bled you with this statement by the way of complaint; for, indeed, such things cannot fail to have a good effect, with all sensible men, and to such only do I address myself. The man, who takes upon him to write on politics, necessarily exposes himself to misrepresentations and calumnies of all sorts; especially if his object be to spoil the trade of the corrupt and the venal. It is his inevitable lot; but, he has always this consoling and encouraging reflection; that his adversaries, with a strict regard to the rules of proportion, are sure to adapt the measure of their anger to the magnitude of his success, and of their consequent dread of his future exertions. The greatest compliment that can possibly be paid to any writer, is, to answer his argument by an attack upon his person; and, the next is, that of appealing to his opinions, formerly expressed, especially under a total change of circumstances, whether as to the things themselves or the information relating to them. This last species of attack has been made most liberal use of against me. Just as if opinions formed and expressed, when I was not much more than half as old as I now am, and when I had, in fact, had no experience at all, were to invalidate, or have any weight, against the arguments that I now have to offer. Because I praised Mr. Pitt, when I was in America, or upon my return, does it follow that I was to continue to praise him after being some years a near witness of his conduct, and after having seen it proved, that he lent, without interest, 40,000l. of the public money, to two members of the House of Commons, without any authority for so doing, and even without communicating the fact to his colleagues. When I saw this come to light, and when I saw him take a bill of indemnity, (that is, a law to screen him from punishment) for this, as well as for other acts of his administration: when I saw this, was I still to praise him? Or, if I did it not, was I to be accused of inconsistency ?- -This was the drift of MR. POULTER'S personalities at Winchester, and of the hand-bills, which, on that morning had been posted up in the Inns and other places of the city, and all which you treated with that contempt, which they so well merited.

Some of you will have heard, perhaps, that while I was in America, I wrote several pamphlets, some under a feigned name, and some under no name at all. From one of these pamphlets, the London ministerial newspapers have extracted these words: "For my part, I am no friend of the English; I "wish their island was sunk to the bottom of "the sea." Having taken this sentence, they tell their readers, that it is quite natural "such a person" should wish for a Reform that would lead to revolution.-Gentlemen, I do not recollect any thing so bad as this, ever done, or attempted to be done, by any writer in the world. — The pamphlet, from which the extract is made, was written for the purpose, and the sole purpose, of serving my king and country, and that, too, at a time and in a place, when and where no man but myself had the zeal to write a line for such a purpose. In order to give effect to what I was writing, it was necessary for me to say something to disguise the fact, that it proceeded from an Englishman's pen; and, that this was the case, there needs no proof but this, that the government at home caused this pamphlet to be republished in England. Further, for having written this and other pamphlets in America, the government here made me offers of their support, which I never accepted of. Upon my return from America those offers were renewed, but again rejected. I received marks of approbation, for these writings, from all the men then in power. I dined at Mr. Windham's with Pitt, which I then thought a very great honour; and, really, when Mr. Canning looks back to the time, when I dined at his house at Putney, and when he paid me so many just compliments for my exertions in my country's cause, I can hardly think, that he must not view with some degree of shame these attempts on the part of persons, who are publickly said to write under his particular patronage. As to Mr. Windham, he has declared, in open parliament, that, for my writings in America, I deserved a statue of gold. Judge you, then, of the candour, the truth, the honesty, of the writers, who oppose Parliamentary Reform; and, as yet, I have seen it opposed by no writer, who is not of this description. Judge you of the motives of such men; judge you of the nature of that cause, in support of which such means are resorted to; judge you how strong my adversaries must think me in fact, in argument, and in character, when they are driven to the employment of means like these.I have not trou

-Such attempts, when made upon men of sense, always fail of their intended effect, and are sure to recoil, with tenfold force, upon those who make use of them. Any attack upon me, if it come in a creditable shape, I am at all times ready to answer, and am certain that I shall beat my

adversary; but, having thus exposed to your view the means by which the enemies of Parliamentary Reform have hitherto endeavoured to excite a prejudice against one of its principal literary advocates, I shall not, hereafter, sufier the discussion to be encumbered with any thing not immediately belonging to the subject; I shail not suffer myself to be lured from the important points at issue by any thing whatever relating personally to me.

There is one more topic, upon which I think it may be necessary to say a few words in this introductory address, and even before I come to lay down the heads and the order of the discussion. I alude to the cry, with which every attempt to obtain a Reform of the Parliament is, upon all occasions, met by those who have so manifest an interest in preventing such Reform. The cry is this: "What, you "want a REVOLUTION, do you ;" and, then they fail to a description of the horrors of the FRENCH REVOLUTION.

Gentlemen, I do not think that you, or that any part, or any one, of my readers can be so weak as to be swayed by a fallacy so palpable as this; but, it may not, upon this occasion, be amiss to give it an exposure in detail, in order to see whether those, who make use of it, have in them any remains of shame.

