The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1822-12-26 00:00:00

CAN4l4,,,atad REFORM-.-Tie NE.W.VIKES—
AOOII,%TIiE EDINEIIRGH. REVIEW.
" Most magnanimous Fitsai.a" has within this last
!tweek set himself up as a Revizwza of conscience.
.From experience of his incapacity as a politician,
**seems anxious to try what he can make of himself
as a critic. He begins by trying his hand on the last
Number of the Edinburgh Review, and we give him
credit for the good policy he displays at starting;
he very wisely sinks his own insi;rnificance in the im-
portance of his subject. " Reverenc thyself' is a
maxims° which he conforms to the very letter. It is
reported of the celebrated 'BA LZA C, that he never
had occasion to mention his own name, but he pulled
off his hat. Our Editor of the New Times appears to.
have profited in his prayers, from the hint of the
Scotch cobbler, spoken of by BuRNS, whose constant
supplication was " Lord send 'us a good conceit o
oursel." Having totally rid himself of all that
modest distrust of his own judgment, and that be-
coming respect for the superior judgment of others,
which men of sense are accustomed to manifest, he
begins his Critique thus :—" There is in this Number
of the Edinburgh Review an article more than
usually flippant, foolish, and insolent, entitled, Mr.
CAN NIXO and Reform." Having made this decorous
and elegant exordium, he thus proceeds: " We pro-
pose to notice—De means purpose, but he will learn
to write English as he gets onJ—we propose to no-
tice in a few words-1. Some of its fads. —2. Some
of its arguments—and 3. Its admirable eonsistency.
And first then of the Reviewer's FACTS. He asks—
" Mere did Mr. Canning ever find a Parliamentary Re•
former who was satisfied with such a right of election as that
of Liverpool, where freemen only, whether resident or not,
return the Members?"—p. 390.
" We answer" —But, softly ; before we quote what
it is we answer, ,et us first put the statement fairly
before the reader, that he may judge how far it ap-
plies to the case. The garbled extract, as it stands,
is only disconnected for the purpose of misrepresen-
tation. • • • • • • • • • • • • II
Mr. CANti LNG is the staunch advocate of rotter
boroughs,

and of what the less knowing amongst us
are inclined to consider as abuses in the election sys-
tem. The Foreign Secretary considers the leaven of
corruption, which leavens the whole mass, to be, not
useful merely, but indispensable. He joys to con-
template its operation; he listens to the humming of
.tbe fermentation; pronounces that " the system works
iwell ;" and adduces his connexion with Liverpool as a
roof of tke fact. Now the Edinburgh Reviewer, well
/snowing the premises, and having occasion to allude
to the arguments of the LISBON AMBASSADOR, RS,
recorded in his last speech to his constituents, writaa
thus :
.4 tie is always appealing to bis owa situation as that or a
parson representing a place where no reform can be desired—
a perfeetly open and free borough. This seems as extraordi-
nary a mistake, th►t we assist give the words in which be
states it.

" ' So far from my situation as Representative of the seeped
town is the empire stilling my voice no this subject, I have
not the slightest hesitation its saying, that if I were Member
for 0:d Sarum I should more probably hold my tongue upon
it. It is because lam Member for Liverpool, because I can
hove So shadow of personal interest in maintaining that more im-
perfect speeies of representation, which I do, nevertheless,
maintain ; it is because my opinion cannot be questioned, as in-
fluenced by 'notices of individual convenience, that I feel a con-
fidence, which [ otherwise might not feel, in exposing what I
think the fallacy of those doctrines which push the principle
of direct personal representation to an extent such as, if
adopted, must change the constitution.'—Pages 13, 26.
" Now, where did Mr. Cetioing ever find a Parliamentary
Reformer who was satisfied with such a right of election as
that of Liverpool, where freemen only, and they, whether re-
sident or not, return the Members ? Is not this as much a
close corporation as if it were a borough one twentieth or
one hundredth of the size ? Does the mere difference of ez-

lest change the nature attic franchise ? If a corporation of
thirty, in a town of I,loiiinhsbitants, save their fullow-citi-
, stile trouble of choosing their Representative, it is termed
ixelose or rotten borough ; and the Member so chosen may,
.it seems, be taunted with having somo interest in defending
the existence of such limited franchises. But extend the same
preposterous right of soling to ' the second town in the em-
pire;' suffer two or three thousand corporatora to choose
For 110,000 inhabitants, and no matter in what way the select
and privileged body is composed, although it may consist of
the very individuals most unlit to exercise the franchise, to
the exclusion of all who might must worthily be intrusted
wits it, vet this extension of the size, and therefore of the
mischief, is to be the cure!"
Let us now see what is the reply of the logician of
the New Times. "We answer, that Lord John Rus-
sell, the leading advocate of Reform in the present
day, has never even proposed to touch the existing
franchises of such places as Liverpool." There is an
answer for you! how the
,facts of the Edinburgh Re-
view fall down before him ! Bishop Warburton tells
us, 'that the oldest mathematician then in England
was the worst reasoner in it. Our learned Doctor
has certainly the honour to resemble the old mathe-
matician ; but he has all his irrationality without his
science. Olt n'a jamais rins via de plus pitoyable.
But if this is frivolous and feeble, he will give you
something else. His " reasons are as plenty as
blackberries." We will then accept another sample:
" We answer again, that at the lee Yorkshire Meet-
ing to which he alludes at the end of the Review, the
city of York was declared to be "fairly and honestly
represented," although the only difference between
the franchises of York and Liverpool is, that the Cor-
poration for the former town possess the power of
packing a majority, by manufacturing honorary free
mos. And is this, indeed, the difference? Well!
truth will out, and this information, though worth
nothing as argument, is important as confession. The
reflecting reader will make his own comment upon it.
If any other than a Ministerial Journalist, forgetful
of the Six AcTs, had said as much, the ArroRNEY-
GENERAL, we suspect, would have jogged his
memory. If our causes can be. tried by packed juries,
and our representatives returned by packed majorities,
of a troth we are in a pretty predicament! What!
Independent Electors classed with our other articles
of trade and manufacture! The Editor of the Nato
Times, representing St. Stephens as if it were " the:
great emporium of WIT and fustian." Monist:eras I.
We must really give our consternation time to Hillside.
We will resume the subject in a day or two.