that lawyer his "learned and honour-about Reform. But, we know, that "able friend"; and, as you well know, wholesome fruit cannot come from there was a settled scheme for palming roots and trunks and branches of poi this same lawyer upon the City of son; and, therefore, we'want a Reform. Westminster. My dear Sir, let not If we were asked, whether we want your modesty and disinterestedness any thing more than a state of things, induce you to believe, or to hope, which would insure the election of men that those who can endeavour to seat like you, we should all exclaim, no! this man in parliament to your exclu- no! Well, then, why are you not in sion, are, in any effectual way, labour- the House of Commons? Why, at ing for the cause. any rate, are you not, as a matter of course, talked of as the successor of LORD COCHRANE, if the death of his Lordship's father, or any other accidental circumstance, should leave his Lordship's seat vacant?

If my LORD COCHRANE should go to South America, he will resign his seat of course; and, then, I trust, we shall hear no more of any lawyers or colonels or ancient kings having the folly to attempt to shut you out of that place, where you are able to serve

We want a Reform of the Parliament. Why do we? Because we want the people to be fully and fairly represented, Why do we wish this? Because we want the Commons' House to contain men willing, as well as able, to support the rights and to take care of the interests of the nation. This is what we want a Reform for. We do not ask for it as something to please our theoretical fancies. We seek in a reform practical and solid good. And, what is the main ob-us so essentially. The Westminster ject of your Letters to the worthy Lord Mayor? Why, to shew what a set of influenced and insignificant things now have the power to ruin and enslave us. If our Reform would put into parliament such men only as Colonel MAINE and Mr. BROUGHAM, what good would a Reform do us? Can we, then, allow, that it is right to endeavour to put such men in now; to fill with such men the two or three seats that the People really have any thing to do in filling? It is not of the form, but of the substance, of the pre-ing-snorers are again in their beds. seat thing, of which we complain. If You are young enough to answer, such men as you were now chosen; if with the punctuality of a countingthe rotten Boroughs were to return house, a hundred letters in a week, such men as you, and were not to re- by way of episode in your other la turn poor sticks (as the Lancashire peo-bours. You are young enough for ple call them) and unprincipled and ra- all this; and you would, if in parlia pacious clever men, we should care little ment, have been young enough to de

Rump Committee have affected to
think you too old. You are young
enough to write with more constitu
tional and legislative learning, with
more power of reasoning and more
force of language, than any man
amongst all the legions of the
Boroughmongers.
You are young
enough to perform more labour with
the pen than any man that ever lived
You are young enough to begin every
day of your life, long before the rising
of the sun, and to labour 'till the morn-

fend the Reformers, and to prevent their being dungeoned and gagged; you are quite young enough for all this. But, alas! you are too old to be the colleague of Sir Francis Burdett!

The insolence of this pretext is more offensive even than its baseness. But, upon this subject, I will, in my next Number, make an appeal directly to the true-hearted and enlightened people of Westminster; and will take the liberty to give them and the Reformers in general my opinion, as to the active and open means, which may immediately be put in practice to secure your election, whenever another opportunity shall occur; whether from an accidental circumstance, or, from a dissolution of the Parliament.

made by him; for, if the time for his doing it was not last winter, when, in the name of common sense, is that time to arrive?

vous.

Your observations on Sir Francis's motion for a Committee to inquire into the State of the Representation of the people are short, but they hit the point precisely. You tell the Lord Mayor, what, indeed, we all well know, that the motion was unnecessary. And, indeed, it was worse than unnecessary; for it was mischieThe motion was opposed by "only four members for rotten boroughs, and by Lord Milton "; for he is the heir to six or seven of those "sinks of Corruption," of which you speak. Very true; but, was not even this a greater degree of In the meanwhile let me pride my-respect than the motion merited? self a little on the circumstance, that The ministers shewed their contempt while I was complaining here of the of the motion by staying away; and, Bill not having been proposed by Sir leaving their principles out of the Francis, you were making the same question, they acted very properly. complaint in England; and, if you I see, by a remark in the newspapers, have abstained from direct and ex-that LORD COCHRANE was not present pressed censure, and confined your on the day of this motion. This may self to censure clearly implied, while be so, or not. But, would you, Sir, I have bestowed on this flagrant neg-have been present without protesting leet of duty the censure it manifestly against the motion? I think you deserves, this difference in our mode of proceeding has arisen from the circumstance, that you, when you wrote, entertained a hope, which I did not entertain, and, in which respect, I unfortunately was but too right in my opinion. You expressed your hope, at the conclusion of your last letter to the Lord Mayor, that Sir Francis would, before the close of the Session, move for leave to bring in a Bill. The Session closed, however, and no such motion was made! And never, in my opinion, will that motion be