There was a revolution in France, which produced great calamities and horrors, and, therefore, we are desired to believe, that all revolutions must produce calamities and horrors; and this doctrine, too, is preached to us from the very same lips whence proceed endless praises of the revolution in England, which placed the House of Brunswick upon the throne.

Supposing, however, all political revolutions to be very mischievous; supposing all changes in the succession to thrones, in the forms of governments, in the distribution of the powers in a nation; supposing all these to be, at all times, mischievous, the supposition, though a very wild one, would not bear against the cause of Reform in Parliament, because we, who wish for that Reform, neither propose, nor wish for, any thing new. We want nothing but the sincere profession and the faithful observance of what is already the constitution of England, as laid down, and clearly laid down in the books of our laws. To set up against us, therefore, the cry of revolution, can, I am confident, have, with men of sense, no other effect than that of adding one more to the numerous proofs, which we already possess,

of the insincerity of the enemies of e-'

form.

But, let us patiently, if possible, inquire a little into the grunds of the monstrous supposition, that, because confusion and Bloodshed took place in France some years ago, in consequence of the changes there male, the same must take place here if a reform in the House of Commons be

adopted. What sm'arity, et me first ask, is there in the two cases? In France the government was despotic; any man could, at any time, be sent to prison, and there kept for life, without trial and without hearing; the law were in fact made by the king's sole will, there were no juries to try causes of any sort; the feudal system was still in such vigour as 10 make it a crime, in many places, for penple to grind their own corn or bake their own bread, being compelled to carry the materials to the mili and to the oven of the Lord of the Manor, paying him a heavy tax for the grinding or the baking. Endless would be the points of contrast; but, for our present purpose, it is qune sufficient to state merely this, that the French ho legislative assembly; no body of persons, who, as to the making of laws, had any share of authority. In France, what was proposed to be effected, was a total change in the very nature of the government; the thing set about was the making of a government of a new sort, and, of course, taking the old an ne to pieces, from top to bottom. It was not, therefore, very wonderful, that, from the resistance of the feudal Lords as from the crown, great anger should be engendered, and deadly strife arise; and, especially when the numerous noblesse, instead of yielding their oppressive privileges, and endeavouring to assist the people with their advice, flow with, eagerness to jom an army of foreigners, called by them for the purpose of compelling the people to submit to their authority, and to prevent the redress of what all the world at know

ledged to be grievances that no human beings ought to support, and the refusal, the obstinate retusal, to consent to any measure, which should prevent the return of which, was the cause, and the sole cause, of that sway which bloody and impious men afterwards obtained, and by the means of which sway so many foolish and wicked and cruel acts were committed. But what has all this, or any part of it, to do with our question of Reform in Parliament? Does that measure contemplate any one of those objects that were in the contemplation of the French? Have

we any feudal Lords to whose mills and ovens we are compelled to carry our corn and our flour? Have we not juries already? Have we not laws (while we keep them unsuspended) which prevent arbitrary imprisonment? And, have we not Houses of Legislators, without whose consent no laws can be passed? Do we, like the French, stand in need of a change in the nature of the government; of the abolition of the old powers and the erection of new ones; and, in short, of a new sort of government, from top to bottom? You know, Gentlemen; all the world must know, that we stand in need of no such thing; and that there is not, in the whole nation, one single man, capable of obtaining half a score of adherents, who entertains so mad a notion. We, as I said before, want nothing new. We have no schemes or projects; all that we want is that share in the government, which the constitution gives us, and of which we think ourselves not at present in possession, owing to the abuses, which have, by degrees, crept into the Representation in Parliament. This is all we want; and, because we want this, we are accused of wishing for Revolution, and our adversaries, the friends of corruption, having neither fact nor argument wherewith to oppose to us, hold out to those whom they think themselves able to deceive and terrify, the "dreadful consequences of the Revolution "in France," than which a more gross at temptat imposition, surely,never was made. That this attempt will not succeed i am perfectly satisfied. I am convinced, that, sooner or later, and the sooner from the absence of every thing like violence or haste, the measure of Reform will and must be adopted. Nay, the Bill of Mr. Curwen, now before the House of Commons, (and which Bill will, to all appearance, pass in that House) completely recognizes the main principle, upon which, we proceed; namely, that Seats in that House ought not to be obtained by corrupt practices, and that votes in it ought not to be paid for, either in money or in money's worth. In the introduction and entertaining of this Bill, the House itself acknowledges, that we have good grounds of complaint on the score of representation; the House itself acknowledges, that, to a certain extent, at least, Parliamentary Reform is necessary; and, therefore, it would be full as just to accuse the House of Revolutionary intentions, as to prefer that accusation against us, who, out of the House, wish for that Reform.

