80 
The example and situation of an- 
other kingdom, are held out to de- 
ter us from innovations of any kind. 
We say, that the reforms we have 
in view, are not innovations. Our 
intention is, not to change, but to 
restore; not to displace, but to re- 
instate the constitution upon its 
true principles and its original 
ground. In the conduct of persons 
most likely to reproach us with a 
spirit of innovation, we see a solid 
ground for retorting the imputa- 
tion. Their professions of admira- 
tion of the beauty, and of zeal for 
the security of the constitution, ap- 
pear to us too lavish to be sincere, 
especially when compared with 
those practical violations with which 
they suffer this beautiful system to 
be invaded, and to which they ne- 
ver refuse to givetheir concurrence. 
They will not innovate,—but they 
are no enemies to gradual decay ; 
as if the changes insensibly produc- 
ed by time, and nourished by neg- 
lect, were not in effect the most 
dangerous innovations. But what 
security have we, that the disposi- 
tions of such men are not something 
avorse than passive? How are we 
assured that, in praising the constitu- 
tion, their intention is not to adorn 
a victim which they wish to sacri- 
fice, or to flatter the beauty they 
are endeavouring to corrupt? Let 
their intention be what it may, we 
answer their accusation in the words 
of one of the wisest of mankind *: 
«« That time is the greatest innova- 
tor; and if time, of course, alter 
things for the worse, and if wisdom 
and counsel shall not alter them for 
the better, what shall be the end ?”’ 
By the reform proposed by Lord 
Chathamt+,he declared inthe House 
* Lord Bacon. 
+ Jan, 22, 1770. 
APPENDIX TO 
of Lords, that he meant ¢o infuse a 
portion of new health into the consti- 
tution. The Duke of Richmond has 
declared}, that ‘his reasons in 
favour of a parliamentary reform 
were formed_on the experience of 
twenty-six years; which, whether in 
or out of government, had equally 
convinced him, that the restoration 
of a genuine House of Commons, 
by a renovation of the rights of the 
people, was the only remedy against 
that system of corruption which 
had brought the nation to disgrace 
and poverty, and threatened it with 
the loss of liberty.” 
Other authorities in favour of a 
parliamentary reform, as direct and 
explicit as these, might be quoted 
in abundance. ‘The public is pos- 
sessed of them. We rather wish to 
encounter, because we are sure we 
can efface, in every rational mind, 
the impression, which may have 
been made bya view of those events 
which have attended a total change 
in the constitution of France, We 
deny the existence of any resem- 
blance whatever between-the cases 
of the two kingdoms; and we ut- 
terly disclaim the necessity of re- 
sorting tosimilar remedies.—We do 
not believe that, at this day, an 
absolute avowed despotism in the 
hands of the executive power, 
would be endured in this country, 
But who can say to what conclu- 
sion the silent unresisted operation 
of abuses, incessantly acting, and 
constantly increasing, may lead us 
hereafter! what habits it may gra- 
dually create! what power it may 
finally establish !’ The abuses in the 
government of France were suffered 
to gather and accumulate, until no- 
thing but an eruption could put an 
+ Jan, 17, 1783. 
end 