would not. I am sure that I should not; for, if that motion was proper, you and Sir Francis and every man of us have, for years past, been most vile and seditious libellers of the Honourable House. There was not the smallest pretext for the motion, as coming from Sir Francis; while it was sure to be injurious; because it manifestly argued a doubt of the necessity and justice of our demands of a Reform. Sir JOHN NCHOL argued well when he said: "ds it is not denied that some alteration

much confidence as if the thing had been settled on by legal contracts. We will not speak here of any thing that had passed in private, if, indeed, the word private can be applicable to such a transaction. Let us confine ourselves to notoriously public transactions. Can it be denied, then,

"may be expedient, it is incumbent know, that you spoke of this with as on those, who propose alterations, "to show that they will cure the evil "complained of." On this you very justly remark, that a Bill would have obviated this sort of opposition. Who would give way if the assailant was resolved not to come to closer quarters than a motion for inquiry? It is a cowardly garrison indeed, who hang] that, by a paper, signed by Sir Franout a white flag before the besiegers cis himself, and circulated with his have ventured to break ground. Ri-consent and approbation, DEPUdiculous as was the summoning of the TIES were called together to consult Tower by CASTLES and his brother on the draft of a Bill, to be proposed spies, it was not more ridiculous than to parliament during the then ensuing the idea of attacking the Borough session? Can it be denied, that these faction by the means of motions for Deputies did meet? Can it be denied, inquiry; and that, too, at the end of that Sir Francis's brother was assoa score or two of years of such mo- ciated with you in laying before the Deputies so met, the Heads of a Bill? tions. Can it be denied, that the Deputies came to a regular determination as to the sort of Bill which they wished for; and can it be denied, that they came to a resolution, that, as to the details of the Bill, they had so entire a confidence in the wisdom and integrity of Sir Francis, that they were willing to leave that matter wholly to him?

You express, in your letters to the Lord Mayor, your hope, that, before the end of the Session, Sir Francis will bring forward his Bill. This hope has been disappointed. If you could infuse your soul into some Member of Parliament, we should not live long without seeing a Bill; but, until you can do this, or can find some one with After this, who could have expected such a soul, the thing will never be done. You know well, Sir, that this any thing short of a Bill? What, Sir! subject of the Bill was discussed most Was it not the settled opinion, that fully long before the Parliament met. the long procrastination as to a Bill You know well, that the idea of a had done infinite mischief? For years Committee of Inquiry was scouted as and years the enemies of Reform had ridiculous and been asking what it was that we wantknow well, that you expected the Billed? They had been asking for our to be moved for in one month from the opening of the parliament. You know well, that you confidently relied, that SIR FRANCIs would, on the very first day of the session, give notice for that day month, of a motion for leave to bring in a Bill for the Reform of the Commons' House. You

mischievous.

You

Lord MILTON said, that he plan.. wished to come to close quarters with us. The People were quite ready for close quarters; but their Commander wanted another game at long-shot; another twenty years of procrastination and of useless and pointless talk. A Bill was, as you well know, re

