NOTE 8.-Sir Francis Burdett, June 15th, 1809, moved in the House of Commons, "that freeholders, householders, and OTHERS subject to direct taxation, in support of the poor, the church, and the State, are required to elect members to serve in Parliament,"-(Motion negatived.) 66 NOTE 9. Mr. Hardy's observation should not be omitted.He says, "as to universal suffrage, it seems, as far as I can judge, very generally abandoned at present.--And indeed it is difficult "to conceive how it could be entertained for any length of "time, by any persons who considered, not the genius of the "British Constitution merely, but the genius and propensities of "mankind." NOTE 10.-The following are extracts from Sir Robert Cotton's Abridgement of the Records, among many others, which prove the state of elections in those days, 1. H. IV. "The com 66 mons complain, for that the King procured Sheriffs of counties to "serve his own will."-18 H. VI. They again complain, "for "that Gilbert, high-sheriff of the county of Cambridge, had made ແ no return. It was ordered, that he should go to a new election, "and made proclamation that no person should come armed "thereto."---38 H. VI. It is enacted, that all such knights of the shires of any county as were returned to Parliament by virtue of the king's writ alone, without other election, should be good.And yet these are represented to be the "good old times" from which we are to derive our precedents!!! I know not with what view the Reformers extol the period of the Revolution, when talking of practices at elections. I have very carefully, I may say, minutely, examined the parliamentary history of those days, and I am truly astonished that we should be told that these were days of purity, when all were patriots:—that there then existed no selfish motives. I can only say, that I am truly grateful for the gradual reform that has taken place in the morals of mankind since those days: for it is mockery to compare the abuses which existed at that time, with those which exist at this hour. We are (though with the failings attendant on all human institutions) comparatively pure. In proof of the above assertion, I will make some particular references to the Parlimentary Hist. Vol. 5. p. 433-See debate on the question for "Disfran"chising the borough of Stockbridge for notorious and admitted "bribery and corruption.-Motion negatived." 26 In the same year it will appear "that the Whigs and Tories, mutually libelled each other, and under the influence of these "mutual reproaches, and every other unfair and corrupt practice, "the returns were made on both sides." Vol. 5, p. 540. In page 670 anno 1691, I would refer to the "Debate on money for secret service to Parliament men," which will pretty clearly shew the nature of the transactions that took place in those days. In page 745, will be found the debate on a bill for "Free and impartial proceedings in Parliament," which was rejected. Bishop Burnet, whose authority on these points cannot be doubted, for he was a courtier, says "That the majority of the House of Com"mons were under corrupt influence, and declares that the Speaker "himself was the factor between the members in that corruption." 1693. Bill for free and impartial elections was passed, but negatived by the King. 1693, 4, p. 159. See Mr. Squibb's account of mohies, &c. paid to Members of Parliament." P. 841, Lord Faulkland committed to the Tower, "for begging and receiving £2000 from his Majesty." 1694-5, page 882, see "proceedings of the House of Commons against bribery and corruption." It will appear, that a most disgraceful system of bribery then prevailed among the members of the House of Commons, including the Speaker, who was expelled; and also among the Privy Coun cil. Every candid or well-informed man, will admit that such scandalous proceedings do not, and I may say, cannot, take place in these days. 5. CATHOLICS.---REMARKS ON THE PROCEED- To the Protestants of all Persuasions and Communions, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Gentlemen, WHEN, in a late address to the Freeholders of Cornwall, I proposed this question, "Whether a rage "for innovation has any limits ?" and, at the same time, expressed an opinion, " that it would gradually extend "itself to every thing established, whether civil or religious," I was little aware, that positive facts would have so soon exhibited a striking proof of its truth. 86 I am sensible, that, in making this declaration, I am alluding to certain transactions, or, more correctly, to certain individual speeches, made towards the close of the last session in the late Parliament. The experience of a large portion of my life, has taught me to hold the wisdom and the integrity of that assembled body in high respect; and permit me to add, that this respect T ? ། is, in a great degree, founded on my conviction, that Parliament is not infected by this restless and dange rous spirit of innovation, which the turbulent philosophy of modern days has introduced amongst us. In no place, are facts stated and arguments heard with more fair attention than within the walls of the House of Commons, and in no place is specious sophistry and flimsy declamation received with more marked neglect and indifference. But although I have always entertained these sentiments respecting the character and the opinions of a British Parliament, yet I still feel, that I have a perfect right to examine the opinions that may be delivered there; and more especially whilst the question to which they relate remains still undecided, and is, in my view of it, one in which the interests and the safety of the British Constitution, both in Church and State, are deeply involved. It will readily occur to every person, that, in these observations, I allude to the transactions and speeches in the late Parliament respecting the Catholics of the United Kingdom. * The resolution on this subject moved by Mr. Canning in the House of Commons, which was carried by a large majority, is as follows: "Resolved, That the "house will, early in the next session, take into con"sideration the case of the laws affecting his Majesty's "Roman Catholic Subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, "with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjust"ment, as may be conducive to the stability of the "Protestant Establishment and the general satisfaction "and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects." * Mr. Canning made his motion in the House of Commons, June 22, 1812;-it was carried by a majority of 129.-Lord Wellesley made a similar motion, I believe in the same words, in the House of Lords a few days afterwards, which was negatived by a majority of one vote. It is not my design to comment on the words of this memorable resolution, which is expressed in terms so very general, that it is wholly impossible that either the Catholic or Protestant subjects of his Majesty should ascertain what were the precise and ultimate intentions of the honourable person by whom this resolution was moved, or of the Parliament by which it was adopted. Nay, it is evident, that the country at large have no means of ascertaining the actual intentions of their representatives, through the medium of the vote which they have given on this important constitutional question. It may, on the contrary, be shewn, that persons who fundamentally differed as to the nature of the concessions which should be made in favour of the Catholics, might (as in point of fact they did) concur in voting in favour of this ambiguous resolution. Neither shall I refer to the speeches of individual members of either House of Parliament. But it must be in the recollection of every man, that there were some members of both houses, who, on giving their vote in favour of the resolution, expressly declared, "that they ་་ only pledged themselves by that act to take into con"sideration the laws affecting the Catholics, with a "view to ascertain, whether any further concessions "could be made in their favor with perfect security to "the established constitution of this kingdom, both in "Church and State :---That they considered the pro"vision of such an efficient security as a fundamental 86 principle established at the period of the revolution "in 1688, and that they could at no time hereafter give their consent to any concession in favor of the "Catholics, except they were accompanied by equi"valent security for the maintenance of our national "religion." Such was the language held by many who supported this resolution. But it must also be recollected, that there were some persons, in both houses, who concurred with them in this vote in favor of the |