Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

lith Diffenters have lefs influence under a British conftitution than French Roman Catholics.

We are fenfible there is fuch a thing as occafional conformity, but then it is a conformity to the worship and ufages of the English church, which the members of the Gallican church do not so much as pretend to, and, confiftently with their own principles, they must think it damnable; whereas moderate Diffenters think it a matter of indifference.-But how does the fact really ftand?

In one of our late Reviews, we had an opportunity of confidering this bleffed diftinction between the Gallican and popish Roman Catholics, when their differences rofe fo high, that Mr. Dupin, and the heads of the former, encouraged a wellmeaning archbishop of Canterbury, to liften to terms of accommodation between the English and the Gallican churches. -But what was the confequence? When the good prelate attempted to shake the papal authority, the main pillar of the Gallican church, the doctors of the Sorbonne trembled at the danger of the undertaking, and betrayed the whole corref pondence to the church of Rome.

The best friends to religious tolerancy in this kingdom we are perfuaded muft think, that a propofition for a comprehenfion of this kind is premature at prefent, especially in an iland newly annexed to the British monarchy. It is an affront to common fenfe to talk of the loyalty of a Roman Catholic Gallican church, and that too without a teft, to a proteftant English government.-We have been the more explicit on this head, as we imagine that we can difcern fome faint hankering of this kind, fome national predilections, in the courfe of this difpute. Lord Taaffe, and other writers, whofe works we have reviewed with the greateft indulgence, may perfuade a minifter that a moderate Irish or French Roman Catholic may be a good fubject to this government. But if that conviction does not remain within a minifter's own breast, and fhould it be carried into other acts of government, it is hard to fay what the confequences may be to the public tranquillity, efpecially during the prefent ftate of parties in this country. To conclude, we cannot help thinking, though entirely unconnected with, and unknown to, any perfon concerned in this controversy, that Mr. M-1 has acted as a wife, cautious Proteftant governor ought to have done in his fituation; and that the difputes and heats in Grenada had their rife, not from him or his friends, but their opponents, whofe conduct has been indefenfible.

Sce Vol. xxvii. p. 246.

'XI. A Letter to Samuel Johnson, LL. D. 8vo. Pr. 11. Almon,

THIS

HIS political fyllabub has been foaming for fome days in the front of our News-Papers, and as the former answer to the pamphlet it attacks, is quite futile and declamatory, we have given this the more attentive reading. We laboured, however, through almoft nineteen pages,, (and the pamphlet contains but fifty-four) before we came to the shadow of an argument.

You, Sir, laid down, fays this author to his antagonist, as "uncontrovertibly certain, that the commons never intended to leave electors the liberty of returning them an expelled member, because they always require one to be chofen in the room of him that is expelled;" and you, it feems, cannot fee with what propriety a man can be`rechofen in his own room.

.

This, Sir, is your determination in form. Unfortunately for you, the law is not lefs explicit. There is nothing alleged in your pamphlet that should prevent me from recurring to the ftrongest poffible cafe, that of a member expelled by act of parliament, on his acceptance of a place of profit. What enfues? A fresh writ iffues; ANOTHER MEMBER is required in the room of him that is expelled; the SAME PERSON is almost always returned; the commons acknowledge the terms of their requifition to have been complied with: and the perfon fo returned is conftantly admitted as ANOTHER MEMBER, in his own room.

The requifition in the writ is not directed to be altered in this cafe. Yet what fays the ftatute, fufficiently apprised of the full force of that requifition?" fuch perjon fhall be capable of being again elected.

If the writ, fill unrepealed, nay, perhaps, neceffarily exifting in the full force of unalterable law, ftands in direct oppofifition to the statute; the former infifting on a different perfon -from him who is permitted by the latter; we are serioutly reduced to a state of motionless equipoife, and the law in this cafe becomes felo de fe. But the laws of England never appear abfurd, unless in the expofitions of a commentator of flavish principles.'

The mediate effect of the expulfion is a political annihilation. A fubfequent return is not of the nature of a political refurrection. It has no reference to a former delegation; it fends the member, as a new existence, unconscious, unaccountable for former parliamentary delinquencies; his political identity is deftroyed; he is become, in the eye of common fenfe, in the establihed idea of parliament, in the exprefs lauguage of the law, to all intents and purposes, ANOTHER MEMBER.'

The

The fallacies contained in the above paffage are fo contemptible and childish in this ftage of the difpute, that for the fake of our own credit we have transcribed them literally, We are to obferve in answer, that there is a great difference between a difqualification upon accepting a place, and an expulfion, in whatever light it is confidered. The former is voluntary, the latter involuntary. The former implies no criminality, the latter does. The former is announced only by a motion for a new writ, and the latter by a folemn fentence. The former fuppofes the member in his political capacity not to be the fame who was elected. The latter fuppofes him to be the fame, but his difqualification is perfonal. The difqualification of the former is removed by re-election, that of the latter cannot be removed but by the fame authority that inflicted it. Had Mr. Wilkes accepted of a place, he must have been difqualified, but as he was guilty of an offence, he was expelled. The law which difqualified him, would have re-qualified him, if we may use the expreffion; but the power which expelled him, we apprehend, could not have re-admitted him during its exiftence, without affuming felf-creative rights, which must have been more dangerous to the conftitution than any the house of commons pretends to.

