tion of the land, to do away with rotten boroughs? We would ask, what benefit can result to the People from such boroughs? or can the Members sent to the House of Commons by a single individual, be called the Representatives of the Poeple? No-we feel that truth justifies us in saying, that the House of Commons is in a great measure as hereditary as the House of Peers. If money is wanting, why do not the Nobility, who can best afford it, contribute out of their immense revenues, to the exigencies of the state, without calling on the People for their moiety, when that People are actually starving? Moreover, as the money is notoriously spent for their oppression, rather than their benefit, to pay an army of sinecurists, for betraying and plundering them of their Rights as Freemen. If they did so, it would be in many instances only refunding a debt due to the Public Treasury, the coffers of which would now be overflowing, had the People been honestly represented in the House of Commons; whereas, at present Mr. Canning might light a candle and grope for an hour at the bottom ere he can chance upon a single guinea.!! OBSERVATIONS ON SEAT SELLING, WE copy the following anecdote illustrative of the private character of Sir Manasseh Lopez, from the daily Papers, and we cannot help remarking that with all his virtues, he was singularly unfortunate in being punished for doing that` which is regular trade-a wholesale trade, as destructive to the liberties of Englishmen as the Guinea trade used to be to the uncultivated Indians of Africa. Sir Manasseh has many virtues as a set-off to his one crime. As a private character, it appears that he is every thing that is amiable, kind, and benevolent. What, we ask, can Lord Castlereagh offer to counterbalance his notorious career in Ireland, or his no less arbitrary conduct as a Minister of England? or what can England expect from the administration of such a man? a man, every hour of whose existence is execrated by the widow and the orphan-whose Country's curse poisons every comfort of life in the enjoyment of social intercourse, and whose only study is to render mankind as miserable from his tyranny, as he is from that of a selfaccusing conscience. The best description of his Lordship's character would be a history of the tortures invented in Ireland, during tht years 1798 and 1800, but those we dare not mention, or the Attorney-General would harangue for four or five hours to attempt to prove, to our bitter cost, that Truth is a libel. seats. Here, then, is a very dubious character, who in the House of Commons by wholesale, and yet is allowed. to escape, to use a familiar phrase, scot-free, while the good and virtuous Sir Masseh is doomed to a prison, for. purchasing one solitary seat. This is an equal distribution of justice with a vengeance; but we most earnestly hope that such a state of things will not be permitted to continue in this once happy kingdom. We also sincerely hope that Sir Manasseh may meet, with more lenity than is to be found in the sentence of the Judge. He was merely made a 'scape-goat for the enormities of the Boroughmongers; but the People are not to be deceived by such flimsy prétences to honesty amongst their imagined Representatives. Justice Bayley may preach forth his nonsensical falsehoods by the hour, but the People are now too wise to place implicit credence in the sanctimonious solemnity of a Judge. No, thank God, they are now awake to those who are, or are not, their enemies. They know that the Crown has not a very persevering opponent in any of the Judges, although they are supposed to act as counsel for the prisoner. We hope that when Sir Manasseh is liberated, he will not set about raising another corps for those who have treated them so ungratefully, for merely following their precious example upon a small scale. "A writer, under the signature of "Philanthropos," in alluding to the praiseworthy acts done by Sir Massel Lopez, on various occasions, says,- A tenant, who occupied one of his largest estates, being much rent in arrear, hired vessels to come close to some of the ground, which, in one night, conveyed off the whole of his moveables, both living and dead. The next morning Sir Masseh Lopez, perceiving, by the absence of the stock on the ground, that something was wrong, went to the house of this unworthy tenant, where he found only the wife (then nearly ready to lie in) and a servant, without a single article of furniture. His susplcions being confirmed by the wife's confession, he turned round, and observing that there was no bed, inquired of her where she had slept? The answer was, on straw. He instantly exclained, "Good God! why did you not come to my house? I would have given you the best bed in it rather than you should have been exposed to such a hardship" Looking at this and other instances, which he could cite, of his benevolence, at the loyal attachment he (Sir Masseh) has ever manifested towards his aged King, and recollecting the fine body of men, to the number of 1800, which he raised, at a critical period, in defence of his country, is it too much to hope that, in the proper season, an appeal should be made, on his behalf, to the Royal fountain of mercy? Thousands, he verily believed, in the county of Devon and out of it, would subscribe their signatures, not because they approve of the offence attempted to be committed by Sir Massch, but from a conviction that, on many grounds, he is entitled to favourable consideration, and that it is an injury to the Public to detain in confinement, particularly at his advanced age, one, who has not only the power, but the wish, to benefit his fellow-creatures." EXTRACT FROM THE SPEECH OF THE LATE WE present our readers with the following extract from the speech of the late Right Hon. Charles James Fox, on the Treason and Sedition Bills, introduced on November the 10th, 1795; and would request them to contrast it with the paltry opposition to similar measures in November, 1819. This luminous and eloquent speech must have caused a powerful impression upon every Member of the House, and even on the Ministers themselves; but, in the present day the speeches of the opposition, are laughed and sneered at by Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning, who are in high glee, to think that they have not ten men in