Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Art. 13. Conflitutionalis's Letters to the Electors and People of England, preparatory to the approaching General Election. 8vo. 6d. Almon. 1780.

HIS apparently well meaning writer, with but humble pretenfions to authorship, repeats much of what has been faid upon the mifmanagement of public affairs for fome years paft. He lays particular ftrefs upon the Buttan plan of tyranny, which he fuppofes to have been adopted at the commencement of the present reign; but we believe, he affigns a more certain caufe of public calamity, when he speaks of the corruption of Parliament, as arifing from the inequality of reprefentation, and the too long continuance of parliamentary authority in the fame hands. The remedies, he propofes, do not feem to be of fo radical a nature as those which have been fuggefted by others; and lately, in particular, by an able member of the upper house. He recommends triennial elections, and that the reprefentation of fmall boroughs be reduced from two members to one. The difference he would have to go in favour of the counties at large. In this particular, his plan is, in our opinion, to be preferred to that of adding an hundred members to the counties, without reducing the number for the boroughs; fince fuch an addition would augment the House of Commons to 658 members, which is already, perhaps, too numerous an affembly for useful debate.

[ocr errors]

In p. 1o. he fays, From the time of paffing that [the triennial] act, which then became a fundamental part of the conftitution, no Parliaments could legally be continued for longer than three years; the people, from that time, elected their reprefentatives for three years only, and every parliament that fat for a longer time were felfelected, and not the true reprefentatives of the people.'

And again, p. 12. in fpeaking of those who paffed the feptennial law, he fays, They were not, I am bold to fay, any longer the delegates and elected of the people, but became from that period felf-elected, and fat and acted under an affumed, illegal, unauthorifed power, little better than an ufurpation. I am bold to fay, they fat by an arbitrary power of their own creating; there was no free affent of the people at large to elect for four years longer; they fat without the confent or authority of the people, and the people were not, as I contend, bound by it. It was a grofs violation of a fundamental law, which the makers of that act of innovation had no power or authority to make; and the act was in itself, in my poor opinion, a nullity and an illegal act; and by the very fame rule and principle that they enlarged their term of fitting four years beyond the time for which they were elected by the people, they might, with equal juftice, at the end of thofe four years, have again enlarged it for their own lives, or for the life of the fovereign.'

We are not, however, with this Author, convinced that a triennial parliament ever became a fundamental part of the constitution, becaufe, we apprehend, that parliament is limited by the conftitu

6

[ocr errors]

tion, and not the conftitution by parliament. Every argument brought to prove, that the parliament of 1716 could not extend the period of its own exiftence, equally applies againft any parliament. It therefore follows, that those whom this writer calls the greateft, the wifeft, and moft venerable fet of patriots, that ever adorned a 'fenate,' and who paffed the triennial bill in 1694, became from that period felf-elected, and fat and acted under an affumed, illegal, unauthorised power, by which the people, fo betrayed, were not bound. It has even been very justly obferved of late, that they who paffed the triennial bill, were even more criminal than they who introduced the feptennial law; because, at the very time, they were mere ufurpers of legislative authority, and no parliament for it is certain that, before that time, the people muft needs have elected their reprefentatives for one feffion only, according to the laws then in being. Those who, in 1694, occupied the Houfe of Commons, had fat there against law, for above three years before they paffed that bill, by the arbitrary authority of which they continued themselves in power for three years longer, What they overturned, was indeed a fundamental part of the conftitution, and had been fo declared in the written law of the land for more than a

as a

thousand years. The laws of Edward III. confirming thofe of Alfred the Great, fo far as to ordain one new parliament at least in every year, were then unrepealed and in full force. It is a mistake in our Author, in reprefenting (p. 15) the triennial bill of 194, renewal and new declaration of the ancient law,' and in that respect, comparing it with the ftatute of 16 Charles I. That ftatute acknowledged, confirmed, and celebrated the ancient law, as a law of wisdom; and although it fell fhort of renewing it, by only inforcing the holding one new parliament in three years, whereas the ancient law required three at least, yet different indeed was its complexion from that of the triennial bill of 1694. The direct aim and operation of that fatal act, was to abolish the ancient law, whereby a new election was required for every new feffion; and, instead of parliaments of a duration limited by the occafion for which they were called, to give them a continuance, or a leafe of the feats of legislation, for a term of years at the difcretion of the legislature. Thus the inherent rights of the people were violated, and they weré not even confulted upon a measure of fuch importance.

