The cause of liberty has not suffered by the remedies adopted of the soundness or sincerity of their designs? The local character of Manchester, the local character of Birmingham, was not pledged to any of the proceedings to which their names were appended. A certain number of ambulatory | tribunes of the people, self-elected to that high function, assumed the name and authority of whatever place they thought proper to select for a place of meeting; the rostrum was pitched, sometimes here, sometimes there, according to the fancy of the mob or the patience of the magistrates; but the proposition and the proposer were in all places nearly alike; and when, by a sort of political ventriloquism, the same voice had been made to issue from half a dozen different corners of the country, it was impudently assumed to be a concord of sweet sounds, composing the united voice of the people of England! Now, gentlemen, let us estimate the mighty mischief that has been done to liberty by putting down meetings such as I have described. Let us ask what lawful authority has been curtailed; let us ask what respectable community has been defrauded of its franchise; let us ask what municipal institutions have been violated by a law which fixes the migratory complaint to the spot whence it professes to originate, and desires to hear of the grievance from those by whom that grievance is felt-which leaves to Manchester, as Manchester, to Birmingham, as Birmingham, to London, as London, all the free scope of utterance which they have at any time enjoyed for making known their wants, their feelings, their wishes, their remonstrances; which leaves to each of these divisions its separate authority-to the union of all, or of many of them, the aggregate authority of such a consent and co-operation; but which denies to any itinerant hawker of grievances the power of stamping their names upon his wares; of pretending, because he may raise an outcry at Manchester or at Birmingham, that he therefore speaks the sense of the town which he disquiets and endangers; or, still more preposterously, that because he has disquieted and endangered half a dozen neighborhoods in their turn, he is, therefore, the organ of them all, and through them, of the whole British people. Such are the stupid fallacies which the law of the last session has extinguished! and such are the object and effect of the measures which British liberty is not to survive! To remedy the dreadful wound thus inflicted Parliamentary upon British liberty-to restore to the Reform. people what the people have not lost -to give a new impulse to that spirit of freedom which nothing has been done to embarrass or restrain, we are invited to alter the constitution of that assembly through which the people share in the Legislature; in short, to make a radical reform in the House of Commons. the situation of the other members, and the action of the Constitution itself. I have, on former occasions, stated here, and I have stated elsewhere, questions on this subject, to which, as yet, I have never received an answer. "You who propose to reform the House of Commons, do you mean to restore that branch of the Legislature to the same state in which it stood at some former period? or do you mean to reconstruct it on new principles ?" Perhaps a moderate Reformer or Whig will answer, that he means only to restore the House of Commons to what it was at some former period. I then beg to ask him—and to that question, also, I have never yet received an answer-“At what period of our history was the House of Commons in the state to which you wish to restore it ?" ly popular than The House of Commons must, for the purpose of clear argument, be considered in The Commons two views. First, with respect to its never more tru. agency as a third part in the Consti- at present. tution; secondly, with respect to its composition, in relation to its constituents. As to its agency as a part of the Constitution, I venture to say, without hazard, as I believe, of contradiction, that there is no period in the history of this country in which the House of Commons will be found to have occupied so large a share of the functions of government as at present. Whatever else may be said of the House of Commons, this one point, at least, is indisputable, that from the earliest infancy of the Constitution, the power of the House of Commons has been growing, till it has almost, like the rod of Aaron, absorbed its fellows. I am not saying whether this is or is not as it ought to be. I am merely saying why I think that it can not be intended to complain of the want of power, and of a due share in the government, as the defect of the modern House of Commons. I admit, however, very willingly, that the greater share of power the House of Commons exercises, the more jealous we ought to be of its composition; and I presume, therefore, that it is in this respect, and in relation to its constituents, that the state of that House is contended to want revision. Well, then, at what period of our history was the composition of the history of the House of Commons materially different from what it is at present? Is there any period of our history in which the rights of election were not as various, in which the influence of property was not as direct, in which recommendations of candidates were not as efficient, and some boroughs as close as they are now? I ask for information; but that information, plain and simple as it is, and necessary, one should think, to a clear understanding, much more to a grave decision of the point at issue, I never, though soliciting it with all humility, have ever yet been able to obtain from any reformer, Radical or Whig. tained in equal authority and