The following parts of the debate of the House of Commons respecting the new taxes, which I extract from the London Courier of June 19, 1819, will show what degree of reformation that body has undergone since Mr. Sheridan's exposition of its character.

"The Marquis of Tavistock said, (June 18, 1819.) Was it not grievous to reflect, that, when the minister had proposed an income tax, the house defeated his purpose-or, as the noble lord had expressed it, relieved themselves, and not the country? Was it not grievous to reflect, that the house had rejected with indignation the income tax; and that when other taxes were proposed, which fell upon the poor and distressed, they were passed with acclamations, and nothing was talked of but the triumphant majorities of ministers? (cheering). If any difficulty was felt in believing this to be a correct view of the case, let it be recollected, that when the income tax was refused in 1816, ministers gave up the malt tax, and the noble lord (Castlereagh) said, "Since Parliament has relieved itself from the income tax, I and my colleagues relieve the country by giving up the malt tax." Why did not ministers, entertaining this view of the different taxes, propose a renewal of the income tax, which they believed to be a burden upon the members of the house, and not upon the country, instead of the taxes which they had admitted to be felt by the country, and especially by the poorer classes? They acted so, obviously because they were afraid of a defeat in that house upon the income tax. But would they have last year proposed the taxes now required? If they had made the proposal, would it have been endured in the last year of the last Parliament? Was it surprizing that the people of this country should be discontented, when they saw their representatives sheltering themselves from an income tax? (Hear.)-When they saw those representatives at the same time laying further taxes on malt, on tea, and on wool?

"How happened it, that when the people called loudly and earnestly for retrenchment and economy, the ministers, backed by overwhelming majorities, answered them by imposing fresh taxes, and increasing their overpowering burdens? The clear and indisputable cause was, that the majority of that house were returned by borough-mongering, and corruption, and that the Parliaments continued for seven years.'

"Mr. Coke (of Norfolk) said-It was the duty of every man to oppose the attempt to arm ministers with new powers of collecting money. He was an old member of Parliament, and he had often seen and well knew the profligate mode in which the public money was squandered: he would not trust them with a single farthing. He would go the full length of asserting that this was a corrupt house, from which no good could be expected. Ministers had no

thing to do but to summon their troops, and they had a majority instantly at their command; it is in fact a joke upon the country, and the people felt it to be so from one end of the kingdom to the

other."

"Mr. Ricardo maintained, at some length, that the idea of there being a sinking fund was nothing but a delusion.

"Before he sat down, he could not help observing, that he concurred in every thing which had been said by the noble marquis, regarding the necessity of a reform in the representation of that house."

As Earl Grey has rendered this subject of British representation and election of importance to us, I will set it in a broader light by additional extracts from the debates of the House of Commons, as I find them reported in the ministerial newspaper, the London Courier. The speakers, with the exception of Lord Cochrane, are all members of considerable distinction.

"Mr. Tierney asked (Feb. 7th, 1817,) if the house recollected the number of holders of offices now sitting there. There were not less than sixty of these gentlemen, all of whom were liable to be dismissed at pleasure. If they deducted their number from some of the ministerial majorities, the result would appear, that the fair and free sense of the house was against the measures of ministers. Many members, too, were certainly connected by the ties of relationship to those who were in power."

"Mr. Brougham said (June 8th, 1819,) that the whole of that which gave the patronage of a borough in the county he had mentioned, which returned two members, and which had never been disputed, was the gross and wilful abuse of a great charitable estate, intended strictly for the education of the poor."

"Mr. Brougham said (Feb. 17, 1818,) that in the last year of every Parliament, more benefit accrued to the public than during all the preceding years of its existence."

"Mr. Calvert said (Feb. 7th, 1817,) that he was one of six persons who had sent two members to Parliament, and for which, each member paid 4,500l."

"Lord Cochrane said (June 20th, 1817,) he remembered very well the first time he was returned as a member to the house, which was for the borough of Hornton, and on which occasion the town bellman was sent through the town to order the voters to come to Mr. Townshend's the head man in that place, and a banker, to receive the sum of 107. 10s. This was the truth, and he would ask, how could he, in that situation be called a representative of the people in the legitimate constitutional sense of that word?

"He had no doubt but there were very many in that house, who

had been returned by similar means. His motive, he was now fully convinced, was wrong, decidedly wrong; but as he came home pretty well flushed with Spanish money, he had found this borough open and he had bargained for it; and he was sure he would have been returned, had he been Lord Camelford's black servant, or his great dog."

"Sir Robert Heron said (May 19th, 1818,) that the necessity of reform had often been acknowledged by the house itself. Distinguished members had offered to prove at the bar its corrupt constitution, but no strong desire to proceed to those proofs had ever been manifested on the part of the house. The corruption was manifested by the Grenville act, which declared the house no longer fit to be trusted with the decision of its own elections-by the oaths and precautions which it declared to be absolutely necessary to prevent partial decisions."

"Mr. Lockart said (March 2d, 1818,) that he approved of the general principle of the (election laws amendment) bill, especially that part forbidding the distribution of cockades. He had known 30,000 cockades given away at an election, and this signal of party was thus made an engine of bribery, not to the multitude at large, but towards persons of particular trades."