By giving the fame appellation to three feveral fta:utes, we seem defirous of confounding them together as laws of the fame tendency; whereas they effentially differ from each other. The two first triennial bills of Charles I. and Charles II. materially as they difagreed in fome particulars, were alike in this, that they both prevented the crown from dijpenfing with the laws of Edward III. for more than two years at a time, and inforced the holding of one parliament every third year; whereas the latter, of William and Mary, in order to anfwer the purposes of the crown and great families (for to the people it could anfwer no good purpose), did violence to the conftitution another way ftill more dangerous, by giving a three years continuance to one and the fame parliament. Kings who governed without parliaments, manifefted their defigns fo plainly that they were feen by the people; and when once a parliament was obtained, redress

wa's

was looked for, and in the common courfe of things would naturally follow; but, as prerogative, after the Revolution, did not dare to fhew any of its ugly features, it contrived to lengthen parliaments, in order that its defigns might be compaffed by influence. As names are found upon moft occafions to impofe upon the multitude; fo a triennial parliament, as being the fame in found with what the patriots in the reign of Charles I. had contended for, was artfully introduced.

Thus was a precedent established for parliament to extend its own power, and to circumfcribe the liberties of the people at its difcretion. The miniftry of 1716 faw clearly enough, that if the people might legally be debarred the exercife of their election-privileges for three years at a time, by parity of reason, this disfranchisement might be extended to feven, or indeed to any term whatever which parlia ment should declare to be expedient.

In p. 28. our Writer introduces a long note against annual parlia ments, and calls the propofers of them fnakes in the grafs, who mean to deceive, or are themfelves deceived. He then expects of his reader to swallow a very ftrange paradox,-that annual parliaments would add to the ftrength of minifters, and the influence of the crown; but the reafons adduced are extremely puerile, and have, in our opinion, been fully refuted by late writers. Among other argu ments, it has been remarked with some shrewdness, That, if fuch would have been the confequences, annual parliaments would have been long fince established. If the advocates for triennial parliaments deny this conclufion, they must neceffarily acknowledge another, which, perhaps, they will be as little inclined to adopt, viz. That the Crown has no inclination to increase its influence. We fhould, however, advise those who wish to recommend triennial parliaments, to compare them with Septennial parliaments only; for when put in competition with annual parliaments, either for equity, facility, or found policy, they appear but as drofs in comparison of pure ore.

We have beftowed the more attention on this Article, as a parliamentary reformation feems to be the only event which can avert the impending ruin of our country: and too much pains cannot be taken to conduct it according to the genuine principles of the conftitution, without regard to the prejudices or favourite fchemes of any party. The well-directed efforts of wife and honeft men to that end, will probably fucceed far fooner than defponding politicians expect, or factious ones defire. Truth, juftice, and the happieft policy ever known in civil fociety, when properly held forth to the public, will fooner or later be embraced. Apprehenfion is awake; inquiry is gone forth; and truth has made no fmall progrefs in explaining to us our deviations from conftitutional rectitude, and directing us in the right and only road for regaining it.

Art. 14. Three Letters to Lord Viscount Howe. To which are added, Remarks on the Attack at Bunker's Hill. 8vo. 18. Wilkie. 1780.

Thefe Letters, which (if our recollection does not deceive us) ori ginally appeared in the London Chronicle, contain many ftrong ar ticles of impeachment of the conduct of Lord and Sir William Howe during their command in America. The particulars are too well REV. July, 1780.

F

known;

known; and the filence of the noble brothers is, by many; confi dered as a strong prefumption, that the charge implied in them is not to be answered.

Art. 15. An Addrefs to the Gentlemen, Clergy, and Freeholders. of Lancashire, on the Choice of their Reprefentatives at the approaching Election for the County; wherein the Merits and Pretenfions of Sir T- Egn, Mr. Sty, and Mr. Lr, the feveral Candidates for this great Trust of Representation, are. fully examined and confidered. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Kearsley. 1780.

This election-trumpeter is very, affiduous in proclaiming his favourite candidate; at the fame time that he bestows no fmall pains in difplaying the faults, both real and imaginary we fuppofe, of the oppofite party. There is no doubt but the trumpeters of Meff. Sty and L- -r can be as loud in their praifes as this gentleman is in the praifes of Sir T. Eg- -n. To do him juftice, however, he has ablities that might qualify him for a more honourable poft. Art. 16. Plain Truth: or, A Letter to the Author of "Difpaflionate Thoughts on the American War." In which the Prin ciples and Arguments of that Author are refuted, and the Neceffity of carrying on that War clearly demonftrated. By the Author of LETTERS TO A NOBLEMAN on the Conduct of the American War; and of COOL THOUGHTS on the Confequences of American Independence. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Wilkie. 1780.

