
an earlier age of despotism. The laws of the land,
acts of parliament, were trampled on by the dispensing
power of the crown,i or, rather of the ministers. This
was one of the unconstitutional and tyrannical pro-
ceedings of the first James, and belonged not to the
time when the prerogative had been curbed of its ar-
bitrary power. But parliament was now more arbi-
trary than prerogative had been in former times if
possible.
* Thus the right of petition conceded by Car. II. and confirmed
by the bill or declaration of rights, was rendered a dead letter. See
p. 138.
+ In laying an embargo on corn, for example, Nov. 24, 1767. It
may be here observed further, that the operation of an order in coun-
cil is similar to a dispensing power. No one is constitutionally
bound to answer to inquiries made under the authority of an order
in council. Such a spirit of opposition as this was manifested in
the instance of the inquiries lately made by commissioners into the
clerical revenues. Royal proclamations also are unconstitutional,
and of the character of a dispensing power, unless they act accord-
ing to law. Of themselves, they are not law. See Blackstone, vol. i.
c. vii. p. 271. And Note, p. 190, 191.
“WASTE PAPER” PETITIONs. 203
The ministerial strength defied and neglected or de-
rided the complaints of the people. Secure in a parlia-
mentary majority, it was in vain that the people peti-
tioned. The Bill of Rights was a nonentity a dead
letter! The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended;” the
liberty of the press+ obstructed; freedom of person
and of thought attempted to be crushed. The prin-
ciple of the constitution, as regarded popular rights,
namely—that the people should be represented by
due process of election—was at an end.
No redress could be gained Petitions were so much
waste paper and parliamentary majorities a bulwark
of oppression in the shape of unrestricted taxation,
jobs of state, and unmerited pensions.j. Hence the
* The Habeas Corpus Act is more spoken of by Blackstone (see
vol. i. p. 137,) as an achievement of liberty, than Magna Charta
or any other constitutional measure, 31 Car. II. See Blackstone,
vol. i. p. 128. 134. Effect of its suspension, ibid. 137. The act that
suspended it, amongst others, was 57 Geo. III. c. 3. c. 35, and
an indemnifying act, 58 Geo. 3. c. 6. See the debates in parlia-
. ment on the subject of suspension of Habeas Corpus Act. Pitt's,
Fox's, Sheridan's, Speeches; and Belsham, vol. ii., an. 1777, p.
226., 1794–98.
t By the ex-officio informations. See the following page on libel.
j As to pensions, the distinction to be drawn is between such
as are worthily bestowed for services performed to the country, or
not. In the first instance, they are honourable both to the country
giving, and the state servant rewarded. In the latter they have the
feature of sinecures, and misappropriation of the public money.
204 ERSKINE.-SYDNEY.-GENERAL waRRANTs.
patronage and influence of the crown was virtually
increased to a great extent, and the people as much
subjugated as it had been, even in the periods of
crown prerogative.
These enormities did not fail to excite the bitterest
opposition on the part of the people and its friends.
The oppressions of government were combated in the
instances I shall adduce.
Could the shades of the Star-chamber persecutors
have arisen from the tomb and witnessed the unwar-
rantable persecutions that existed at the end of the last
and beginning of the present century, they would have
smiled in sympathy
The doctrine of constructive treasons was pushed to
a dangerous extent. The great champion of resist-
ance in this instance was Erskine, in the case of Lord
George Gordon, who had headed the riots construed as
treasonable in 1780. The issue of general warrants
to seize papers had ceased by this time. It had
been exercised at the period of Sydney's trial to a
fearful extent, and was enforced subsequently also
with the utmost latitude and rancour. It was dis-
covered at length that it was utterly unwarranted
by law.”
* It is astonishing that, by a sort of law of prescription, the issue
THE STATE “JACKAL.”—WILKES. 205
The Attorney-General, the nominal officer of the
crown, was the “jackal" of the ministerial tyrants;
this is speaking of the successors of Pitt. The perse-
cutions of government on “ex-officio informations,”
of general warrants to seize papers was carried on in the teeth of
the common law of the land, and the constitutional principle,
both agreeing in declaring a general warrant illegal, because of
its uncertainty. Under which predicament, not only an inno-
cent person may be arrested, but a guilty one is denied knowing
what specific document is complained of ! See 1 Hale, P. C.
580. 2 Hawk. P. C. c. 13. 10. 17. The issue of these warrants
was grounded on some acts regulating the press, since the Res-
toration of Car. II. ; they expired in 1694; yet the issue continued
to the year 1763, when it was pronounced illegal by the Court of
King's Bench (3 Burr. 1742), and by the Commons, (Journals, 22d
April 1766.) The declaration was made by the Commons, Oct.
21, 1765. This was subsequently to Lord Camden's charge that
Wilkes' apprehension was illegal under a general warrant. This
applies to the general warrant, but the imprisonment of a member
of parliament was another question in this case, it was a breach
of privilege. Lord Chatham says, let the courts of law take cog-
nizance of the libel. See Note in Letter XVII. p. 148, above.
But it is not only a breach of privilege, but unconstitutional to
imprison a man because he attacks a minister. It would destroy all
freedom of opinion. Let a member be arraigned before a court of
law, regularly cited on an information; it is in the tribunals
of the country to award punishment. But an arrest of a member
for a libel by any authority is void, and a breach of privilege.
It should be observed, two questions are mixed up in Wilkes’
case which it is well to distinguish, viz.—the illegality generally
and in all cases of general warrants; and secondly, the breach
of privilege committed in arresting a member of parliament for a
libel. He cannot be arrested except for treason, felony, or breach of
peace.—See Belsham, vol. i. p. 94, for the history of Wilkes' case.
206 HAPPY constitution
under the endless pretext of checking sedition and
licentiousness, rendered it unsafe to write a syllable
reflecting on public measures. They were in their
nature like the prosecutions of the Star-chamber; and
Blackstone says, that they were to be exercised only
in high and dangerous offences, not in many of the
cases in which they were exercised. Hale says they
are unconstitutional. The liberty of the press was
a dead letter. Happy constitution | Treason had,
in fact,” been committed against the people of England
by Wm. III., in not abolishing ex-officio informations
after the declaration of rights had been accepted.
But William was also against the settling of judges’
salaries, and consequently their independence.f
The packing juries was as notoriously a dispensa-
tion of the pure trial by jury as could possibly be. It
was a direct violation of the law of Magna Charta.
Happy constitution 1
These were the most powerful and dangerous
aids in support of an oligarchy that encroached on
the legitimate power of the people.
The only palliation or excuse that could be al-
leged for the exercise of power which violated the
* See Sir F. Burdett’s trial for seditious libel, 1820.
t See Hallam, and Notes, 135. 150, on this subject.
EFFECTS OF FRENCH REVOLUTION. 207
constitution was, that at the period of which I am
speaking, the spirit of republicanism had proceeded
to an extent dangerous to the existence of a mo-
narchy or constituted power of “the three estates.”
The French revolution had excited a spirit of agita-
tion and turbulence, which called forth the most
vigorous and even tyrannical measures to repress it.
It may well be questioned, however, whether the
powers in existence were not well pleased to make
this insurrectionary spirit an excuse for the adoption
of their arbitrary measures. They effected the main-
tenance of their power and place, under the excuse
of repressing Jacobinism, and preserving the monar-
chy and constitution.
The friends of the people meantime waged an un-
relenting war against this tyranny. The law was
rendered more defined as to constructive treasons.
The statute of Edward III, was more clearly expounded,
and the uncertainty that prevailed on the subject
settled by the 36 Geo. III., c. 7, and rendered perpe-
tual by the 57 Geo. III. c. 6.
The jury had, hitherto, possessed no voice in declaring
what was a libel or not. The mere fact of the” publica-
* See the interesting case of Woodfall. The verdict was “guilty
of printing and publishing only.” Lord Mansfield told the jury
208 wooDFALL. —JUNIUs.—MANSFIELD.—CHATHAM.
tion was all they had to decide upon. The intention of
the writer was not permitted to be discussed by them.
Therefore the non-exercise of their judgment in the
most important particular, and all that affected the
merits of the case, was a deprivation of the right of
trial by jury ! To remedy this defect, Fox's bill, 32
George III. c. 6, was passed, which gave the jury the
power of giving a verdict on the whole point at issue.
The judges, meantime, were found in some cases
trying to curb this privilege. They were authorized,
of course, in expounding the law of libel, that is,
“defining” what a libel was, and expressing whe-
ther they considered “the matter in issue” as answer-
ing to such a definition. But they were found some-
it was not for them to consider whether any crime had been com-
mitted or not. But their verdict went to express that they acquitted
the defendant of any crime. This case gave rise to Fox's bill.
Lord Mansfield was “splendidly arraigned” by Junius and Lord
Chatham for the “nonsense” he talked (as Junius says) and for
travelling out of the record in his “extrajudicial” harangue
on the circumstances of this trial. See Junius's Preface.
It is well to observe as to the characteristics of libel, that it is
proceeded against either by indictment or information, or by
action. In the first instance, it is a criminal proceeding, and the
greater the truth the greater the libel. Lord Ellenborough's dic-
tum. Its characteristic is, that it has a tendency towards exciting
a breach of the peace. In the instance of proceeding by action,
the process is a civil one; and if the truth is proved, or a justifica-
tion pleaded by defendant, the matter at issue is no libel.
HONE AND LORD ELLEN BOROUGH. 209
times refining on such plain rule of exposition. They
proceeded to represent that “if the jury found the
matter in issue had the tendency of producing such
and such results, the verdict must be guilty.” They
were not content with the mere consideration as to
the intention of the writer. They laid down the cri-
minal law maxim—that a man's intentions must be
evidenced by his acts.” But a splendid exception
in favour of liberty was achieved in opposition to this
rule, by the case of Hone,+ whose triumph over Lord
Ellenborough was signal, and from the vexation it oc-
casioned that irritable though talented man, is said to
have conduced towards bringing on his death.
* In criminal cases this is most necessary, since an incendiary
or murderer might excuse his conduct by saying he did not mean
any greater excesses of violence. But it is not right to argue that
the tendency constitutes bad intention, in the case of mere opi-
nion. Opinion is ever variable, and different in different men;
but there can be no mistaking the intention of great violence or
malicious mischief.
+ See Hone's three trials for parody of sacred subjects, at
Guildhall, in three successive days, Dec. 18, 19, 20, 1817. Sir
Samuel Shepherd, Attorney General. His defence pursued as
its principle, that it was not his object to ridicule religion, but
the government. Lord Ellenborough charged the jury with a
view to make them consider whether his parody had the tendency
of ridiculing religion, trying to lead them away from consi-
dering whether Hone's intention was to do so or not. But
Hone held them to the point of his own intention, which was
only to ridicule the government. t;
210 THE BANK AND THE GOVERNMENT.
The arbitrary and insidious attacks made by means
of ex-officio informations were repressed, and the de-
fence rendered more easy, by the 60 Geo. III. c. 110,
and by the 1st Geo. IV. By which a copy of the in-
formation, free of expense, was allowed the defendant.*
The infamy of packing juries who were on an un-
derstanding with the prosecutors, and hence demo-
lishing the trial by jury, was long the theme of Ben-
tham’s exposition, and was at length remedied by the
New Jury Act, 6th Geo. IV. c. 50.
The barbarities of the criminal law, which were
vainly exercised in defence of what was called the
Paper credit system, was an endless subject of
reproach against the Government. The cruelty of
passing the extreme sentence of the law in cases of
forgery, however trivial, was exclaimed against loudly
and continuedly. The Bank of England, however,
was in league with the Government to keep up the
enormity—which, like the privilege of imprisonment
for debt, was considered as necessary for the defence
of property. The power of the Bank over Government
at this time, is too well known to need specifying.
The above are some of the most glaring instances of
the subversion ‘in effect” of the “constitution” during
* See Hone's trial again.
THE SECON D MAGN A CHARTA. 211
the period in question. The representation of the peo-
ple in parliament was obscured and defeated. The
trial by jury was superseded by the various instru-
ments of oppression just stated. Any redress that
was ever gained for these grievances was not without
a bitter struggle ! Every concession was extorted
with the utmost difficulty. How much breath did
Romilly waste, for instance, in endeavouring to miti-
gate the barbarous penal code. It was plain that no
ultimate freedom could be gained for the people until
they were able to have their own choice in returning
their representatives. This was to be ultimately
effected by the Reform Bill; the second Magna Charta
it may indeed be called, since the ministerial majori-
ties, under the semblance of law, really took away all
wholesome right ! And it was in vain to talk of free-
dom of election, with a close-borough system. It
was idle to expatiate on a constitution, when an oli-
garchy crushed all constitutional principles, and de-
faced the feature of a free people.*
* It will be interesting to the reader, if the acts in favour of
constitutional liberty gained through the different periods of our
history are enumerated here summarily. § Magna Carta, which
was wrested from John, and § Carta de Foresta, from Henry III. his
son. § Confirmatio Cartarum, 25 Ed. I. declaring Magna Carta a
law of the land. § The Petition of Right, and Abolition of Knight
212 . LANDMARKS OF LIBERTY.
The strength of the people was now increasing by
the spread of that intelligence which was tacitly
working its way towards the grand result. The
“spirit of the times” now began strongly to show
itself in favour of liberal measures, in removing all
invidious distinctions as to civil rights, without re-
gard to religious difference of opinion. Hence, the
government rendered itself popular, by the reform of
the criminal code to a considerable extent. The
amelioration consisted in aiding the imperfections in
pleading and in facilitating justice rather than mitigat-
ing severity. Simplification was the principle kept
in view.* The condensation of a great mass of statutes,
was a work deserving praise. The removal of the
Catholic disabilities, by the Wellington ministry,
Service, Car. I. § The right of meeting to petition parliament,
1 Car. II. c. 5. The Habeas Corpus Act, 31 Car. II. § The Decla-
ration or Bill of Rights, 1 Wm. & Mary, st. 2. c. 2, and the Act of
Settlement, 12 & 16 Wm. & Mary. §Then Fox's Libel Bill, 32 Geo.
III. c. 6, vindicating liberty of press and expression of sentiment;
§ and, longo intervallo, the 2 W. IV. c. 45, commonly called the
Reform Bill. The text enumerates many other enactments both
before and subsequent to the Reform Bill, besides the periods
of Reformation, the Convention of Parliaments, and Protestant
Succession, which curbed popish tyranny. These it is not the
purpose of this note to enumerate. It is sufficient to show the
great landmarks of liberty spread through our constitutional his-
tory. See Blackstone; vol. i. p. 127-8, 134-7.
* See “Peel's Acts,” 7 & 8 Geo. IV.
IDIFFUSION OF KNOWLEDGE. . 213
was a great era in the annals of liberty; and the
nation rejoiced over it no less than over the abo-
lition of the slave trade at an earlier date; but
still the grand popular privilege of permitting no
one to sit in parliament at the “nomination ” of
a borough proprietor, was to be achieved. The
slow but sure way of increasing the intelligence
of the people, which policy is mainly to be attri-
buted to Brougham's efforts in diffusing knowledge,
was triumphant at last. The cry for Reform became
irresistible. The press echoed the voice of public
opinion.* The press won the victory for the people.
The press showed itself to be the ruling power. The
triumph of the people now was from the same cause
that it was after the time of Elizabeth. You will
remember that I mentioned that this wise princess was
awake to the circumstance now in view, and accord-
ingly, was cautious as to the exertion of her preroga-
tive. The same source of strength now poured forth
its tide, and overwhelmed the decayed fabric of
“rotten borough” privilege. The ground that the
opponents to the measure of reform took, was that
of the too great democratic power it would afford.
The preponderance, they maintained of popular autho-
rity, would overwhelm the two other estates, and
* P. 15. See the preceding Letter, p. 193.
214 A NATURAL CONSEQUENCE,
merge the country in the terrors of democracy, and
anarchy.
I have too strong a reliance on the constitutional
spirit of the English,_their inmate aristocratic feel-
ing—their predilection in favour of a monarchy—
ever to think that these fears will be verified. For
a time, the people were excited in their demand for
reform, after the passing the Reform Bill. This was
natural. Flushed with victory, it was to be supposed
that the impulse for change, or improvement, would
not all at once stop short. But this excitement has
been subsequently modified into a milder expression
of feeling. “The constitution must be preserved
Our “institutions” must not be impaired.* All
wholesome reforms must now be made, but we will
not proceed to the bounds of revolution " This is
the language natural to the English disposition, as I
have sufficiently exhibited to you in former Letters.
I need not again observe the predilection the Eng-
lish have for a monarchy and their institutions. A
* And the reasons for preserving them form the subject of the
Letters preceding the definition of the Constitution, given in
Letter XVI. The previous Letters being in illustration of the
political laws of the constitution, namely, for preserving our “in-
stitutions.” These whole pages are then, an illustration of the Law
of the Constitution, as it presents itself both before and since the
Reform Bill, and as such, offer an accompaniment to the perusal
of Blackstone. See the plan, at the end of Letter XVI. p. 126.
THE INFLUENTIAL CLASSES. 215
convincing instance of it was shown in the forbearance
they exhibited towards Charles II., but which was too
much imposed on by his successor. I refer you to the
preceding letter.” The lovers of “change,” for thesake
of change, the agitators of the public peace, the enemies
of our institutions, would, of course, proceed in their
course of “unsettling everything, and settlingnothing.”
But the body of these persons does not represent, by
any means, the English people. The true bias of the
English,_of those who have any stake in the country,
—of the more intelligent and independent,'t and the
lovers of real liberty,+are by no means in favour of
any further reform, than such as wholesome improve-
ment requires.
