593 sessed an English slave,-the spoil of the border wars.* It was only in the year 1102, it was declared in the great council of the nation, held at Westminster, unlawful for any man to sell slaves openly in the market, which before had been the common custom of the country.

The state of society described is obviously that existing at this day in the islands of Dominica and Jamaica, and the great mass of the people were no more in the enjoyment of civil rights than the Negroes of the West Indies. It must then be quite indefensible in any one to revert to the times of the Saxons, or to a period long subsequent, for models of constitutional liberty and government.

Let us advance to the era of Magna Charta. The concessions extorted by the barons at Runnymede were concessions extorted for themselves, not the people. But even this indicates a progression in society. Two orders at least in the state were recognized, namely, the king and nobility, and the idea of prescribing their respective immunities by a public law shows a growth of intelligence, and may be deemed, perhaps, the first visible germ of the Constitution.

From the reign of king John, to that of Charles I. the constitution underwent no decided improvement; the powers of the several parts of which it consisted were the subject of dispute, but were not fixed or materially altered by any public act. Great changes however had taken place among the people. Vassalage was entirely extirpated; commerce and manufactures had been introduced and flourished; comforts and luxuries unknown to preceding ages were placed within the reach of all ranks. But what most distinguished this interval was the growth of an entirely new order of vast power and influence who claimed for the first time a share in political government-namely, the MIDDLE CLASSES; consisting of the smaller freeholders and copyholders living in the county, and of merchants, manufacturers, and retailers resident in cities and towns. These, hitherto unknown as an independent cast, had gradually and almost imperceptibly become influential enough to contest the prerogatives of the monarch in the legislature-make war upon him—and, after beating him and his feudal chivalry in open battle, consolidate all authority in themselves. But their day had not yet come. They conquered, but knew not how to preserve their conquest. Political knowledge was not sufficiently diffused to enable them to frame and maintain a system of government, greatly superior to that which previously existed, and as a consequence, the power of the state fell back into the hands of its former possessors. The new influence, however, manifested in this great struggle was never lost; though the political power reverted to the King and Aristocracy, a vast influence was ever after exercised over public affairs by the middling classes; and we consider the Reform Bill of 1832 nothing more than an open and constitutional recognition of that authority in the body of the People, which, for the last century and a half, has never ceased to be indirectly, though often inefficiently, exercised over the national government.

Sir Frederick Eden's History of the Poor, p. 7.

In this sketch we have taken no notice of the rise of the HOUSE OF COMMONS. The fact is, we consider the House of Commons had hardly begun to exist for any useful purpose, till a short time anterior to the Civil Wars of the commonwealth. What was the constitution of this body previously? Why, it was an assemblage of persons, summoned or not, at the pleasure of the crown or of the sheriff, to raise a sum of money for the public treasury, by taxing themselves and constituents. It was not a legislative assembly, in any proper sense of the term, any more-perhaps not so much-than the Court of Star Chamber, or High Commission. It was a meeting of deputies to assess aids and scutages, not to make laws. That was a branch of the royal authority to be exercised by the summary process of edict and proclamation, not by mean burgesses, the delegates of mushroom towns, who it is true might have money to spare for princely extravagance-the produce of their industry-but whom it was assumed had not intellects sufficiently refined for the high task of legislation, though they might be great adepts in the mysteries of felt-hats, hose, and woollen cloths! So little did the M. P.s of those days value the representative function that they considered it a task imposed, not an honour conferred, and actually received wages for the discharge of so unpleasant a duty.* All sorts of evasions were practised to avoid sending representatives to parliament; some boroughs pleaded poverty, others their insignificance, and the honourable members were almost constrained by force to appear at Westminster, Oxford, or other place of royal residence. The whole proceeding was analogous to what takes place in a city taken by storm. The victorious general calls together the principal inhabitants, not to make laws for the government of the town, but to determine how great a sum they can raise to save themselves from pillage. It was the same with the House of Commons, and so continued till the advent of Hampden, Pym, Hollis, Eliot, and other master minds, claimed for the third estate a nobler and more independent vocation.

