had time to do all the mischievous things we have enumerated, as rare precedents for the Tories, should accident ever restore them to power. But it is unnecessary to argue the question, whether the Ministry and the Reformed Parliament have or have not given cause for disappointment. The fact is certain that the people have been bitterly disappointed; and that both the Parliament and the Ministry have achieved an extent of unpopularity, which, considering the short trial they have had, is almost wonderful, and only to be explained by the keenness with which their every movement has been scanned. A few more such proceedings as those already adopted, and all hope of relief from Parliament will be at an end, and a total disregard of its enactments will ensue. Already, there are ominous symptoms of contempt for the law. Dangerous ideas are becoming familiar to men's minds. The refusal of the Irish to pay tithes, and of the citizens of Edinburgh to pay the Annuity, (or assessment for the stipends of the clergy, a tax oppressive in amount, and unequally laid on,) are followed up by the open declaration of the citizens of London, that they will pay no more Assessed Taxes; a resolution in which they will be followed by every town in the kingdom. It is becoming generally understood that the only effectual way of obtaining relief from an oppressive tax, is a refusal to pay it. Then, the whole Irish nation is filled with indignation against the Ministry and the Houses of Parliament; and ready to throw off the yoke of coercion, and along with it the whole Irish Church,-perhaps the connexion with this country, on the first opportunity which a scene of confusion in England may afford. The men of Birmingham have recommenced their tremendous system of agitation; denounced the Reformed Parliament as not representing the national feelings, and called upon the King to dismiss the Reforming Ministry, as having completely forfeited the confidence of the country. Who can contemplate all this, and not admit that we are on the brink of revolution? Were this political effervescence accidental, or were it unaccompanied by that general and alarming degree of distress in which the industrious classes are plunged, there might be hope of its violence subsiding. But the discontents have been growing with a steady growth to their present pitch; and there seems not the slightest prospect of the distress of the country being alleviated. Is there no hope, then, of an escape from revolution? There are two ways in which that disastrous event may be avoided, one of which we trust will speedily be adopted. We are aware that many of our countrymen will think these ways of escape not only beset with difficulties, but leading, themselves, to great evils. We deny the evils; and maintain that the difficulties will vanish before a courageous attempt, resolutely persevered in. But granting both the apprehended evils and difficulties, we ask any sober-minded man to glance at the terrible evils of the mildest sort of revolution in this country, where a stoppage of credit, for one week, would set at large millions without better resource than helping themselves to food wherever it could be seized; and when the consequences of revolution have been pursued for a few moments, let them be compared with the evils of what we are now to recommend, and there will be little hesitation in giving either of our schemes a preference to revolution. The first of these is no less than a total change of the Ministerial policy. Ministers have tried to please the Tories and the People. They have totally deserted principle, and constantly aimed at what they considered the expedient, the practicable in present circumstances; that is, what is practicable with the consent of the Tories, and of the House of Lords. That course has signally failed. The people have been disgusted, and the Tories have smiled with contempt. Let Ministers retrace their steps. Let them abandon their Whig Toryism, and act in accordance with the sentiments of the people. Let the pensions be cut off, let the army be reduced, the Ballot and short Parliaments be adopted, taxation be lessened and fairly adjusted. In short, let the reign of principle commence, and all the old paltry manœuvres be discarded. The difficulties are as nothing, if they be resolutely encountered. Several of the Cabinet will not concur in such a course. Let them make way for better men. Have we not Hume, O'Connell, Roebuck, Parnell, &c., &c., in Parliament, besides many able and every way excellent men out of it, to choose from? The majority of the House of Commons being landholders would resist the abolition of the Corn Laws and the proper adjustment of taxation. We think they would not be so unwise; seeing that the Corn Laws are doomed, and just principles already ascendant: but if they should be such fools as to oppose their feeble strength to a resolute Ministry and People, let Parliament be dissolved, and it would be easy to obtain a majority of thorough Reformers in the new House of Commons, by which every popular measure would be speedily passed. Probably the House of Lords would then oppose the democratic measures relating to the constitution of the House of Commons. If so, let the Commons declare by a vote that all measures affecting the constitution or regulation of their own House should not require the assent of the other two branches of the Legislature. And this is no more than reason. Should the Lords reject measures of retrenchment, reduction, and equalization of