The Reform Bill certainly gave great strength to de-
mocratic influence; in the franchise it conceded to
those who held tenements of the annual value of 10l. In
times of distress, no doubt, a demagogue by exciting
the passions of this class, and the mere refuse of the
people, might lead them to exhibit their strength
very influentially. But such struggles I consider
would only be for an interval. I am not mistaken, I
think, in considering that the cause of the constitu-
* P. 196, 197.
f See p. 82, the destinies of Revolution are swayed by the lead-
ing persons in society. See a classical illustration of this in Livy,
B. 1.
216 FRUITS OF THE REIFORM BILL.
tion lives in the hearts of those who are the most in-
fluential in the country, from their station and ac-
quirements:* and that, though it may sustain occasional
shocks, it will have inherent force enough to resist their
effect, and preserve itself ultimately unimpaired.
Of the state of the Constitution since the Reform
Bill I have already spoken, as regards the increased
stability of the monarchy, and the confidence of the
people in the government.'t It, here, follows for me
to observe, that the objects of this great measure
have been answered in sundry particulars relative to
the liberties of the subject. The limits of a letter
do not permit me to enlarge on the various improve-
ments in view. I can only call your attention gene-
rally to them. Witness then the reform of munici-
pal corruption. Witness the limitation of actions
by the 3 William IV. in 1833. Witness the aboli-
tion of the old feudal system of game laws, and
* It need not be observed, that all revolutions, to be effectual,
must take place through the agency and efforts of the higher and
more influential classes. (See Letter XI.) When they originate
with the mere dregs, the Jack Cades, of the people, they must
be, generally speaking, abortive. The two French Revolutions
were headed by the higher classes, so, also, were the English
Rebellion of 1640, and the Revolution of 1688.
+ See Letter XIV. p. 108. 112, 113. On Ministers out of Par-
liament, and Collision of the two Houses. And Lett. XVII. p. 139.
Monarchy.
f Letter XVII. p. 158.-Privileged Bodies
BECCARIA, LEGAL MURDERs. 217
the permission of sale of game. Witness the “good
intention” (at least) of reducing the taxes on know-
ledge evidenced in the new stamp act.* Witness
the total extinction of slavery in the British domi-
nions: nor less, - witness the mitigation of domestic
slavery in the factories. Witness the abolition of
capital punishment where it had been long attempted
in vain at a less auspicious period. Remember too,
the aid allowed to the unhappy prisoner in permitting
him counsel in his defence in charges of felony.
Beccaria would have been scared at witnessing the
cruelty committed under the plea of “public expe-
diency in times past.”f. It makes the blood run cold
to contemplate the legal murders that took place,
heretofore, in the department, for example, of for-
gery. The session of 1837 has advanced yet further
in the path of mercy, and not only on the soundest
principles, but with the consent of all parties in the
* Duty reduced to one penny. But see the answer to the
text, here, in Letter XXII., note p. 228.
+ Beccaria is for abolishing the punishment of death altogether;
since he says, public expediency requires a lasting example of
punishment, and recommends perpetual slavery as a substitute
for death. Not so did our quondam legislators think. To keep
up the “paper credit” system, death for forgery was dealt around
in terrific profusion. The Bank of England was unrelenting in
its prosecutions.—(See Beccaria, dei Delitti. ch. xvi.)
L
218 MARRY As You PLEASE.
state. Such is the general feeling in favour of leni-
ency.” Witness again the amelioration studied, in
whatever is invidious in our Ecclesiastical Polity.t
Nor must the boon to the dissenters be forgotten.
They are now permitted to marry according to their
own religious observances, rather than under those of
a church from which they disagree.f
iſ,
* See the Bills brought in 7 W. 4, and which received the
royal assent, 1 Victoria. Capital punishment is abolished in
forgery, robbery, arson, offences against the person where no
bodily harm takes place, burglary, piracy. There are certain
exceptions, however, in all these instances. -
f Many topics are embraced under the head of Ecclesiastical
Reform. The objects of the Ecclesiastical Commission, (ap-
pointed during the Wellington administration) are those, of
abolishing pluralities and non-residence in the clergy. And,
secondly, modifying, according to a more equal scale, the revenues
of bishops. See the report of the Commissioners for further par-
ticulars as to deans and chapters. Besides these objects of re-
form, the commutation of tithe is proposed to take place, by a
voluntary adjustment, in two years from 1836. The abolition of
church-rates has its partisans and opponents equally violent on
both sides.—See the answer in Letter XXII. on this last topic,
p. 232, 233.
I See 6 W. IV. c. 85. (1836). Together with the Dissenters’
Marriage Bill, see that also for the Registration of Births, Deaths,
and Marriages. The promoters of this measure hail it as a statis-
tical document and record of value, hereafter. A registration of
wills and title deeds was also proposed, but met with little favour,
as throwing open too much of the private history of property and
family secrets to public scrutiny. The Execution of Wills' Bill
exhibits a great improvement. 7 Will. IV. and 1 Vict. -
“ MERCY SEAsons JUSTICE.” 219
The lenient principles of the “Common Law” of
England with respect to crime, have always been ap-
pealed to by the humane, during the sanguinary reign
of our statute law, as worthy of imitation, and de-
parted from unjustly. The precepts of the “Com-
mon Law” inculcate mercy, and breathe a constitu-
tional spirit. They say that “every man shall be
considered innocent until he is proved to be otherwise,
by trial.” They say, that “no one shall criminate
himself.” They say, “it is better that a guilty man
should escape than that an innocent man should suf-
fer.” They say, “nothing shall be represented, or
have effect, against a man except that which shall be
proved : and that hearsay, or supposition, is not evi-
dence.” -
All these principles of our old “Common Law,”
as it is called, breathe the spirit of a free and
generous people. This spirit has been followed in
the aid given to prisoners by permitting them to be
defended by counsel.” The barbarous rule heretofore
* It ought, however, to be observed, that however laudable in
principle such an enactment is, it is found somewhat inconvenient
in practice on the score of expense. In the county of Middlesex
the expense in 1835 was 400l. in prosecutions; this sum has been
doubled since the operation of the Prisoners’ Counsel Bill, the
sum being 800l. in 1836. The jury too, sometimes acquit the
guilty from the distortion of the case by the counsel for the de-
L 2
sº
220 CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.
had turned a deaf ear to this suggestion, and coldly
replied that the judge was counsel for the prisoner.
A better feeling and a more humane one, has now
prevailed, and if all that you object to has not yet
been ameloriated, it is to be hoped that (as far as
human nature and artificial interest will permit) they
will be ameliorated. At any rate, that feeling of
despondency, that languor of regret that haunted
the mind and sickened the spirit in the old times of
oligarchical supremacy, is now at an end. By the
Charter of Reform we have at least the consolation
now, that wherever there is an abuse there is yet a
hope and a prospect of a remedy.
fence. And the judges sometimes, on the other hand, in setting
right the distortions of the case by counsel, show the prisoner's
guilt more strongly than previously to the bill. Of course, no
measure can be without some defects. The question is, is the
prisoner more benefited than before?
221
LETTER XXII.
Reply to the preceding.—Remarks on it.—The People's inherent
love for the Monarchy combated.—Subjects demanding ame-
lioration under a Reformed Parliament. — The “field of
Change” explored.—Standing Army.—Ireland and Agitation.
—The Church.-The Poor of Ireland.—Misgovernment.—
Absenteeism.—National Education.—Voluntary Contribu-
tion.—Diminution of Crime.—Civil Disabilities of Jews.-
Ecclesiastical Commission.—Objections to it.—Remarks on
the principle kept in view of the existing progress of
“Change.”
You R exposition of the restoration of the liberties of
England since the conquest, has much interested and
enlightened me. Through so wide and so intricate a
field you have conducted me clearly, by the great prin-
ciples you have set up as landmarks to guide me. The
picture you give of the second contest, in which the
people are engaged against the oppression that existed
under the close-borough system, struck me as more
lamentable than the first, against the prerogative of the
222 CHARLES THE SECOND.
crown. I am willing to acquiescein the justice of your
representation, that where there was so much to reclaim,
I must give due credit to the efforts of the constitu-
tional spirit of the people. They, indeed, owe every
thing to the Lords* as a first advance towards a resti-
tution of their rights. Knowledge you have, truly,
shown me is power, when you place before me the
strength of the people after the Reformation. And
never did I know how wise Elizabeth was, till you
exhibited to me her caution in managing them during
their growing power. Blackstone had quite misled
me in my estimation of the reign of Charles the
Second. He seems as great a tyrant as the people
seem forbearing. You attribute their forbearance to
love of the monarchy. I had been inclined to think
that they were so sick of democratic violence during
the republic, that they had little inclination to hazard
such an evil again, rather than that they loved a
monarchy. But I feel you are right, as they took
care, in expelling James, to secure the rights of the
monarchy, no less than a “protestant succession.”
It appears to me, that the Whig potentates who
amused ºf the people by the Bill of Rights, acted more
* See Letter XX, p. 186.
+ I say “amused,” since they made great professions of vin-
ATMOSPHERE OF CORRUPTION . 223
for themselves than for the people. Historically
they made the protestant succession to the throne
the means of gaining power, both at the period of
the Revolution, and subsequently on the accession of
George of Brunswick. The privilege secured to the
people by the Bill of Rights, of having their repre-
sentatives responsible by a triennial meeting with
their constitutents, was soon found inconvenient and
laid aside. And the object of the government seems
to have been to secure the Whig party in their ascen-
dancy in utter defiance of all principles of the con-
stitution. The Whigs were no longer what they had
originally been. Corruption was the atmosphere the
government breathed. The government, I say, whether
Whig or Tory. When the Tory government subse-
quently gained the ascendancy” and the times became
more dangerous, the picture you afford me is terrible.
What? was it so necessary to exercise such severity
in a country where there existed such an inherent love
dicating the liberties of the people, while, in reality, their aim
was to grasp the sovereign power themselves, which they did
through the potency of parliament.—See Canning's similar
opinion of the “glorious Revolution of 1688.”
* During the struggle against Jacobinism, at the period of the
French Revolution, when anarchy was in the ascendant, and all
governments trembled for their security.
224. •. A TIME OF PEACE.
of a monarchy? You will still answer me, Yes,
there was, indeed, such predilection, but the people
were exasperated by the violation of the constitution
in the close-borough system, and it was not that they
wished to overthrow the monarchy, but merely the
usurpers of monarchical authority. Indeed, the self-
ish tyranny of the oligarchy is the most deforming
trait in the feature of our history. We arrive now.
at the peace of 1815. What offends me, subse-
quently to this period, is the maintenance still of a
standing army” in time of peace! Does this argue
again a love of forbearance in the people? Again
you will say the oligarchy was their enemy; if so,
...then, even that enemy is routed by the Reform Bill.
I am not contented that a standing army exists, and
its accompanying expense.
You will, no doubt, suggest to me, that to main-
tain the respect of foreign powers, it is requisite an
army should be maintained. That if disciplined
troops were not kept up, this country would not be
on an equal footing with the continental governments,
* It is ipso facto disbanded at the expiration of every year, but
is kept alive by the annual re-enactment of the Mutiny Act—See
Blackstone, vol. i. ch. xiii. p. 714-5.—See Fox's speeches; his
adjournment of it, in opposition to the government, March, 1784,
IRELAND AND MISMANAGEMENT. 225
in case of any hostile emergency calling forth the
armed energies of England. But though this may
be true, yet it is no argument for keeping up an
armament on so large a scale, as at present exists,
so burdensome and expensive to the nation. You
will point to Ireland, and say that the unsettled state
of that country demands an army to overawe and
curb it in its lawlessness. Alas ! this mode of pre-
serving peace is as barbarous as it is mistaken I
speak of it as a principle of statesmanship when I
say this. I do not deny that where there is lawless-
ness there must be coercion; but I regret that the
cause of so grievous an effect is not remedied. A
better system of measures with respect to Ireland
would, by pacifying the country, abolish the necessity
of an army to overawe her, because it would put a stop
to the lawlessness and disaffection that a faulty sys-
tem of government now produces. I cannot but feel
indignation at the thought of a constitutional govern-
ment having enacted and put in force a “Coercion
Bill !”* It was necessary, indeed, but how terrible,
how melancholy, to reflect that a mistaken system
of government should have rendered such a measure
necessary. It is not for me to enter into a discussion
* 1833. .
226 THE COURT of ST. JAMEs's,
of what measures are likely to give peace to Ireland.
I shall merely suggest the enactment of some whole-
some provision for the poor.” Some adjustment of
the tithe question without sacrificing the interests of
the protestant church. I shall have to say a word
on this subject a little further on, in taking notice of
the legal exposition you have given me of the
monarchy. One great source of evil to Ireland, and
apparently irremediable, is the system of absenteeism,
which must ever be attended with injury to that
country. The court being held at St. James's, of
course draws all the more exalted proprietors in
Ireland to its meridian.f Do not imagine I in-
sinuate that it would be well to dissolve the Union,
that this measure would give Ireland a resident
gentry and nobility again on a larger scale. I will
not say I am in favour of such a measure as the
* Some maintain that the landords ought to pay a poor rate in
the proportion of two-thirds; and a tax should be imposed on
the absentees in aid of the rate.
+ P. 240.
I To afford Ireland the benefit that the presence of its sovereign,
and the great influx of persons consequently, would afford, notice
was given of a petition for an address to his majesty, praying him
to hold his court occasionally in Ireland. But such occasional
assistance as this would be vain. A better system of government
is the real and only remedy. .
BEFORE AND AFTER THE UNION. 227
Repeal of the Union; I will regard it as, perhaps, the
least of evils; for certainly the Union has produced
much evil, however politic in other respects that
measure might have been. The conflicting opinions
of the two parliaments of England and Ireland was
an evil. The danger of Ireland not being firmly
united during the period of war in the last century,
was an evil remedied by the Union which does not
exist now. If you say that even with a parliament
and a larger body of resident proprietors Ireland was
in a state of confusion, I answer, yes, but from dif-
ferent causes. The Penal Code, and agitation to
gain redress, placed it in commotion at that period.
Agitation does so now ; — but the reason why agita-
tion has effect, is because the people are really so
much distressed. Relieve the distress* and you will
destroy the power of agitation, and punish the agitator;
for he really exults in the distress. When there was
a larger body of resident gentry there was less of
distress, though there was as much of commotion
from political causes. You see I am unbosoming
myself to you. You have been instructing me in the
constitution ; as an honest man, I cannot boast to my
* See Report of Commissioners relative to the condition of the
Irish Poor, and the remedial measures there pointed out.—1836.
228 WOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS.
electors that it is faultless, or rather that great mis-
chiefs do not exist under it, when I reflect on all that
I consider deserves the correction of a reformed par-
liament.
There was no portion of your exposition of the ad-
vance of constitutional power that interested me so
much as that of the conquests gained by the pro-
gress of intelligence,—at the era of Charles I., and
again of William IV. This topic brought to my
mind the importance of national education. I had
therefore thought of making it part of my political
system to establish schools, and impose on the peo-
ple the national duty of maintaining them. But
when I considered how many schools were supported
by voluntary contributions, I hesitated as to the
policy of making compulsory that which exists so
prosperously under a system of spontaneous benevo-
lence. Those who now support education* from
* The reduction of duty on stamps to one penny, was on
principle “to remove taxes on knowledge,” but it also promotes
the dissemination of cheap trash. The greater journals which have
immense foreign correspondence at a great expense, must still
stand pre-eminent and unharmed by the competition. The su-
perior talents they display, and pay for, will still keep them far
above being injured by any mere rubbish catered cheaply. We
willingly pay a higher price for a better quality and extent of
material and information.
OLD AND NEW POLICY. . 229.
motives of conscience and charity, would be little
pleased to have their benign donations commuted
for a compulsory tax. So national education is per-
haps better left in its present hands, and not encum-
bered with the well-meant but mistaken assistance
of legislation. If there is one instance in particular,
that points out the enlightened state of mind existing
in the present age, it is the explosion of the old
political doctrine of maintaining ignorance in the
population The barbarous state-creed of seeking
the security of the government in the helpless want
of knowledge of the governed, is at an end. As a
prevention against crime, there is no doubt education
is of most important advantage. In proportion, crime
has not kept pace with the increase of population;
nay, on the contrary; since we find the population
increasing, while the amount of crime, so far from
increasing proportionably with it, has been shown to
decrease. The total decrease in the numbers charged
in 1835, as compared with the preceding year, was
1720. See the tables containing Statistics of Crime
laid before Parliament in 1836. There is however
no good without its accompanying evil: and it used
to be a favourite maxim with the state-bigots, that
by teaching people to read and write, they were placed
230 DESIGN AND WIOLENCE.
above their humble station in life, and rendered unfit
for laborious occupation. That this produced idleness
and hence crime. Also with persons of vicious
tendency, these arts of reading and writing were
rendered subservient to crime, in swindling, forging,
and other particulars. This might be true, to a cer-
tain extent; but the question is, has not the aggregate
of crime been lessened by humanizing the population,
through the means of education. Has not barbarous
passion been chastened and subdued ? Certainly
facts bear out the suggestion. There is this to be
said as to crime in an educated population, that
offences, of design and craft, will take the place of
crimes of barbarism, and savage violence. This is the
difference in the feature of crime, at the present day,
as compared with the less civilized era of some genera-
tions past. The offences in private dwelling houses
and without violence are manifold, compared with those
accompanied with violence, as the above-cited tables
show. But education, in the refinement of sensibility
it effects, acts more on the conscience, and carries with
it its punishment in the sting of remorse. You can-
not have human nature without sin; but if education
does instigate to crimes of fraud on the one hand,
and with the necessitous or vicious; yet on the other
JEWS AND CHRISTIANS. 23|
hand how many does it deter ? to how many does it
give principle 7 how much has it humanized the
country generally, and blessed as well as humanized?
The subjects literally grow on me! Topics for
reform crowd on me as I advance
“Hills peep o'er hills, and Alps on Alps arise !”.
