"

"our liberties be in any danger, they are

necessary to procure for us the great Charter, but it is perfectly unnecessary under "the mild and constitutional reign of the "House of Brunswick. Let the King look "to this: let the heir apparent, whose "sanction of this aristocratic assembly has "been attempted to be obtained: let THE "PEOPLE look to this." The people do look at this; and no-pops, y deceives herself most egregiously, if she supposes, that the people are to be thus cajoled. But, let us, before we make any further remarks, proceed to the other extract from the Courier.. "We beg our readers to mark well "these expressions (expressions" in the "Morning Chronicle). Here is an open "avowal of the intention of the Aristocracy "to combine-For what objects? To secure our liberties? WHO THREATENS THEM? Does the King? The Aristocra"cy refer to the conduct of the Whig "Aristocracy in critical moments. It com"bined, we know, to secure the Protestant "Establishment, which was threatened by

"

James II. But do they mean to insinuate "that that establishment is in any danger "under George III.? Or that this is one of

those critical moments that requires this menacing union of the Aristocracy of the "realm? Do these great families mean, by "this display of their power or their wealth, "to awe the Crown, the Ministers, and "THE PEOPLE? If so, let THE

more in danger from the Aristocracy than "from the Monarchy and the DÉMO"CRACY."- What do you say to this, John Bowles? What do you say to this, coming, as it does, from one of your fellowlabourers? But, to proceed in due order, it is impossible not to be struck with the attempt, made by these writers, upon all occasions, to inculcate an opinion, that those who discover discontent at the mauner in which the affairs of the nation are managed, act upon the same principles as the most violent and sanguinary of the French revo lutionists acted. It was only a short mouth ago, that they cried out against Sir Francis Burdett and his friends, including a large majority of the people of Westminster (a fair sample of all the independent people in Englaud), as imitating the clubbing revolu tionists of France. "It was thus," said they, "that the French revolution began, "that revolution which ended in the de"struction of an ancient and venerable aris

"CROWN and THE PEOPLE combine " and defeat the Aristocracy as they defeat"ed and drove from power the late incapa"ble ministry. The language of the Aris"tocracy is, "Who are the present minisσε ters? What great families do they belong "to? What great families support them? "What property can they command?" But "what is that to THE PEOPLE? Till wis"dom and patriotism be necessarily inherent in great families, THE PEOPLE will not enquire what families ministers belong "to, but what measures they adopt for the "benefit of the country; what is their conduct, not what is their origin. But it does

not suit this aristocratic combination_to try ministers by their measures; these guardians of our liberties are unwilling to "extend to them the benefit of a fair trial,

but are anxious to have them condemned, merely because they are accused. This "too was one of the features of those clubs "that overawed and controuled the French "Convention.. Of this combination of great "families, a combination resorted to at such "a moment, and in such a manner, we do "entertain considerable apprehensions, THE

PEOPLE will do well to watch it; for if

tocracy, and in the murder of a virtuous "and amiable royal family."--“ What !" exclaimed the Courier, in commenting upon Sir Francis Burdett's address, "What! he "would tear out the accursed leaves of the "Red-Book! Of course, he would tear out "the ancient and beloved aristocracy of "this realm, and, before that, the still more "beloved monarch, who is at once the head "and ornament of that illustrious body," But now, behold, when some party apprehensions are entertained as to the power and designs of that body, the people, that is to say, "the Jacobins and Levellers," are called upon to watch its motions with suspicion; nay, to combine against it, lest it should produce a bloody revolution! I do hope, that, after this impudent trick, this at once dirty and daring attempt to cajole the people, that no man of common sense will be found weak enough still to listen to alarmis referring to the French revolution. For these fourteen years last past such alarms have, from time to time, been played off npon the nation, and that, too, with woeful and disgraceful success. To these alarms, artfully excited and kept up, this country owes almost the whole of her present difficulties; for, had it not been for the fear that men entertained of an overthrow of all order and law and religion, Pitt never could so long have held that power, by the exercise of which he entailed such a train of curses upon us. "Let THE PEOPLE lock "to this." Let them take care not to be again alarmed into an approbation of a seven years' suspension of the Habeas Corpus, or

