tained, as to the RIGHT of any public body, to regulate and modify the uses of charitable donations. This objection has been published in the Courier, and alluded to in the House of Commons, and no doubt will be chuckled over by all the retainers of abuse. Should our readers fall in with any cunning parson, or swag-bellied alderman, who urges this argument, we will tell them how, in that case, we should manage him. In the first place, we should readily admit, that the House of Commons, as at present constituted, has no right to meddle with the funds of charities, nor any thing else of a public nature; it exercises no legal authority in the State: they are usurpers, who have possessed themselves of the People's inheritance by force and fraud, and by the same means might be justly deprived of it. But, supposing an House of Commons which really represented the People, then, indeed, it would be competent to dispose of these funds in any way the most advantageous to the individuals for whom they were bequeathed. God forbid, however, that even a reformed House of Commons should violate the sacred injunctions of the dead. Whatever those, good men, who, in their last moments, could think of the poor, who, with their dying breath, could pour out prayers for the fatherless, the aged and the infirm; whatever those benevolent individuals might recommend, let it be most religiously observed. But their intentions were pure and upright. Our legitimate representatives could have no other. Their object was to provide valuable and useful education for poor children. Latin and greek are no longer so; therefore, they never intended that latin and greek should be taught at the present day. They wished to feed ' the hungry and clothe the naked; therefore they did not leave funds for those who are rolling in plenty, and clothed in ermine. By wresting them from those perverted objeets, we fulfil, to the letter, the intentions of our generous benefactors.

One argument more, which will effectually silence either a cunning parson, or swag-bellied alderman. Were not the lands, attached to our ancient monasteries, left by private individuals, principally for charitable and benevolent objects? Have not these lands been seized by the public, and applied entirely to other purposes? Who ever complained that this was unjust, illegal, or impolitic? Go home, then, thou confounded hypocrite or glutton (whichever it may be) and tell thy wife thy astonishment, at the growing knowledge and impertinence of the " lower orders."

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

The unusual demand for the " Gorgon" has rendered it necessary to reprint the first number, which will be done in a few days.

London: Printed and published by R. Carlile, 183, FleetStreet. To whom all orders and communications (post paid) are requested to be forwarded.

A WEEKLY POLITICAL PUBLICATION.

No. 5.]

LONDON, SATURDAY, JUNE 20, 1818.

[PRICE 1d.

Let not, whatever other ills assail,
A damned aristocracy prevail.

Sir Francis Burdett on Parliamentary Reform.-Folly of reverting to ancient Institutions.-State of Labouring Classes after passing of Magna Charta. Royal Speeches in favour of Reform Westminster Election.-Burdett, Kinnaird and Major Cartwright.

Sir Francis Burdett has again brought forward his annual motion for Parliamentary Reform, and we are very sorry for it. We do not regret that such a motion has been made, by any means, but we are heartily sorry that the honourable baronet should found our claims for Reform on the ancient grants and practices of the Constitution. In our first number, we took occasion to point out the unfortunate error into which many of our friends had fallen on this subject. We then stated, that there was nothing in the spirit or practice of our ancient institutions, or even in the condition of the lower classes of society, at that time, which would be of the least service to us in contending against corruption. Moreover, we ridiculed the idea altogether of reverting to a state of barbarism and ignorance for examples of Government adapted to the present day. In short, we perceived, that the Reformers had made a false point; and like true friends, both to them and their cause, we took the earliest opportunity to apprise them of it. We saw the propriety and advantage of confining ourselves to pointing out the manifold and flagrant evils with which we were surrounded; and the obvious utility that would follow from the reform of the present system. Here we erected our standard upon a rock and an eminence, on which, we could contend with the advocate of abuse with success; but by descending into the recesses of antiquity, we should place our cause on a rotten and sandy foundation, where there is really no footing, and from which we might easily be dislodged. It is leaving the broad day light in which our cause would appear with beauty and effect, to wander in the mazes of darkness and obscurity, where our enemies would find the most convenient shelter and retreat.

After the pains we have taken to expose those infamous measures, which particularly affected the interests of the labouring and useful classes of the community, we think we may take credit for being sincerely attached to the welfare of that part of society. And we really think, we cannot better advance the cause of Reform thán

by excluding from the consideration of the subject, all allusion to a former state of society-that the labouring classes would be benefitted by this plan, there can be no doubt. For every one must be seusible, who is acquainted with their history, that, at no former period were they of half the importance they are at this day. We could " a tale unfold" that would place this part of the subject in a striking point of view, but we have, at present, other objects in view. All we shall do, at this time, is to ask a few questions; -What would the working classes now think, should the colour, eut and fineness of their clothes be fixed by act of Parliament ? They would, doubtless, think it a gross violation of their personal liberty, and we should think so too; and the Parliament, which could be guilty of such a wanton and ridiculous interference with the private conduct of individuals, would deserve to be blown into the air, for its folly and presumption. This, however, was done in good old times, and a great deal more. It was determined by the legislature, of what kind of diet a labourer ought to feed; how long a time he ought to take to his meals, and what number of hours he ought to work every day. All labourers and mechanics were forbidden to remove from one part of the country to another, without permission of a magistrate; and their wages were fixed by the justices of peace, every Easter and Michaelinas by proclamation! Should any one refuse to work for the wages thus established by law, he was liable to be fined, imprisoned, or even publicly whipped. To complete this blessed state of liberty and happiness for the lower orders," it was enacted in the reign of that good prince Edward the sixth, that whoever should be found idle, or loitering about for two or three days, should be the absolute slave of him who informed the magistrate.

