from coming to an open collision with the other House of Parliament? Until either their privileges are restricted, or their constitution is changed, the country has little chance of good government, or a continued sound legislation. No man who understands our constitution-no man who has observed the necessity that exists in it of a second chamber of Parliament to revise the acts of the first, can desire to see the House of Lords abolished. That much is required to be done before its prolonged existence can be considered either beneficial or safe to the community, no one who regards its composition and looks back to its history can doubt.'-pp. 20-22. While we were hesitating as to the propriety of making some further extracts from Mr. Isaac Tomkins, there reached us a Letter addressed to that gentleman' by Mr. Peter Jenkins-an affectionate kinsman of his, who not only patronizes the same printer and publisher, but pursues exactly the same argument, and, we must say, deals with it in exactly the same style. Jenkins, in short, is obviously the same enlightened patriot with Tomkins; but he appears under somewhat different circumstances, and therefore takes rather a wider scope. Tomkins feared that the King and the House of Lords might, after all that had been said and done, be able to prop up the Peel government against the majorities of the Commons: the sagacious Jenkins begins, a fortnight later, to be apprehensive that the aristocratic element in the reformed House of Commons itself may still be sufficient to exclude the real friends of the people 'the 'diffusers of useful knowledge' from the sixth cabinet of the reform era. Hear the voice from Berkeley Square,' of April the 10th, 1835 !— Dear Sir, I have had the great satisfaction of reading your able and just remarks upon that Aristocracy, which form the chief bane of all policy, as well as all society, in this country, and which tends not much more to destroy good government over us than to sap good morals amongst us. You deserve all our thanks for the striking exposition you have made of this prevailing evil. But why do you stop short? Why do you dwell so much on the slighter parts of the subject? What can be more insignificant to the nation at large, than the way in which lords and ladies spend their time at their grandee palaces? Let their society be ever so refined, or ever so gross-let their talk be as solid as that of rational creatures, or as silly and unsubstantial as you describe it, I care not-we and our fellow-citizens of the middle classes value not a rush the admission to that intercourse, and could well bear our perpetual exclusion from it, if that were all we had to suffer from the present aristocratical government of the country. I want you, therefore, to consider and to discourse upon our real grievances-those burthens by which the aristocracy grind the faces-[not the backs!]-of their inferiors. Look only at the House of Commons-to take an example from what indeed lies at the root of the evil tree, whose bitter fruits we VOL. LIII. NO. CVI. 2 N are are all of us now eating. The aristocracy represent us in Parliament; and, at the late election, as at all such times, they were clothed in fine smooth words-full of expressions to overflowing-glittering in pledges and promises; while they smiled from ear to ear in kindness and courtesy towards us. They would take off the malt-tax; and who, as Sir Roger Greisley said to the Derby gulls of farmers, who dared accuse them of ever breaking a promise? They would oppose ministers, and restore reformers to power-as the Copelands, the Richardses, and I know not how many more, so solemnly vowed. They were no party men to bring in a Whig aristocracy, any more than to keep in a Tory one. But to reforming men and reforming measures they would look-and they would devote themselves to give cheap food to the country-and a reforming-a real reforming ministry to the king! 'Next look at what these honest and faithful stewards have been doing ever since. They had a majority on the first vote-a strong vote indeed it was felt to be-the speakership. What next? They did not venture to make an amendment on the address which was worth one farthing; they took an alteration just strong enough to disgrace the ministers-not strong or even plain enough to help on the cause of reform one single step, Do I blame Lord John Russell for proposing so weak a thing? Far from it. He knew well the stuff his majority was made of, and that if he had made it one syllable stronger or more intelligible, he would have been in a minority of fifty instead of the majority of seven, which by paring, and clipping, and weakening, he with difficulty obtained. Do not let us disguise the truth from ourselves. OUR REPRESENTATIVES HAVE DECEIVED US;-DO NOT LET US DECEIVE OURSELVES. A CONSIDERABLE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS IS AGAINST ALL REFORM.