ad belonged in
reality the place of Agent, to whom that of the Employer. The sticklers
for _emancipation_ (a fashionable word in our times, when rational
acquiescence is deemed baseness of spirit, and the most enlightened
service passes for benighted servility!) have been free on numerous
occasions to make the effort they are now making. Could any considerable
person have been found to share their feeling, they might have proposed
a Representative unacceptable to the Family whose ascendancy they
complain of, with a certainty of securing his election, had the
good-will of the Freeholders been on their side. What could possibly
have prevented this trial? But they talk as if some mysterious power had
been used to their injury. Some call it 'a thraldom from without'--some
'a drowsiness within.'--Mr. Brougham's Kendal Committee find fault with
others--the Chairman of the Appleby Committee is inclined to fix the
blame nearer home. An accredited organ of their Kendal Committee tells
you dogmatically, from the Bill of Rights, that '_Elections shall be
free_;' and, if asked how the citation bears upon the case, his answer
would most likely prove him of opinion, that, as noise is sometimes an
accompaniment of freedom, so there can be no freedom without noise. Or,
does the erudite Constitutionalist take this method of informing us,
that the Lord Lieutenant has been accustomed to awe and controul the
Voters of this County, as Charles the Second and his Brother attempted
to awe and controul those of the whole kingdom? If such be the meaning
of the Writer and his Employers, what a pity Westmoreland has not a
Lunatic Asylum for the accommodation of the whole Body! In the same
strain, and from the same quarter, we are triumphantly told 'that no
Peer of Parliament shall interfere in Elections.' How injurious then to
these Monitors and their Cause the report of the Hereditary High
Sheriff's massy subscription, and his zealous countenance! Let him be
entreated formally to contradict it;--or would they have one law for a
Peer who is a Friend to Administration, and another for such as are its
enemies? Is the same act to pass for culpable or praiseworthy, just as
it thwarts, or furthers, the wishes of those who pronounce a judgment
upon it?

The approvers of that order of things in which we live and move, at this
day, as free Englishmen, are under no temptation to fall into these
contradictions. They acknowledge that the general question is