What? After the spirit of the times, and public
opinion have achieved the abolition of the Test Acts,
and the disabilities of Dissenters, of the Catholic
disabilities, too, do those of the Jews yet remain un-
relieved,—their trade cramped in the city of Lon-
don, and their religion alone” denied toleration ?
They are at present excluded by the oath “on the
faith of a Christian,” but if it is certain that no instance
ever occurred where a Jew was known to intrigue
against the state, this oath might be dispensed with,
in order to give the Jewish subjects of the realm a
just equality with the rest of the people. “On the
faith of a true subject,” or other words sufficiently
binding, and with conditions sufficiently guarded,
might be substituted. Such was the case in ad-
mitting the Catholics to a participation of privileges.
And they are peculiarly characterized by a spirit of
state intrigues, which the Jews are not.
* See Goldsmid (F. H.), on Jewish Civil Disabilities.—1830.
*
232. My “LIBERAL” consTITUENTs
You” represent the advantage of the commutation
of tithe bill. I will grant you it is an advantage, but
my friends here require also the abolition of the
church rate; there are revenues, they say, belong-
ing to the church to defray the expense of repairing
churches.—And that the rate is an encroachment
on the community on whose shoulders it has been
pushed from those of the ‘f church itself. Again,
as to church reform, no doubt the ecclesiastical
commission was rightly instituted, for reviewing the
condition of the church revenues, and the duties
of the clergy. The abolition of non-residence and
pluralities in the clergy, is praiseworthy. The mea-
sures in the department of the higher ecclesiastics are
not quite so free from exception. A more proper ad-
justment of revenues in the sees is right, doubtless,
but was this all that was requisite to be done? I
* See Letter XXI. p. 218 and p. 26, note.
t Rates were paid out of tithe originally. They are recover-
able by st. 53. G. 3. c. 137. Their validity, however, is cognizable
by the Ecclesiastical Court alone. See Black, vol. i. p. 384. 395;
vol. iii. p. 92. And see Dr. Nicholl on this topic. Many of my
‘liberal’ constituents clamour for the voluntary system (see Letter
VI. v. 4, p. 25) of paying the church. However, as I consider
this would ruin the character of our clergy, as gentry, and in
great measure ruin church service and religion altogether, I op-
pose it.—See Letter, VIII. p. 55.
COMMISSION AND OMISSION. 233
shall not be satisfied with the attempt of the com-
mission to sacrifice the interests of deans and chap-
ters; and make them the scape-goat,” for sacrifices
which ought to be made by bishops. I complain
that commendams ought to be entirely abolished. I
complain that non-residences of bishops in dioceses is
mischievous for the interests of the clergy and church.
I would see the rite of ordination better observed in
the particular of time and place. In both these re-
spects, it is uncertain when and where it should be
held. Meantime, the poor applicant for orders has
to dance after his bishop from one end of the king-
dom to the other sometimes. Ordination ought to
be held at the cathedral church of the diocese. I
might make further objections to what I consider the
omissions of the commissioners. And, then, sacrificing
the interests of deaneries, and canonries, I think wrong,
as these afford rewards for the clergy, who labour long
and hard to attain them. The proper reformations I
have suggested as to the bishops, are not thought of.
The cruel and arbitrary power of suspension from
preaching for a mere difference of opinion with a
bishop, is a relic of the old ecclesiastical tyranny,
which ought now to be entirely superseded by the
* See Sydney Smith's Letter to Archdeacon Singleton.
234 RIGHTS OF THE SUBJECT.
law of the constitution. In fact, I cannot unre-
servedly praise the labours or disinterestedness of the
commission.
I shall pause here, as I have not room to comprise
all that forces itself on me in reply to your exposi-
tion of the constitutional energies of England, in a
single Letter. I have already recounted the great
topics of a standing army in time of peace, of Irish
coercion, absenteeism, and pauperism, of the union,
of national education, of Jewish civil disabilities.
All these topics crowd themselves for notice on the
reformer; on all these I hope to explain myself satis-
factorily to my electors.” They justly demand an
* I will add here that I have been pressed to vote for relieving
the bishops of their duties in Parliament. But this exoneration I
do not support. I feel convinced of the justice of your remarks on
the subject, in the Note appended to your arguments on the
necessity of maintaining the Reformed Faith, and the Dignities of its
Church no less, in Letter VIII. p. 51. I have also been willing to
explain to those who clamour for making the Peers elective, that,
if they do not wish to abolish Nobility and the Peers' House
altogether, it is necessary to make no such innovation.—See Letter
XIII. p. 97. I am, however, for abolishing the privilege of Vote
by Proxy.—See Letter XII. p. 86, note.
On the topic of Repeal of Corn Laws and Malt Tax, see
Letter XXVIII. Both of these being subjects for outcry amongst
certain Reformers, though, by no means generally acquiesced in
even by themselves.
SPIRIT OF CHANGE. 235
explanation of my sentiments on these topics, and on
various others no less important as my next Letter
will show. We are still upon the great theme of the
rights of the subject. I want to extend them, and
am showing you in what matters I deem it expe-
dient to vindicate them; if Englishmen are to have the
benefit of the reform measure. In all that I propose,
I keep in view the support of my principle, that the
“spirit of change,” is, and will, be working great
alterations in our political code. It is incumbent on
me then to enter into the statements I do, to show
that this spirit of change is not merely vague and
restless—not merely for the sake undefinedly of
change,_but expedient, constitutional, and as I con-
sider it, unavoidable !
236
LETTER, XXIII.
In continuation.—Further objections that Reform has not pro-
ceeded as far as it ought—Sect. I. Remarks on extending
the Suffrage.—Vote by Ballot.—Duration of Parliaments.—
Ecclesiastical Reform.—The Spirit of Toleration.—Catholi-
cism.—Tenure of the Monarchy. —Bevolutions anticipated
both in Church and the Monarchy.—The Spirit of Change
and power of innovation insisted on in opposition to the
national Predilection for Monarchy.—Principle and Profes-
sion of Reform Bill.—Sins of “Omission.”—Sect. II. Sins of
“Commission” since the Reform Bill.—New Poor Law.—
Separation of Paupers.-Centralization Monopoly.—Go-
vernment Patronage unconstitutionally extended.—Pitt.—
London University Charter.—Remarks in Conclusion.
SECT. I.-Your letter mentioned a variety of measures
of which the Reform charter has been the parent. The
principles of equity and liberty, consistent with the
character of a free nation have been recognized in the
legal ameliorations and social improvements that you
set forth. But still much more remains to be done !
I may perhaps be a little too exacting, but the spirit
of reform does not satisfy me, unless it proceeds to
give every British subject the elective franchise: you
t
NOT SATISFIED Y ET. 237
will start at this, and consider that my zeal for li-
berty carries me beyond the prescribed bounds of the
constitution. The principle of universal suffrage, you
will say, is a characteristic of the democracy:—that
property was always made the standard of repre-
sentation: that a stake in the country is requisite to
qualify for the franchise: that the vast body of voters
without property would return a majority of persons
pandering to their passions, to the exclusion of all
those who would otherwise represent that portion of
the commons who had property and respectability.
That this result being at once subversive of the con-
stitution, is foreign to the purpose of our present con-
sideration. Be it so : I will not stop to argue the
point. I am perfectly aware of the difficulty of mak-.
ing a stand before the progress of reform proceeds
beyond the limit of the constitution; but still, in a
consideration of the rights of the subject which is
our present topic, I am desirous of extending my
view to all questions that affect it, or apply to
it. The question, in consulting new rights, is, of
course, “Are the measures proposed for increasing
or securing them consistent with the constitution?”
If they are not, I give it up to you. To the mea-
sure of univeral suffrage, I will add that of vote by
238 PRO AND CON.
ballot, as one which there is as much argument
about, and more uncertainty, than on the other. The
principles of irresponsibility and secresy, are indeed
alien to the open and jealous character of the consti-
tution; but then, on the other hand, if the control
and constraint over the minds of many voters is taken
away, a great tyranny is removed. * I will avoid en-
tering into detail of arguments on the subject, but
will sum up all I would say by observing, that in a
balance of evils, I should certainly consider that of
control of opinion, and oppression in a rich landlord,
as by far the greater, and consequently that it ought
to be reformed, in consistency with the principles of
the constitution. I will not repeat my disgust at the
* The instances of France and America are always appealed to
as testimonies in favour of the ballot. But such appeal is igno-
rant, since it refers to instances that fail to bear out its object.
The franchise in France is circumscribed to persons having a
qualification proportionally much higher than in England. It is
fg 10s. a-year in tares, so that there is not the same constituency
as of the lower classes with us. And in America, Hall tells us, the
amount polled is 1 in 9 throughout the whole Union 1 This is, in
the first place, but a small number of voters where universal
suffrage exists. Meantime, America is divided on the question
of the ballot. The old Southern States of the Union have elec-
tions open, as with us; those in the North and East have the
ballot. The President is reported to have great influence from
patronage, with the electors, and this is increased in its effect,
when we see how few are really polled.
PROTESTANT AND CATHOLIC, 239
repeal of the measures that made parliaments triennial.
I assert the principle of making the representatives of
the people answerable to their constituents at inter-
vals of time not too distant. In saying this, I do not
precisely advocate the doctrine of annual parliaments,
but am for restoring the triennial period, and am de-
cidedly hostile to the septennial, at present existing
in usurpation * of the place of the former. You have
shown me the connexion of our monarchy with thes
church, and as I consider the protestant doctrine a
far wholesomer one than the catholic, the latter tend-
ing to enslave the people, I would certainly uphold
our church. But I would take away every thing
that places its ministers in an invidious position, as
between themselves and the community. I therefore
rejoice at the reforms going on in the ecclesiasti-
cal department of our institutions, notwithstanding
sundry deficiencies. These remarks I would extend
to the protestant church in Ireland, with this pro-
viso, that in any measure for rendering it more ac-
ceptable, and less invidious to the Catholic subjects
in that country, I would always keep in mind that it
must never be vitally impaired, since a blow destruc-
tive of any part of our protestant establishment, will,
* See Letter XXII. p. 223.
240 IRISH PRIESTHooD.
Sooner or later, affect the remainder. Now this re-
sult I wish to guard against, as a supporter, not only
of a church, but of the constitution. Since I do not
consider the catholic religion worthy of the ascen-
dancy which it would gain, in case of any mortal blow
to the protestant, for the reason I have stated, namely,
that it enslaves the people. It is therefore incon-
sistent with liberty: and though I wish to be tolerant,
and shudder at the thought of the penal code by
which it was curbed, in less unprejudiced and en-
lightened times, yet I cannot forget its restraint on
freedom of thought and action. Its control over both
is indisputable. Has not the priesthood in Ireland
controlled people to vote at elections as they directed ?
and in case of dissent, have they not menaced them
with ecclesiastical denunciations ?
This point of objection to the Catholic religion,
presents itself as forcibly to me as that of the viola-
tion of the tenure of our monarchy.* You well ex-
plained the “law of the constitution ” to me on this
subject. This “tenure” would be violated, should
* See Letter XVII, Sect. I.-The great difficulty in the debates
on Catholic Emancipation, was the reconciling the terms of the
coronation oath, with the possible contingency of giving strength
to a religion hostile to the Reformed faith, and the principles of
succession to the throne.
QUALMS OF CON SCIENCE. 24l
the king connive at the ascendancy of Catholicism
through any material postponement of the interests
of the reformed religion. Yes, I regretted to feel
that conscientiously, my spirit of religious toleration
must be a little checked | That is to say, I found,
that I was bound to assert and secure a preference of
strength and power to the Protestant church, whereas
I had previously considered that religion ought not
to be the cause of any distinctions, and, in fact, had
felt inclined to favour the Catholics no less than the
Protestants. Yes! with me it had been a project
to pay, ay, pay, the Catholic priesthood.* In the
* By withdrawing a certain portion of the Irish Protestant
revenue, together with a tax on the Catholics for their own clergy.
An example of paying equally a Catholic and Protestant clergy
exists in Prussia. The king is head of the Protestant Church,
and dispenses both Catholic and Protestant preferment. But
this parity of patronage can exist very well where the people
are allowed to support just what confession and church they
please. Not so in Ireland. The Catholic majority is here forced
to support a Protestant established church, besides their own
priesthood. While the Protestants are but one-third of the popu-
lation: the whole is nine millions,—six Catholics, three Protestants.
—See Report of Commissioners on state of religious instruction
in Ireland. As a proof, that paying the Catholic clergy would
prevent their exciting the people, may be cited a certain Agitator's
objection to it, when the subject was mooted a few years ago. By
making them servants of the government, the Catholic priests,
it is argued, would be no longer interested in exciting disaffec-
M
242 DE JUST BEFORE YOU’RE GENEROUS.
first place, I thought it would take away the jealousy
that prevails amongst them with respect to what
is called the “favoured” religion. I thought, Ire-
land would be in great measure quieted. In fact,
I did not contemplate that any postponement of Pro-
testant supremacy, would actually be against the
law by which the monarchy exists You have
clearly shown me, that this is however the case,
and that if equal favour, and equal recognition be
extended to the Catholic church in these realms—
why we stultify “all that our ancestors have done in
securing the throne in the Protestant line, and what
is more, stultify the results of the Reformation. I
shall not then consider it any longer illiberal to post-
pone. Catholicism to Protestantism. I see it is in-
cumbent on us to do so agreeably to our very alle-
giance to our monarch. Or if we do not, and the
legislature sanctions this last conclusion, the king of
these realms may just as well be Catholic Oh!
James | how then wert thou injured, if the march of
liberal opinion bring us to the conclusion, that one
tion against government. The same Agitator inveighed against
the tyranny of Prussia towards the Catholics, and of Holland
also, and Belgium.
* See Letter XVII. On the tenure and law of Monarchy, p.
142, 143.
GLANCE AT THE FUTURE. 243
religious system is as worthily recognized as another!
In this very point, I think I may augur the circum-
stances of change which will for some years to come
occupy the warmest anxiety, and deepest delibera-
tion of a reformed parliament. I say, I predict that
the day will come, when we shall, no longer think
it absolutely necessary to have our monarch a Pro-
testant, or sworn to a Protestant established church.
I may be wrong, but I am strongly inclined to think
such will be the result of the progress of change. It
is to this result, the Reform Bill has opened so wide an
avenue. I know that you consider the people of this
country, too much attached to the Protestant church,
ever to sanction the mooting such a question as that, of
its supremacy being shaken. Of course, Iconsider the
result as the work of time. You, as you have long
ago expressed, consider again this country essentially
in favour of a monarchy. 'You say, that the mon-
archy is even likely to be more popular since the
Reform Bill,” than before it, as the king will now
be more the king of the people—in choosing minis-
ters agreeable to the people. You say there is no
fear that he will be regarded as a non-entity, and
the mere shadow of the people, and therefore to be
* See Letter XVII. p. 139. 140.
M2
244 * POPULAR CAPRICE.
dismissed. You consider the love of the constitution
is paramount to the love of popular vanity, and re-
publican dictation. In the long run it may be so,
perhaps, but I certainly think the tenure of the crown
is very precarious. The caprice of the people is so
great: human nature, to which you have most properly
appealed,” is most changeable. If it is the nature of
the English in particular, to love a superior which all
acknowledge ºf as well as themselves, I on the other
hand lookatthe general mutability of man's disposition.
And I cannot help thinking that storms may arise when
the popular strength may overwhelm the monarchy.
In fact, the king only exists now where he is, on per-
mission. All power is in the hands of the people.
You will say, that their feeling of pride, of love of
distinction, of elevation in the social scale, actuates
them in preserving a monarchy, a court, and ranks of
nobility. I, on my part, while I unfold the great
catalogue of subjects where change must operate,
cannot help thinking that this energy of change will
conquer all other tendencies! I do not dispute, as I
have said before, that all you would support is best!
But best although it may be, I doubt the chance
of it. stability. What a number of corroborations of
* Letter X., p. 66, 67, t Ibid. Letter X., p. 63.
CICERO's DREAM. 245
this opinion have all the topics I have adduced in this
and the former Letter exhibited. Where will you
place the limit of change? I have expressed, in the
first of these two Letters, a doubt, as to the validity
of your great principle of security, namely,–the
attachment of the English to a monarchy.* But I
will waive this objection, and granting that attach-
ment, granting that our institutions are the best that
can be, I cannot help thinking that this progress of
change will prevail over the first and will innovate
on the last. I set out with this conviction, in the
commencement of our correspondence, and have been
consistent to the last. I do not think that any better
form of government than our Three Estates could
exist. The realization of Cicero's dream of a “per-
fect form” of government exists in it, and cannot be
surpassed. You see, your expositions have not been
without their effect on me. You have made me a
convert to your opinion of the excellence of our in-
stitutions, but while you state your confidence in
their stability based on the character of the English,
I dissent in this respect, from motives not of opposi-
tion, but from conviction that a great power is at
work, which is uncontrollable ! By the charter of
the Reform Bill every man is professedly a “Re-
* Letter X.
246 WHAT ARE ABUSEs 7
former,” however conservative he may be He ac-
knowledges the principle of amending all abuses.
The question then arises, what are abuses 2 And then
will come the next step, (granting the subjects under
consideration to be abuses,) namely, that of recon-
ciling their correction with safety to the constitution.
The moment “public opinion,” — the wide cry of
the people, has denounced such and such a particular
institution or usage as an abuse, away it must be
swept! The progress of change cannot stop. The
current of political agitation cannot cease to flow.
Feeling the force of this tendency as irresistible in its
cause as the ancient, tales of destiny, can you blame
me for the conviction I cherish, and which alone
forces me, against my wishes, to think you are mis-
taken in your views, rather than seek to oppose you,
in your principles? “Let well alone,” I would gladly
say with you. But I do not think this course of
change will permit.it to remain stationary.