Now what think ye of this, ye simple ones? Ought we to revert to this period for lessons of wisdom, happiness, and liberty? What we state does not relate to the class of villeins or slaves, for they were extinct; but to free-labourers or freemen, who were liberated from the shackles of feudalism. Neither does it relate to a period antecedent to Magna Charta, when the wiseacres allow a little tyranny prevailed, but to at least three centuries after the affair at Runuimede; and more than two hundred years after the famous statute of Edward I. de tallagio non concedendo, or (in Euglish) that law which declares, no tax shall be levied without the consent of the People. Here then we have these two celebrated laws, which it is said, form the basis of the English Constitution, the bulwark of our liberties, and the title deeds of our inheritance. Both these laws were passed in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries; and we have seen what was the condition of the people up to the sixteenth. Of what value then, we say, to the people, were these boasted enactments? Why should they be continually held up as objects of veneration and reference? These laws found the people slaves, and they left them so. We say slaves, for what are men but slaves when they can neither eat, drink, sleep, nor even walk and clothe themselves, but according to Act of Par

hament. When they are obliged to receive such wages for their labour as a justice of the peace may appoint, on pain of being whipped. That the people should consent to such laws as these, or have any hand in the making of them, it would be absurd to presume It is evident that they had about as much to do with the legislation of the country at that day, as they have at this. And we may apply the same observation to Magna Charta and the Statutes of the Edwards, which that truly worthy and independent gentleman, Walter Fawkes, applies to the Bill of Rights,-they were bills of fare of very excellent dinners, and of great promise; but which, unluckily, were never served up for the entertainment of the people.

For our own parts, we have such an hearty contempt for all the ancient lore that has been raked together on the subject of the English Government, that we should not feel the least regret, were there not a single copy of Magna Charta or the nullum tallagium to be found in the whole kingdom. It is well known to those who are acquainted with the history of their country, that these boasted enactments were never acted upon; or had they been acted upon, it is no reason that they should be acted upon at this day. One thing is certain, that these ancient laws have been a real stumblingblock in the way of the Reformers; they have been the subject of endless, unmeaning altercation; they have filled the heads of the people with nonsense, and covered their advocates with contempt and ridicule. That our leaders should continue to stick to these follies, is both provoking and astonishing. Can they bring nothing to bear against the old rotten borough-mongering system but musty parchment, black letter and latin quotations? Is there nothing in the situation of our finances, in our belated paper system, in the number of paupers, in the immense wealth that every creature connected with Government has gorged, and in the general poverty of all other classes of society, on which, to found a case of injustice and mal-administration. Most assuredly there is; and it is on these points that we wish to found our bill of indictment against the whole system. We wish to found it on the miseries it has actually produced, on the inextricable difficulties into which the country has been plunged. We wish to shew, that it is from the people being excluded from all influence in the affairs of Government, that these evils have been entailed upon them. And we wish to shew that, had the people been concerned in the management of their affairs, they would not have been brought to the wretched state of slavery they are now in, but that they would have taken care of their interests, in the same manner the borough-mongers have taken care of theirs.

It is a sufficient argument against the existence of any thing, that it has produced more evil than good. That this has been the case with the English Government there can be no doubt. That it is contrary to the plainest dictates of justice and common sense, and only calculated to promote the interests of a set of artful knares, at the expense of the whole community, are truths equally

certain. What stronger reasons, then, can we have against the present corrupt system; or what greater inducements to set us about vigorously reforming it? Let us not, then, pester ourselves with the ancient lumber of Magna Charta, and the laws of the Edwards. Or at least, if we must go to school to our wise ancestors, and trick out ourselves in their practices and manners, let us do it effectually, consistenly, and at whole length. Do not let us make patch-work of it. Let us again adopt their tapestry and gothic towers, their long beards and leathern doublets; let us knock down our chimneys, and put out our windows;-they had none of these things, they were much wiser than we are; they could contrive the best laws, why not the best furniture and habi tations. But this is too ridiculous to be tolerated. We see to what absurdities our antiquity-mongering would lead us; and we will now see to what a climax of folly our worthy leader, the baronet, has attained. He has certainly out-done all his former out-doings. He has taken such a flight that we are now left at an immeasurable distance. Whether he has ascended or descended we cannot tell; but of one thing we are persuaded, that the most crazy and visionary reformer amongst us, will never exceed in folly and absurdity, the speech of Sir Francis Burdett, on the 2d of June.

We do not intend to enter into a particular examination of this famous oration, on this occasion, it must be done at some future time. All we shall do now, is, to inform our readers of the new basis our leader has laid down for us, and what line of defence we shall have to pursue in our future defence of popular rights. Instead of quoting slips of Latin from Magna Charta, and passages from the Bill of Rights, as formerly, we shall have to hunt through royal speeches, and pick up little bits of comfort and authority from these gracious productions. Now "only think of that," as Falstaff says in the play, 66 only think of that" for a

moment. After cramming our poor heads till they were ready to crack, with ancient lore and musty parchment, we are suddenly ordered by our "great commander" to rid ourselves of these incumbrances, and forthwith take to the study of speeches from the throne! As we are not at all inclined to enter upon this new, and as we conceive, unprofitable labour, we shall candidly state our objections to it altogether.

The thing is in itself extremely ridiculous, but we are afraid it would not succeed the worse on that account; and we really should not be surprised, were not this new folly exposed in time, to see the future resolutions and petitions in favour of Parliamentary Reform, interlarded with extracts from the speeches of the Tudors and the Stuarts. We shall, however, give our assistance to prevent the progress of this evil.

In the first place, we have to remark, that had the claims of the people received the most unequivocal sanction from the speeches of our sovereigns, they would not, from that circumstance, have derived any material addition to their strength and validity. The