The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-23 00:00:00

with these views he was prepared to support the Bill of,
his Majesty's Ministers. 11)1
Sir G. ROSE believed that the Reform Bill would
make a large breach in the bulwark of our Constitution, I
and that with a degree of violence which no future effort
could stop. There could also be no doubt that the Reform 1!
Bill would materially affect our foreign relations, and, from
his experience of above forty years in the diplomatic ser-
vice of the
-country, he could speak with the greater con-
fidence upon this part of the hearings of the Bill. Another
gieat question demanding the most serious consideration of
tir House was that of the Colonies. It must be remem-
bered that our colonial empire embraced one hundred mil-
Fons of souls to our own twenty five millions ; and if we
were the body, it must be admitted that they formed mag-
nificent wings, which had carried us to an enormous
height, and that we were bound to take care lest by
cutting them away we incurred a fall from which
there would be no hope of a future rise. The indirect
means of representation which those colonies now
possessed was one great bond of their attachment and
also of their utility to the mother country. He re-
membered once when the late Mr. Hutchinson was
speaking in that Mouse, and said that if some measure
were not carried he would support a dissolution of the
Union, Mr. Canning started upon his legs, and exclaimed—
" Dissove the Union ?—restore the lieptsrchy !" He be-
lieved that if once they recognised the principle, as this
Bill did, of representing separate and local interests, it
would at last disunite all the parts of the empire, and the
prophecy of Mr. Canning would in spirit be fulfilled.
Another important subject involved in this question was
that of the Church. Though attached to the Church, he
was no bigot; but this he would say, that he believed
those who saw the spire of S ilisbury cathedral or the cross
of St. Paul's in their present places thirty years after the
passing of this Bill would have better eyes than he ex-
pected them to have. The Hon. Baronet then declared
his want of confidence in his Majesty's Ministers as the
guides of the country in so important a change as that now
proposed.--(Cheers.)
Mr. ADEANE voted for the second reading of the Bill
because he approved of its principle. He subsequently
voted for many alterations proposed in the Committee,
without reference to the side from which they came, from
a sincere desire to see the measure such as he thought the
wants of the country required. He regretted that many
of those alterations had not been more fully considered in
the Committee, because he was convinced that they would
have improved the Bill. He had supported the majority
of those amendments bee ,use they were favourable to the
landed interest, and he believed that as the Bill now stood
a due influence was not given to the land in the represen-
tation.—( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord in the former
measure did hold out an assurance that the towns should
not be allowed to overwhelm the agricultural voter. And
what was the effect of the alteration introduced into the
new measure? Now any freeholders from 40 shillings
up to 101., living in county towns, were to have votes for
the county, and by them the landed interest was to be
swamped. He regretted deeply that such a change had
been made after the pledges given to the landed interest,
and after they had returned their representatives upon the
faith of those pledges.—(Hear, hear.) The question now
was, whether he should vote for the Bill as it stood ; and,
however much he lamented that many of the amendments
moved in the Committee had not been carried, he should
yet give his vote in favour of the third reading.
Sir E. SUGDEN said that the speech of the Hon. Mem-
ber for Cambridgeshire (Aileane) was a specimen of the
union which prevailed among the friends of Reform with
respect to the details of the Bill.—(Hear. )—The Noble
Lord himself (Althorp) has indeed changed his opinions on
the subject, for he (Sir E. Sugden), although a very
young Member of the House, recollected the Noble Lord
voting in favour of the Ballot. The Learned Gentleman,
too (the Attorney-General) had declared that they were
to try what was contained in the Bill first, and if it did
not work well, they might have the Ballot afterwards.
All, however, seemed to be agreed that the present mea-
sure, notwithstanding all the assertions put forth on
that subject by the Government was not to he a final
one. An Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member
for Caine (Mr. Macaulay), in his attempt to prove the
necessity of the changes proposed, had declared that they
must attribute the evils they suffered, as well as the ad-
vantages they boasted of, to the workings of the pre-
sent Constitution. This, however, might be said
with equal tru'h of everything connected with the lot
of humanity; and he (Sir Edward Sugden) was satisfied
the good preponderated so much over the bad, that he
would not rashly risk any extensive changes, unless their
necessity was proved by some more cogent argument. He
had never felt more pain in his life than when present at
an election for a close borough. He did not object to po-
pular elections ; fat from it. But he had a great objec-
tion to such popular elections as were calculated to destroy
the Constitution. He would not consent to part with the
Constitution without a struggle. His Hon. and Learned
Friend the Attorney-General, who, in his opinion, had
compromised his character as a law officer of the Crown by
sitting in the Committee week after week upon such a
xne !sure, without taking any part in the discussions re-