I have willingly sought subjects of improvement in
our municipal and jurisprudential polity, in former”
Letters, rather than think any further of altering or re-
modelling our institutions. I have in this and the
preceding Letter explored “the field of change” as
it spread widely and perplexedly before me. It is
* Letters XVIII. and XIX. on Rights of Subject.
CHOICE OF EVILS. 247
the track where the mandate of “Reform * calls
away ! And having, now, expressed all the subjects
demanding notice in viewing the extent of probable
change, it is requisite to notice one or two points
where reform has already been at work. The Reform
Measure has, as I have expressed, on the “Rights
of the Subject” fallen short hitherto of the amend-
ments, it ought to have effected . This is a sin of
omission. But there are errors of commission also,
which deserve briefly to be noticed.
SECT. II. Now I am well aware that it is most
difficult to substitute any political measure for ano-
ther, or to enact any original provision in the hope
that such measure should be perfect or free from ex-
ception. I am aware that we can reasonably only
look for a choice of evils, rather than reckon on a posi-
tive good, and that in such a predicament the least of
evils is that which we should endeavour to choose.
These observations suggest themselves necessarily in
making any mention of the new law concerning the
relief of the poor. If this exhibits some great im-
provements,” yet it is, also, open to censure. I am in
the first place dissatisfied with it, since I consider
that there is much oppression in it which, in answering
* See the benefits of the new, contrasted with the evils of the
old Poor-law, p. 281, 282.
248 THE OLD MAN's CoMPLAINT.
you with reference to the rights of the subject, de-
serves notice. The coldness of philosophical the-
ories, as opposed to natural feelings, disgusts me.
I I chose to enter into detail I might particularize
many instances where this austere and heartless spirit
prevailed ; but as one fact is worth many mere specu-
lations, I can relate how I have been called on to
feel the harshness of which I complain. A poor
wretched man, grown too old and feeble to work,
but who struggled to gain a livelihood by “petty
chapmanship,” was asked why he did not apply
for relief from the parish. The man's answer was,
that such a step would entail on him a separa-
tion from the wife who had been his co-mate through
a long and at one time a prosperous life, and he could
not bear the thought of separation. “The thought,”
he added, “was bitter as death, for death alone
could separate them, and that to separate would be
death to him.” I thought to myself, this is hard ' I
felt, it was true! and regretted as I do now, that
there was a check on the legitimate happiness, and
liberty of the poor man by a measure purporting to
befriend the poor, and benefit Englishmen. I will not
enter, as I have already said, into all the particulars
illustrative of my position,-that reform has in this
instance made a false step; since they are well known
Monopoly AND CETRALIZATION. 249
by all, and all tend to support the same principle of
a violation of freedom. But the New Poor Law de-
mands consideration also in another point of view.
There is another aspect in which it will be seen to be
a disfigurement in the constitution. You have well
placed before me, in your exposition* of the code of
the constitution, that its spirit is that of jealousy
against all encroachments on liberty, either by se-
crecy of action, or monopoly of interest. Let me
ask then, if this is the case, does not the centraliza-
tion of power, in a body appointed by the govern-
ment, err against the jealous principle of the consti-
tution ? It is one step towards instituting a system by
which the creatures of government would control all
the local interests of the country. Power at that rate
would be a monopoly in the hands of government.
The destroying the “Local Administration of the Poor
Laws,” and vesting it in the commissioners of govern-
ment, is, then, in my opinion, a glaring abuse of the
reform contemplated in an amendment of the old
Poor Law. But the evil does not stop here. This
is not the only instance of monopoly and centraliza-
tion. The new Registration Bill is another instance
of the same mischievous principle. The new char-
* Letter XVI., p. 121, 122.
M 5
250 GOVERNMENT. PATRONAGE.
ter again of the London University exhibits it.
Such are specimens of the infringements of liberty
which I have to complain of, and which are
dangerous in their nature. Do not suppose, that when
I spoke of sins of commission a little while ago, I
intended perpetrating any pun. But even if I had
done so, the ribaldry or trifling of the jest, would
have been outbalanced by the seriousness of the evil
which the complaint suggests. No less than forty is
the amount of the commissionerships instituted. All
forming a great total of government patronage. No
doubt as far as inquiry into evils is concerned, they
are necessary: but when of regular continuance as a
board of authority, they are then to be viewed with
jealousy. No doubt again, that where centralization
improves” efficiency in public business, it is in this
* This is said with particular reference to the suggestion of
centralizing the police all through the country. The “Barnet
Association” has set the example of this measure, as will be seen
on a reference to the Report of the County Rate Commissioners.
“The Commission for enquiry into the best means of effecting a
constabulary force through England and Wales,” was appointed
in 1836. It may be added, that in different parts of the country
there are associations again for the prosecuting offenders. That
of Southam, Leamington, and Warwick, for example; but these
associations are in the hands of the people, and not of govern-
ment. It is here that the jealousies the text complains of arise.
Wherever the internal management of its concerns, through the
sountry, can be left with the people, it is better so left, as re-
gards the spirit of the constitution.
THE REFORM BILL IN DANGER. 251
respect a benefit; but still the cause of constitutional
jealousy is not removed, namely, that of giving such
an excess of patronage to a government. In fact,
the liberty of the subject is invaded; and the object
in great measure of leaving the people free agents,
which the Reform Bill endeavoured to effect, is
neutralized. In creating a system throughout the
country in which there are so many of its own crea-
tures, the government is going an insidious way to
bring back a majority of the country to its own pur-
poses, and, of course, its parliamentary strength is
what it chiefly would look to increase. What
matters it in which way the free agency of a people
is attacked and undermined? The result is a subju-
gation of constituencies, and a prostration of opinion.
In fact, a frustration of the effect and object of the
Reform Bill. But to say one word more on the terms
of the London University charter. The constraining
others to adopt opinions prescribed by ourselves, is not
acting according to principles of justice or freedom.
But is not this the case in the regulations contained in
the new charter to the London University for granting
degrees? Are not certain exclusive forms or precepts
of education required ? Is not freedom of choice cramp-
ed, limited, denied,—freedom of opinion, so dear to
252 PITT AND FOX.
Englishmen. If this is the case, the principle is uncon-
stitutional, not only from its illiberality, but from the
undue influence and monopolizing power it gives the
ministry, who advised the charter. Whatever gives a
government undue influence, serves to encroach on the
liberties of the people, and no less on the just prero-
gative of the crown; because an “imperium in im-
perio” is established. The most splendid instance of
opposition to such a doctrine, was exhibited in Pitt's
exposure and defeat of Fox's India Bill. The whole
power and patronage of India would have been in the
hands of the minister by this bill. The management
was vested by it in commissioners appointed by parlia-
ment. At that time, this was tantamount to the appoint-
ment being in the minister. Pitt introduced a measure
making the commissioners appointable by the crown:
the appointment open of course to the discussion of
parliament; but not instituting a power extraneous of
the interference and control of the crown.*
The growth of monopoly and centralization of
power is more glaring and more triumphant now
* See Belsham's Geo. III. He justly observes, there are great
constitutional objections to either plan. For the minister could
influence either the crown, as according to Pitt's plan, or a parlia-
mentary commission, as according to Fox's-See vol. iii. p. 348.
THE DISSENTERS AND THE UNIVERSITIES. 253
than it is possible to imagine under a reformed par-
liament could have been witnessed. The growth has
been insidious. The excuse most plausible—namely,
reform | Yes, reform itself, unless the greatest vigi-
lance is exercised, may be a cloak to the greatest op-
pression.
As to the London University, to say one word on
what is praiseworthy in its institutions,—it was itself
established to obviate monopoly! The universities of
Oxford and Cambridge,” in setting their faces against
dissenters, forced away many who looked forward to
gain a degree, to abandon their conscientious tenets of
dissent in order to cnable them to obtain this privilege.
Not only this, but many schools discouraged dis-
senters, by not recognising their observance of their
peculiar tenets, so that some place of education was
requisite where persons of all persuasions might re-
ceive the benefit of instruction, without reference to
religious opinion. This benefit was effected in the
institution of the London University. Still the de-
* Cambridge, if possible, was more tantalizing in her treat-
ment of Dissenters than Oxford. The first permitted them to
matriculate, study, keep terms, gain honours, but would not con-
cede the degree. The latter acted perhaps more charitably in
saying, keep away altogether.
254 SLIGHT INCONSISTENCY,
gree was wanting. The contest was violent on this
subject. Some argued for granting a charter for the
conferring degrees. Some raised the question of ad-
mitting dissenters to the privilege of a degree at the
universities of Oxford and Cambridge. But as they
were essentially Protestant establishments, where was
the justice of forcing them to admit persons who dis-
sented from their principles? “Let the dissenters by
all means have degrees,” it was argued—“but let
them have the privilege at some institution of their
own P’ This was but fair. According, then, to this
principle, the London University had its charter for
conferring degrees. The monopoly of the two uni-
versities of Oxford and Cambridge, was destroyed as
far as it affected them; and it is to be regretted that
another monopoly was attempted to be established
by the terms of the charter, as was above complained.
The inconsistency of a reformed parliament per-
mitting the growth of monopoly, renders the circum-
stance more glaring ! Its own arguments condemn
it in this instance. How warmly it inveighed against
the monopoly of the East India Charter, on the ques-
tion of retaining the China trade.* The trade was ac-
* It may be satisfactory to the reader to know the regulations
made as to the sale of Tea. A uniform duty was imposed, of
SPECIMIEN OF SINCERITY, 255
cordingly thrown open, as the India trade had beenbe-
fore. Then again the monopoly of exclusive enjoyment
of game, was broken down by permitting its free sale,
under a reasonable amount of licence, or duty. But
what are we to suppose of the sincerity of arguments
against monopoly as being unconstitutional, when we
see measures entered on so much for the aggrandise- .
ment of those who enact them, through the power of
monopoly? But I have said sufficient on this gross'
abuse of the Reform Bill. To have said less, would
have been deficient in a consideration like the pre-
sent, which would embrace the whole body and spirit
of constitutional law, as it exhibits itself at an era
when corruption and undue influence are supposed to
be gone by
And, now, “liberavā animam meam.” I have
stated what I thought imperfect towards achieving
the rights of the subject; and feel I shall not be at a
loss for themes to declaim upon to my constituents.
Every public man, I presume, should be alive to all
2s. 1d. per lb., by the 5 & 6 W. 4. in lieu of the various rates of
duties imposed by the repealed Act of 3 & 4 W. 4, 1836. The
subject of Tea, associated as it is with that of Sugar, suggests the
statement, that the East India sugar duty is reduced from the
former rate of 32s. to 24s. the cwt., being the same with that on
West India sugar, 1836. 6 & 7 W. 4. c. 26.
256 A CONSCIENTIOUS POLITICIA.N.
the subjects which permit him to raise his voice for
the sake of the public good. Do not imagine that,
like mere demagogues and agitators, I congratulate
myself on having topics at hand on which I may
excite a popular body by persuading it, it is wronged.
No, in my humble career, I would wish ever to speak
sincerely and solely for the interests of wholesome
liberty.
257
LETTER XXIV.
A difficult question proposed.—The Old M.P. is desirous to
know the result of his instructions on the mind and public
conduct of his Pupil.
I GIVE you full credit for your just views of the
progress of change now going forward. No doubt,
the struggle on the side of the Conservatives must be
unremitting to prevent its sweeping away our institu-
tions. Still you do not shake me in my confidence
in the attachment the English character and preju-
dice both have for the existing order of things. And
now, pray, to what party am I to consider you as
belonging? You gave me, I confess, some alarm on
the opening of our correspondence. You were dread-
fully Republican! But you have acknowledged that
the expositions into which my Letters have entered,
on the subject of our institutions, have led you to
258 whAT ARE You ?
coincide with me. Are you then Conservative? And
if so, how will you succeed with your Radical elec-
tors ? For Radical, many of them are, and all of
them determined Reformers?
LETTER XXV.
An attempt at a reply, ending in a “Query,” showing the diffi-
culty the “Tiro” experiences in the effort.—“Principle”
meantime is wavering in the balance with “Vanity.”—The
“Tiro” would fain please himself, and his Correspondent as
well, in his answer; for which very reason he effects neither.
You ask me of what party I am? Certainly, I feel
that you have somewhat puzzled me! By principle,
I should be what you term Conservative. I mean, I
would not impair the stability of our institutions.
Now, my “friends,” the electors, recognize in the
name of Conservative, the old Tory party, to which
they are hostile. They declare that this party is
utterly “insincere!” That when it is in power, it
will not go the length of wholesome reform. So,
they will “none on't!” The Whigs they mistrust
quite as much as the old Tories. They say the
Whigs have deceived them in many instances, in not
granting, for example, the abolition of impressment,
260 SPECIMEN OF “TEMPORIZING..”
of military torture (as they call it), of imprisonment
for debt, and other matters. They complain also of
the “nepotism” of the Whig leaders, the fallacy of
their “disinterestedness.” They object to the exorbi-
tant extent of the government patronage and power as
unconstitutional. And I agree with them, as I ex-
pressed in my last Letter on the subject of “cem-
tralization,” when animadverting on the commissions.
Well, then, was I to profess myself Radical at once?
I was not prepared to flatter my constituents so much,
and abandon my acquiescence in your instructions;
2
so I thought of “temporizing ;” and accordingly
met them boldly, and declared (pray listen!) I was
for “any extent of change, universal suffrage, vote
by ballot, and other extravagancies, if (mind!) I
could maintain them without endangering the con-
stitution!” They clamoured, of course, to know
to what party I belonged. They asked me the
question you ask. I told them I acknowledged no
party but my country. I enlarged on those prin-
ciples of candour and independence you enjoined
me to act upon in the beginning of our correspon-
dence, and was honest enough, on reflection, to tell
them that much which they required me to support
(such as the ballot and universal suffrage) was incon-
THE TIRO EME ARRASSED. 261
sistent with the constitution.* I told them their rights
were best preserved under the present form of govern-
ment. I succeeded in pacifying them as to my willing-
ness to reform, and even substitute and change, where
it was not detrimental; but I would not unreservedly
proclaim myself a “Radical.” I made as energetic a
display of the boast that my “country was my party.”
as I could. I wish to remain independent of all par-
ties, but I find that though I have enough of support
to secure my election, my uncertainty as to declaring
myself of one party or another, is looked on with sus-
picion by some who are more vehement in their
desire for change than the others. My “patriotism”
does not rescue me from exciting their discontent.
This is unreasonable, is it not?
* Which he implied in his exposition of the subject, p. 237,
where he is embarrassed as here, between his Conservative
Mentor and his Radical constituents.
262
LETTER XXVI.
The reply of a Man of the World, and what is more, an honest
man, to a Political Waverer. —The subject and state of
“Party” considered.—Union amongst Reformers of both the
old Whig and Tory parties recommended.—Since his honesty
is opposed by the whisperings of Vanity, advice, though it
may not be over-palatable with the “Tiro,” is still offered
him. g
You are, I see, in a dilemma! You ask me if it is
not unreasonable that you should be regarded with
suspicion or discontent by some of the electors, be-
cause you decline avowing yourself of such or such a
party? I beg to inform you such discontent is not at
all unreasonable! A man who professes no party will
displease and dissatisfy all parties, or, either party
out of two contending ones! Your patriotic harangues
and professions, to the effect that your “ country is
your party,” is looked on rather as a subterfuge for
some mental reservation,--as a cloak for some insin-
cerity or indecision. No! you must at once profess
NO JESUITRY. 263
yourself of such or such a party. And then, indeed,
you may declare that in maintaining such or such a
cause, you do so because it is for the benefit of the
country. You may then say your country is your
party, but not till then! So! Your electors mistrust
the Whigs as not going so far as they profess! This
is true in the instances you cite, otherwise I consider
they go too far ! Yes. They are no longer Whigs.
Why? Because they have outstepped the bounds of
that policy which the old Whigs esteemed as a prin-
ciple of action, *namely, upholding the constitution.
The moment the Whigs outstep this limit, they are
no longer “Whigs,” but become identified with the
Radicals. There is then an end of the Whig party.
They are merged in the Radical body. The former
Tory party has, as you say, been forced to profess
itself a “reforming body” since the Reform charter.
Well, their reform extends in principle merely to
wholesome improvement and correction of abuses,
and not to a subversion of the constitution. As a re-
forming body then they are what the old Whigs were.
* See the “Historical Note” appended to Letter XIV. p. 113.
Where the subject of parties was considered, with a different
object of argument. See also Bolingbroke's History of Parties,
where the distinction is drawn between supporting the Govern-
ment and the Constitution.
264 MAKE UP YOUR MINID.
Therefore, the Whigs, if consistent, ought to acknow-
ledge that they were now met by the old Tories. All
should unite as Conservatives of the Constitution.
The Whigs, in not doing so, but in outstepping the
bounds of constitutional change, forfeited the title of
Whigs, and the character of their ancestors, and
became Radicals. Meantime, the Whigs, such as
Lord Stanley and Sir James Graham, who made the
acknowledgment just set forth, became Conserva-
tives. The Whig and Tory Conservatives joined, in
this instance, in one common cause. And you will
see if the arguments of my former Letters are founded
upon any knowledge of the English people,” that this
united body will alone remain permanently strong
and firm in the confidence and support of the people.
There are now only two parties in the country, Conser-
vatives or Destructives. Whig and Tory are at an end.
You must either then profess yourself a Radical, or a
Conservative. In principle you have avowed yourself
to be the last to me. Your ambition for a seat in parlia-
ment will not permit you to abandon this object of
your wishes. Coming forward, as you did, a
republican, and supported by violent reformers, and
some of them republicans, you cannot of course, tell
* See Letters X., XI, XIV., XVII., p. 140, XXII., p. 214.
AN AW KWARD ALTIERNATIVE, 265
them you are, though a reformer of abuses, yet not
a Radical like themselves; or they will call you
“Tory!”. Your game will then be at an end. No
wonder you are looked on with distrust and dis.
content, in not either abandoning your canvass or
declaring yourself a Liberal, or Radical. But one or
other alternative should be adopted in consistency
with public honesty.