* That majority, in its heart, hates the people. Its fears are pointed to the progress of improvement; its care is for the privileged orders; its darling object is to keep all things as much as possible in their present state, and just to give us as much relief as they cannot either resist or evade giving. They do not, in substance or effect, differ from the House of Lords, which is their natural ally, and their only lawful superior, to whose interests they are quite willing to sacrifice their constituents at any moment they can do it in safety. The Lords will not oppose a reform when they are afraid of being swept away if they do. The bulk of the Commons-a majority of 100 at the least-will let reform pass, which they dare not resist without being sure of losing their seats. Do I, or does anybody, think the Lords friendly to any kind of reform, merely because they let some reforms pass? Not at all: they do it because they cannot help it. Does any one dream, that above 200, or at most 250, of the Commons really love reform, merely because the other reformers, the merely nominal liberals, do not dare throw out reform bills and motions? Not a bit of it: they hate reform bitterly-hate it for its own sake-hate it for their sakes-hate * N.B. These are the capitals of Mr. Jenkins. it for the sake of the House of Lords, whom they really love, and where most of them hope to sit. But they fear us as well as detest us, and they must vote whether they will or no on many questions. Only see the effects of this. It is like the argument of measures not men. Those members only give us just as much support and protection as they cannot possibly withhold; and in all other cases they refuse to stir for us. Hence, neither Lord John Russell could frame an amendment worth a straw, excepting for merely party purposes, nor could Mr. Hume support the people's most important right, to stop supplies till grievances were redressed. Hence all motions of any value are put off, because there is a struggle to turn out one set of aristocrats, and put another in their place. Hence, if the hearts of a very large majority of the House, and even a considerable number of the opposition, were opened, and we could endure so hideous a sight, we should find not one trace of the country's good-not one vestige of the people's welfare-not the faintest impression of the public opinion; but all would be heats, hatreds, furies, fears, (not a reflexion of the public wishes,) about selfish objects, never rising nearer to the tone and temper of patriotism than so far as party feeling now and then borrows its hues for an ornament, and wears its garb for a disguise. Those men who I know are the majority of the Housewho I am almost certain are some of the opposition-vote, from a fifth to a fourth, because they dread the loss of their seats-some because there are places which they possess or expect. They will try to patch up an expiring and impossible ministry, or to hatch a middle scheme to gratify jobbers, and frustrate all the hopes of the country, or make a new cabinet altogether; in which it is a hundred to one that we, the people, shall hardly find any men who are thoroughly disposed to do us justice, and whose heart is in the work of helping the people. I do not blame those men-the chiefs of the liberal and popular portion of the Whig party; on the contrary, I feel the debt of gratitude we owe them. But what can they do with such a system? They dare not break with the aristocracy, to which almost all of themmore than nine in every ten-actually belong; they dare not fly in the face of the court, which, as things are now arranged, may turn out a ministry without notice, and without the least reason assigned; and, after plunging the country in confusion, retreat, and suffer no kind of penalty or even inconvenience from its intrigue. They cannot work miracles in such a House of Commons, or make bricks without straw. They could not act for our true interests even if they really felt as they ought, and actually wished what we desire, because they are only supported by a mixed body in the House of Commons, and opposed by a very determined and interested mass of steady, unflinching, unscrupulous enemies to all reform. Our friends are the minority; and the rest of the opposition, who, in case of a change, will be the ministerial body, is composed of men in whom the country never can again place any trust. It is easy to declaim against such men as your Greisleys and Hall 2 N 2 Dares-your Bingham Barings and your Pechels. . . . . . But the persons whom we really have a right to complain of, and whom all honest men must blame, and all men of spirit despise, are the forty or fifty pretended liberals, who have not gone over openly to the enemy. These rotten members are the true cause of all the mischief that is befalling us. They will possibly make it impracticable to form a good liberal ministry: they will almost certainly cause any government that is formed to be ill-constructed-patched of feeble men-unpopular statesmen and puny reformers, if reformers at all; and they wili assuredly make it quite impossible for even such a ministry to last: so that we shall be driven very soon back to the Tories; and that vile and intolerable dominion will be perpetuated over us to the lasting disgrace of the country.' 