Sect. 39. we suppose the specific enumeration designed, and the omission intentionally pointing at that great object so strongly depicted in the Bill.

Can we imagine that in consequence of the repealing virtue of this thirty-ninth Section, and of Section XXIX., the eldest son of a Scotch peer is enabled to sit in parliament, because it is specifically mentioned? And that a person guilty of bribery in any of the proceedings (Section XXXI., line 2.) "preparatory to, or at any election," can yet be liable to punishment and damages, though that offence is totally omitted in the enumeration of crimes punishable at elections? Can we suppose in the framers of this Bill such total disregard and outrage of all established regulations and received customs, as to construe this Act strictly when it is to confer a benefit, and extensively when it is to inflict a penalty; to confine it when it is beneficial, and to extend it when it is penal? Can we suppose that bribery is to be included in the et cætera" other crimes," after a so specific and distinct enumeration of any perjury, subornation of perjury, falsehood and forgery? Upon what part of this Act can any one rest such a charge? And how could any judge dare to convict upon an offence which is not named here, and whose criminality must therefore be virtually repealed, and done away with by the omission in the list contained in Section XXXI. and the sweeping power of the last Section?

One more instance of carelessness, or something worse, and I have done.

Sect. 39.

SCHEDULE (I.)

If it were not presumptuous to question the propriety of a measure digested with such study as the Bill now before us, we might, after having noticed, as has been observed, the partial disfranchisement of the counties of Selkirk and Peebles, an enactment which to many appears in itself equally violent and unjust, be induced to say a few words upon a measure which will be acknowledged by most to be equally flagrant; one moreover which cannot, after three or four months' deliberation, be attributed to oversight and inadvertence, but must be taken to be a well weighed proceeding - I mean no less than the utter disfranchisement of Selkirk, Peebles, Lanark and Linlithgow. Do not start-such is indeed the case. We had been led to believe that another Burgh was to be added to this district. What do we find? The whole annihilated! Is it for any crime? No. For any alleged or supposed delinquency? None. Probably from the love of amputation; from the appetite for change. And how, we may ask, is this to be effected?

By the simplest of all possible methods;-by henceforth

issuing no more writs.

Sched.

(I.)

Sched. If this be really an omission, if it be an (I.) oversight, ought we to suffer those who cannot with grammatical accuracy arrange a few pages, to alter the whole constitution? Ought we to commit our dearest interests to those who, if they have the hands of Briareus, are without the eyes of Argus?

WE have now glanced our eyes over the most prominent parts of the present Bill, in as much as it is varied from the preceding; and having taken notice in a former pamphlet* of the undue influence of the Sheriff, of litigation to ensue, and of bribery to remain unpunished, I may here repeat, that the first, though much reduced by the present Bill, may still be exercised in a most unconstitutional degree, and that the two latter continue, and are likely to continue, to flourish with undiminished splendour. Such is the Bill, which, after four months' deliberation, four months' professions of its identity with the former, the present Ministers would palm upon the country as the most perfect amendment of the original Bill, the most perfect amendment of the constitution. The question which now naturally arises is-Why is my Lord Grey so tender of the rights of the King of Belgium to his pension, and so lavish of those of his fellow-countrymen. The govern

* Dissection of the Scottish Reform Bill.

ment and legislature have surely as little title to interfere with the one as with the other.

I shall make no further comment upon these heads; but in adverting to the general question, I may observe, that Ministers have often declared, that the present measure was not an innovation, but a renovation; not a change, but a restoration.

When we hear that a change is to be introduced, it is but reasonable for us to inquire, what benefits will result from the measure? When we are told that something is to be restored, it is but natural to ask, what we have lost, what we are to regain, or to what we are to be assimilated?

In reply to the first of these questions, the advocates of Reform have urged nothing which can in any degree convince us that any benefits whatever will ensue. They have not so much as afforded us grounds for changing our sentiments, not even a plausible argument which might induce us, with good colour, to desert our former opinions and yield to theirs, by appearing to bring conviction home to our minds, that the alteration proposed by them will be an improvement. They have only urged a sudden phrenetic popular outcry, raised by the discontented, and encouraged by the designing, called into existence, and roused into action by the example of France, by the

contagion of Belgium, and even by the generous struggle of unhappy Poland.

In answer to the second, I am not aware that any thing more decisively convincing has been argued. We have not been told what is the jewel which we once possessed, and of which we are now deprived. Our speculative legislators, our metaphysical politicians, have the same noble disregard for the history of the past, as they have a provident forethought of the future; they soar above the grovelling mortals who arrange by precept and example, who practise by rule; they mount into the misty regions of theory and metaphysics, into an atmosphere clouded by their own delusions, unmarked by the track of any statesman who ever legislated, or any minister who ever governed. I would ask, then, at what period in our history did we lose this gem of price, which we now seek to regain? was it under the dynasty of the Plantagenets, the Tudors, the Stuarts, or the House of Brunswick? was it under the Edwards, the Henrys, the James', or the Charles'. No. If Ministers have indeed searched the records of times gone by, let them inform us at what period of our history was equal representation a leading principle of the Constitution.

The fact that it was never, is incontrovertible. If from their study of history they have calculated the advantages of a direct represen