266
LETTER XXVII.
The words of the Preacher exemplified “Vanity, Vanity, all is
but Vanity!”—“Principle” “kicks the beam.”—The cha-
racter of the “Tiro” is consistent throughout.—He postpones
considerations of Principle to the “love of display.”—
“Qualis ab inceptoprocesseritetsibi constet.”—Expediency.
—Reconciling oneself to Conscience.—A fair specimen of
the main-spring of human action which is Self-Love, rather
than Public Spirit or Disinterestedness.-Illustration of the
weakness of a mere Political Character.—The force of Oppo-
sition in stimulating Genius.
Do not fear, but that my watchword shall ever be “The
Constitution!” But resign my “seat.”... How can you
expect such an effort of self-denial in a young man
starting on the course of public life, ardent for the
race 7 Impossible ! I shall be as honest as I can.
You may smile ! But what can I do? Had you let
me alone and not talked me out of my republicanism,
I should have been spared all this embarrassment
As it is, I must resort to the principle of expediency
“ExPEDIENCY.”—STRUGGLE of sBLF-LovE. 267
for the adoption of which, statesmen give me so
many authorities In fact it is “expedient” for me if I
wish to gratify my ambition to profess myself in plain
terms a radical ' Yes. Both you and the electors
press me to be explicit to declare of what party I
am. Either this or the withdrawal of my claims, you
say, must be my alternative. Ambition forbids the
last ! therefore the other alternative alone remains !
My situation is an amusing and not uninteresting ex-
ample of that conflict which frequently takes place
in public life between principle and ambition. Be-
tween honesty and interest Alas! I am condemning
myself, I feel ! But are there not great allowances
to be made for a young man anxious not to fling
away an opportunity of coming forward in public
life? But away with hesitation. The step being re-
solved on of coming forward as a Radical, the next
step must be that of reconciling my conscience! This
is always the way of guilt | You see how I condemn
myself; this is some palliation of my iniquity
Though political guilt is excusable or used to be so,
in a public man. Remember Sir Pertinax Mac
Sycophant's maxim, that there are “two consciences,
a political and a moral one !” But I will endeavour
to quiet my conscience by considering that in
N 2
268 QUIETING ONE’s “conscience.”
acting as I do, I make a sacrifice to youthful vanity
rather than to bad principle. I really believe this
is the truth. I declare, though I profess myself
radical, yet I have already told you I have ex-
pressed my determination to uphold the constitu-
tion. You will say, that I know many radical
measures are inconsistent with its safety. Well
then, where is my relief in this difficulty Where
my consolation ? Why, in feeling that, according
to your exposition, the majority of the country be-
ing so decidedly in favour of the constitution and its
conservation, there can be no danger arising from the
radical minority. I am obliged to support I believe
I have here expressed the secret of many a pseudo-
patriot's vehemence in the cause of liberty namely,
that what he really thought was dangerous, he could
still clamor for. Why? Because he well knows
there is no chance of its being conceded. So, too, can
I hold forth as “radically” as I please, without any
fear of danger. It is thus I must calm and appease
the expostulations of conscience, and yourself. As I
have told you, I have no alternative Again, another
source of consolation presents itself, another source of
flattering self-love. Not only shall I now enter on the
field my ambition pants for, but I shall enter it on
THE TIDE OF OPPOSITION, 269
the side, and in the quarter where I can contend most
agreeably to my own disposition, and natural charac-
ter. I mean in the ranks of opposition I firmly be-
lieve, without the stimulus of opposition, all my po-
litical ardour would be at an end. My pulse would
cease to throb with hilarity or necessary excitement,
and my periods would flag on my tongue. I should
do nothing without this vital principle within me of
action, namely, opposition. If this is a fault of tem-
perament, forgive it; but I feel I cannot, at this early
stage of my career, remedy it. It is the source of all
mental energy with me, and of exhibition of genius
with most. “Opposition,” (I have been accustomed
to say,) “let me court thee ever! thou art the stimu-
lus of our nobler energies, and the soul of action the
stream flows but tamely on its smooth course, until it
is ruffled by the wind. And so, the stream of action
is low and languid, until stirred by the breath of op-
position. Then its waters bear high their crests then
the standers-by gaze in silent awe at the power of the
torrent, as they mark, in admiration, the pinnace of
genius wafted along it with triumphant colours, bear-
ing the mighty freight of aggrandisement to man,
glory to nations, and benefit to the world.”
270
LETTER XXVIII.
Reply to the preceding.—Reflections on political Abandonment
of Principle appropriately illustrated in a correspondence
of this nature.—New arguments for not unsettling existing
Institutions.—View of the condition of the Country.—Its
Social Aggrandisement arising from Scientific improve-
ments.-‘‘Benefit to the country from Railroads con-
sidered.—Machinery.—Resources of the Soil.—Coal and
Iron-Manufacturing and Agricultural Interests reciprocal.
—Corn Laws and Artificial System of “Prices.”—Picture
of the present and past condition of Rural Economy.—
“Large and Small Farm” System.—The aera of the War
and High Prices.—Paper Currency.—Effects of change in
the Standard.—Credit System.—Rents.-The Farmer.—The
Peasant—The Pauper—his improved condition.—“Poor
Allotments.”— Poor Rates.—Old and New Poor Law.—
New Market for Labour.—Brief inquiry as to the fallacy
of the “Malt-tax Repeal” cry, under existing circum-
stances.—Mischief of exciting discontent: as retarding any
chance of the Farmer's fortunes rallying.—Reflections in
Conclusion.
I AM much concerned to think that vanity should so
much prevail with you to the postponement of prin-
ciple, that you should have made the avowal your
last letter contained. What matters it that you have
HAMPIDEN. 27 |
the example of many great men for giving way to an
individual feeling of selfishness as a motive for public
conduct? Had they been actuated by loftier motives
they would have been more estimable and conse-
quently greater. Hampden's name and history would
have shone with greater lustre had he not kindled
into patriotism, from the incitement of mortified
pride.* Private pique, I am too well aware, has
been, and will be, to the end of time, a great, because
bitter stimulus to the exertion of talent. But this
display of power would be more praiseworthy were its
source more magnanimous. Greatness must eschew
the taint of selfishness. The two qualities Cannot
exist together. You see I give you lessons of moral
rectitude no less than political conduct; for the first
can alone render the latter valuable or gain the pos- -
sessor the confidence of his country as a public man.
For an example of this lofty combination, it is with
feelings of pride and gratification that I consider the
present times afford a character. I may point to Sir
Robert Peel. I speak perfectly impartially with re-
* It is said Hampden was piqued at the disappointment in his
expectations of gaining a peerage. See D'Israeli's Curiosities of
Literature, and Lord Nugent's Life of Hampden. Certainly
Hampden's station in the country, as a landed proprietor, would
have made his desire of elevation reasonable.
272 PITT.-PEEL.
ference to his particular opinions, and care not
whether they be Whig or Tory. I speak of his gene-
ral character. I recommend you to ask yourself why
he possesses the confidence of Englishmen? I ask
you why Pitt possessed it in times past? Consider
the statements I have just made, and you will not be
at a loss for an answer. I would wish to be lenient;
I would wish to make excuses for you, on the ground
of your youth, when vanity is more excusable, per-
haps, than in a more advanced and mature state of
the judgment, when the feelings are sobered. At
any rate, you condemn yourself. You acknowledge
your guilt. Your doing so, gives me a hope that, on
reflection, your better conviction may lead you to at-
tach yourself to the side which conscience represents
as best. What though you do so with the sacrifice
of a little selfish longing for display ? Be not afraid,
if you have any talent or genius, that opportunities
will be wanting of exhibiting those qualifications.
They will vindicate themselves in the light of day on
whatever side of politics you may contend. Wishing
still to make excuses for you, in the confidence you
will at length take “ yourself out of a false position,”
I will say for you, that you are consistent. You be-
gan the correspondence with avowing your vanity,+
, LovE of “DISPLAY.” 273
your despair at the thought of mortified self-love, and
want of opportunity to display. You saw your own
weakness, and were so far in conformity with that
great admonition, “Know thyself.” There are hopes
of you! Again, I must give you credit for con-
sistency in upholding, to the last, your sentiment on
the progress of change. This is a deduction you have
justly made from existing circumstances. I see
plainly enough that it is a sort of recklessness, and
despair of the stability of things as they are, as much
as from vanity, that makes you profess yourself
Radical ' You say to yourself, “The stream of
change must have its way. It is useless to try to
stem it, or stay its progress eventually. Why, then,
not float down with it?”
And so, satisfied with this conclusion, you would
willingly see this vehement torrent whirl away with it
our institutions, social, political, and religious, with-
out trying to avert, or weaken, not to say stop, its
fury!
Consider what you say ! You give your Radical
friends a proviso, that you will promote all sorts of
“liberal ” measures, if you shall be satisfied they will
not impair the stability of the constitution. If you
think, meantime, they will so impair it, how dishonest
N 5
274 sHARP ExposTULATION.
you are to them again! and this in addition to your
dishonesty to myself in deserting me when I had
hoped to have made you my convert | Why did you
acquiesce in my expositions of the excellence of our
institutions, if your belief in their instability led you
ultimately to uphold a course of politics hostile to
them : Why do you again tamper with these Radi-
cals, whom I am sure you must abandon, SOOmer Or
later? Indeed, vanity is a crime, not merely a folly,
when it leads to a deviation from principle. But, in
a political correspondence, such a character as that
you have exhibited is worthily held up to censure. I
fear it is too true a picture of the weakness of human
nature, to say nothing of the giddiness of youth. I
will, by and by, show you a specimen of better quali-
ties for the formation of character. At present I can-
not help pausing and looking around me at this great
country, and considering how fatal to its peace and
greatness would be any infatuated change. My
views will exhibit new features in addition to those
in a former letter.” Security and public confidence
are the great results to be attained by good govern-
ment. These are the mainstays of social improve-
ment and moral and political aggrandisement. Who
* Letter XI.
The Force of A “w ATCHworD.” 275
would wish to convulse the condition of prosperity
that exists under the safeguard of our present institu-
tions? This prosperity I shall proceed to prove in this
letter. Refer once again to my former letters * on
our social and political condition; did I not succeed
in proving it as not only the best, but the dearest, to
Englishmen? Our aristocratic character universally,
from the highest to the lowest, renders our monarchical
and noble “Estates” dear. ‘f Security, I say, and
public confidence exist most strongly under a form of
government agreeable to the disposition or even pre-
judice of a people. Alter that form, you set the whole
frame-work of society ajar. No! let the watchword
be “The Constitution l’” It is a watchwordſ of which
the people of England know the force. It has a spell
that will control all Radical ventilations of theoretical
improvement.
Happy is it to see this country improving and in-
creasing in civilization every successive year ! The
* Letters X, XI, + P. 83.
f The force of this was understood by Cromwell in his agita-
tion under the Parliament's military commission in 1642, when
the civil war broke out. Its force, in later times in the “No
Popery” cry, has been repeatedly proved both in the Gordon riots
and the Catholic Emancipation question. The watchword has the
force of a national ballad—of the Marseillaise; it is now the
“Constitution in danger.”
276 “GolNG BY STEAM.”
whole island is being brought together as one
great machine, whose manifold springs are all working
in harmony The railroads, to which I refer in saying
this, will render communication so rapid and easy that
the negociations of commerce will be facilitated to the
utmost benefit of society. The distance and delay that
retards communication in other countries retard im-
provement. In the effects of steam, human ingenuity
is achieving a great triumph over all physical obstacles
to amelioration. Time and Space are annihilated
Such is the impulse, then, given to that great prin-
ciple of civilization, viz., rapidity of internal commu-
nication. This blessing is in itself a sufficient
achievement to satisfy a commercial country,” without
uselessly looking round for extraneous and unnatural
causes of discord and confusion.
The rapidity of communication is concurrent and
co-existent with the rapidity of production or supply.
Machinery, like magic, is endlessly producing; and that
its storest are multiplying and unfailing, that all it
* Whatever yields increased commercial prosperity lightens
the burden of taxes in increasing the ability to meet them. This
is the only enlightened view of seeking the reduction of such
burden as long as we must pay the interest of the Debt.
+ This facility of production has given good clothing cheap to
the people. What ignorance, then, is exhibited in the war that
was waged against machinery, on its first being generally adopted!
IDENTITY OF INTEREST.S. 277
supplies is consumed—are proofs of the great means
also of consumption, and consequently the universal
fund of prosperity that exists.” Of course temporary
causes of distress and fluctuations in property, may
always be expected. † The most conspicuous of our
national resources at present—that is—resources of
the soil—are those of coal, and next, iron.
The interests of the manufacturing and agricul-
tural classes are identical. They reciprocally sup-
port each other. I speak generally of agricultural
enterprise: of course its amount of prosperity will
vary according to the different qualities of the soil.
As they yield a harvest to industry with more or less
expense, they must, of course, be more or less sources
of prosperity. j. But I look to the great market of
* As one instance of increasing fortunes, consider the great
profits now made by those who possess coal mines. They are
an immense natural resource. The demand for coal, in conse-
quence of steam and gas, is immense ! and will be still continuing.
This country, from its fertility in coal, will supply others, as steam
communication increases abroad, much more than it does now.
At home, employment is increased, and the means also of con-
sumption, all which benefits both farmer and trader.
t Such, for instance, as a sudden expansion and contraction of
issues in the monetary market (see note p. 83), and the effects of
bad seasons as influencing the amount and price of agricultural
produce, with other causes.
f Take the instance of the flinty soil of Buckinghamshire, as
compared with the light fine soil of Norfolk. Agriculture is one
278 POLITICAL ECONOMISTS.
consumption. The farmer has reason for exultation
as a general result. Let those who would abolish
the corn laws, in the first place consider the im-
mense mass of labouring population that would, in
such an event, be thrown out of employment, and
forced on the parishes | Granting that wheat could
be procured cheaper from Poland, and by impor-
tations from Saxony, yet what would be saved the
country in this respect would be lost to it in others.
Theorists will sneer at the pictures of health and
hardiness which a “rural peasantry” exhibits. They
would look with more complacence at a “manu-
facturing population” throughout the country. They
would willingly exchange the hale peasant for the
pallid artisan, and sickly though praiseworthy me-
chanic. They would willingly see the country one
whole workshop ! But let us ask these acute the-
orists, is there no duty imposed on the country even
at a certain sacrifice acquiesced in by each class
and interest assisting the other to support the bur-
den of the national debt? The artificial system of
high taxation required that great support should be
hundred and fifty per cent. more expensive in the former county.
I speak of a portion of the soil. In some parts it is far better
than in others. The county is much of it, in the northern por-
tion, pasture land, in the lower, arable.
THE DAWN OF PROSPERITY. 279
given to the influential and large interest of the landed
proprietary. Rents must be supported in this country
from the artificial * situation in which we are placed
With a great landed aristocracy you cannot, short of
revolution say, “Turn all of you manufacturers, and
leave off tilling the land!” People, then, who talk at
present of an extinction of our “corn laws” talk at
random. Labour is not cheap + with us, at it is in
Poland and Saxony; until it is equally so, (from a
relief in our national burdens) it is impossible that
the price of corn can be low in this country. But
is anything lost to the opposite interest—that of
the manufacturer ? Certainly not. He disposes of
an equivalent share of manufactures at the same
standard of price. Mark this If corn were lower
a good deal, he would obtain less for his goods !
The standard, in fact, of prices, is artificially high,
but equal in its level and effect, as regards all “in-
terests,” the agricultural and manufacturing, alike.
* We are considering the operation of the Debt on rents and
the landed interest here. Its effect also on the commercial in-
terest is to be kept in view; and for the legitimate means of best
bearing the burden, see note 276. *
+ In this free country a man looks to remuneration for his
labours; meantime, the serf in Holland and Saxony has no such
claim He works without any price or reward for his labour.
280 MARKET OF LABOUR.
As the national burdens have admitted of being cur-
tailed, rents have fallen, and the condition of the
farmer has become ameliorated from various circum-
stances. If the “New Poor Law” has its faults, yet,
in opening a free market for labour,” it has not only
done a great benefit to the poor man, but has dis-
burdened the farmer and the parish where there was
an overplus of working hands. The diminution of
parish burdens is the greatest relief to the farmer at
present, and it stands to reason that concomitant with
this, the supernumerary hands that were before to be
paid for by him, now by obtaining labour in other
quarters, become customers out of their earnings for
landed produce. So the farmer's market is increased.
It may be confidently hoped that the adjustment of
the tithe question will yield all the benefit that is pre-
dicted. For now speculation in agriculture is cramped,
since, under the tithe system, additional produce en-
tails additional chargeability. Another great bless-
ing to the agricultural interest is the improved condi-
* No man is now forced to remain at his settlement. The
greatest tyranny used to exist in sending away a man from a spot
where he was seeking labour, back to his settlement. The settle-
ment system is abolished.
+ This has been called “double tithe.” Sir T. Acland will
understand the force of the illustration in the text. He has pre-
sided at meetings to petition on this particular grievance.
A HAPPY PICTURE. 281
tion of the poor labourer as regards the system of al-
lotments. Here is not only a gain achieved for the
labourer in the balance * acquired over and above the
little rent he pays, but his moral condition, and that
of his children is good, and presents a picture of
industry, where before it was bad, and exhibited pau-
perism, idleness, and crime. The improved rural
polity of this country is one of the happiest features
in the present era of its domestic history.