'Your true friend, PETER JENKINS.' Be it kept in mind that Peter Jenkins' published his pamphlet within two days after the resignation of Sir Robert Peel. It is very possible that the next letter of the series, whether signed Nathaniel Perkins,' or Jonathan Simkins,' may speak another sort of language. Nay, we may venture to prophecy, thatshould the founder of the Diffusion Society creep again even to the corner of the woolsack-the next Number of the Edinburgh Review' will not, like that in which Tomkins' has just been so loftily extolled, be sprinkled passim with abuse of 'aristocracy'denunciations of the pension-list and the corn-laws-earnest lectures on the necessity of making the Lords and Commons sit and vote henceforth as one body-and, last not least, hints sufficiently intelligible about the heavy cost of monarchical government, (p. 220,) and dangerous experiments by ONE INDIVIDUAL IN TWENTY-TWO MILLIONS,' (p. 16,) &c. &c. ART. X.-The Influence of Democracy on Liberty, Property, and the Happiness of Society considered, by an American, formerly Member of Congress. To which is prefixed an Introduction, by Henry Ewbank, Esq. London. 1835. WE wish that Mr. Washington Irving, or some other adequate pen, would give us an American Plutarch.' We mean succinct and readable lives of the founders of their republic. There were amongst them one or two great, and a dozen very eminent men, fellow-soldiers and colleagues of Washington, well fitted to be the assistants of his labours, and well entitled to be partners in his fame. The severe mortification-we have long since learned to think it no injury-which their success inflicted upon this country, country, has prevented us from doing them full justice. English writers could hardly be expected to feel, or the English public to have partaken in, much interest as to the characters of their victorious antagonists. The French care only about themselves, and the rest of the Western continent had too little personal or political motive to pay much attention to these Transatlantic worthies; and we think we may venture to say, that Washington and Franklin are alone in possession of that European reputation which many others-though not, we admit, in so high a degree-appear to us to deserve. The lives that have been published in America are too voluminous for general use. We can neither afford money nor time for the cumbrous biographies of such distant acquaintance. One or two octavo volumes, comprising Washingon, Montgomery, Lee, Armstrong, Franklin, Hancock, Jay, Hamilton, Robert and Gouverneur Morris, Samuel and John Adams, Jefferson, and Madison, containing an accurate statement of the events of their lives, and an impartial summary of their principles and opinions, would be not merely popular amongst us, but permanently useful and instructive. The grave has now closed over all the men who have any pretensions to enter into such a work; and the passions, partialities, and prejudices which their living conduct had excited, are now pretty well extinguished,-nearly as much so as they are likely to be for two or three generations to come,—while there is still alive enough of personal interest and of traditionary anecdote to enable an author to give to his historical pictures the additional charm of individual portraits. This suggestion is made in the most friendly feeling towards our Transatlantic brethrendead and living-in whose honour and fame we take, as is natural and just, a strong family interest; and most happy should we be to have contributed, even in so humble a degree as by the expression of a wish, to a work which, if adequately executed, must tend to advance the combined fame, and to reconcile the partial differences, of that great class of mankind whom we may designate by the common name of the British race. Whether the life of Fisher Ames, the ingenious and amiable person whose works have led us to these observations, was of sufficient public importance to procure him a place in such a select biography, we cannot venture to determine. Of that an American only can safely judge; but the slight biographical sketch prefixed to the volume now under our consideration, and still more the patriotism, benevolence, and sagacity, exhibited in the work itself, We wish that Mr. Sparks, who has published extracts from Gouverneur Morris's diary during his residence in Paris in the early part of the French Revolution, would publish it in extenso—it is serious and importaut. convince |