jurisdiction with the House of Commons, when once that House of Commons should become a direct deputation, speaking the people's will, and that will the rule of the government? In one way or other the House of Lords must act, if it be to remain a concurrent branch of the Legislature. Either it must uniformly affirm the measures which come from the House of Commons, or it must occa former would, probably, give to my first question | pretension could the House of Lords be mainan answer very different from that which I have supposed his moderate brother to give. He will tell me fairly, that he means not simply to bring the House of Commons back, either to the share of power which it formerly enjoyed, or to the modes of election by which it was formerly chosen; but to make it what, according to him, it ought to be a direct, effectual representative of the people; representing them not as a delegate commissioned to take care of their interests,sionally take the liberty to reject them. If it but as a deputy appointed to speak their will. Now to this view of the matter I have no other objection than this: that the British Constitution is a limited monarchy; that a limited monarchy is, in the nature of things, a mixed government; but that such a House of Commons as the Radical reformer requires would, in effect, constitute a pure democracy-a power, as it appears to me, inconsistent with any monarchy, and unsusceptible of any limitation. of a republic fore us. I may have great respect for the person who The question theoretically prefers a republic to a not the one be. monarchy. But even supposing me to agree with him in his preference, I should have a preliminary question to discuss, by which he, perhaps, may not feel himself embarrassed; which is this, whether I, born as I am (and as I think it is my good fortune to be) under a monarchy, am quite at liberty to consider myself as having a clear stage for political experiments; whether I should be authorized, if I were convinced of the expediency of such a change, to withdraw monarchy altogether from the British Constitution, and to substitute an unqualified democracy in its stead; or whether, whatever changes I may be desirous of introducing, I am not bound to consider the Constitution which I find as at least circumscribing the range, and in some measure prescribing the nature of the improvement. tendency of the For my own part, I am undoubtedly prepared But the direct to uphold the ancient monarchy of the present scheme country, by arguments drawn from is to destroy what I think the blessings which we the monarchy. have enjoyed under it; and by arguments of another sort, if arguments of another sort shall ever be brought against it. But all that I am now contending for is, that whatever reformation is proposed, should be considered with some reference to the established Constitution of the country. That point being conceded to me, I have no difficulty in saying, that I can not conceive a Constitution of which one third part shall be an assembly delegated by the people-not to consult for the good of the nation, but to speak, day by day, the people's willwhich must not, in a few days' sitting, sweep away every other branch of the Constitution that might attempt to oppose or control it. I can not conceive how, in fair reasoning, any other branch of the Constitution should pretend to stand against it. If government be a matter of will, all that we have to do is to collect the will of the nation, and, having collected it by an adequate organ, that will is paramount and supreme. By what uniformly affirm, it is without the shadow of authority. But to presume to reject an act of the deputies of the whole nation!-by what assump tion of right could three or four hundred great proprietors set themselves against the national will? Grant the reformers, then, what they ask, on the principles on which they ask it, and it is utterly impossible that, after such a reform, the Constitution should long consist of more than one body, and that one body a popular assembly. Why, gentlemen, is this theory? or is it a theory of mine? If there be, among those Proef from who hear me, any man who has been past history. (as in the generous enthusiasm of youth any man may blamelessly have been) bitten by the doc trines of reform, I implore him, before he goes forward in his progress to embrace those doc trines in their radical extent, to turn to the history of the transactions in this country in the year 1648, and to examine the bearings of those trans actions on this very question of radical reform. He will find, gentlemen, that the House of Commons of that day passed the following resolu tion: "Resolved, That the people are, under God, the original of all just power." Well! can any sentiment be more just and reasonable? Is it not the foundation of all the liberties of mankind? Be it so. Let us proceed. The House of Commons followed up this resolution by a second, which runs in something like these terms: "Resolved, That the Commons of England, assembled in Parliament, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme authority of this nation." In this resolution the leap is taken. Do the Radical reformers deny the premises or the inference? or do they adopt the whole of the tempt ing precedent before them? But the inference did not stop there. The House of Commons proceeded to deduce from these propositions an inference, the apparently logical dependence of which upon these proposi tions I wish I could see logically disproved. But not on of reforming sentation Such was the theory: the practical inferences | chisement of Grampound is to be the beginning were not tardy in their arrival after the theory. of a system of reform: while