the House, opposed to them, who combine honesty with talent sufficient to carry weight with their sentiments, against the approaching reign of Despotism. We have often thought that it required talent to be a Despot; but we fear that we shall shortly experience dear bought conviction, that a dissipated fool may plunge a nation into slavery and terror, with as much facility as a MARAT or a ROBESPIERRE. "There were strong objections to proceeding upon this subject without better evidence. All this, however, was trilling, in comparison with what the Right Hon, Gentleman said upon the subject. He had said that there might be a difficulty to preserve the right of Petitioning, and to prevent abuses of that right. Difficulty and delicacy he confessed there were: but that did not embarrass him; for, he said they might be settled in the detail. Thus the Right Hon. Gentleman talked with ease on the rights of the subject, as if he expected to bring the Public to submit to the most rigid despotism. In that detail, Mr. Fox said, he would never take a share, for he would never attend the de tail of a measure, which in its essence was so detestable. The Right Hon. Gentleman had hinted at two points. With regard to the first, that of Public Meetings for the discussion of Public Subjects, he must not only confess them to be lawful, but must allow them also to be agreeable to the very essence of the British Constitution, and to which, under that Constitution, most of the liberties we enjoyed were particularly owing, The Right, Hou. Gentleman had said, that these Meetings were not to be prevented, they were only to be regulated. Attend, said Mr. Fox, to the regulation. I thought I knew the Rights of Man-aye, and the Rights of Englishmen. [Here was a prodigious cry of Hear, hear!] What said he, that is a slip you suppose. The Rights of Man is a sentence without a meaning. Do you say that men have no natural Rights? If so, Englishmen's Rights can have no existence; this House would have no existence. The Rights of Man, I say, are clear; Man has natural Rights; and he who denies it is igonrant of the basis of a free Government; is ignorant of the best principle of our Constitution. he "The People, he had always thought, had a right to discuss the topics from which their grievances arose. In all instances, they had a right to complain by Petition, and to remonstrate to either House of Parliament, or, if they pleased, to the King exclusively; but now, it seems, they are not to do so, unless notice be given to a Magistrate, that may become a witness of their proceedings. There were to be witnesses of every word that every man spoke. This Magistrate, this jealous witness, was to form his opinion on the propriety of the proceedings; and if he should think that anything that was said had a tendency to sedition, he had power to arrest the man who uttered it. Not only se, he was to have the power of dissolving the Meeting at his own will. Say at once, said Mr. Fox, that a free Constitution is no longer suitable to us; say at once, in a manly manner, that upon an ample review of the state of the World at this moment, a free Constitution is not fit for you; conduct yourselves at once as the Senators of Denmark did; lav down your Freedom, and acknowledge and accept of Despotism. But do not mock the understandings and the feelings of mankind, by telling the World that you are free-by telling me that, if out of the House, for the purpose of expressing my sense of the public administration of this Coun try, of the calamities which this War has occasioned, I state a grievance by Petition, or make my declaration of my sentiments, which I always had a right to do; but which if f now do, in a manner that may appear to a Magistrate to be seditious, I am to be subjected to penalties which were hitherto unknown to the laws of England. If in stating any. of these things out of the House, a Magistrate should be of opinion that I am irregular, he is to have the power to stop me; he is to have the power to stop me: he may say The cause which you alledge for your grievance is unfounded; you excite, by what you say, jealousies and discontents that are unfounded; and if I say what in his judgment or his wishes ought to be concealed, he is to have a power to stop me, and to treat me as a rioter, if I do not obey him. I ask again, if this can be called a meeting of a free people? Did a free people meet so? Did ever a free state exist so? Did any man ever hypothetically state the possibility of the existence of freedom under such restrictions? Good God Almighty, Sir! is it possible that the feelings of the People of this country should be thus insulted? Is it possible to make the people of this country believe that this plan is any thing but a total annihilation of their liberty?" "The Right Hon. Gentleman had next adverted to a Bill which had been passed to prevent the assembling of persons for the discussion of questions on the Lord's day, from which he was to bring in a Bill to prevent the discussion of questions on any day; and this, he said, was to be applicable to all cases where money was to be taken. Why all questions were to be prohibited where money was to be taken, merely on an allegation that such questious might produce mischief, was, he confessed, beyond his skill to understand. But this was not all: it was to be applicable, it seemed, to places where no money was to be taken, because, in truth, persons, might be admitted by means of tickets; and they must not amount to a number beyond a certain one which the Minister should be pleased to insert in his Bill, unless duly licenced by a Magistrate. He would again ask,-Was this, or was it not, to prevent all political discussion whatever? Let them shew him when this had been obtained since the Revolution, or at any time when this country could be called free. The people are to be prevented from discussing public topics publicly ;-they are to be prevented from discussing them privately. If, then, without this private intercourse of public debate, the grievances of the country are to be felt, and are such as to call forth a general desire that they should be redressed-what are the Public to do? They must send, it seems, to a Magistrate, and under his good leave they are to be permitted to proceed.-[Here there was a cry from the Treasury |