The plain queftion is as follows. All difqualifying acts are made in favour of the electors. When a man accepts a place, after his return, he is not confidered by the house as the fame member whom the electors chofe; and therefore, to give the latter fair play, the house tells them, by fending down a new writ, you elected and fent us up M. but fince his admiffion to his feat, he is become P. and, though the fame perfon, yet he is not the fame member; but we leave it to yourselves either to choose another, or to re-qualify him as P. for the fame feat he enjoyed as M.' This is the plain and fimple procefs, and often practifed in the fame feffion. We shall not take up the reader's time in proving how different this cafe is from that of expulfion.

. But it seems, continues our author, the commons never intended to leave electors the liberty of returning them an expelled member.

In the free ages of Greece or Rome, the wretch who fhould have uttered fuch a treafon against the fupremacy of the people would inftantly have been overwhelmed with stones, or hurried to the precipice.

Do you conceive the full force of the word coNSTITUENT ? It has the fame relation to the houfe of commons as Creator to creature,'

This is mere raving, unless the author could prove, that the conftitution of Greece and Rome and that of Great Britain are the fame-But indeed this writer, and others on the fame fide of the question, are fo totally unacquainted with the latter, that they are incapable of forming a queftion upon the subject. The expulfion of a member for Middlefex has no relation to the people of England. These are already represented, and the whole of that reprefentation forms the houfe of commons, who are in no degree legally accountable to the people, and all the lawyers in England may be challenged to prove that they are. THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, fays this author, are not what the commons have ceded to them, but what they have réserved to themselves; the privileges of the commons are not what they have an indefenfible pretenfion to by arbitrary and difcretionary claims but what THE PEOPLE, for their own benefit, have allowed them.'

These affertions are pregnant with nonfenfe, and must be confidered as fuch by every reasonable man, unless the author can produce the deed in which the rights the people have referved to themselves is engroffed.

Dr. Johnson had said that if the house cannot punish their member, he may attack with impunity the rights of the people and the title of the king.'

[ocr errors]

Our author's reply is, that the abfolute power of the house over their members, is, for the prefent, admitted. But a member of parliament is a political being; the punishment, therefore, of his political delinquencies, inflicted by the political body to which he belongs, cannot extend beyond his po- litical existence.

To estimate the merits of the members of the community at large, for the purpofe of deciding upon the pretenfions of candidates, is too momentous a concern to be confided to any body of delegates whatsoever. The cognifance of fuch matters. must come before the higher tribunal of the collective body; an affembly, whofe free choice enters effentially, and by a real political neceffity, into the idea of a legal parliament.'

Though this author feems to be fond of the word political, it is very plain that he does not understand the meaning of the term. The houfe of commons did not fentence Mr. Wilkes to be either hanged, whipped, or pilloried, nor did they extend. his punishment beyond his political exiftence; they only put a period to it with a negative of his being reinvefted with it dur ing their political existence.

We must here, once for all, obferve that both fides of the question, without, as well as within doors, in speaking as well as in writing, have very abfurdly lugged in the word punishment,

which has nothing to do in this controverfy. The duty of a member of parliament is a fervice, to which he is compellable, by his conftituents: fo that his expulfion is no more than a difmiffion from that service.

The rest of this pamphlet is merely declamatory, perfonal, and abufive, without being at all applicable to the fubje&t.

MONTHLY CATALOGUE.

12. Serious Reflections upon fome late important Determinations in a certain Affembly. Addressed to a late Premier. 8vo. 15. Evans. NEVER was the art of caftle-building carried to fuch a

height as it has been fince his prefent majefty's acceffion to the throne, especially under the late minifter. His grace, it is true, has been accufed of being inacceffible and uncommunicable. Every days news-papers, and pamphlets, and this publication among others, prove him to be the most eafy, affable being exifting. Whoever has a mind to talk with him, or abuse him, need only to take hold of pen, ink, and paper, and imagination directly introduces him to his grace, to whom he communicates his mandates; whether didactic, alle-, gorical, fatirical, or political, matters not. He holds his grace by the ear, and pinches it for as many hours and minutes as he pleases. This writer is a grave ferious castle-builder,, and talks to the premier, as he calls him, upon two points, the doctrine of calling forth the military for the most trifling caufes in aid of the civil power, and the other, in fupport of privileges in the h-of c-s, in direct oppofition to the bitherto conceived fundamental rights of the people.

The author's reafoning would be very forcible and conclufive, did it not labour under one fmall misfortune, that it is deftitute of truth, and is founded, from beginning to end, upod what the antients knew by the name of gaλsed, a necellary tool in caftle building. No man of candour and common fente will venture to fay, that the military has been called forth for the most trifling caufes; and the privileges of the houfe of commons have been ascertained and cftablished after the most folemn debates that, perhaps, ever happened in both houfes of the Britifh parliament.

13. Obfervations on feveral Acts of Parliament, passed in the Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh years of his Prefent Majefty's Reign. Published by the Merchants of Boston. 8vo. Pr. 15. Kearfly. The author of thofe obfervations, to have given his readers fair play, ought to have printed the acts complained of verba

tim.

« ZurückWeiter »