personal security act. Let them take special care not to be persuaded, that the only way to have their liberties secured is to have them taken away from them. Let them well reflect upon the conduct of the hirelings, and they will clearly perceive, that every attempt to excite an alarm by comparisons drawn from the French revolution, is an attempt to deceive the well-meaning and shallow-thinking part of the people, and to provide, thereby, impunity for public robbery.From the apprehensions, which are expressed by this writer at the intention, which he ascribes to the aristocratical senate, of influencing members of the House of Comimons, one would think that he had been alive some hundred years ago, and that he had just now awaked from a dreadfully long trance; for, otherwise, how could it enter into his mind, that, as the House of Commons is now returned, the aristocracy could possibly, by the means of a senate at Wilfis's, by the means of empty toasts and still more empty speeches, obtain any new influence over the members of the House of Commons? Supposing him to have lived in our day; supposing him to have read the advertisements, in his own paper, for the sale and purchase of seats; and supposing him not to have totally forgotten the " Hog-or-a"Horse" article written by himself, and inserted in the preceding volume, at page 987; supposing all this, what a stock of assurance must he have now to feign an alarm at the possible influence that peers may acquire over the members of the other House?

This writer's contempt for birth, his sarcasms upon hereditary wisdom and virtue, suit his purpose very well, upon this occasión; but, is he, or his faction, willing to pursue the idea to its natural and inevitable result? Is he willing to retract all his "Jack-Cade" charges against me, all his imputations of treasonable designs to be effected by the degradation of birth and dignity, because I republished from his own columns, and commented upon, the account of a festival said to have been given to Nell Jobson and her last litter? Is he, and is nopopery, willing to go this length? Are they willing to rank all men according to their wisdom and virtues? If not, why expect us to overlook the origin of the several members of the new ministry? Why are we to make, in this respect, an exception in their favour? "Who are the present ministers? What great families do they belong to? What great families support them? What property can they command? But, what is "all this to THE PEOPLE? Till wisdom "and virtue be necessarily inherent in great

"families, THE PEOPLE will not inquire "what families ministers belong to, but "what measures they adopt for the benefit "of the country: what is their conduct, and not what is their origin." Very true. These will be the inquiries of the people; but, no popery is much deceived, if she hopes, by this flattery of intrinsic merito cajole the people into a belief, that she is the patroness of that merit, and that, therefore, they ought to range themselves upon her side. It is true, that the people will inquire, what is the conduct of the ministers, and not what is their origin; but, if they should find, that that conduct is bad, if they should find them repealing or suspending the personal security act, or attempting other measures of that complexion, their origin will have some weight; for, until the mind of man be organized entirely anew, until he looks with equal respect upon all his fellow creatures even down to the very oyster, his impatience under oppressive power will bear some proportion to the origin of those by whom it is exercised; and, abstract as long as you will, still, of the high-born or the upstart oppressor, the latter will be the most hated. Nor is this propensity of the human mind without its solid reasons; for, in the first place, there is a degree of fellowfeeling, arising from a remembrance of the past, to be expected from the low-born ruler, which is not to be expected from one who has always been accustomed to rule; and, when a inan, raised from low-life, becomes an oppressor, or discovers his imbecillity as to great concerns, there always arises a presumption, that he has risen by base and fraudulent means, which presumption does not so naturally arise in the case of a tyrant or an incapable person, born to wealth or title. Nor, again, does this way of thinking operate unjustly; for, if the low-born man be exposed to greater hatred in the case of misconduct, he is, in the opposite case, sure to receive praise in the same degree. Indeed, to carry the idea a little further, it is impossible, that the man born to wealth or title, can be rewarded so largely as the man born in low life. To the latter the whole height, whether of riches or of honours, is open; whereas, to the former, there remains only the top. So that, when a man, born in low life, and raised to great riches or power, abuses his trust, he is exposed, and justly, to be reminded of his origin and to be treated as an upstart -To return, for a moment, to the Courier, I would ask him, what description of persons he has now left uneccused of disaffection to his Majesty's Government?" The people, the public, all