"Mr. Wynn said that, at one election he knew that 8,000l. had been given to special constables. At another election 1,500 special constables had been engaged at half a guinea a day each.”

Camelford election." Mr. D. W. Harvey observed (July 2d, 1819,) the counsel who conducted the case before the committee, undertook to prove the existence of a conspiracy for procuring a corrupt return for the borough; and the report of the committee showed that that charge had been in a great measure substantiated. The facts were that there were twenty-nine electors for Camelford -that that borough had been frequently the subject of sale or barter-and that it was now the property of a noble lord, whom he would not name, as those who had read the report of the committee must know that his lordship's name was no secret. Not long before the last election, a meeting of five of the electors was held at an inn near the borough, called the Allworthy, which meeting was joined by a certain Reverend Divine, who expressed to the individuals assembled a desire to return two members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Camelford. To this estimation the electors did not object. They annexed only one condition to their compliance with it, namely, that a large sum of money should be deposited for certain purposes which were mentioned in a whisper. It appeared that with that condition the Reverend Divine would not, or could not, comply. The five electors, however, did not abandon their design. Accordingly they met again at another inn near Camelford, called the Five Lanes, where a letter signed James Harvey was read, offering 6,000l. for the power of returning two members for the borough of Camelford, to be distributed among any fifteen (being a majority) of the electors.-This proposal was agreed to. The reply of the letter, containing the acquiescence in the proposal, was

addressed to Mr. Sibley, the partner of Mr. Hallett. It was proved before the committee that Mr. Hallett had held up 6,000l. before his partner, Mr. Sibley, and had said "Sibley, do you think the Camelford electors will bite at this?" As a security for the money, it appeared that the half notes of the 6,000l. were deposited at Camelford. Ultimately, however, the conspiracy failed, and the election was lost. It did not appear, however, that the half notes had been returned; for it was proved that Hallet or Sibley had said "What damned rogues those Camelford electors are! do you know I could not get back the half notes from them without making some compromise!"

Mr. Southey had informed us, in Espriella's Letters, that Englishmen regard all kinds of deceit as lawful in electioneering,-that they stop not at asserting the grossest and most impudent falsehoods;-that at a Nottingham election the mob ducked some, and killed others; that on such occasions no frauds, pious or impious, are scrupled; that any thing like an election, in the plain sense of the word, is unknown in England; that a majority of the members of the House of Commons are returned by the most corrupt influence; that seats in that house are not uncommonly advertised in the newspapers; that, although oaths are required of the voters, they are evaded by the grossest means; that votes are publicly bought and sold.*

All this is abundantly illustrated in the history of the English elections of the summer of 1818. Much of the time of the courts of justice and the House of Commons, since, has been occupied in the investigation of cases of bribery and corruption, involving the most audacious fraud and perjury. Besides that of Camelford, already mentioned, those of Grampound and Barnstaple may be cited as edifying specimens. The tactics of the boroughs are thus instructively explained, in the number of Bell's Weekly Messenger, of the 29th June, 1818.

"Among the various scenes now exhibiting in the progress of the business of the general election, there are one or two to be seen in some of the boroughs which deserve not only to be generally

known, but which we should hope will not be soon forgotten. We deem it a duty to call particular attention to one of these elective bodies. Upon the arrival of their late member to repeat his canvass, he was met by the electors in a body, and the first question put to him was, whether he was willing to pay the usual gratuity of 407. per man?-that is to say, to invite them all to a breakfast, where each should find a 407. bank of England note under his saucer. The gentleman replied that he was really not rich enough to give this expensive breakfast to three hundred voters; but that he had rendered the borough such important services in their trade, roads, and harbour, that he trusted their gratitude would not seize the present occasion of turning him out; but if they insisted on the 401. per man, they must seek for some one who was better able to buy them at that price."

"In another borough, the practice of the election we understand to be as follows:-The price of the worthy and independent electors is 50%. per head, and one of the principal men in the town being a banker, the money is to be paid in his notes, and at his bank. Upon the day preceding the nomination and return, the town crier gives public notice for all the electors to appear personally at the banking house of Mr. to consult upon a suitable member for their independent borough. Each appears accordingly, and receives his fifty pounds. On the following day, the banker appears at the hustings or town hall, recommends very warmly Mr. such a one, and the electors immediately elect him. No questions are asked as to the fifty pounds, or from whom it came, and no one of course takes any blame to himself for having received a bribe from the worthy Mr. such a one. Each is willing to swear that he never saw his money. The vote is given only from good will to the banker, and it seems that the oath does not apply to gratuities from third persons."

"In a third borough, the money is given by the man in the moon,' who deputes an attorney for his agent. In a few days the same attorney produces a notice from the same man in the moon, that he could wish their respected and most independent borough to be represented by Mr. A. and Mr. B. two gentlemen with whose worth he is acquainted. The recommendation is adopted as a matter of course, and two persons as fitted for corruption as themselves are sent into Parliament. In a word, there is scarcely a slang term or a slang practice, which may not be found in the abominable practices of some of these boroughs, in which perjury is made a comedy, and the most atrocious roguery converted into a jolly pleasantry. All these things are going on before our eyes."

In scenes of disorder and violence, the late election. was as rich as any former occasion of the kind. The treatment of Sir Murray Maxwell is not unknown to us on this side of the Atlantic. Such horrible outrage as