"

86

46

"to office till they had lost all power and popularity by an avowed desertion to "the separate party of the King; and thus, by allowing the Commons to carry every thing before them in their own House, " and then opposing the naked walls of his prerogative, to the full shock of that unbridled current, he invited a contest that "even in those days proved ruinous to himself, and to the CONSTITUTION. The "same principle of mis-government, aided "indeed by baser practices on a baser ge"neration, lasted down till the Revolution, "when, as is UNIVERSALLY acknowledged, "the true principles of the Constitution "were first recognized, and the reign of "influence and regular freedom began."

Such is the doctrine of our soi disant

Whigs, regarding the very basis of the British Constitution, and nothing so impudently false has been published to the world since the Revolution; nothing more disingenuous in statement or more sophistical in argument. We are here in the first place taught that the Commons of Great Britain are beings of an inferior order to the nobility, not merely in rank and title, but in intellectual endowments and a capacity for business. They are represented as actuated by vulgar feelings and partial interests; incapable of duly appreciating the genuine principles of the British Constitution, and disposed to destroy it, were it not for the salutary controul of the sovereign and peers, who, discerning better the true interests of the nation, keep them quiet by influence, that is, Bribery.

It is inculcated that were the King upon all occasions to act as becomes the first magistrate of a free people, and give up his own opinions in deference to the collected wisdom of a whole nation expressed by honest representatives; that then our constitution must be at an end; and a virtual republic established.-It is objected to Charles the First, that to the grossest tyranny he did not add the basest treachery and deceit, and carry his arbitrary measures under the forms of the Constitution; and finally it is asserted that at the Revolution, the true principles of the Constitution were recognized; because then the reign of Influence and regular Freedom began, and this is said to be universally acknowledged.-Had such doctrines been promulgated fifty years ago, an attempt to answer and refute them seriously, would have been deemed ridiculous.

But we live in other times, and

while poisons are less guarded against than in former days, it becomes those who are aware of the danger to redouble their diligence in pointing out the proper antidotes to the unwary.-Now I would ask, whether it is really true that the Commons of Great Britain are inferior in any one of those qualities which constitute a competent Legislator? Even as now consti tuted, is there less information, less political wisdom, to be found in the lower than in the upper House? Is there one of your readers, Sir, who would hesitate to answer in the negative? And the individual who for the time may be King of Great Britain; are we reasonably to expect superior talents and public virtue in him, so that his will ought to influence the councils of the nation? The answer is prompt. The Constitution supposes no such thing. The Constitution declares the King to be the chief servant of the State, invested with the insignia of its power, for purposes of public benefit, and entitled to allegiance no longer than he shall act according to Law. Where then does there appear any sufficient reason why these two Estates should interfere with the third in the exercise of its proper function, the appropri ation of money drawn from the pockets of its constituents? Is it not enough that the Crown enjoys its executive power, and a patronage extensive beyond all example, with power also to render even the best measures of the Commons nugatory by a negative? And is it not enough for four or five hundred men distinguished by titles as peers, that they possess privileges and immunities far beyond those of their fellow subjects, and also possess the power of refusing the Bills of the Commons, and thwarting every one of their measures?— The Edinburgh Reviewer says, No; all this is not sufficient; there must be in addition to all this a steady and constant influence exerted over the Commons, who as foolish and turbulent schoolboys would certainly run into every dangerous excess, were it not for the ever-operating controul of superior minds! Put let us enquire into the truth of this assertion," that Influence was recognized at the Revolution, and consequently that the independence of the House of Commons was then understood to be incompatible with real Freedom." What say the honest and eminent men who lived during the Revolution? What say the statesmen of every succeeding year down to our times? It would be to abuse the patience of your readers to re

cord the opinions of Locke and Addison upon this subject. They were really Whigs, that is friends, to truth and liberty. And although to record their opinions might and would refute the doctrines of the Edinburgh Review, and prove that Influence was not universally recognized as necessary to the existence of real Freedom; I mean to go farther, and appeal to the recorded opinions of the leading men of the Tory, or high court party, who, if they now lived, would regard with emotions of indignation and contempt the tenets of our modern Whigs.-SWIFT asserts the necessity of aimual parliaments, because the frequency of Elections would tend to destroy the influence of the Court, and yet Swift was the very director of a Tory administration.LORD BOLINGBROKE, not only a Tory but a Jacobite, mentions those who bring forward arguments against the entire independence of parliament in terms of the greatest indignation. "Reason" (says he,) is against them, since it is "a plain absurdity to suppose a "troul on the Crown, and to establish "at the same time a power, and even a

66

66

con

right, in the Crown to render that cou"troul useless. Experience is against them, "since the examples of other countries, "and at some times, of our own, have "proved that a prince may govern ac "cording to his arbitrary will, or that of "his more arbitrary minister, as absolutely and much more securely with, than without, the concurrence of a Parliament. "--The authority even the uniform authority, of our whole Legislature, is against "them-The voice of our Law gives "them the lie. How then shall we ac"count for this proceeding, this open and desperate attack upon our Constitution, " and therefore upon our Liberty? Have "these great men made any nice discovery "that escaped the blunt sagacity of our " ancestors, and is above the narrow con"ceptions of all other men except them"selves at this time?"