taxes, &c., let the House of Commons stop the supplies, and all opposition from the Lords would speedily be at an end. From the King, no opposition need be apprehended; nor could he discharge a Ministry strong in the affections and support of the people. Our second plan for the avoidance of revolution is addressed to the people as our first is to Ministers. The evil complained of is, that the Ministry and the House of Commons do not represent the wishes of the nation. As to the Ministers, all that the people can do, if they so please, (a course we by no means recommend, however,) is to assemble and petition the King to dismiss them, and choose men more adapted to the spirit of the times. Birmingham has already set an example of this. But as touching the House of Commons, the people are entitled to do more than petition. They are entitled to have it remodelled, so as entirely to represent the wishes of its constituents. If precedents were wanted for what is so obviously founded in right, the Reform Act is an incontrovertible one. In common parlance, indeed, we hear of owing that Act to Lord Grey, of its being a boon, &c.: but what man of sense is deceived by such fudge? Mr. Hume or any member of the Commons might have brought in that bill; and that either he or Lord Grey was entitled to propose a change in the constitution of the People's House, or the House itself to make it, could proceed only from its being understood that the constitution of the House was not unchangeable, and that the People of Britain and Ireland had a right to have it changed. If this principle be not admitted, the Reform Bill (carried, as it was, by force through the House of Lords) was an open violation of the constitution; as the Tories declared it to be. The meddling, by the aristocracy, in any way, with the People's branch of the Legislature, is against all principle. It is equally clear that the House itself has no more title to alter its own constitution than a set of trustees have to alter the nature or extent of their trust. Who have the right, then, to remodel the House of the People's Representatives, and make it worthy of its name? The people themselves, and they alone. If then the people are satisfied by the trial which they have had, that the present House of Commons does not represent their feelings, and that this arises from no accident, but from an inherent defect in the Reform Act, let them call for a new Reform Bill. This is much better than refusing to pay taxes. An obnoxious impost may be got rid of by such a refusal, and a beneficial measure may be carried. But it will never do to proceed in this manner. Resistance to taxation, whether it be active or passive, is in reality rebellion; and are we to have a rebellion every time an ill-constructed House of Representatives, or a house of hereditary legislators, chooses to oppose a popular measure? What sort of popular government call you this? The thing is monstrous, and not to be thought of. Far be it from us to recommend any rash proceeding. A frequent tinkering at the constitution of our representative assembly, would be absurd and mischevious, although not so bad as the frequent occurrence of a refusal to pay taxes. We recommend to the people to consider well the nature of the Reform Act and its effects; but the instant they are fully convinced that the Reform Act is not calculated to ensure a set of representatives of the popular will, let them call for a change. What the change should be, is a simple matter to divine: the extension of the suffrage, short Parliaments, and vote by ballot. These measures, in conjunction, would ensure a constant correspondence of feeling between the representative and his constituents, the grand object required. With a House of Commons constructed on this principle, it would be unnecessary for the people to trouble themselves as to who should be Ministers. With such a House to control their proceedings, no Ministry could do much wrong, although they might not do all that was right. Indeed, the Ministers would become, in reality, the mere servants of the Crown, and would soon cease to arrogate to themselves the name or authority of The Government. We have used the vague expressions, an extension of the suffrage, and short Parliaments; but have no wish to avoid stating our opinion as to the questions how far the suffrage should be extended, and by how much Parliaments should be shortened, although this paper has extended to a length which forbids our supporting our views by a lengthened discussion. A horror is very generally entertained of universal suffrage and an.. nual Parliaments, for which we have been able to find no better ground than that the cry for them, proceeded from men on whom the aristocracy, both Whigs and Tories, found it necessary to pour vials of wrath and obloquy, in their love for "things as they are," and dread of efficient reform. We have studied our countrymen of the labouring classes, especially those of the large towns, who seem to be the class most dreaded; and we see no cause to fear their deliberately, and in open assembly, doing or calling for any thing but what is fair and honest. And with regard to their knowledge in political matters, we repeat that we regard it as superior to that of the generality of the middle classes. For ourselves, we would have no objection to extend the suffrage, until it should be stopped, not by some arbitrary line, but by some tangible principle. It might go to every man who boils a pot, that is every householder; or every man