they know, In a few weeks the House of Peers was voted and I hope mean as well as I do, not the principle useless. We all know what became of the to reform (in the sense of change) but the repreCrown. to preserve the Constitution. I would not delude the reformers, if I could; and it is quite useless to attempt a delusion upon persons quite as sagacious in their generation as any moderate reformers or anti-reformers of us all. They know full well that the Whigs have no more notion than I have of parting with the close boroughs. Not they, indeed! A large, and perhaps the larger, part of them are in their hands. Why, in the assembly to which you send me, gentlemen, some of those who sit on the same side with me represent, to be sure, less popular places than Liverpool-but on the bench immediately over against me, I descry, among the most eminent of our rivals for power, scarce any other sort of representatives than members for close, or, if you will, for rotten boroughs. To suppose, therefore, that our political opponents have any thoughts of getting rid of the close boroughs, would be a gross delusion; and, I have no doubt, they will be quite as fair and open with the reformers on this point as I am. And this the ent scheme. Such, I say, were the radical doctrines of Such the result 1648, and such the consequences to of radical reform. which they naturally led. If we are induced to admit the same premises now, who is it, I should be glad to know, that is to guarantee us against similar conclusions ? These, then, are the reasons why I look with jealousy at schemes of parliamentary only consist reform. I look at them with still more jealousy, because, in one of the two classes of men who co-operate in support of that question, I never yet found any two individuals who held the same doctrines: I never yet heard any intelligible theory of reform, except that of the Radical reformers. Theirs, indeed, it is easy enough to understand. But as for theirs, I certainly am not yet fully prepared. I, for my part, will not consent to take one step, without knowing on what principle I am invited to take it, and (which is, perhaps, of more consequence) without declaring on what principle, I will not consent that any step, however harmless, shall be taken. out settling the principle on which it is made. What more harmless than to disfranchise a No change to be corrupt borough in Cornwall, which attempted with has exercised its franchise amiss, and brought shame on itself, and on the system of which it is a part? Nothing. I have no sort of objection to doing, as Parliament has often done in such cases (supposing always the case to be proved), to disfranchising the borough, and rendering it incapable of abusing its franchise in future. But though I have no objection to doing this, I will not do it on the principle of speculative improvement. I do it on the principle of specific punishment for an offense. And I will take good care that no inference shall be drawn from my consent in this specific case, as to any sweeping concurrence in a scheme of general alteration. It endangers of England. And why, gentlemen, is it that I am satisfied with a system which, it is said, no man can support who is not in love with the monarchy corruption? Is it that I, more than any other man, am afraid to face a popular election? To the last question you can give the answer. To the former I will answer for myself. I do verily believe, as I have already said, that a complete and perfect democratical representation, such as the reformers aim at, can not exist as part of a mixed government. It may exist, and, for aught I know or care, may exist beneficially as a whole. But I am not sent to Parliament to inquire into the question whether a democracy or a monarchy be the best. My lot is cast under the British monarchy. Under that I have lived-under that I have seen my country flourish―under that I have seen it enjoy as great a share of prosperity, of happiness, and Nay, I should think it highly disingenuous to of glory, as I believe any modification of human Boroughs suffer the Radical reformers to imagine society to be capable of bestowing; and I am franchised for that they had gained a single step to- not prepared to sacrifice or to hazard the fruit ward the admission of their theory, by of centuries of experience, of centuries of strugany such instance of particular animadversion ongles, and of more than one century of liberty, as proved misconduct. I consent to such disfranchisement; but I do so, not with a view of furthering the Radical system-rather of thwarting it. I am willing to wipe out any blot on the present system, because I mean the present system to stand. I will take away a franchise, because it has been practically abused; not because I am at all disposed to inquire into the origin or to discuss the utility of all such franchises, any more than I mean to inquire, gentlemen, into your titles to your estates. Disfranchising Grampound (if that is to be so), I mean to save Old Sarum. properly dis their crimes. perfect as ever blessed any country upon the earth, for visionary schemes of ideal perfectibility, or for doubtful experiments even of possible improvement. The govern taken as it is I am, therefore, for the House of Commons as a part, and not as the whole, of the government. And as a part of the gov- ment to be ernment, I hold it to be frantic to suppose, that from the election of members of Parliament you can altogether exclude, by any contrivance, even if it were desirable to do so, the influence of property, rank, talents, family connection, and whatever else, in the radical lanNow, sir, I think I deal fairly with the Radical guage of the day, is considered as intimidation