There was a time previously to the late wars in which
England was engaged, when the farmer and the la-
bourer dwelt and ate under the same roof; the first was
the friend of the last; the farmer's wife was the thrifty.
housewife, and his family was taught the homely arts
of housewifery and farming. The country was then
parcelled out into small farms. The high prices +
* According to the statements published on the subject, the
profit was sometimes double the outlay. And in instances now
in view, of an allotment, of which the expenses in rent and cul-
tivation were 4l., a balance was gained of 3l. Added to the
remarks of the text as to the improved rural condition of the
poor, the diffusion of education among the younger portion and
adults may also be called to mind. On this subject see the ob-
servations in Letter XXII., p. 230.
f Wheat was 25s. per bushel at certain periods; the quartern
loaf 2s. ; the sack of wheat was 5l. ; oats were 35s.; and barley
38s, per quarter, containing eight bushels; pease were at 8s. and
9s, per bushel ; flour was 7s. 9d per peck, (1803. 1804.)
282 THE “GENTLEMAN ?’ FARMER.
that existed during the war when England was depen-
dent on herself for her provisions in corn, occasioned
great emulation in the agriculturists to extend the
scale of their speculations.
The small farms were then merged, many of them,
in a larger scale of establishment. The “Large Farm
System,” as it was called, sprung up now. The far-
mer became what was styled “the gentleman farmer.”
The barrier of distance was now first placed between
him and the labourer. The wife and daughters were
educated in arts of luxury, and forgot their rural code
of housewifery. The country was dependent on the
agricultural interest, and the farmer reaped his full
benefit by the circumstances. But the day of fortune
at length passed away. The war over, and the prices
lowered, agricultural exultation was on its wane.
Meantime burdens increased in the shape of poor-
rates, in consequence of the disbanded troops thrown
on the country, and the increasing population. But
the reverse became yet more gloomy in the alteration
of the currency. The rents, the prices of goods, the
taxes, being all according to the standard of a depre-
ciated paper currency, a positive loss was experienced
in a return to “cash payments.” The price of land be-
came, comparatively, next to nothing. Estates that
A CHANGE FOR THE BETTER. 283
had been bought for such and such a price in the
“paper currency, or depreciated standard, were now
unable to recover half the amount. Agricultural
distress became fearful! Rents fell, but not suffi-
ciently to counterbalance the increase of poor-rates.
In fact, agriculture, till within a late period, and the
relief afforded in the particular of “parish burdens,”
was an utterly ruinous speculation.
The large farms were found unmanageable during
this period of distress—the era commencing more par-
ticularly after the enactment of Peel's Bill in 1819. *
In the time of “high prices,” they were scarcely large
enough to satisfy the rapacity for gain of the farmer.
Now the rents of them were ruinous. They were eaten
up with the rates. To return to the system of small
* It should be observed also, that with the fall of the paper
currency, a shock was given to that system of unlimited credit
which had prevailed. This at length fell with a mighty crash
some years afterwards. Its objection used to be, that it enabled
many adventurers in trade and agriculture to set business on foot
without any substantial foundation of capital. The bankruptcies
in consequence were of great extent. On the other hand, it
afforded facility to prudent speculation. Its gambling charac-
teristics, however, were the most conspicuous; and now, a whole-
somer state of credit exists, based on the solid foundation of pro-
perty. Not many years ago, a man without any proper resources
of money or effects, could obtain credit. The finishing blow to
this system was given in the famous “Bubble” explosion of the
year 1825-6,
284 THE POOR ALLOTMENTS,
farms was impossible almost. New homesteads must
have been built throughout the country; to afford
which result, there were no means. The consequence
was, that land was left often desolate. A check to
all agricultural energy was afforded by the poor-rates.
The principle of idleness, and the accompanying cer-
tainty of provision from the parish, occasioned an
overflow of pauperism. In fact, land-owners were
obliged to quit the country. Mansions and seats were
deserted. The estates were literally mortgaged to
the poor The farmer, in many instances, became
the pauper, in his own parish. The landlord had
his farms yielded up to his own management; or if
he obtained any rent, it was an utterly inadequate
one. The poor and the taxes swallowed all.
Such was a picture of our rural condition from 1819
till within a few years ago, when the increased con-
sumption, consequent on the increase of population, the
change of ownership, into the hands of rich traders, of
a good deal of the land through the country—the
establishment, in many instances, of smaller farms ”
* The evil of the “large farms,” in many instances, cured
itself; for as it was utterly impossible to cultivate them, they were
thrown up by the tenant, who was ruined. The landlord was
obliged then to split them, in letting them again. But the ex-
pense here of erecting a new homestead for the partition thus
A CPIA N G E FOR THE BETTER, 285
more agreeable to the straitened means of their
former possessors—the subsequent improvement of
the condition of the poor for the reasons already
mentioned—all these causes produced a change for
the better in the humbled fortunes of the agricul-
turists. They are now, comparatively speaking, pros-
pering. The “Poor Allotments” had the excellent
feature of bringing back, on a diminutive scale,
the “small farm system.” This was a manageable
system, agreeable to the power of a small outlay
and moderate profit. The large farm system was
raising the farmer into a kind of Nabob, and de-
stroying the character of the old farmer. It was not
made, deterrred many proprietors from making this effort to let the
land. This was an obstacle to a general return to the “small
farm” economy. No doubt, with a good capital, farming on a
large scale is infinitely more profitable than on a small. Ambition,
aided by opulence, can work wonders in the first instance. Mo-
derate profit and content were the characteristics of the old Eng-
lish farmer. The new school of political economy was endlessly
swelling forth the praises of what could be done by an “accumu-
lation of capital.” Very true; but this great fund is not at the
command of all, and in its prosperity is witnessed the aggran-
dizement of a few. The principle of monopoly taints it. It is a
wholesomer doctrine to give a little to all. The flowing and
mighty river is, indeed, a grand object as it takes its stately course
along, but it is the little rills that intersect the valley that bring
abundance and beauty to it, and call forth its flowers and deck
it in verdure.
286 SMALL FARM SYSTEM.
a natural condition for the tillers of the soil. It
could only answer for a season. The gain was the
exorbitant balance of return over and above the
outlay. But subsequently, not even the “political
occonomist, who preached the doctrine of large farms
and large capitals, could find their theory of profit
realized. The capital was supplied at a loss where-
ever it was supplied. The burthens of the parish for-
bad all return. The farmers sighed for the small farms
again, where there was less to be kept up : less to be
rated, at an amount beyond the power of the produce
to pay. Where the produce could not be raised on a
portion and the farm left desolate, in part or in whole,
the ruin of the farmer of course ensued. The healthy
state of agricultural economy was found, in fact, to
existin the smaller” scale of establishments, where the
* MacCulloch's authority is decisive on the fact of a general
effort having been made to return to the small-farm system. He
shews that in the West of England, in the North, and generally
throughout the country, land is subdivided into “small farm
establishments.” The mass of obscure petty land-owners con-
stitute the bulk of the class. And far the greater proportion of
properties are less than 1,000l. a-year. The average of property
for each land-owner would be annually only 150l. a-year. The
gross rental being 30,000,000l. a-year, and the total number
of proprietors 200,000 in England and Wales. It is in Cheshire
and the East Riding of Yorkshire, that there are comparatively
few small farms. See Dict. of Commerce.
GUILTY CHICAN ERY. 287
speculation indeed was less, but the return more cer-
tain; where ostentation on the part of the farmer was
at an end; where the farmer was himself again in his
true character—not strutting about as a “mongrel-
gentleman.” I endeavour to exhibit to you both the
social and agricultural condition of the “farm his-
tory;” to afford you a picture both of the economy
of the farm and the character of him who conducted
it. In fact, the rural condition of England is now
assimilating itself very much more to what it was.
It is prospering. It exhibits a more natural as well
as more healthful feature. Those who cry up the
tale of “agricultural distress” are wrong and wicked.
They strive to excite disaffection where there is every
reason to excite cheerfulness and confidence for the
future. The cries of “reduce the malt-tax” that
were vociferated some time ago, were merely so much
political chicanery on the part of those who wished
to secure the interest of the farmers in their parlia-
mentary prospects. This was effected by endeavour-
ing to persuade them they were aggrieved by the
malt-tax. But the trick, however, coming as a po-
litical achievement, is heartless, and is incalculably
mischievous amongst the rural community who are its
dupes. There is in this impost little of grievance, as
288 PRINCIPLE OF INDEPENDENCE.
the state of the country is. If that tax were reduced,
others must be imposed to make up the deficiency
in the revenue, and the farmer left as before.*
The country, in fact, is prospering in every depart-
ment. In the instance of the lower orders, the “pau-
per” is a name now becoming less frequent and odi-
ously motorious. The principle of independence and
of “work for subsistence” is again gaining strength
and asserting its legitimate sway. The labourer far
and wide is seen happy and flourishing under the
allotment system, already observed upon. The farmer
and the manufacturer are reciprocally benefiting each
other. The body of artisans are seldom now forced
Y
into discontent. ‘f All classes are as prosperous as our
* The saving to the farmer, as was stated in the last great
debate on the question in 1835, during Sir R. Peel's ministry,
was trifling. To the poor man not a halfpenny a pot. The
farmer has at present great time given him by the collector to
pay. And if the duty were reduced, he would have fresh burdens
indirectly imposed on him. Meantime, the agriculturists have
no right to complain, for the total reduction of agricultural taxes
since 1815 are 12,929,577.l.
+ This topic calls to mind the Combination laws, which rescued
the workman from the tyranny of the master; but in doing so, it
subjected him to the tyranny of himself! The evil has cured
itself, generally speaking; as the workman, self-punished by
seceding from work, soon found that he could not live by such a
plan. The man, willing to work for his family, but under the
interdict of his fellow-workmen against doing so, was literally
tyrannized over.
*
SPECIMIEN OF FORBEARANCE. 289
national burdens will permit. The genius of inven-
tion, of enterprise, of commerce, of civilization, is
triumphant. These energies are protected in security,
I repeat, by our settled institutions, congenial to the
disposition of the nation. Why, then, would you
wish to embark on experiments to unsettle them and
convulse the growing prosperity ?” I have given you
the above picture of our different domestic conditions
to show you, really, that few causes for dissatisfaction
and discontent exist. I trust it may afford an addi-
tional argument to induce you, eventually, to support
the institutions our earlier correspondence analyzed.
You are at present hurried away by impulse, by
vanity; but I have no doubt, that when this ebulli-
tion of feeling, this longing for distinction (natural
to young men on first starting into public life) shall
have subsided, you will see clearly the path you
Ought to pursue. Looking forward to this result,
I shall not consider it advice thrown away, to say a
word on what your character as a public man ought
to be. This I will do in my next Letter.
# Of countºler will always be temporary causes of distress
and fluctuations in the tide of prosperity, as mentioned with re-
spect to variations in the currency, in note, p. 83. But what is
here said is an argument drawn from a survey of the general
sources of wealth and prosperity that exist, as for example, coal,
and iron, so enormously consumed by steam and gas works.
O
290
LETTER XXIX.
A word in “sorrow more than anger,” to the Delinquent from his
Political Mentor.—Hints as to character.—Public Integrity.
—Fortitude.—Knowledge.—Analysis of Courage or Con-
fidence in public.—Its sources.—Danger of young Politicians
“talking” to show cleverness.--Dignity of character in a
Public Speaker.—“Men and Measures.”—Further advice
for the conduct of a Public Man.—Brief survey of Society
previously and subsequent to the Reform Bill; when the
People became their own masters, and the sympathies of
the different ranks in Society more approximated—being a
word at parting.”
AFTER what I said in the commencement of my last
Letter as to moral rectitude being essential to gaining
public respect, I need scarcely add a word on the
subject. Honesty is, be assured, the best policy.
It wins public confidence where no talent will, with-
out it. If you fail to command public respect, you
will never acquire any real authority over the English
mind. Whatever, then, your abilities may be as a
statesman or an orator, let integrity and disinterested-
ness characterize your conduct in a moral point of
view. Let your study be a high bearing, a straight-
forward line of conduct, explicitness in stating your
THE STAGY RITE. 291
opinions and determinations. I will, then, forgive
your present declaration of vanity in the hope of your
future amendment. You are now weak! Learn that
virtue, public as well as private, is ever strong in con-
scious rectitude. This naturally leads me to the
characteristic that, in a political point of view, is no
less requisite than integrity in a moral. I speak of
fortitude. No wonder the great sage of Stagyra .
placed fortitude in the first rank of his catalogue of
virtues, for without the exercise of this the others are in-
efficient in their developement and due exercise. What-
ever assaults, then, may be made against against your
measures, you must exhibit unshaken firmness. Of
course, I am supposing that you never enter on any
measures except advisedly, and after due deliberation.
Your honest conviction must be, that they are the
best that the circumstances at hand require. Many
men of the greatest personal courage often appear
weak and wavering, from the uncertainty and hesita-
tion arising from want of knowledge of the subject.
No man of sense or ability likes to expose himself by
talking on a topic on which he is not fully competent
to speak. No man likes to undertake a duty for
which he has not been properly qualified. Take the
instance, for example, of a man at the bar, who has
had no previous “legal education,” however great his
o 2
292 SOURCES OF CONFIDENCE.
talent and general erudition. This person, if he has
any proper sense of his situation, must feel himself
much embarrassed. Should technical points arise,
on which the fate of cases so often hangs, he is sen-
sible that he is not qualified to discharge his duty to his
client and the public. This apprehension, then, must
necessarily embarrass and confound him, and give him
that appearance of hesitation and timidity that a due
knowledge and initiation in the mysteries and prac-
tice of an artificial system of rules* would have pre-
vented. But I cite this instance as one which I
know not unfrequently to exist in the history of legal
adventurers; and of political “ignoramuses * I
could mention a host. The instance I have adduced
precisely illustrates Socrates’t famous analysis of the
causes of courage and timidity. The sage places the
confidence of the greater part of mankind in their
superior knowledge of the subject they undertake.
A man who knows not to quell a fierce hard-
mouthed charger, does not like to exhibit himself as
an equestrian, from a desire not to expose himself in
* What would even Erskine himself have done, with all his
splendid eloquence, had he not been guided by the previous in-
structions of Buller?
t See Plato's Dialogues, the “First Alcibiades,” or “Of the
Nature of Man.”
A “CLEv ER You NG MAN.” 293
an act for which he is not qualified, and not that he is
naturally fearful. You will find this rule almost uni-
versal,—whatever you feel you know well, you will
take pleasure in practising, because you are sensible
you are strong in it. If young men, in your situation,
would only bestow a thought on this golden maxim, it
would save them infinite mortification, ridicule, dis-
comfiture, and exposure. A “clever young man’’ as
he is called, prates away upon all topics, most of them
infinitely above him, and with which he is not conver-
sant and consequently incompetent to discuss them.
Still he prates, wrapped up in the husk of self-satis-
faction and conceit. Eschew this weakness. This
folly may pass current in idle conversation, and may
impose on many as ignorant as himself; but, the mo-
ment he begins to prate at random on matters of busi-
ness, and in public, such as law or politics, in a court
or in parliament, his shallowness is at once exposed and
his downfall melancholy. The derision indulged in at
his expense is great in proportion to his previous self-
satisfaction. I am now supposing the case of a con-
ceited aspirant, who is not so sensitive as to his want of
knowledge. But to return to the person more con-
scientious, more sensible of his weakness. The ap-
prehension that he will constantly be in, that he will
294 GENIUS AND INDUSTRY.
expose himself, will unnerve him and render him in-
efficient. Therefore, lay up, store up eagerly, constantly,
anxiously, the substance, the precious material of
Knowledge before you attempt to utter opinions. The
greatest talent and genius never succeeded in anything
else but systematic blundering, where it attempted to
2
“display” without being well-grounded in the sub-
ject, by great previous labour, care, and preparation.
Cicero's example here is great. Brougham's industry is
known to have been indefatigable. The defence for the
Queen was written out, it is reported, seven times,
previously to its delivery. Sheridan, with all his daring
and reliance on his powers of mind and genius, was con-
scious how much he should place his character for
ability in jeopardy, if he did not study the speech be-
forehand which he was about to deliver. Moore's
“Life” will show you the labour he bestowed on framing
his splendid philippic against Hastings. “Knowledge,”
if it is “power,” is also “confidence,” efficiency, and
hence, courage. I have given you thus two features
of fortitude; the first, natural firmness, the second
arising from artificial sources. A word more as to firm-
mess of character. In your capacity, then, of a speaker
in the House of Commons, weigh well what you are pro-
ceeding to say—and never retract. Of course, when I
NEveR HAZARD A word | NEVER RETRACT. 295
say this, I do not extend my suggestion to the with-
drawing a hasty word that may have escaped in the
heat of debate, but confine myself to expressions in-
volving any principle of conduct. It is better and more
dignified, if possible, to be so guarded as never to
hazard or let slip any word that were better not uttered.
And I would advise, certainly, if a word is not so
indefensible that it need not be retracted, that it
should not be so retracted. It is, as a principle,
always more dignified to abide by what you have
said. It has, on the other hand, much of grace, as
well as magnanimity, to be willing to confess your-
self too precipitate, if such were indeed the case.
But observing, on the one hand, forbearance to-
wards others, and respect, on the other hand, for
yourself, you will insensibly acquire a temperate and
guarded habit of speaking which will render your
political career both more happy and more dignified.
So much for character. As to measures, you have
philosophy enough in you to know the great imperfec-
tion of all human plans. As a general principle, then, I
would recommend you, on weighing a question, to con-
sider not so much which of two modes of acting is the
greatest good, but which is the least evil. Always
296 THE TEMPEST OF DOUBT.
aim at good; but recollect that the material you have
to work with is in itself but for the most part evil.
Always consult the disposition and spirit of the
times. Never stem the course of public opinion de-
cidedly, loudly, and universally expressed. You, as
a statesman, in times of difficulty, and where public
opinion wavers and is uncertain, must lead public
opinion. This is the duty of a statesman, but this is
where the public looks rather to you to act, than speaks
aloud any certain wish or line of action on its own part.