who is liable to military service, or to taxation of any sort; or to Universal Suffrage of all sane men of complete age. But, provided no large number are made discontented and disaffected by exclusion, we think it matters little where the suffrage stops, below £5; and as a strong prejudice exists against universal suffrage, perhaps it would be best to begin at £5, and go each year £1 lower, until a stop should be made at household suffrage, for five years; by the expiration of which time the prejudice would have vanished, and we might rest on the sure foundation of universal suffrage. Annual Parliaments are not looked upon with the same terror as universal suffrage; and are chiefly objected to, on account of its being supposed that they would occasion the same turmoil every year that Sep. tennial elections do at so much larger intervals. This is not a natural supposition, and, in fact, has been raised by the Tories and Whigs, to keep a seat in the House worth playing for; as it would still be, although Parliaments were made quinquennial, quadriennial, or even triennial. The more natural supposition is the true one; that, were seats only to be held for one year, there would be no great trouble or expense, not much of either bribery or intimidation, employed to obtain a possession so soon to terminate, unless so honestly used as to secure re-election. It is the long duration of Parliaments, and the freedom from control for the whole period, which cause the fracas of our present elections. So valuable is the frequent opportunity of calling to account, pledging, or changing a representative that we greatly prefer annual to triennial Parliaments. We are not sure that the best way of all, would not be to make Parliaments triennial or biennial; with a power to the constituents at any time to meet, and, by a certain majority, compel their offending representative to resign. Surely there is no terror, except to evil doers, in such measures. And who would not prefer them, if the alternative is Revolution? The fearful concomitants of revolution, we shall not endeavour to paint. We are confident that no large scheme of injustice, no spoliation, no destruction of property need be apprehended from the people, while seeking reform of the most radical description, or after having obtained it. But we have no confidence in the good conduct of the starving masses that a revolution would congregate in every populous neighbourhood. Revolution is by every means to be avoided. It may happen of a sudden, if no means to prevent it be adopted. At this time such is our dangerous plight, that we have just two slender barriers between revolution and us-the chance of the Whig Ministry retaining their places, and the chance, if they should go out, that the Tories would be tolerated in office. No there is another chance yet. We call upon Lord Brougham to step forward, in the event of the Whigs going out, and see that the British Nation take no detriment. "Arise, arise, Lord Hardyknute, Gather around you-not a few of the better sort of Lords-but the patriots of the land; men honest in principle, quick to see, ready of understanding, and firm of purpose. Form a really popular, a Radical Administration, and rely on the People, making every crooked thing straight before you. With one other proposition of importance in times like these, we shall conclude. As we have recommended the reduction of the army, let there be a national guard. We do not think it necessary to have a regularly organized and drilled army of citizens, under that denomination, as in France. It is not with us as with our neighbours across the channel. Most of us must work incessantly to escape the Workhouse or the Gazette, and have no time for the parade of soldiering. Suffice it that arms are put into the hands of every householder, in the considerable towns, whose rent exceeds a certain sum, (say L.5,) and who is able to use them. Make it imperative on these men, to provide themselves with arms, and permit all whose rents are below L.5 to purchase arms if they choose, and enrol themselves in the corps. This would be a security for both liberty and the protection of property, in the worst event. THE STATUES, A DRAMA OF PETER WILKINS. THIS poem is as good as manuscript; not because it has never been read, but for the simple reason that only a select portion of it has yet been published. That appeared in the Examiner. Our new specimens, however inadequate they may be to give an idea of the poetical merits of this Drama, may convey a tolerable notion of its purpose. The poet, Peter Wilkins, (we presume he may be a descendant of our old imaginative friend, the Cornish man,) celebrates the installation of the statue of George IV., among the other statues of the British Kings in the Royal Exchange of London. On this occasion the spirits of the whole line of monarchs, for one night, animate their effigies. A chapter of Kings, a royal convention is held. The time is midnight; the scene, the interior of the Exchange; the persons, the departed monarchs of England. The Drama opens with the prologizing of a stately and solemn Chorus. The stranger King is observed. "With what a portly majesty, Over the voluptuous brow, A passion-sated history Of lordly lust and luxury. Ha! his limbs are moving now; The embraces And he opens his pale eyes, He is yet but very stone. Lo! now he strives to speak ; But his lips are idly stirr'd With a quivering soundless motion, Like the ripple of the ocean When no winds are heard. VOL. III. -NO. XV. 2 D |