reformers; more fairly than those who would or corruption. I believe that if a reform, to the suffer it to be supposed by them that the disfran-extent of that demanded by the Radical reform ers, were granted, you would, before an annual | It is true, that if they found their way there, they election came round, find that there were new might endeavor to bring us to a sense of our connections grown up which you must again de- misdeeds, and to urge us to redeem our characstroy, new influence acquired which you must ter by some self-condemning ordinance; but dispossess of its authority; and that in these would not the authority of their names, as our fruitless attempts at unattainable purity, you associates, have more than counterbalanced the were working against the natural current of hu- force of their eloquence as our reformers? man nature. But, gentlemen, I am for the whole Constitution. The liberty of the subject as much depends on the maintenance of the constitutional prerogatives of the Crown-on the acknowledg ment of the legitimate power of the other House of Parliament, as it does in upholding that su I believe, therefore, that, contrive how you will, some such human motives of action will find room to operate in the election of members of Parliament. I think that this must and ought to be so, unless you mean to exclude from the concerns of the nation all inert wealth, all inact-preme power (for such is the power of the purse ive talent, the retired, the aged, and the infirm, all who can not face popular assemblies or engage in busy life; in short, unless you have found some expedient for disarming property of influence, without (what I hope we are not yet ripe for) the abolition of property itself. Varied modes I would have by choice-if the choice were yet to be made-I would have in the of election best House of Commons great variety of for the House. interests, and I would have them find their way there by a great variety of rights of election; satisfied that uniformity of election would produce any thing but a just representation of various interests. As to the close boroughs, I know that through them have found their way into the House of Commons men whose talents have been an honor to their kind, and whose names are interwoven with the brightest periods in the history of their country. I can not think that system altogether vicious which has produced such fruits. Nor can I think that there should be but one road into that assembly, or that no man should be presumed fit for the deliberations of a Senate, who has not had the nerves previously to face the storms of the hustings. in one sense of the word, though not in the sense of the resolution of 1648) which resides in the democratical branch of the Constitution. Whatever beyond its just proportion was gained by one part, would be gained at the expense of the whole; and the balance is now, perhaps, as nearly poised as human wisdom can adjust it. I fear to touch that balance, the disturbance of which must bring confusion on the nation. ought not to Gentlemen, I trust there are few, very few, reasonable and enlightened men ready such a subject to lend themselves to projects of con- be tampered fusion. But I confess I very much with wish that all who are not ready to do so would consider the ill effect of any countenance given publicly or by apparent implication, to those whom in their hearts and judgments they despise. I remember that most excellent and able man, Mr. Wilberforce, once saying in the House of Commons that he never believed an opposi tion really to wish mischief to the country; that they only wished just so much mischief as might drive their opponents out, and place themselves in their room." Now, gentlemen, I can not help thinking that there are some persons tampering with the question of reform something in the same spirit. They do not go so far as the reformers; they even state irreconcilable differences of opinion; but to a certain extent they agree, and even co-operate with them. They co-oper ate with them in inflaming the public feeling not only against the government, but against the support given by Parliament to that government, in the hope, no doubt, of attracting to themselves the popularity which is lost to their opponents, and thus being enabled to correct and retrieve the errors of a displaced administration. Vain and hopeless task to raise such a spirit and then to govern it! They may stimulate the steeds into fury, till the chariot is hurried to the brink In truth, gentlemen, though the question of of a precipice; but do they flatter themselves that reform is made the pretext of those they can then leap in, and, hurling the incompe are willing to persons who have vexed the country tent driver from his seat, check the reins just in sit for boroughs. for some months, I verily believe time to turn from the precipice and avoid the fall? that there are very few even of them who either I fear they would attempt it in vain. The imgive credit to their own exaggerations, or care pulse once given may be too impetuous to be conmuch about the improvements which they rec- trolled; and intending only to change the guid ommend. Why, do we not see that the most vio-ance of the machine, they may hurry it and themlent of the reformers of the day are aiming at seats selves to irretrievable destruction. in that assembly, which, according to their own theories, they should have left to wallow in its own pollution, discountenanced and unredeemed? I need not say, gentlemen, that I am one of the last men to disparage the utility and dignity of popular elections. I have good cause to speak of them in far different language. But, among numberless other considerations which endear to me