Having endeavoured to place in a clear light the fallacy, not to give it any worse name, of the general objections, or, rather, the out-cries, which have been raised against a Reform in the Representation of the People, in the House of Commons, I propose, in my succeeding letters, to discuss the following questions: I. Whether the present state of the Representation be consonant with that constitution, which has so long been the boast of Englishmen. II. What sort of Reform ought to be made. III. Whether the nation would be benefitted, and, if so, in what way, by such Reform. IV. Whether the present be a proper time for making such Reform.

These, gentlemen, it appears to me, are the only questions that we have to discuss and to decide upon; and, if we discuss and decide upon them without passion, I have no hesitation to say, that your decision will be the decision of the nation, and that, at no distant day, if your acts correspond with your opinions, if you steadily and ardently, but, above all things, steadily, persevere, in your constitutional efforts to obtain your object, that object will be obtained." I am,. Your friend.

WM. COBBETT.

Botley, 16th May, 1809.

WILTSHIRE MEETING.

. I am sorry, that it is out of my power to give a full account of this Meeting, which was held at the city of SALISBURY, on the 17th instant, and at which a Resolution was passed, in substance, as to most parts, ike that passed in Hampshire, but, substituang for the interesting declaration of Mr. CREEVEY, the still more interesting and more authentic record of the motion of Mr. MADOCKS, and the decision of the House thereon.--For this Resolution I have not, in the present number, room to insert. It will, of course, have its place with those passed in other counties.The Meeting was very numerous and respectable, there being certainly above 1,500 persons present. -The 1st Resolution was moved by MR. HUNT of Enford, at the close of a very able, an argumentative and an eloquent speech. It was seconded by MR. COLLINS, one of the corporation of Salisbury, in a manner to be naturally expected from a gentleman, who, I understand, has long been universally looked up to for talent, as well as for public spirit. second Resolution, passing censure upon the two county members, was moved by Mr. BLEEKE of Warminster, who, in this

A

"

no

his first essay, afforded to the "persons of "consequence," in the county, a pretty good proof, that talents are not wanted, amongst the yeomanry, when occasion calls them forth. These " persons of consequence" did, we have been told, keep away, lest, by their presence, they should give weight to the proceedings. Now, it appears to me, that the natural thing for them to do would have been to come to the Meeting, and convince us of their consequence; make us feel their weight, by opposing, and setting aside, the Resolutions, moved and seconded by persons of " consequence."If those "persons of consequence" approved of thanks to Mr. Wardle, and yet did not like to see the business in the hands of persons of "no "consequence," why did they not take it in hand themselves? Oh, no! They did not approve of such thanks. That is very clear; and, it is equally clear, that they knew that the county in general did approve of them.Let me take the liberty to tell these "persons of consequence" that, it seems to me, that they are in a fair way of losing their consequence, unless they very soon begin to bestir themselves; for, they will be so good as to excuse me, if I think it the oddest of all possible ways of keeping up their consequence, to let the world see that they are afraid to face those, whom they represent as possessed of no consequence at all.- -Say what they will about the matter, the county will want no one to tell them, that nothing but conscious weakness could induce them, upon such an occasion, to keep away. This is what the whole county will be well satisfied of, and that being the case, the ultimate effect, as to themselves, it is by no means difficult to foresee.- -The High Sheriff, Sir CHARLES MALLET, who appear to be a very clever man, conducted the business of the day in a very fair and impartial manner. It was said, in the morning, that there were several gentlemen, come with a firm resolution, to oppose the vote of thanks; but, the result showed, that, either they became converts themselves, or despaired of making proselytes; for, not a man opened his lips in the way of opposition. With their hats, indeed, a very few expressed their dissent; but, the decision was of that sort, which may be fairly called unanimous. There was a little of division upon the question of censure of the two county members; but, it was very small; and, indeed, the impression produced by the whole of the proceedings, was, that this county, so long apparently

dead, and in which there had not been a County-Meeting for thirty years, was beginning to rouse from its lethargy.—The whole of the Proceedings were taken down by MR. WILLETT, a gentleman connected with the London news-paper, the STATESMAN, whose unsolicited attendance was gratefully acknowledged by anumerous company of gentlemen, who, after the Meeting was over, assembled at dinner. Indeed, this paper, which is published in the evening, and which, therefore, is convenient for the country, deserves the particular encouragement of all those, who are enemies to corruption and friends to reform. It is the only London news-paper, that I have heard of, which has shown any disposition to do full justice to the CountyMeetings; and, those who are sincere in any public cause, should always make a point to support, in every way that they are able, that part of the Press, which stands forward in that cause. -For this reason, as well as for the sake of more extensive circulation, I shall take care, that the proprietor of the STATESMAN has an opportunity of publishing my letters upon Parliamentary Reform, on the same day, on which they are published in the Register; so that those, who take an Evening Paper, and do not take the Register, may avail themselves, if they think it worth their while, of the means of possessing these Letters in the Statesman.