that part of the community which do not belong to the nobility, and which are not dependent upon the government, he has acensed long ago, and now he has accused the aristocracy of the same offence. He has, indeed, slackened his battery a little against the people, with the hope, apparently, of engaging them on his side until he has overcome the others. The truth is, that he and his faction wish to make use of the people first to destroy their titled opponents, and hen they wish to destroy the people. I mean politically; for, it would by no means suit their purpose to put any of the people out of existence, because the people's labour is the source of all their emoluments.These efforts are, however, vain. The people may, by both factions, be called upon for an union; but they will unite with neither. They know well, that neither is their friend; and as to the pretence, that the king stands in need of the aid of the people against the nobility, it is a trick scarcely surpassed by that of "no-popery.”

PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT.This parliament, in order to distinguish it from the last, or short parliament, which sat in the same year, and even in the same half year, will require some particular denomination, and, I think, it may be properly enough called the Dog-Day Parliament, whether in reference to the time of its assembling to proceed to business, or in reference to the warmth and other qualities, which have been manifested in the debates.- -The subjects which I find, in the newspaper reports of the speeches, worthy of particular attention, as far as I shall be able to proceed in my comments this week, are, I. The Address in answer to the opening Speech; II. The appointment of the Finance Committee

III,

Sir Henry Mildmay. IV. India Affairs. V. Sierra Leone. VI. Jobs in general and In particular. The Speech · having meer inserted in the preceding sheet (page 31), it will be easily referred to without a repetition of it. An Amendment was, of course, proposed by the OUTS, which mendment was as follows, and it was, of course; opposed by the INS.

"That by "a long experience of his Majesty's virtues we well know it to be his Majesty's invariable wish that all his prerogatives should be exercised solely for the advantage of his people. That our dutiful attachment "to his Majesty's person and government obliges us therefore most humbly to lay before him the manifest misconduct of his ministers in having advised the disso"lution of the late par ia ment in the midst "of its first session, and within a few

"months after his Majesty had been pleased

65

to assemble it for the dispatch of the or gent business of the nation.That this measure advised by his Majesty's minis ters at a time when there existed no dif"ference between any of the branches of "the legislature, and no sufficient cause for "a fresh appeal to his Majesty's people, was justified by no public necessity or advan tage. That by the interruption of all "private business then depending in parliament, it has been productive of great and "needless inconvenience and expence, thereby wantonly adding to the heavy "burdens which the necessities of the times "require. That it has retarded many use"ful laws for the internal improvement of "the kingdom, and for the encouragement "and extension of its agriculture, manufac "tures and commerce. And that it has "either suspended or wholly defeated many "most important public measures, and has protracted much of the most weighty bu"siness of parliament to a season of the

66

year when its prosecution must be attend"ed with the greatest public and private "inconvenience. And that we feel our"selves bound still farther to submit to his

66

Majesty, that all these mischiefs, are greatly aggravated by the groundless and injurious pretences on which his Majes"ty's ministers have publicly rested this "their evil advice; pretences affording no

justification for the measure, but calculated only to excite the most dangerous "animosities among his Majesty's subjects,

The

at a period when their united efforts were more than ever necessary for the security "of the empire; and when to promote the "utmost harmony and co-operation amongst "them would have been the first object of "wise and prudent ministers."--Thatail those who spoke for the amendment took occasion to attack the ins need hardly be observed, and that those who spoke on the other side attacked the outs is full as well known. main subject was, the measure of dissolving the short parliament, which subject had, in all its parts and bearings, been long before discussed in the newspapers, and with much greater ability than is discovered in the printed rep of this debate, where I find nothing either eloquent, ingenious, or novel. The outs do, indeed, appear to have laboured hard to show, that the dissolution, bad done great mischief by the delay in passing private bills, by the leaving of revenue laws to expire, and especially by causing to be introduced an unconstitutional mode of applying the public money, that is to say, of laying it out without the consent of parliament,