In listening to this expression of opinion, the ministry
of Lord Grey acted wisely and according to the emer-
gency of the occasion. But if it is wise to go along
with the current of public opinion when universally
manifested, it is also no less wise and necessary to be
always sufficient in oneself—to be always able to rely
with confidence in one's own counsel,-if a man would
deserve the character of a great statesman. For mind, .
the times of uncertainty and doubt in public action
are more frequent than the occasions of certainty,
where the public bias speaks for itself. It is in the
tempest of doubt and the gloom of fear that the
great statesman shows himself, holding up the torch
of safety and guidance amid the darkness.
A minister has, now, the most implicit confidence
THE SPIRIT OF PAST DESPOTISM. 297
placed in him. Since, as I have shown you, he is
emphatically the trustee of the people. You will per-
ceive I am reverting to my argument of the constitu-
tional feeling manifesting itself in the majority it will
send to the House of Commons,—consequently a
minister belonging to that majority. Hence the most
complete confidence will be reposed in the minister,
and consequently the blame of bad or weak mea-
sures will rest with him more cogently than hereto-
fore. Previously to the Reform Bill, there was no
such confidence in the minister. There was no sym-
pathy between the ministerial majorities and the
wishes of the people. There was again no sympathy
comparatively speaking between the House of Peers
and the people, and why? Because the peerage was
then a frequent reward for support to a corrupt and
tyrannical ministry. This invidious attribute is taken
away from it now. There was no sympathy again in
the different classes of society.” The aristocracy of
peers, ministerial oligarchists, borough-holders, great
capitalists from Indian peculation—all these formed
* See the talented Essay by Vicesimus Knox, on the Spirit of
Despotism. His production was first privately printed in 1795
and suppressed. It re-appeared in 1821, and again subsequently
with the rest of the author's works.
o 5
298 & NEW SYMPATHIES.
a selfish, political, and exclusive social body, which
had no common interests with, or feelings for the mass
of the community. But these invidious barriers were
thrown down by the second “Magna Charta” of Eng-
lish liberties, as the Reform Bill is justly called: the
loud cry from one end of the kingdom to the other for
the removal of these barriers was heard, and made it-
self respected atlast. The strength now of the ministry,
aristocracy, and peers exists in the affections of the
people. The interests of the peers had been from many
causes as much the same with those of the people be-
fore, as since the Reform Bill; but the great gulf was
fixed between them which an oligarchy interposed.*
Political mischiefs severed the peers from the people
before the Reform Bill. Though sprung in many in-
stances as now, from the ranks of the community, and
bound to them in affection, yet they were taught to
forget their former sympathy by the selfishness of
power which an oligarchal encroachment on the con-
stitution wrought. To talk of a constitution was a
mockery, as long as a ministerial oligarchy could
carry what measures it pleased—raise what supplies
it liked—effect what “jobs” it desired. The people's
“constituted” share and recognised participation in
* See p. 201.
THE “ONE GREAT FAMILY.” 299
the government was obliterated. All the enactments of
former times, such as the Habeas Corpus and the
Right of Petition, were in vain boasted of as existing
in defence of liberty. Such vaunts were at best, but
mere “sops” as it were, thrown in to appease irritation;
but any real permission of constitutional strength and
efficiency was denied by the absence of all popular
controul over a minister. The bad measures of a
minister, at the period in view, were in a great degree
imputable to the corrupt system of which he was the
temporary conductor. But, now, whatever blame there
may be, will fall on the minister—or if not on him, it
will recoil on the people itself, since it is with the
people that the power now rests of securing to itself
such a majority of representatives and such a minister,
as shall be worthy workers in the field of constitu-
tional liberty.
I have spoken of the country, in a previous letter,
as “one great family.” Such is the feeling with
which every one should now regard it, since all
classes are united by a common political and social
bond of sympathy....Yes! All are thus cemented in
one universal interest. All are challenged then to
perform one awful duty—the vindication of their coun-
try's weal, in the maintenance of the Constitution.

IND Ex.
Absenteeism, (Ireland), 226.
Accumulation of Capital, (note) 284, 285.
Administration of Justice, 166. 175. Of Bankruptcy Law,
(note) 148. Local, Uſ old Toor Law, 249.
Agitation, (Ireland,) 227.
Agriculture, distress in, (note) 84. 282, 283, 284. 287.
Allegiance, 142.
Allison on the French Revolution, 32.69.
Allotments. See Poor.
America, 28. 31. 81. Approximation towards Monarchy ex-
pressed, 110. Tyranny of Legislature, 31. 109. No ana-
logy between its religious conditions or institutions, and the
same subjects in England, 53. 55. 81. Presidency, 29.
Ballot in, (note) 238. Voluntary principle of support of
Church, 53, 54, 55. See De Tocqueville.
Annual Parliaments, 239. Construction of the 4th Edw. III.,
in the note on “every year,” or “oftener if need be,” 151.
See Duration.
Aristocracy, 24. 26. British character aristocratic, 63.83. Love
for monarchy, 84.
Army, standing, in time of peace, 224.
Arrest for debt, 170. On Speaker's warrant, 144. Of Members
of Parliament, 144, (note) 148, 149. Of Wilkes, 205.
302 INDEX.
Artificial state of society, 133. 181. State of interests under the
National Debt, 73. Agricultural, 278., and Commercial,
(note) 276. See Currency.
Ascendancy, Protestant, 142. 143. *
Assemblies, tumultuous, under pretext of petitioning, 196 (note.)
See Petition, and Union.
Association, 250.
Attorney, General, 205. 209.
B
Ballot, its irresponsibility, 238. 270.
Bank of England and the Government, 210. Restriction, 73.
Bankruptcy, National, 72. Law Administration of, (note) 148.
Bankrupt, fraud in, 172.
Beccaria on abolition of capital punishment, 217.
Belsham, 144. 203. 205. 252.
Bentham on packing juries, 210.
Bill of Rights, 112. 148, (note) 185. 196. 203.
Birmingham Union of 1832, 1833, (note) 69.71, 77. Railroad,
(note) 77. -
Bishops not peers, 52. In parliament, 52. The Seven, (note)
197, - -
Blackstone objected to by Fox as a Constitutional authority,
(note,) 120. 197. 222. Appendix to, offered in these pages,
as regards the law of the Constitution since the Reform Bill,
118. 214. - -
Bolingbroke, 113, (note) 140. 273.
Boroughs, close or nomination, 2. 23.90. 141. (note) 199. 213.
Bradshawe, 64.
Breach of Privilege, 145. 205.
Bribery, 154.
British Character. See Character, Aristocracy, Monarchy. King,
Constitution. People in favour of Constitution, 214.
Brougham, his promotion of the cause of education; its effects i
aiding the result of the Reform Bill, 213. His plan of Local
Courts, 175. A particular example afforded by, 294.
“Bubble” speculations, (note) 283.
Buonaparte, 31. 109. 161.
.INIDEX. 303
Burdett, Sir F., trial for libel, 206. Breach of privilege, and im-
prisonment in Tower, 145. Election for Westminster, in
1837, a sign of re-action, (note) 67. -
Burke, 10. His estimate of a narrow and vulgar mind, (note)
129. Philosophical principles in his writings, ibid.
Bynkershoëke, 132.
C
Cabinet, seat in, (note) 197.
Cambridge, exclusion of Dissenters from degrees, 253,254.
Camden, Lord, (note) 148. 205. *-
Candour and Independence, 1, 2.79. See Character.
Canning on the Revolution of 1688, (note) 223.
Canvass, directions as to conduct in, 1.265.
Canons. See Deans.
Capital punishments, 212. Accumulation of capital, 284, 285.
Investment of in railroad shares. See Railroad.
Catholic, 231. Spirit of Catholic religion opposed to free exercise
of opinion, 239, 240. Priesthood, 240. See Church. 142.
(nole) 25. Emancipation, 212, Penal Code, 240.
Centralization, unconstitutional system of, 249.
Chancery, 177, 178. .
Change, spirit of, 18. 22. 58. 59. 112. 235. Progress of 243,
244, 245, 246.
Chapter. See Dean.
Character, 63. See English and British, Monarchy, Constitution,
Institution. Rules for formation of public character and
conduct, 1.12.271. 274. Greatness of,8. Decision of, 61.
Charles I., 190. Petition of Right, (note) 211. Charles II.,
(note) 65. 69. 108. 151. His tyranny, 197. 222. See
Restoration.
Charta, Magna, 138. 186. 188. 192.211. De foresta, (note) 211.
Charter of Corporations, 158. Of London University, 253.
Chatham (Lord), Sentiments on Wilkes's case, 205. On Wood-
fall's case, 208. On the press, (note) 169.
China trade thrown open, 254, 255. -
Church, payment of by stipends considered, 25, 26. And State,
24. Of England, 49.55. 142, 143. Catholic, 53, 56. 142.
Reforms in, 56, 57. Rate, 218, 232. See Voluntary, and
Ecclesiastical.
304 INDEX,
Cicero, 295.
Civil Law, 134. -
Civilization, 34. Ranks of society, 33.35. Religion considered
in a state, 46,47. Promoted in England by facility of com-
munication, 107. 133.
Circumstance, 123.
Citizenship of a republic, 29.33, 34.
Clarendon, Rebellion, 32.69.
Clergy. See Church. Banished the House of Commons, (note)
55. Privileges of, 155. -
Close boroughs, 2. 23.90. 141. 199. See Borough.
Coal, source of wealth. National Resources, 277. 279.
Cobbett in praise of House of Lords, 95. On Quakers, 156.
Code, penal, 226. French, (Napoleon), 165.
Codification of the law, (note) 165.
Coercion Bill, (Ireland), 225.
Coke, (Lord,) 117.
Collision between Upper and Lower House, 23. 33. 59. 86.
(note) 88.96. 100. 102, 103.
Combination laws, 288.
Commerce. See Civilization, 35. 198.
Commercial distress, causes, (note) 84. Means of its alleviation,
(note) 276.
Commission, high court of, 187. Ecclesiastical, 218.
Commissions, view of the various commissions, 250 See Patronage.
Commissioners, 218, 233.249, 250. See Municipal, Local. Re-
port of on Irish poor, 227. -
Common law of the land, 125.
Commons, House of, privileges, 144, Collision with Lords, see
Collision, 23. 33.88. -
Communication, facility of, promotes civilization, 107.276.
Commutation of tithe, (note) 26.
Conquest, Norman, 182. -
Conservative and Destructive of the Constitution—the only two
parties existing in reality, 114. 264. See Party.
Constituents, see Members, 13.
Constitution, appendix offered to Blackstone on, (note) 214. Its
stability increased since the Reform Bill, see Monarchy, 214.
Its character of jealousy and suspicion, 91. 121. Spirit and
INDEX. 305
practice, 14. 23. 121. 181. 222. Love of English for, 214.
(See People.) Formation of, 120. Plan of, 126, 214.
Definition of, 121. Historical sketch of, from the violation
of the spirit of liberty at the Conquest to the Revolution,
and Reform Bill, 181. et. seq. to end of Letter XXI.
Constitutional History, 181, to end of Letter XXI. See Hallam.
Constructive Treason, 204.
Consumption, means of, 276. Market of increased, 277. 283.
Contribution, 228. See Voluntary.
Convocation, court of, 156.
Coronation of William IV., 23. Oath, 143. 240.
Corn Laws, 278. .
Corporations, Municipal, New Act, 157.216. Privileges, (ibid.)
Counsel for defence, 219. See Prisoners. -
Counterbalance, 96. See Collision, 103. 120.
Court of Record, the House of Peers is, 145. High Commission,
187. Local Courts, 174. Of Westminster, 183. Of St.
James's, 226. Address to King to hold a court at Dublin
part of the year. Ibid. -
Credit system in trade necessary, 173. Mischief of unlimited,
(note).283. Paper, 210. (note) 283. See Currency, and Faith.
Creditor and Debtor, 170. 171. •
Crime, diminution of,229. Mitigation of capital punishment, 212.
Statistics of, 229.
Criminal Law, 212. Reforms in.
Cromwell, 31. (note) 63, 64, 65. 55. 109. 275.
Crosby, (note) 144. -
Crown, prerogative of, 136. Property of, 141. Dispensing
ower of 201. See Prerogative.
Currency, two effects of, temporary and general distress, 84.
Alteration in value of, 84. Peel's Bill, operation of on the
standard of, 84. Effects of an agricultural interest, 282,283.
Modern as compared with ancient standard, 188. See Money.
D
Deans, and chapters, and canons, 233.
Debt, interest of, 72. National, 69.72. 124. Imprisonment for
and arrest on mesne process, 170, 171.
306 INDEX.
Debtor and creditor, reciprocal injuries between, 171, 172.
Defence of prisoners. See Counsel.
Definition of Reform Bill, 3. Of constitution, 121. See Con-
stitution.
Delay and expense, 165. In equity, 177.
De Lolme, (note) 103.
Democracy, and demagogues, 80.215. 237. See Patriot.
Denman, 150. (note.) See Judges.
Destructive, 114. 264. See Conservative.
Detail and principle, 129, 130.
De Tocqueville, (America,) 31, 32.38. (note) 109.201.
Diminution. See Crime.
Dispensing power of Crown, 201. (note) 191.
Dissenters, 25. Boon to, in repeal of Test Act, 157. In the
new Marriage Act, 218. In grant of charter for degrees,
253, 254. See University.
Distress, commercial and agricultural, 277. 283. See Currency,
Agriculture, Commercial.
Divine right, 193.
Duration of Parliament, Letter XXI., and 236.
*
E.
Ecclesiastical reform, 218. See Church. Commission, 218.
Education, voluntary support of National Effects of in promot-
ing intelligence and demand for liberty, 213. In diminish-
ing crime, 228., in promoting religion, 49.Gnote) 280.
Edward I., 183.
III., 175. 185. 187.
Elections, early history of parliamentary, 138.
Electors, conduct towards, 1, 2. 12. 270. 272.
Elective system applied to House of Lords, 21. (note,) 86. As
confined to themselves, 97.99. As exercised by the people,
96. Franchise, 187, 188. In France, (note,) 238. See
Vote.
Elizabeth (Queen), 190. 193. 222.
Ellenborough (Lord), 197. (note) 208. (note) 209.
Emancipation (Catholic), 212. Of slaves in West Indies, 217.
INDEX. 307
Employment for poor best prevention against discontent and dis-
order, 77.
England, Bank of, 217.
English character, 63. 83. Love of Institutions, 214. See
Monarchy, and British.
Equality of ranks, idle doctrine of, 33, 34, 35.87.
Equity, iniquity of, 177, 178, 179.
Erskine, defence of liberty of the subject, and Trial by Jury, 204.
Estates, the “Three,” of the realm, 19, 20. 32.97. $20.
Exclusion of bishops from parliament, 52. See Bishop.
Execution, writ of, 172.
Executive and legislative distinct functions, 15. 135.
Exchequer, 73.
Ex officio informations, 205.
Expediency, political, 217. 267.
Expense and delay, 174. 177. 178. See Chancery.
Faith, public, 73.79. f
Farmer, condition of past and present, 282, 283, 284, 286.
Farms, large and small system, 283, 284, 285.
Feodal system and law, 181, 182. 191. 197.
Fleetwood, 64.
Foresta (Carta de), 211.
Foreign Enlistment Bill, 182.
Forgery, 217.
Fox, censure of Blackstone, (note) 120. Libel bill, 208. See
Libel. India Bill, principle of, 252.
France, elective franchise in, 238. See Revolution. Majorats,
21. Peers for life in. See Peers.
Franchise, 141. 87. 188. See Elective. In France, 238.
Fraud in insolvency and bankruptcy, 172. As the principle of
imprisonment for debt, considered, 172.
Freedom of Speech, 205. See Liberty of Subject, 162.
French. See Revolution.
Funds, advantages of the system in a particular respect, 74, 75.
308 HNIDEX
Game sale of, 217. 255.
General warrants, 205.
Government, mixed. See King. Its strength increased under
Reform Bill, if it reflects the sentiments of the people, 111.
Its character considered under the Reform Bill. See
Minister. Duty of the people, 141. Their power in in-
fluencing, 141.
Graham, (Sir J.) note, 105.
Greatness, 8.130. 271. 296. See Character.
Grenville Act, 154.
Grey, (Lord) 296.
Grotius, 132.
H
Habeas Corpus, (note) 145. 212. Enactment of, 196. Suspen-
sion of, 203. (note.)
Hale (Chief Justice) on Ex officio informations, 206.
Hall, Captain Basil, on American voting, 238.
Hallam, 187, 188.
Hampden, anecdote of, 271.
Hanging, of a bankrupt, (note) 172.
Hatsell's Precedents, 145.
Henry III, 211.
VI., 187. (qualification of votes.)
VII. and VIII., 189.
Hereditary claim attacked, 20. Legislators, 20. Claim essential
to the orders and character of nobility, which if only for life
would be deteriorated, 39, 40, 41.
High Commission Court, 187.
History of Constitution, 181. et seq. Letter XXI. Of parties, by
Bolingbroke, 273.
Hone, 209.
House of Lords, a Court of Record and ultimate Appeals, 144.
Collision with Commons, 23. 89.95. Responsibility of, 93,
94. Unity of interests between Lords and Commons, 83.
INDEX. 309
Peers’sons being Commoners, 93, 94. A good, not as regards
the individual, but the institution, 39. See Hereditary.
I
Imprisonment. See Arrest, 170, 171.
Inconsistency (public), 96.254.
Independence of Judges, 135. 150. 206. As to giving pledges.
See Pledge.
India Bill, Pitt's and Fox's, 252. Trade. East India Company,
254, 255.
Informations ea officio, 205, 206. 210.
Innovation, spirit of. As threatening stability of Constitution,
22. 59.
Insolvency, 171. See Fraud.
Institutions. The three Estates, 14, 15. 32. Love of English
for, 214, 215. See Monarchy, and Constitution, and King.
