There is, indeed, one description of expenditure, namely, pensions and sinecures, in which exceptions to these remarks may, perhaps, be admitted; but what can be alleged on that head, will not upon the whole prove much excess in the present time. The principal weight of these objections seems to arise, more from the excessive pitch to which taxation has been carried, than on a reference to ancient usage our Princes have, indeed, always exercised a munificent liberality, not confined by the ungracious restraint of dry and measured reward; and the manner of our government seems ever to have cherished an establishment of independence for the Monarch, which discountenances the niggard accuracy less inclined to make any useful distinction between generosity and profusion, than to confound them. We may see that so early as the reign of Edward III. pensions were bestowed both for services performed, and to be performed;' and, in so far as the personal liberality of the Prince is to be considered, it will unquestionably be found, that he never was, in any age, more restricted than now.

Towards diminishing the old patronage of the Crown much has certainly been done in our times, and a system has been commenced for reducing the highest paid and least effective offices, which will doubtless continue to be pursued. The publicity also which is now given to all appointments and pensions, tends to promote an economical and suitable distribution of them; and, without denying the abstract truth of some ground of complaint, the present age may be safely vindicated from the imputation of increased profusion in proportion to the establishment.

The practice of inflaming popular discontent, by magnifying every oc currence of abuse into a constitutional grievance, is upon other grounds full of absurdity and mischievous fallacy. Can those who thus urge the people to riot and disaffection, affirm, that in any former age there have been no abuses, no malversation in office? Can they show when this golden age existed? Or by what admissible argument, it cannot be too often asked, have they shown, or can they show, that the Parliaments they propose would prevent the abuses of which they complain? How do they show that meaner men than those who now compose the House of Commons would be more capable or attentive to public duties, or less liable to corruption? Let the best period of representation be ascertained;-let Sir F Burdett point it out;-let him show the epoch of perfection from which we have so grossly degenerated, and to which his new-modelled Parliament would restore us. pp. 326-30.

The subject of "borough-mongering" cannot be novel to our readers. On the tenure, which constitutes rotten boroughs a species of property, Mr. Jopp speaks thus:

The imputed usurpation of the rights of the people, by the nomination of members, and the influence which controls or commands elections, from the manner the charge is made, and the terms in which the peo ple are instructed to demand restitution, might lead a person unacquainted with, or overlooking the facts, to conceive that the rights had been somehow stolen or forcibly ab

VOL. I.

2 B

ally influenced. The crown possessed originally all the towns and ports, but they were sometimes granted to different barons (p. 30). The towns, which were retained by the king in demesne, agreed with his justices or commissioners, in their iters, on the amount of the contribution. p. 149-307.

Henry I. granted a charter, which proved the basis of that granted by John, (53, 54) but he frequently violated his own statutes, and many acts of arbitrary power were exercised by his successors. The Miroir des Justices (note, p. 99.) complains that laws were dictated by the king, and not founded on right. The authority of this old work, moreover, appears unfavorable to the supposition of an ancient form of government, suppressed by the Conqueror, according to the opinion of Blackstone and others. The term

Parliamentum occurs in the reign of Henry II. but Mr. Jopp thinks, that it was only another name for the Commune Concilium. He also endeavours to prove, by arguments into which we cannot enter, that the Magna Charta of John did not provide for the liberty of the subject so much as is generally imagined. The last charter of Henry III. "is the acknowledged beginning of our ancient statute law." p. 83. In the 49th of Henry III. the Earl of Leicester summoned that Parliament, which may be regarded as the origin of a more regular system of legislation. This Parliament was not divided, as at present, into the Upper and Lower House, but consisted of

twenty-three barons, all of the rebellious party, and who were in arms against the king, one archbishop and eleven bishops, one hundred and

two

seven inferior ecclesiastics, knights from each county, four persons from each of the Cinque Ports, and two citizens or burgesses from "York, Lincoln, and the other boroughs of England: " I these were not to be elected, but the sheriffs were to cause them to come. p. 131.

A lower house was gradually formed by the union of knights of shires, deputies from towns, and burgesses from boroughs, into one assembly. As our annals are imperfect and obscure, the progressive steps by which this arrangement was established, cannot be distinctly ascertained. The knights, until the reign of Edward III. sat in the same house with the king and barons, and in several parliaments that were previously summoned, the citizens and burgesses were at times omitted.