garded as necessary to keep the people your indignation at the attempts, united and to keep them tranquil, which were manifestly about to be even in case of failure. For, when made. But, with the prospect of a once the Bill had been moved for, it Bill coming before them at the end of would have had a parliamentary exist- a month, do you think, that our base ence. It would have been printed. It calumniators would have been so bold? would have been a subject of discussion Well, at the end of the month, and every where. It would have daily gain- before the Bourbon System was in ed friends; because our foes would no motion, your Bill would have been longer have been able to misrepresent before the public. All men would our designs. The false alarm about then have clearly seen what it was revolutionary projects would have that we wanted. Discussion, in the been put an end to. The Bill, House and out of it, would have taken though rejected, would have been a place. Discussion is sure to aid the rallying point. Our future petitions cause of truth. The people, seeing would have been clear, short, and sim-distinctly the precise thing, for which ple, because we should have had no- we prayed, would have been strengththing to pray for but the adoption of ened in their opinions and their efforts the Bill. All this was so manifest, would have increased. Reformers, that there had been no sort of hesita- not so well able to express as to think, tion in proposing and promising (as far would have had an answer to all quesas promises, in such cases, are ever tions relating to their views. The immade) to act accordingly. And yet, pression on the public mind would when it came to the pinch, though have been deep and lasting, because every day's events rendered a Bill the opinions would have had a fair more and more necessary, no Bill was foundation. The People would have moved for; and, again I say, that, by rallied round the Bill; and, though it Sir Francis, no Bill ever will be moved might have been rejected, it would still for.. have been in existence, and would have encouraged hope, and tended to produce patience and forbearance. Those who were undecided, owing to the fears, which the tyrants had excited

Let us suppose, Sir, you to have been a Member of Parliament instead of Sir Francis. What would have been your conduct, and what its probable effects? On the first day of the ses-of our having revolutionary views, sien, and the instant the Speaker took the chair, you would have risen, and given notice, for that day month, of a motion for leave to bring in a Bill for the Reform of the Common's House. I will not ask here what your conduct would have been, while the Vipers were calumniating us. All the world knows, that you must have been stricken dead, before you could have remained silent, or have restrained

would have decided for us, when they saw, as they must have seen, that we had no such views. The principles and the provisions of the Bill would have shown, not only precisely what we wanted, but, as you well observe, in showing what we did want, they would have shown what we did not want. My opinion is, that, if you had been in parliament, we should have seen no Bourbon System, and, if

we had failed in obtaining our Reform then, we should have acquired a degree of support that would, at no distant day, have carried us through.

see what it was that we really did want; and, I am far from supposing that the good effect will be much less now, than it would have been if the Bill had been brought forward in the manner which we wished and fully expected, and that we had a right fully. to expect. All the reasons for moving for leave to bring in a Bill apply. to the publishing of that Bill now, with this addition, that now the world will see what it is that all the Spies and dealers in human blood have been employed to prevent. There must be a general election before it be long; and, small as is the power of any portion of the people to instruct those who call themselves their representatives, it is not to be believed, that some of them, in the less-enslaved cities and towns, will not call upon. candidates to endeavour to restore the country to freedom. Lexpect corrup tion, bribery and outrage, heretofore unheard of; but, still, some men will

But, Sir, why not publish this Bill NOW? I must confess, that I can see no one reason against it, while I see a multitude of reasons for it. Every body knows, that the drawing of the Bill was left to you. And, to whom else should it have been left? Who was there that had a fourth part of your knowledge of Constitutional Law? Who was there that possessed a fourth part of your experience? Who was there that was armed like you with all the means of defending every principle and every provision of such a Bill? Who was there, in whom every man reposed so entire a confidence, not only as to integrity but as to talent? Who was there, that, over and over again, and for years and years, had thought of every part of the subject, however minute, and who was ready with an answer to every oh-speak out under the sanction of a jection that could possibly be raised? If the millions of Reformers, in the three kingdoms, could have been asked, man by man, (6 who shall draw the Bill?" Every man of them would have answered: "Major Cartwright."when chosen, explain that they did Now, is it not wrong to suffer this not mean our "wild projects." With Bill to lie any longer in your bureau? the Bill in their minds, the people will It was right to keep it there as long as have a test ready for all candidates. there was any hope of its being present- "Will you move for, or will you suped to, or moved for in, the House ofport, Major Cartwright's Bill?" Commons; but, that hope having whol-Here is something too definite to be ly disappeared, ought the people to be shuffled out of; and we shall know deprived of the benefit of a precise our men at once. knowledge of what was intended to be moved for The Bill actually moved for in the House would have been best; but, that we cannot have. The next best thing is to let the world

privilege, which, (for this once) will have an appearance of being respected. Now, there are candidates enough, who will pretend, that they are for Reform; but, by Reform, they will,

I protest, as I always have protested, against acting upon any hope. of inducing persons to join us by accommodating our plans and language to, what they are pleased to denomi