have admitted of no compensation in the judgment of our Ancestors; and the Candidate, being in no respect remarkable for deference to public opinion, is willing to avail himself of new-fangled expectations.  Hence it becomes necessary to consider what would be the political value of the Freeholds of Westmoreland, if the system of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage (countenanced by Mr. Brougham) should be acted upon.  But, as there has been much saying and unsaying on this subject, let us review the case.

In the House of Commons, on the 17th of February, 1817, Lord Cochrane affirmed, that, on a certain day which he named, Mr. Brougham, at a dinner given at the London Tavern, to the Friends of Parliamentary Reform, used the following words, or words to the same effect:—­’As often as we have required that Parliaments should be chosen yearly, and that the elective Franchise should be extended to all who pay taxes, we have been desired to wait, for the enemy was at the gate, and ready to avail himself of the discords attending our political contests, in order to undermine our national independence.  This argument is gone, and our Adversaries must now look for another.  He had mentioned the two radical doctrines of yearly election, and the Franchise enjoyed by all paying taxes; but it would be superfluous to reason in favour of them here, where all are agreed on the subject.’

When this, and other passages of like import, were produced by Lord C. in a paper declared to be in Mr. Brougham’s handwriting, and to be a report made by himself of the speech then and there delivered, did Mr. Brougham deny that the handwriting was his, and that those words had fallen from his pen, as the best image that his own memory could furnish of what he had uttered?  No—­he gave vent only to a vague complaint of groundless aspersions; and accused certain persons of rashness and imprudence, and of not waiting only for a few days longer, when they would have had a full and fair opportunity of hearing his sentiments on this momentous subject.  He then acknowledged that some observations had fallen from him similar to what had been read by the Noble Lord; and added, that he then said, or at least meant to be understood as saying, (he takes no notice of what he wrote or meant to be understood as writing,) what he still maintained—­’that the power of election should he limited to those who paid direct taxes;’ in other and more faithful words, should be extended to all persons in that condition.  Mr. B. proceeded manfully to scout the notion, that the mere production of a speech delivered by him at a Tavern would make him swerve from the line of his duty, from the childish desire of keeping up an appearance of consistency!