Realm, 20. Social, 21. 33. Political, 23. 32. Lords, 21.
32, 33.39. Monarchy, 19. 29. The Church and State con-
nection of, 24.
Intelligence, growth of. See Knowledge, 212.
Interest of Debt, (note) 72. Means of best supporting (note on
Commercial interest,) 276. And as operating on Agricul-
tural interest, 278. - m
Ireland, 225. Agitation, 227. Penal Code, 227. Priesthood,
240. Absenteeism, 226. Tithes remedy without destroying
Protestant Church, 226. Poor Rate for, 226. See Coercion
Bill. Clergy. See Catholic. Court in, 226. State of
before and after the Union, 226, 227.
Ireton, 64.
Iron, 277. 289. See National Resources.
Jacobinism, 207. 223.
James I. 193.
‘. II. Expulsion of, 195, 196, 197.
Jews. Removal of civil disabilities, 231. Compared with
Catholics as a body in the State. Ibid.
310 INDIEX,
Judges, independence of, 135, 150. 206. Subserviency of, 190.
See Dispensing power of Crown.
Junius. On Woodfall's Trial, 208. On Lord Mansfield, 208.
On Horne Tooke, 52.
Juries, trial by, 182. Special packing of, 210. Of six, recom-
mended (by Commissioners on Rates) for Local Courts, 175.
Justinian, Pandects of, 134.
K
King, Lords, and Commons, 15. See Estates. Love of Eng-
lish towards, 68. 84. Privileges of, 141. Prerogative, 136.
Courts at Westminster, 183.
Knowledge, 49. Is power, exemplified in producing Reform,
192, 193. 212, 213. Taxes on relieved, 228.
Knox, Vicesimus, View of Society, 297.
L
Labour, cheapness of in Saxony and Poland, 278, 279.
Land, Law of, 125. State of past and present, 281, 282, 283,
284. 287.
Landlords and landed interest, 278. 284.
Large and Small Farm System, 281 to 287.
Law, maxims of, 219. Common or of the land, 125. Of
nations, 132. Civil law of Rome, 134. Principles of, 219.
Of Constitution. See Constitution. Appendix afforded to
Blackstone on Constitutional Law, (note) 214. Of Primo.
geniture, 41. See Nobility. Of Debtor and Creditor, 170.
Statute law, 219. Ameliorations in, 217, 218. 219, 220.
Of monarchical tenure, 226. See Monarchy, and Protestant
Abuses in, requiring reform, 172, et seq. Libel, 163. 207,
208. Fox's Bill. Simplification, Consolidation, and Codi-
fication, (note) 165. 212. See Peel. . -
Legislative and executive functions distinct, 135. 137.
Legislature, tyranny of in America, 31. (note) 109. See De
Tocqueville.
Legislators, hereditary, 20. See Nobility.
INDEX, 3.11.
Libel. Fox's Bill, and Woodfall's Case, 163. 208. Cruelty of
the Law from its uncertainty, also unconstitutional, 162.
Construction of by the judge. Tendency and intention,
(note) 208. Criminal and civil process, 208. See Truth.
Liberty of press invaded, 161. 206. Of subject, 159. 203.248.
251. 255.
Livy, (note) 215.
London University charter for degrees, 250. 253.254.
Lords, 21. 23. See Institutions, House, Peers. Peerage for life,
21. Elective system proposed, 86. 88, 89. Achieved the
liberties of the people originally, 95. 186. See People.
Interests one with community, 93, 94. Effect of Reform
Bill in securing stability of See. Collision. See Reform Bill.
And increasing their sympathies for the people, 38. 94'
Lords’ Act for debtors, 95. -
Louis Philippe, 109.
M“Culloch, 188. (note) 286.
Machinery, 276.
Magistrates, 175.
Magna Charta, 203. (note) 211. 298. See Charta.
Majorats in France, 41.
Majority, 2. Parliamentary, returned by the people since
Reform Bill, 111. 299.
See Minister, Sympathy.
Malt tax, repeal cry, fallacy of, 287.
Manchester railroad, 77.
Under close-borough system, 203.
Manufacturing and agricultural interests, unity of, 277. 279.
Market. See Money. For labour, 279. Farmer's, 280.
Marriage Act. See Dissenters, 218. See Toleration.
Maxims. Constitutional spirit of law, 219.
Members conduct towards constituents, 13.
Mesne process, arrest on, 170.
Middle classes, peers, many of them sprung from, 94.
Military government, 65.
Minister, out of Parliament since Reform Bill. Remedy shown, 110.
Ministry, character as it ought to be under effects of Reform
Bill, 2, 3. 111. 139. 299. Tyranny of, and oligarchy main-
312 - INDEX.
tained by Parliamentary majorities against sense of the coun-
try, before Reform Bill, 89.201. 297, 298.
Mitigation of punishment. See Crime.
Monarchy, estate of, 29. Love of English for, 68.84. 139. 214,
215. This proposition combated, 223. Stability increased
since Reform Bill, 22, 139, 140. The bias of the people
being in favour of it, which they can testify by returning a
parliamentary majority, (note) 141. Change in threatened,
244. Tenure of Protestant, 32. 143. Law of. See Law, 226.
Money Bill. House of Commons, 146. A paltry distinction in
grades and ranks in Society. See Ranks. Standard of old
and new, 188. Not to be taken in execution for debt, 172.
Market, (notc) 84. 277.
Monks, 192.
Monopoly, abolition of, 157. Growth of, 249. 253. (note) 284.
Montesquieu, 68. (note) 103. 110.201.
Municipal. See Corporation.
Mutiny Bill, 224.
N
Napoleon, 31. 109.
National Credit, 69. Resources, 277. 289. Bankruptcy, 72, 73.
Prejudices, 81. Faith, 73.79.
Nations, law of, 132.
Natural Justice, 132.
Neutrality and Non-intervention, 131.
Nobles, struggle of against the King, 186.
Nobility, the order of a social benefit, 37. Hereditary, 20. 40.
(note) 86. Exhibited in law of primogeniture throughout
society, 41.
Nomination. See Close Boroughs, 213.
Norman, Conquest, 182.
O
Oath, Coronation, 143. Declaration substituted, 157. “Of a
Christian,” (Jews,) 231.
CEconomy, political, 278. Of coronation of Will. IV., 23.
INDEx. 313
Officio (Ex) informations, 205.
Oligarchy, ministerial, 23.90.201. et seq. See Minister, 224. 298.
Opinion, public, 15. (note) 141. Popular fluctuations in, 67.
Power of, 209. Freedom of through press, and meetings
to petition Parliament, 138. 141.
Opposition, stimulus of, 269.
Order in Council, 202.
Orders of society, 14. Of Lords, 35. Lower, 49. See Ranks,
Middle Classes.
Ordination, 233.
Oxford, exclusion of Dissenters from degrees, 253, 254.
Owen, 87.
Pandects, 134.
Paper credit system, 210. See Currency, Credit, Bubble.
Parliament, dissolution, prorogation, 139. Privilege of Commons,
149. 146. 152. Privilege of Lords, 144, 145. 148. Early
history of, , 187. Since Reform Bill, see Majority, and
Minister. Clergy and bishops in, 51, 52. A king trying to
govern without, 194. Tyranny of, under close-borough
system, 201, 202. Duration of, 239.
Party. See Whig, Tory, Conservative, Destructive. Boling-
broke's history of, (note) 273.
Patriots, false,9. 70.71. 80. 268.
atronage of government too extensive, 250.
Pauper under the old Poor Law, 284. 288.
Peasantry, condition of, past and present, 280.
Peel, Sir R., simplification of law, and consolidation of statutes,
212. Instance of his character as a public man, 271. Ef-
fects of Peel's Bill, 84. 283.
Peerage. See “Hereditary.” See Elective. For life, see Lords,
21. Prize of merit, 38.
Peers, unity with people, 93, 94. Pauper peers, 41.
Penal code, (Catholic,) 240. .
Pensions unmerited, 79. See Sinecurism.
P
314 NDEx.
People's love for Monarchy. See Monarchy. British, see British
and Character. Indebted to peers for liberty, 95. 186. See
Petitions. - - -
Petition, right of, Charles II., 196. 202. and “petition of right.”
See Charles X., 211. -
Petitions of people neglected previously to the Reform Bill, 138.
202. To parliament, 196. To the king, 196. Tumultuous,
see Assemblies, 196, (note.) • , -
Philosopher, true and false, 42.295.
Pitt, 73. 205, 206. 141. 201. Instance of public character, 271.
Creation of peers, 94. *
Plato, 292.
Plèadiug, special, 165. See Speciul,
Pledge, 14. t
Poland, labour in, and Saxony, 278,279.
Police, Lew, 167.
Policy, old and new, 1. 229. Of railroads, as giving employment,
77. As promoting civilization, 107.
Political CEconomy, 278. See Accumulation of Capital.
Poor, rights of, defended, 175. See Expense, Delay, Pauper, and
Peasants
Poor, New Law, separation of paupers, 248. Commissioners,
249. Old and new, 279, 280. 284. 288. Commission,
Ireland, 226. -
Poor allotments, 280, 281.284.
Practice. See Principle.
Prerogative, law of, 136. Check of, 193.
President of American Congress, 29. 31.
Press, liberty of invaded, 161. See Libel, 213. Sovereignty of,
15. See Public Opinion, -
Prices, past and present during the war (note), 281. See Currency,
Corn. , - -
Priesthood, Ireland, 240. See Catholic. American, 53, 55.
Primogeniture, effect of, 41. 83. In constituting a kind of umi-
versal nobility. See Nobility.
Principle as to giving pledges, 14. Of voluntary payment of
clergy, 54. See Voluntary. And practice, 129. Of honesty
and candour in public character, 1.2. Deviation from, 274.
Burke's philosophical mind, 10.128.
... INDIEX. 315
Printing, 193. And publishing, verdict of, in Woodfall's case,
207. 208.
Prisoners’ Counsel Bill, benefits and defects, 219.
Privilege of parliament. See Commons, 144. 153, 155. See
Lords, 145. Breach of 145. See Burdett, Wilkes. Clergy,
Corporate bodies, 157.
Process, mesne. See Arrest.
Prosperity, sources of, 277. 288. See National.
Protestant succession, tenure of Monarchy based on, 143, 195.
Ascendancy necessarily maintained, as regards tenure of the
Monarchy, 142. See Coronation Oath.
Proxy, vote by, and pairing off, 86.
Prussia, Protestant and Catholic Church in, 241.
Public faith, 73.79. Opinion, 213. See Opinion, and Press,
Confidence in speaking, 292. Expediency, 217. *
Puffendorff de Jure Naturae, or Natural Justice, 133.
Q
Quakers, privileges of, 156.
Qualification of franchise, England, 187. France, 238. Under
the Reform Bill, 215.
R.
Radical party, (note) 114. See Destructive.
Ranks in society, 33, 34, 87. Revolutions are effected by the
higher, 82. 215. &
Railroads, policy of, first as a temporary benefit, 77. (See Employ-
ment.) And secondly, as a lasting one, in promoting civiliza-
tion by facilitating communication, 276. See Civilization.
Jobbing in shares, 77. Shares were originally proposed as
an investment of capital,
Rates, church, 218.
Reaction, in favour of supporting institutions, 67.
Reform Bill, benefit of 220. 246. 298, New questions under, 59.
Change under, 59. New difficulties under, 89. Operation it
316 INDEX.
ought to produce in government, 2, 3. And ministerial ma-
jorities, 111. Its effect in securing constitution, 112, 113.
And monarchy, 139, 140. In improving sympathies of peers
and people, 38. 103. Collision not to be apprehended, (as a
general result) between upper and lower houses of parlia-
ment, 102, 103. See Collision. Produced by the force of
public opinion, 15. 212, 213, 214, 215. Its good effects,
216. et seq. See Press, and Intelligence. Its violation, 251.
t; Qualification to vote, 215.
Reformation of Church, Henry VIII., (in sketch of history of the
constitution,) 192. See Ecclesiastical, 218.
Reformed faith, 142.
Regency Bill, example of as showing power of Parliament, 129,
(note) 201.
Registration Bill, 249.
Religion, beauty and power of, 48, 49. It is government, 47.
To render it optional, and hence disregarded, is the effect of
voluntary principle of paying church, 53.
Rents, 282. Iteduction of, standard of, 283.
Representatives. See Members.
Republic, 19. 22. 29.31. 34.59. See Change.
Responsibility of Lords, 94. See House. Of Voters. See Ballot.
Restoration, (note) 65. 69. 215.
Revolution, effected by leading and influential ranks, 82. 215.
French, 1st. and 2nd..., 71, 72. 216. Progress of, 72, 214.
Of 1688. See Protestant Succession, and Bill of Rights.
Whigs, 222.
Right of petition, 196. 202. 203. See Petition to King and
to Parliament. “Divine,” 193.
Right, petition of, see (note) 211. Charles I. And right of petition
secured by Bill of Rights, 199. (note) 195, 196. 183. 185.
203. 222.
Riot. See Assemblies, tumultuous.
Rousseau, 87.
Sale of game, 217. See Game.
Saxon liberties, 182. 184.
N DEX. 317
Saxony, cheapness of labour in, 278, 279.
Scotland, peers representative,.88.
Septennial. See Duration.
Sheridan, 294.
Signs of times, 212, 296.
Simplification of Law, 165, 212.
Sinecurism, 79.
Small “farm,” system. See Farms.
Smith, Sidney, 54.232.
Society. See Ranks in, and Equality. History of French by
Allison, 69. Orders in, 14. Lower, 49. See Civilization
in, 35. Sympathies between upper and lower orders, an
effect of Reform Bill. See Lords, and Reform Bill. Be-
fore and since the Reform Bill, 21. See Primogeniture.
Socrates, on sources of confidence. See Plato, 292.
Spain, 131.
Speaker’s warrant, 144.
Special Juries, packing. See Bentham. Pleading, (note) 129.
Flaws in, 166. Simplification of, 165. Pleader, Burke's
contempt for, (note) 129.
Speculations. See Bubble, and Credit.
Spirit of constitution, 14.81. And constitutional spirit of people,
106. See Constitution.
Stamp Act, reduction in tax on knowledge, 228.
Standard. See Money, and Currency Alteration, 188.
Standing army in time of peace, 224. t
Stanley, Lord, (note) 105.
Star Chamber, 189, 190, 191.
State. See Church.
Statesman, 61. See Character. Duty, conduct, and character of,
42.45. 66,67.77, 78.225. 271. 296. in crisis of doubt and
alarm.
Statute Law, 219.
Steam, effects of, in facilitating commerce, communication, and
civilization, 276. See Railroads, and Machinery.
Study, course of, 127, 128.
Subject, liberties of, 159. Enactments in favour of, (note) 211.
Violated, 204, et. seq. See Liberty.
Succession, 223. See Protestant, and Monarchy.
Suffrage, universal, or household, 238.270.
Q
3.18 INDEX,
Summons, original, to Parliament of Lords and Commons, 187.
Supplies, stopping, 129. (note) 147. g
Suspension. See Habeas Corpus.
Sympathy, increased of Peers, for the people, is an effect of the
Reform Bill, 21. 33, 38. 83. 94. 103.297 298. See Re-
form Bill.
Swift, 113.
T
Taxes, acquiescence in, under necessity of paying interest of the
National Debt, 78. (note) 276. On knowledge reduced,
228. See Stamp Act.
Tea, duties on, 254, 255.
Test Act, repeal of, 157. See Dissenters.
Thought, free expression of, through press, and by petitions to
Parliament, 138. See Press, Opinion, Petition.
Three, Estates, 32.96. See Institutions.
Tithe, Ireland, 226. Commutation of, 26. 56. 218. Obstacle to
improvement of land, under present tithe system, 280.
Toleration, 240. Of Dissenters, 25. In repeal of Test Act, 157.
New Marriage Act, 218.
Tooke, Horne, and clergy banished the House of Commons, 52
(note.)
Trade. Strength of Country is in its Commerce, not in its Insti-
tutions—a Republican argument, 19. Facilitation afforded
by rail-roads, 276. See Railroad, and Civilization.
Treason, constructive, 204.
Trial. See Jury.
Triennial. See Luration. -- g
Truth, not always right, 164. See Libel.
Tumultuous, see Assemblies, under pretence of meeting to petition
Parliament.
|U
Unconstitutional, 121. See Constitution, definition of See Pa-
tronage of Government, 250. Uncertainty in Law, 205.
INDEX. 3.19
Union of parties. See Whigs.
Unions, political, Birmingham, 71.77. See Assemblies.
Universal Suffrage, 237.
University of London charter for degrees. Oxford and Cambridge
exclude Dissenters, as these are specifically Protestant
establishments, 253,254.
V
Vanity, public, exposed, 7. 272,273.
Vattell, 132.
Voluntary principle of Church payment, 26. 54.55. Contribu-
tions to Education, 228.
Vote. See Franchise, Qualification, Ballot, Reform Bill,
W
Warrants. See General, 205.
Watchword, 275.
Wealth, national, 289. Resources of, 277.
Wellington Ministry, 212.218.
Westminster, Courts at, 183.
Whig party, 105. 113. 223.273,274.
Wilkes, 144. 149, (note) 205.
Wills, registration proposed and rejected; Execution of, 218.
Wolsey, 190.
Woodfall, case of, 208. See Libel, and Juries.
PRINTED BY STEwART AND Co., olp BAILEY.
2 #1. #y }.}
{/5 & 2 ×-º. º.º.
- t;
tº § -
* : * *-º-º->
..}. " _

ś z
！ <ſ
§ IĘ
& O
>
lì-
O
ūō
DC
[1 ]
>
! 2
ID
|
|
3 9015 O9027 8881
�
*** 、、
********************>ș）,
. . . . ，<■C.
Q， ， « rºi