Such, we apprehend, is an unvarnished representation of the constitutional importance of the House of Commons up to a comparatively recent period; and for its truth we have only to appeal to the recollections of those who have even cursorily studied the histories of Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth, and the notions of prerogative entertained by the princes of the Stuart race. The English government for a long period was a despotism, occasionally checked and controlled by the clergy and nobility; but though its arbitrary powers were often and bravely disputed, no permanent constitutional barrier was erected against them, till the next great era of our history, the Revolution of 1688.

The expulsion of the Stuarts was a great achievement in favour of constitutional government; but it left the industrious orders in their former state as to the exercise of political power. The limits of the royal prerogatives were defined, and the basis of public freedom declared by the Bill of Rights, but it failed to confer the great desideratum of

* Allen's short History of the House of Commons, p. 12.

the period a system of representation commensurate with the augmented wealth and intelligence of the community. The classes who chiefly profited by the revolution were the Clergy and Aristocracy. The reformed church was in danger from the revival of popery; the aristocracy from both popery and prerogative: the two interests in jeopardy united for their common security and obtained it. From the despotism of the monarch the people fell under the despotism of an Oligarchy, divided into two factions-equally corrupt and inveterably hostile to each other. Though their professions were different, their practice was the same, and neither party, when circumstances gave them an ascendency, pursued measures for the general advantage. Abroad, the country was involved in unceasing, unnecessary, and expensive wars; while, at home, public happiness was a mere pretext, the emoluments of administration being the end of their policy. Government became a game, played at by the rival parties; the king being the occasional umpire, and the people the prize!

The chief reason which can be assigned, for the people remaining so long quiescent under such a defective national administration, has been the internal prosperity of the country, the result of their own unpatronized energies. During two centuries, the career of improvement has been steady and uniform; each reign closed with an augmentation of wealth and knowledge; but in this increase government had no share. It is hardly possible to fix on any period, under any minister, when the spirit of improvement was fostered by government, when men of genius were patronized, or when any anxiety was manifested to facilitate the operations of industry, by abstaining from burdening it with imposts. On the contrary, history exhibits only the virtues of the people struggling against the vices of power,-of liberty against oppression,-of industry against the rapacity of taxation,-of truth against established error. Nevertheless, in spite of these obstacles, the country continued to flourished; but its prosperity is not the creation of a day nor a century; it is not to be dated from the Revolution, nor the reign of George III. nor the Pitt system, nor any other system. No; it is to none of these causes: the great towns of Liverpool, Bristol, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, and Glasgow, have not emerged into opulence and magnificence under the favouring auspices of any of these dynasties; their growth may be ascribed to the people themselves, who, while they had to surmount the disadvantages of their own condition, had to contend against the spirit of institutions hostile to improvement.

How little government, at any time, has been identified with public prosperity may be instanced in this. The worst period of our history may be reckoned from the restoration of Charles II. to the expulsion of James II.; it was a period remarkable for the profligacy of the Court, arbitrary principles, bigotry, and parliamentary corruption; yet Mr. Hume observes, that the commerce and riches of England never encreased so fast as during that time.*

History of England, vol. viii. p. 329.

In the period which followed the Revolution, the policy of government was not more favourable to industry. It was a shameless picture of war and misrule; the King the slave of faction, the People of fiscal extortion, and the mere profession of patriotism rendered ridiculous by the profligacy of public men. Yet even this vile system did not repress the energies of the people; the country flourished, but it flourished not in consequence of the vices of administration, but in spite of them. There was nothing in it paradoxical, it demonstrated no natural connexion between bad government and national prosperity; it merely showed that the seeds of improvement may be so powerful, that they will triumph over the most defective institutions.