The representation of towns began at some period in the reign of Edward I. It does not

that the Commons were inappear trusted with legislative power sufficient to control the king; although their influence augmented with the necessities of the crown and the circumstances of the times. An act was passed in the reign of Edward I. de tallagio non concedendo; the object of which was to prevent the taxation of towns taking place

without the concurrence of the barons. The formation of a second house of parliament occurred in the reign of Edward III. and it included the knights, citizens, and burgesses. It was the policy of that monarch to court the favor of the Commons, as a support to the prerogative, and a counterpoise to the power of the barons. The Commons acquired additional importance in the troubled reign of Richard II. and under the House of

Lancaster, which held its dignity on a frail and illegal tenure. Alterations had been introduced, on various occasions, into the petitions of the Commons, which received the king's assent, before they were passed into laws. On this subject, the Commons presented a petition (p. 228.) to Henry V. wherein they assumed that they had always enjoyed the privilege of assenting to the enactment of laws, and required that it might be continued to them. Our author, however, thinks that it was their uniform practice to assert that they had exercised, in former times, whatever privileges they immediately wished to claim. The king replied very graciously, to the purport of the following quotation:

The Kyng, of his grace especial, graunteth yat fro hensforth, nothing be enacted to the peticions of his Commune, yat be contrarie of hir askyng, what by they shuld be bounde without thair assent, savyng alwey to our leige Lord his reall prerogatif, to graunt or denye what him lust of their peticions and askynges aforesaid. p. 229.

In this concession, we perceive the original germ of that political power, which was subsequently matured to such a degree of growth and vigor, as to preponderate beyond the healthful equilibrium of the constitution; and, at one period, to destroy the head which ministers to its support.

It is almost unnecessary to mention the slight consideration which attached to the proceedings of the Commons, during the reign of Henry VIII. In that of Edward VI. a great proportion of the towns, called "rotten boroughs," were imprivileged to return members; and about ninety-one towns have been

* Somerville's Pol. Trans. passim.

Between the Restoration and the Revolution, the instances of influence and corruption become more conspicuous than in any former period; and under Charles II. a new device was used by the Crown in many corporations, different from any that had before been known; this was obtained by the proceeding or action at law, called Quo Warranto. The issue of an action of this description, tried against the city of London, being favorable to the views of the government, by forfeiting the immunities of the corporation, the crown was thereby enabled to model it anew, and to exercise a controlling power in its proceedings. p. 285.

The crown had possessed, since the Conquest, the privilege of appointing the towns, which were to send representatives; and the same power was occasionally exercised by parliament. by parliament. In the 29th of Charles II. (p. 232.) the privilege of the crown was first questioned, on the grant of a charter to Newark ; and it was maintained, on a division, by a considerable majority. We may here introduce an extract from the Table of the Progress of Representation, which is inserted towards the conclusion of the work,

52 English and Welsh Counties send

92

30

64

33 Scotch Counties send 32 Irish Counties send Total County Members 186

Hume, History, sub an. 1679,

The standing resolution of the Commons against the interference of Peers, in their elections, does not seem to have entirely the acquiescence of the peerage. Individuals of this body do sometimes interfere, and seem to consider, that their hereditary dignity does not divest them of the rights generally attaching to the possession of land in freehold. According to the principles of the old constitution, as described in King John's Magna Carta, this position could not apply; but in a different sense of representation, and if the knights of shires, chosen agreeably to the resolution of the House of Commons, should be considered as a full representation of the landed property, it would follow, that the large proportion of it held by the Peerage is either not represented at all, or that its interests are to be considered as secured in the Upper House. Yet according to the present practice, which is said to be no older

than the reign of Henry VIII. the Lords are, in form, denied the power of altering a money bill, while a full and fair representation is contended for.

There was, I am informed, not many years ago, an instance of at least one Noble Peer voting at an election of a knight of the shire for Surry.-Note, p. 363.

From the period of the Revolution, the work is occupied by controversial discussions, relative to Mr. Wyvill, the Yorkshire Committee, the society once known by the title of The Friends of the People, &c. &c. Having reported progress thus far, we must now conclude our extracts; since we cannot so far deviate from the path, which we have prescribed to ourselves in the Prospectus of this Journal, as to render it a vehicle for party spleen, or even for our private opinions.