When I look therefore to the moral qualities of these acts as independent of, and antecedent to, positive law, 1 am at a loss to find what it is, either on the score of principle or of authority, that determines them to be corrupt, or that enables us, if they are corrupt, to ex empt from the same sentence of corruption, nine-tenths of the influence which has hitherto been supposed to be attached, and legitimately attached, to property ; and which, for aught that at present appears, there is no in tention of taking away." This brilliant display of Mr Windham's principles, on the subject of representation, well merits notice, even in a summary view of British politics. However dis pleasing it may be to see venality defended on princi ple, yet the open manner is wholly respectable. In this eloquent passage, Mr Windham does not distract us with detail ; he troubles us with no cant, no declama tion, no evasion. lie meets us on the ground of princi ple, unlike in every respect to those half conceding tem porizing amenders, who frittered and pared away the bill of Mr Curwen, till it became, what a member in the house, with most rational ridicule, proposed to call it, " An act for the better securing the power of the crown in the Commons House of Parliament, by vesting in the lords commissioners of his majesty's treasury the mono poly of seats in the said house." Of Mr Windham's arguments, it may be fairly said, that they prove too much. If the influence of property be the fair source of representation, what a paradox and contradiction is our constitution, which retains even obsolete laws against bribery ? If such a principle he adopted, what security shall we have if seats in parliament should be advertiz ed in the papers for sale ; if auction rooms were estab lished for every office in the state ? The argument of Mr Windham, if admitted, would prove, that no enactments, no safeguards against bribery, are to he admitted. The case may he argued on two grounds,—princiftle and ef fect, theory and practice. Now, every thing that can be called principle in the constitution,—every feeling that can be called principle in the human mind,—the law it self is at variance with direct bribery to the individual voter. But it is certainly the drift of Mr Windham's argument, because indirect, that bribery, when couched under the influence of property, can neither be wholly detected nor punished, without incurring greater evils than those which are proposed to be remedied, and that no attempt to remedy the evil should be made. It is a sufficient answer to this, that the most perfect system of representation, must tolerate a degree of indirect bribery, because it cannot interfere with actions that are not tangible or direct. The law cannot reach to tacit understandings between the landlord and his farmer, however probable it may be that the vote of the latter at an election is influP iced by their mutual relation. But the law does not sanction this understanding; it only abstains from prosecuting what it cannot affect to re medy. But this does not prove that it should not inter pose when cases are flagrant, Nvhen they overtop sus picion, and rise to clear proof. In cases of paternal au thority, the law does not pretend to remedy many evils which arise from its exertion. There may be harsh fathers, and miserable children, whose cases can never come within its reach ; but when the cruelty rises to a certain pitch, the abuse of that authority, like the abuse of the influence of property, is justly amenable to trial and punishment. The argument of Mr Windham is then a mere sophism, setting out on the assumption, that the principle which is to guide us in practical po litics, is not that thing which distinguishes actions, but which assimilates them. This is metaphysical quibbling on the word principle. There is much utility to be sure, for the purpose of legal arrangement, in classing actions by their features of similarity ; but when actions are to be punished or prevented, distinctions are sacredly ne cessary. In apportioning the punishment clue to blood shed itself, the law makes distinctions between murder and manslaughter, which, according to Mr Windham's reasoning, could never apply. The line of distinction, it is true, between the lawful and unlawful influence of property, can no more be drawn with infallible certainty, than the line of distinction between the lawful and un lawful use of the right of self defence, or between mur der and manslaughter. The influence of property will always operate at elections in three ways. By the re spectability which property gives to the richer candi date. That may be an innocent and even wholesome influence It will operate also by the dependence of many of the voters for their wages or custom on the candidate or his friends. But this argument against re
form is more formidable in appearance than in reality. If the laws against influence of this latter kind were en forced with vigilance in cases of notorious and open ex ertions, the candidate would be taught caution in hold ing out either threats or promises to voters; and the great mass of that part of society, whom a moderate reform would introduce as voters, are, in the present times, by no means so dependent on landlords or great masters of manufactures, as the enemies of reform hold out.
The practical evils resulting from the present system of representation arc, 1st, That certain boroughs are en tirely, necessarily, and perpetually at the disposal of cer tain families, so as to be considered as a part of their rightful property; and, 2d, That certain other boroughs arc held and managed by corrupt agents and jobbers, for the express purpose of being sold for a price in rea dy money, either through the intervention of the trea sury, or directly to the candidate. The latter use is cer tainly the great and crying evil. The boroughs, con taining a few hundred voters, are so notoriously venal, as to have received the name of rotten and sometimes trea sury boroughs, though the opposition and individuals sometimes buy them. The agent, who is generally an attorney settled in the place, obtains a complete local knowledge of the circumstances of the electors, and of the bribes, whether pecunitu y, or in the shape of provid ing situations for the relations of such electors as are best calculated to secure a majority for any member whom it may be his interest to get appointed. He ceivcs from the minister a sum of perhaps several thou sand pounds, to secure the nomination of the intended member. The minister gets the sum from the candi date, which goes in the first instance to the procurer of of the seat, and a it of it is by him spent in direct bti • bevy, and other expellees of election, and the surplus re tained as the procurer's reward. Those electors who do nut receive a bribe in money, are promised little offices for themselves or relatives in the excise, church, army, or navy. The ministers thus obtain a seat for their own creature ; the electors gain either cash or provisionary benefits; the constitution and the country are the only sufferers. Against the remedying of such abuses, the cry of innovation has been raised. The truth is, that these tratlickings arc amongst the most recent innova tions of the constitution. The transference of the right of election from such places as have a few, and conse quently a more corruptible body of electors, would only bring back the representation to that state in which it anciently was, before these boroughs had been partially depopulated. Mr Curwen, from some inscrutable view of the subject, consented to let the bill pass, amended by ministers, or rather annihilated as to every object which he had proposed in framing it.
The chancellor of the exchequer stated the loan nc cess,ry le• making up the ways and means of the year 1809, at fourteen millions six hundred thousand pounds. The whole expenditure of the year had amounted to seventy-one millions, nine hundred and eighty-nine thousand pounds, being an increase of seven millions four hundred thousand pounds from the expenditure of the last year.
We now come to the warlike operations of the year.
In the 'West Indies, the success of the British arms was complete wherever they were directed. The island of Martinique was reduced in 27 days, from the depar ture of the expedition which sailed against it from Bar badocs. The principal place in the island which the enemy attempted to clefend, was Mount Sourrier, which guarded the access to Fort Bourbon. The enemy re peatedly charged our troops ; but here, as in every ac tion where the bayonet has been employed, the superi ority of the British soldier was conspicuous. The French were entrenched on the heights, and were pro tected by light artillery. From this strong position they were driven ; and Fort Bout bon being laid open to our attack, the whole island surrendered.
In the beginning of July, general Carmichael sailed from Jamaica, for the purpose of co-operating with the Spaniards in the reduction of the city of St Domingo. At first the French general Barquier, who commanded the city, refused to surrender; but when general Car michael made judicious and decisive preparations to carry the place by assault, the governor thought proper to capitulate.