The causes of public prosperity during the reign of George III. are too obvious to be pointed out. On the accession of that prince, the country was in the full tide of wealth and glory, and his reign was a mere continuation of the impetus it had previously received. The general progress, no doubt, was greatly accelerated by the invention of machinery: the discoveries of Watt and Arkwright, doubling the productive power of industry, gave to our manufactures an unrivalled superiority, which, in their turn, laid the foundation of agricultural prosperity. In all this, however, government did not participate: indeed, the contrast between the struggling energies of industry and the vices of power was remarkable; while the people were acquiring within, their Rulers were wasting without. It was a singular contest: genius and industry ministering to the calls of folly and prodigality. The result is now before us; and, after all our inventions, toil, and enterprise, we find ourselves worse situated than a century ago. Instead of exhibiting an unexampled picture of real opulence, social enjoyment, and general comfort, we are a woeful spectacle of embarrassment and privation. The first was the portion provided by the Genius of the people, the last is the evil entailed by the Demon of faction and misrule.

Had government ever directed its attention to the intellectual or physical improvement of the people, how different would have been the result. Five things at least might have been expected from an enlightened administration :-First, a general system for the education of the people, founded, not on any system of religious exclusion or political injustice, but on social utility. Secondly, a provision for the clergy, independently of tithe, which is so oppressive on agriculture, and adapted only to a different state of society. Thirdly, a more simple and economical mode of taxation, embracing an abolition of such internal duties as, without adding proportionately to public revenue, interfere with the operations of commercial and manufacturing industry. Fourthly, a revision of the civil and criminal jurisprudence. Lastly, as a necessary preliminary to the rest, an extension of the basis of representation, so as to embrace the power, intellect, and property of the community.

These ameliorations might have been all quietly effected within the last century. Instead, however, of government being occupied on these truly national objects, it has been a mere arena for aristocratical con

tention, on which these pseudo-patriots-these "Great Men," as they are sometimes called, the Godolphins, the Somers, the Harleys, the Bolingbrokes, the Chathams, Foxes, Burkes, and Pitts, have displayed their selfishness and ambition, their want of real patriotism, and enlarged views of public justice and happiness.

We have thus run through the historical part of our subject, and brought out those propositions which mark the progress of the Constitution at different epochs; it only remains to show their application to the great question of parliamentary reform in progress through the Legislature.

Our first inference is, that England never had a constitution in which equality of civil rights and equal protection to all interests were recognised; and that it is in vain to look for such a model of government in any anterior period of our history.

Secondly, we infer, that in England, as in most infant communities, political power was originally exercised by a single person, and that it was afterwards divided between the monarch and nobility.

Thirdly, that the power of the government continued to be exercised by the two estates, and almost to be unquestioned by any antagonist claim till the accession of the Stuarts, when the rise into importance of the Middle Classes called for a new partition of political authority; that these classes succeeded in wresting the government from the king and nobility, but failed to retain it, and that they also failed in securing a direct share in the government in the Revolution of 1688: but, though excluded on both these occasions, they have ever since the great struggle in the sixteenth century succeeded in exercising an indirect influence on national affairs by their numbers, wealth, and intelligence-aided by the Press, access to the debates of the Legislature, and a fragment of popular representation in the House of Commons.

Fourthly, we infer that the period has arrived when the productive classes can no longer be excluded from a direct share in the constitution; that the indirect influence they have hitherto exercised must be converted into an integral and operative part of government; and that this is really the object sought to be accomplished by the Reform Bill.

Fifthly, we infer that we have arrived at a crisis when this change is wholly irresistible:-1. Because the interests to be benefited and enfranchised by it so greatly preponderate over the minor interests by which it can be opposed. 2. Because the change is expedient as well as just; and this is shown by contrasting the past history of the people with the past history of the government: for while the latter presents a congerie of abuse, incongruities, and embarrassments, the results of the partial interests it has embodied; the former have been eminently successful in all their pursuits, and have only been retarded in their progress to social happiness by the folly and incapacity of their Rulers. The conclusion is manifest; the people ought to be admitted to a share of that political power for which experience has proved them qualified, and the Aristocracy deprived of the irresponsible authority, which they have perverted to their exclusive benefit, and the detriment of the nation.