66

"commending peace and harmony to the people; on any other I would never "wish to see them united again. If the "breach in the Constitution be effectually repaired, the people will of themselves "return to a state of tranquillity. If not, may discord prevail for ever?--I feel the "principles of an Englishman, and I utter "them without apprehension or reserve, If the King's servants will not per"mit a constitutional question to be de"cided on according to the forms and on the principles of the Constitution, it "must then be decided in some other manner; and rather than it should be given up, rather than the nation should "surrender their birthright to a despotic "minister, I hope, my Lords, old as I am, "I shall see the question fairly brought to iss. and tried between the people and the Government. We must reconcile the practice of parliament to its theory, and remove all just cause of complaint.'

66

66

strong only in influence; am I to be toid "that such a state of things can go on "with safety to any branch of the Consti "tution? If men think that under such "a system, we can go on without a mate "rial recurrence to first principles, they

argue in direct opposition to all theory "and all practice. But it is said, What "will this Reform do for us? Will it re"trieve our misfortunes?--I admit that it would not be sufficient, unless it led "to reduction of substantial and to expence, "reform all the abuses that have crept "into our government.-But I think "would do this. It would give us in "the first place a parliament vigilan an "scrupulous, and that would secure us a government active and economical. It "would prepare the way for every

66

"tional improvement of which, without disturbing the parts, our Constitution is "susceptible." And concluding" Sir, I have done-I have given my advice. "I propose the remedy, and fatal will it be " for England if pride and prejudice much "longer continue to oppose it. The rc"medy proposed is simple, easy, and practi"cable; it does not touch the vitals of "the Constitution, and, I sincerely believe, "will restore us to peace and harmony. "Do not believe that the day is far distant "when Parliamentary Reform must take place, and is it not better to come to it "now while you have the power of deli"beration, than when it may be extorted from you by convulsion? There is yet time-it may yet go to the people "with the grace and favour of a sponta"neous act.—What will it be if extorted from you with indignation and vio"lence?"- -How different the sentiments of these great men from those promulgated in this Review! And it deserves remark that although a profligate minister or his supporters may have sometimes used arguments somewhat similar in debates, yet no man since the Revolution has openly avowed such doctrines before the public, or told the people of Great Britain in plain language, and in a printed book, that it is necessary they should be bribed. A paper upon Parliamentary Reform, such as I have just animadverted upon, is not however calculated to do much mischief; provided it be attentively considered. A kind of lawyer-like plausibility appears on the surface, but upon closer inspection it wants consistency, it wants authority, and, worst of all, it is not supported by facts. It is, in short, such as we might expect from a young member of the Edinburgh Speculative Society, who is ready with much petulance to support either side of the plainest question, and much resembles the "lax pleadings," which Lord Grenville informs us are permitted at the Scotch Bar, and which are defined to be the assumption of that for true, which is in reality false, as a basis, with a superstructure of sophistry and nonsense." I am, Sir, &c. A SCOTCHMAN. Piccadilly, Sept. 28, 1809.

SPECIAL JURIES.

SIR-I am desirous of drawing your attention aside for a few moments from that grand desideratum, Parliamentary Reform, to the consideration of a topic

very little inferior in point of interest, if not closely connected with it, and which I am confident you cherish as of vital importance to the existence of the liberty and independence of Englishmen; I mean Trial by Jury. Amidst all the encroachments which our constitutional establishments have suffered, Trial by Jury has perhaps best endured the shock; and as I should hope that that bloated monster Corruption, will be reduced to a stature of seasonable growth, by the wholesome regimen with which you weekly supply him, I entertain a confidence that Trial by Jury will preserve its wonted superiority, and chat it will be found uniformly composed of impartial, independent, and uncontaminated members of society. I have reason to believe, Mr. Cobbett, that the ordinary or petit Jury, is composed of boni homines; "twelve good men and true," and that justice is very independently and fairly administered by this tribunal; but, Sir, as it is a wise and wholesome principle in our constitution, that every man shall be tried by his equals ; or as Magna Charta emphatically has it, that no freeman shall be hurt either in his person or property," nisi per legale judici"um parium suorum vel per legem terræ,' it follows that in all cases an ordinary Jury is not the proper and best tribunal, and the earliest periods of our judicial establishments have therefore recognized the expediency of a superior, or what is termed 'Special Jury": Blackstone says, that Special Juries were introduced, when the causes were of too great nicety for the discussion of ordinary freeholders, or where the Sheriff was suspected of partiality;" and he might have added, where the situation in life of the party, (upon the maxim of "judicium parium" or judgment of equals,) requires a more select tribunal. The utility of such select Jury is in many cases manifest. No man, for instance, who had a dispute, with a builder, about an exorbitant charge for his house, would think himself very candidly dealt with, if his cause were to be decided by a Jury engaged in a similar branch of trade; still less would a gentleman of fortune, possessing liberal sentiments and entertaining a strong sense of honour, submit to the consideration of twelve mechanics, how far his character, peace and happiness, had been invaded by an unprincipled seducer, who under the mask of a friend had dishonoured his wife; I say, no man would feel content to be tried for an in