the favors which I have received at your hands, I confess it is one that, as your representative, I am enabled to speak my genuine sentiments on this (as I think it) vital question of parliamentary reform, without the imputation of shrinking from popular canvass, or of seeking shelter for myself in that species of representation which, as an element in the composition of Parliament, I never shall cease to defend. The most violent reformers May every man who has a stake in the country, whether from situation, from character, from wealth, from his family, and from the hopes of his children-may every man who has a sense of the blessings for which he is indebted to the form of government under which he lives, see that the time is come at which his decision must be taken, and, when once taken, steadfastly acted upon-for or against the institutions of the British monarchy! The time is come at which there On which side is but that line of demarkation. SPEECH OF MR. CANNING, DELIVERED AT PLYMOUTH, IN THE YEAR 1823. INTRODUCTION. MR. CANNING having visited Plymouth and inspected the Dock-yards in 1823, the freedom of the town was presented him through the Mayor and other public officers. He returned thanks in the following speech, which was much admired at the time not only for the political views which it expressed, but especially for his beautiful allusion to the ships in ordinary as an emblem of England while reposing in the quietude of peace. SPEECH, &c. MR. MAYOR AND GENTLEMEN,-I accept with thankfulness, and with greater satisfaction than I can express, this flattering testimony of your good opinion and good will. I must add that the value of the gift itself has been greatly enhanced by the manner in which your worthy and honorable Recorder has developed the motives which suggested it, and the sentiments which it is intended to convey. subject to of can The views of a British politician should be con fined to the inter ests of Great Gentlemen, the end which I confess I have always had in view, and which appears to me the legitimate object pursuit to a British statesman, I describe in one word. The lan- Britain. guage of modern philosophy is wisely and dif fusely benevolent; it professes the perfection of our species, and the amelioration of the lot of all mankind. Gentlemen, I hope that my heart beats Gentlemen, your recorder has said very truly, as high for the general interest of humanity—I The life of ev that whoever in this free and enlight-hope that I have as friendly a disposition toward ery public man ened state, aims at political eminence, other nations of the earth, as any one who vaunts scrutiny. and discharges political duties, must his philanthropy most highly; but I am contentexpect to have his conduct scrutinized, and ev-ed to confess that, in the conduct of political afery action of his public life sifted with no ordi- fairs, the grand object of my contemplation is the nary jealousy, and with no sparing criticism; and interest of England. such may have been my lot as much as that of other public men. But, gentlemen, unmerited obloquy seldom fails of an adequate, though perhaps tardy, compensation. I must think myself, as my honorable friend has said, eminently fortunate, if such compensation as he describes has fallen to me at an earlier period than to many others; if I dare flatter myself (as his partiality has flattered me), that the sentiments that you are kind enough to entertain for me, are in unison with those of the country; if, in addition to the justice done me by my friends, I may, as he has assured me, rely upon a candid construction, even from political opponents. Success depends selfishness. Not, gentlemen, that the interest of England is an interest which stands isolated and This involves alone. The situation which she holds no principle of forbids an exclusive selfishness; her prosperity must contribute to the prosperity of other nations, and her stability to the safety of the world. But intimately connected as we are with the system of Europe, it does not follow that we are, therefore, called upon to mix ourselves on every occasion, with a restless and meddling activity, in the concerns of the nations which surround us. It is upon a just balance of conflicting duties, and of rival, but sometimes incompatible advantages, that a government must judge when to put forth its strength, and when to husband it for occasions yet to come. great ultimate But, gentlemen, the secret of such a result does not lie deep. It consists only in on very simple an honest and undeviating pursuit Our ultimate object must be the peace of the principles. of what one conscientiously believes world. That object may sometimes The peace of to be one's public duty-a pursuit which, stead- be best attained by prompt exertions the world the ily continued, will, however detached and sepa--sometimes by abstinence from in- object rate parts of a man's conduct may be viewed under the influence of partialities or prejudices, obtain for it, when considered as a whole, the approbation of all honest and honorable minds. Any man may occasionally be mistaken as to the means most conducive to the end which he has in view; but if the end be just and praiseworthy, it is by that he will be ultimately judged, either by his contemporaries or by posterity. terposition in contests which we can not prevent. It is upon these principles that, as has been most truly observed by my worthy friend, it did not appear to the government of this country to be necessary that Great Britain should mingle in the recent contest between France and Spain. Your worthy recorder has accurately classed the persons who would have driven us into that contest. There were undoubtedly among them |