Star.
London, England, 1820-03-10 00:00:00

eiy description Of undue patronage wets, with the
matey of the People, its own legitimste..prise.• But
tkis pamphlet contained so much of highly useful
Liformation, that it ought to be read by all the People
cf England, because it furnished the most'decis►ve,
evidence of tl►e. necessity of Reform. And now, upon
t.nis subject of Reform, lie must say, .-without intend-
ing any personal disrespect, or feeiin any degree of
political acrimony, that he differed in opinion with
tne Gentleman on his left, who was lately a Member
for this City—he meant, that he differed from the
(Tinton which that Gentleman had thought proper
to espies in the House of Commons. That Gentle.

man there said, that he did not think the cause of'
RefOm wai aJvancing. It was, no doubt, correct

to say, that this great cause wa, stationary in the
lime of Commons ; but he (Sir Francis) main-
tained, that it was extremely incorrect to say alit
Reform was not advancing among the People. Thi►t
it was so adv.mcing, indzed, was obvious, from the

conduct of the House of Commons itself; for that
House felt obliged to throw off the mask, and, in
order to impede the progress, have recourse to vio-
lence. by muzzling the People. Yet his late colleague
had thought proper to remark, upon the discussuin
of a motion brought forward by him (Sir Francis
Burdett), that since he (Sir Francis) was placed at the
head of Reform, where the lion. Gentleman stationed

-him, that measure had only kept time with the feet
(which idea the Honourable Gentleman expressed
in some military term), without making any ad-
vance whatever. This, he must say, was tether,
a discouraging observation from a colleague,
whose -support he naturally expected upon an oc-
casion so important to the People at large, and
so eagerly. oe,iied by the Electors of West-
sninster. •Tne Honourable Gentleman,• no doubt,
expressed his readineis to punish corruption when'.
ever it wasAletected; but if nothing were to be dont
for Rennin, unless in case.: where corruption was de-
tected or legally proved, suck doctrine must serve to
place the complete Reform which the People de-
sired, at an immeasurable distance indeed. He (Sir
Francis Burdett), however, did not merely complain
of detected guilt in the system of our Election, but
of that guilt which was undetected; for who that
knew anything of the constitution of the House of
Commons, or of the manner in which its Member

were chosen, could doubt of she existence of general,
ray, he would almost say., of universal guilt? He
would ask, as he had asked in tin, House itself, who
were the Members that were' not guilty.'—which of
the Members of tha House were entitled to throw
the fir.t stone at corrupt election practices ? Yet his
late colleague wou.d consent to Reform in that case
only where guilt was legally proved. This appeared
to him a most extraordinary proceeding, when it was
quite notorious that the general conduct of Elections
formed a conspiracy on the part of the House of
Commons against the liberties of the People: But he
tltally differed from his late colleague in consider-
ing Reform in so-minute a point of view, who said
'that hetruly 'could not regard Reforrit of so math
importance as to form a panacea, as he called it, for
every public evil. He (Sir F. Burtlett)thought, how-
ever, that Reform would operate as a cure for every
one of the evils which afflicted this country, for such
he. firmly believed would really prove the result.
But if the system of petty Reform went on as some
Gentlemen recommended these Gentlemen would
only produce the effect attributed to travelling tin-
kers, that. is; making two holes in Mending ones
'These Gentlemen indeed, only served to throw dusti
in the eyes of the Pe.iple, by professing or pretend-
ing to remove the evils of corruption by the little
partial course of Reform which they appeared dis-
pose.l to pursue. But to think of effecting Reform
in the House by such means was really ludicrous.
No power under Himrin could indeed produce any
effect in the House of Commons, or do good for the
People in the present state of the Representation. Hai
a man the eloquence of the spheres, he could not
hope to make any impression en an assembly, the
Member., if which contrived to make fortunes for
thern,eives by ruihing the fortunes of others. Those
Members indeed were like weeds in ..esmagnificent
ruin, in which their own roots contributed to pro-
mote the ultimate destruction of that ruin. While
the House of Commons coutinued iu that state, it
was quite puerile to ioripose that any partial aeform
.c rid do good. Such a state indeed precluded the
hope of removing any grievances, upon the exist-
ence of which the wbearilat Ministerial retainer con-
nived to subsist. He would take the Lottery for in
stance, to re Dove which every effort had proved un-
availing, notwithstanding the scandalous character of
the intitution, notwithstanding the notoriety of the
cheat, and the small revenue it afforded to the State.
But still it was maintained, because there were some
Commissioners connected with it, and they would
lose their employment and profits if the system were
done away. Such was really the motive for main-
taining a system of gambling, by Ministers too who
boasted of their solicitude for religion and morality !I
The produce to the Revenue from this. 'form could
not be the reason for supporting it, as that was cotn-.
paratively insiiinificant ; but even if a pepper-corn
were not brought into the Treasury, the inettsute
would be supported while it provided for some Mi-
nisterial teraineru No redress then could be looked
for in this and various other points, if the constitu-
tion of the House of Commons. were n. )t brought back
to its original principles. If such a restoration or re-
form did not take place—if the People were not al-
lowed to have their due controul over the disposition
f their own money, he could not help regretting the
conduct of our ancestors- in the reign of Charles 1:-,
A Revolution then took place, and the Monarch.
imself was brought to the bloci, for raising money'
-vithout the consent of Parliament, altisouos all. the
Crown Lawyers of the day maintained that thecon-
ecctef the Monarch: Was luitieuittAtiartd
finnal. But what win the difference to the People
,:nether their property were tailt,tt Won thett With=
It their consent, by tilt/W.of theCrbihr, or by the
~.rbittary will of a body of Horntiennorigets iR the
:douse of Commons libr his ant part, he bed fro
.liesitation in saying, that he shotildprelbr therein/ter
rsystem, because be felt that it would be lets harden-
tome to the country to comply with the demands of
cnie family en the Throne than with that of one bun-.
cred and fifty families in the Rouse of Commons.-•-%
The cupidity of the 'one could, he was persuaded,
be much more easily gratified than-that-of the other;
',is indeed was evident, among.otliet. seasons, frend-
a fact stxted in the pamphlet to which he had before