fraction of the revenue laws, by a Jury of excisemen or custom-house officers. It was to prevent these inconsistencies, that a Special Jury, which it was formerly discretionary with the Judges to grant, (though I believe seldom, if ever, refused on application by either party,) was given to the subject as matter of right by the 3 Geo. 2, c. 25. Now, Mr. Cobbett, considering the object with which Special Juries are usually in request, it must be quite manifest, that those who are summoned for the purpose, should be of a superior class to shopkeepers; that they should not only be freeholders; but men of liberal education, unshackled with the trammels of trade; for instance, if I had particular grounds for not wishing my cause to come under the investigation of a farrier, or if you please a veterinary surgeon, would such a man be less objectionable, because he happened to possess a freehold estate? Can such an adventitious circumstance operate to qualify a man to sit upon a Special Jury, who on all other accounts should be completely disqualified and unfit for the office: but the very designation given to Special Jurymen, shews the true ground of distinction between them and a common Jury; for they are in all proceedings; in the pannel, and in the Sheriff's Freeholder's Book, denominated "esquires." What constitutes, let me ask, an esquire, if it be not a property independent of labour, and of exertion, and the possessing those liberal princi ples and that extensive mind, which are presumed to be acquired from the leisure which independence affords? Professions confer a like title on their members, from the presumption that the exercise of the profession requires a more cultivated understanding, than is the lot of ordinary life but so jealous is the constitution of the qualification necessary to a Special Juryman, that landed property is stated as an indispensible appurtenant. Now, Mr. Cobbett, these observatious bring me to the conclusion, to which I have been anxious to draw your attention, viz. that nothing can be so preposterous, so complete a perversion of the spirit of the institution of a Special Jury, as that of denominating men esquires, and introducing them as qualified persons in the Sheriff's 's Book, merely because they possess a small landed property, though their daily vocations be within the walis of a manufac tory, or the circuit of a mahogany counter; and yet, Mr. Cobbett, that this out

constant

It was

rage to common sense does exist, is a fact beyond all dispute; for I assure you I am not speaking ironically when I state, that such persons are promiscuously mingled in the Sheriff's Book, with men of fortune and character, and are ly summoned on Special Juries, to discharge a duty in which most frequently they are totally unfit, and are by no means the class of persons the law intended to cast into that situation. only the other day, Mr. Cobbett, that it fell within my observation, that in a cause of the first moment, as it regarded the character and feelings of a gentleman concerned, and in which, to do justice, it was indispensibly necessary that a Special Jury, as was the case, should be empannelled; I say, Mr. Cobbett, it fell within my observation, that the very Foreman of this Jury was--an Undertaker. Now, I am sure, Mr. Cobbett, you will not attribute my remarks to any thing intentionally contumelious or sarcastic, towards any class of men because they happen to be in trade: I know that the trading part of this country, is one of the sources of its opulence; I know that trade and agriculture constitute the sinews of the state; I admit all this; I do not object to the accustomed habits of mankind, requiring that we should be trimmed in a peculiar fashion, preparatory to our being handed over as a savoury dish to the worms; I do not complain that any usage should have made it necessary to hire distorted countenances, to "mimic sorrow when the heart's not sad;" I complain not of this, nor of those who follow the employment; but I do complain of that violation of public duty which induces a sheriff to in troduce such men, as competent to serve on a Special Jurv, and who, to sanction the impropriety, gives them the designation of esquires.-Mr. Coobert, it may be said, that the law has pointed out no other criterion of a Special Juryman, than that he should possess landed property to a certain amount; but does not the obvious reasoning upon the subject; does not the observations of all legal authorities; does not Blackstone, when he says that the utility of a Special Jury, is, when the causes are of too great nicety for the discussion of ordinary freeholders; does not the whole clearly shew what sort of men the sheriff ought to receive, and what to reject for this purpose The result is quite evident, and admits of no ambiguity. It may be pleaded that the present practice of the