Of the Cool Thoughts we gave fome account in our Review for January last, p. 88. and the answer to that piece, intitled, Difpaffionate Thoughts, was mentioned in our Number for February, p. 166. In the prefent tract, the Writer undertakes to refute all the arguments brought by the Difpaffionate Thinker in favour of the opinion, that we ought to acquiefce in the American claim of Independence. Our Cool Thinker contends, that the gentleman on the ather fide of the question, though a sensible writer, is mistaken in all his ideas on this fubject; and he candidly fuppofes, that his mif. takes arife wholly from mifreprefentation. Plain Truth, accordingly, endeavours to fet his antagonist right with respect to the policy of giving independence to America. He fhews, that Great Britain cannot, confiftently with her own fafety, yield up North America, while the other powers of Europe fhall retain their colonies. He ftrongly recommends a fpirited profecution of the war, in which he has not the least doubt of our complete fuccefs; and he points out the policy by which America may be perfectly and firmly united with us. This debate is carried on with calmnefs, decency, and. good humour. It gives us real pleasure to fee fo liberal a spirit prevailing in a controverfy, wherein THE PASSIONS have hitherto taken the lead. It looks as though the prefent difputants had nothing in view but the laudable elucidation and establishment of thofe truths and facts in which the honeft and difpaffionate of both parties are equally interested.

Art. 17. A Letter from the Right Honourable Lord Carysfort to the Huntingdonshire Committee. 8vo. 6d. Almon. 1780.. The chief purport of this Letter is, to fhew the legality, as well

as

as neceffity, of extending the right of election to the whole body of the people, and of abridging the duration of parliament. The Noble Author examines the origin of parliament, the principles on which it was framed, and the caufes of the changes which it has undergone; confiders the danger which arifes to the conftitution from the influence of the crown in the election of reprefentatives; and urges the most vigorous exertions, on the part of the people, for the renovation of the conftitution. On thefe topics he writes with erudition, ability, and fpirit. The Letter merits the attentive perufal of all who wish to reform or improve the state.

Art. 18. A Short Sketch of the Conduct of Administration towards the Borough of Portsmouth. 4to. 1 S. Kearby, in Stafford Street. 1780.

Relates to a contested election for mayor of Portsmouth; and complains of the influence of Lord Sandwich and his party, as a grofs inflance of the abuse of power.'

Art. 19. The Phænomenon; or Northern Comet: Proving that all the Evils and Misfortunes which have befallen this Kingdom, from the Clofe of the laft glorious War to the prefent ruinous and difgraceful Period, originated in ONE SOLE INDIVIDUAL and IDENTICAL PERSON, and tracing the Gradations of his Scheme for introducing Popery into the British Dominions. 8vo. 25.

Richardfon.

The general fpirit of this publication is fufficiently apparent in its title. Whatever ground there may be for cenfuring the conduct of individuals, or of adminiftration, it is not to be expected that virulent abuse will produce reformation.

Art. 20. An Argument on the Nature of Party and Faction, in which is confidered, the Duty of a good and peaceable Citizen at the prefent Crifis. 8vo. IS. Dilly. 1785.

This argument turns on the following question, "Is it not a criminal indifference to be of no party in the prefent alarming and divided ftate of the nation ?" The Writer refolves this question in the affirmative; though we cannot help thinking he evades rather than anfwers it in telling us, that "there is always a party to be formed for the general good; the party of truth, freedom, virtue. This is a party which it would be criminal indeed not to adopt." It is the undoubted and unalienable privilege of rhetoricians to be indulged in the utmoft latitude of expreffion; and this paffage might well påfs as a rhetorical flourish of no mean eftimation; but when he exprefsly declares against "inlifting under the ftandard of any particular fet of men, whether in ministry or in oppofition," because men are fallible, and may be improperly interested, and when he confiders this as factious, we are rather furprised, that the ingenious gentleman fhould imagine he was anfwering the question in the affirmative, viz. "That it is criminal to be of no party;" efpecially when he approves of the county affociations on the fcore of their being "national, not party meetings.". However, if the Reader can get over thefe inconfiftencies, he will find in this little tract very liberal and manly fentiments refpecting the conftitution, and an honourable enthufiafm for the rights of the people; not with

[blocks in formation]
« AnteriorContinua »