speeting it, had declared that the present Bill differed in
no material point from the first. New this he (Sir E.
Sugden) would confidently assert, that no two measures
could be more distinctly different. Tbere was not a
leading principle in the first Bill which had not been so
modified and altered in the second Bill as to give it quite
a different character. In the first Bill the boundaries of
the borough. were prescribed ; they had now a distinct
Boundary Bill. The first Bill cut sixty-two Members off
the representative body; and to that most unwise and un-
statesman• like proposition, although retracted in the second
Bill, the determined demand of Scotland and Ireland for ad-
ditional representation was attributable. And yet the Noble
Lord had said that the original Bill was the result of ma-
ture deliberation. The schedule A originally contained sixty
boroughs ; it now contained only fifty-six. The schedule
B. originally contained forty-six boroughs ; it now con-
tained only thirty. Now if, after the dissolution of Parlia-
ment, any Reform candidate had declared to the electors
that he did not quite like schedules A and C; but he
thought the former should include only fifty-six boroughs,
and the latter only thirty boroughs, lie would have been
driven with disgrace from the hustings. And yet those
were precisely the numbers which the authors of the
measure introduced into their new Bill. The first Bill
proceeded on the census of 1821 ; the present Bill on the
census of 1 83 I—the census on which he and those who
thought with him insisted, ought to have been the census
in the first instance. The first Bill proceeded on the
principle of population ; the second on the principles of
population and taxation. The first Bill excluded from tn-
inyine votes for counties those persons who had a right to
vote for cities and boroughs ; and enis exclusion the
Noble Lord described as a great boon to the agri-
cultural interest. If so, why had the Noble Lord with •
drawn the provision from the present measure? Why
hail the city of London been thrown into Middlesex? No
one requited it. Was it because the Noble Lord wished
to sacrifice the agricultural interest? There was evidently
no harmony among the Reformers upon this and m my
other points; and if Hon. Members were but for a moment
'in the Palace of Truth,and compelled to speak their real
sentiments, the most extraordinary diveristy of opinions
would be expressed on the other side of the House. Then
came the changes which bad been made with reference to
the ten-pound franchise. On that point the Noble Lord,
although he had declared that his object was to increase
the privileges of the middle classes, had listened to his
friends the Members of the Political Unions, who seemed
determined to bring the country down from its present ele-
vation, and had determined that the ten-pound house-
fielders should not be excluded from the exercise of the
ective franchise although their payments were made only
weekly.—(Lord John Russell said across the table, that
the change was made on the recommendation of the
Hon. Member for Ipswich.) Was that the way in which
this country was to be governed ? When some great prin-
ciple was maintained by the Minister of the Crown, was
he to change it on the representation of the Hon. Member
for Ipswich? He meant no disrespect to that Hon. Mem-
ber ; but if such was the manner in which the Noble Lord
allowed himself to be influenced, he was not fit for his post.
Was it to be endured that the Constitution of this country
Was to be frittered away on such grounds ? Bot was it not
true that a certain deputation had waited on the Noble
Lord, composed of persons who complained that they
should be excluded from the elective franchise if those who
paid weekly rents were excluded from its enjoyment, and
paid weekly only for the satisfaction of the landlord ? And
would any one say that a man who paid 3s. 10d. a week,
and wandered from street to street, belonged to the
middle classes, respecting which the Noble Lord had ex-
pressed so much anxiety? And yet the Noble Lord had
expressed his determination not to unsettle established
rules, but to walk in the ancient ways of the Constitution.
Where were such established rules, where were such
ancient ways as these to be found ? The Noble Lord as-
serted that it was the desire of his Majesty's Government
to place the representation in the hands of the middle
classes. But let him look at the returns on the subject,
and he would see that the preponderance of the lower
orders would be such as to swamp all the other classes of
the community. He (Sir Edward B. Sugden) spoke
without prejudice on this subject. He could have no
motive on the subject. Every one knew that he himself
bad sprung from the people. He could never entertain a
wish to deprive the people of their rights. He owed
'lathing to the aristocracy. Ha hail ❑ever received 413 y

tatronage or favour from the aristocracy. He had never
iorne into public life until he had won his way by his
van exertions. He had never sought the patronage of
he aristocracy ; and if ever the rights of the lower orders
ihould be threatened, be would be found as zealous in
:heir defence as he now was in the defence of the rights of
the aristocracy. The first Bill did not trench on the forty-
shilling freeholders, and the Noble Lord declared that he
never would trench upon them. By the present Bill they
were greatly trenched upon. In the first Bill an ex-
tensive patronage was given to the Lord Chancellor, of
which, in the second Bill, he was deprived. The minor
schedules were very different in the two Bills. In short,
there was not a line, not a particle, scarcely a cross of a T or
a dot of an I in the first Bill, whicis had not been altered in the
cond. An yet his Hon. and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General declared that there was no difference between the
two Bills ! The very introduction of the measure had
already produced the greatest mischiefs. It had opened a
sluice of licentiousness in the Press which absolutely para-
lysed the office of the Attorney-General. Even with refe-
rence to that part of the Press which professed to support
his Majesty's Ministers, it became a matter of doubt with
the readers of its disquisitions who held the reins of
Government—the Editor of a Newspaper, or the First
Lord of the Treasury ? Notwithstanding all the ability
of the conductors of the Press, it never seemed to have
occurred to them that when a more popular authority
existed in the country the liberty and the licentiousness in
which they were now permitted to indulge would be cur-
tailed. More liberty and licentiousness would be afforded
to the Press under a firm and well-regulated Government
than under one of a different character. By pursuing its
present purpose, therefore, the Press struck at the very
liberty which was so valuable to it. Another mis-
chief occasioned by the introduction of the measure was,
that it led the people to cherish fantastic notions of their
own power. This was exhibited in the very first trial
of that power; namely, the direct refusal to pay parish
rates, and the declaration that the law on that point might
take its course. The determination in England not to
pay the parish rates was accompanied by a determination
in Ireland not to pay the tithes. On that point they had
heard the alarming doctrine that because certain persons
had already disobeyed the law, therefore they should be
released from further obedience to it. Another mischief
which had resulted from the introduction of the present
measure, was, that it bad paralysed trade. Even the
friends of the measure did not deny that fact : but they
asserted that it was owing to the Bill not having passed.
If the Bill should pass (which might GOD avert) it would
be the bounden duty of his Majesty's Government imme-
diately to put down the Political Unions, or the Political
Unions would put down them. Another mischief result-
ing from the measure was, the introduction in that House
and elsewhere of the most unconstitutional principles ever
held in any assembly in this country. It was maintained
that the Crown should •omit sending writs to those places
which it was wished to disfranchise. The Noble Lord
and his colleagues had been compelled to disclaim such
doctrines, yet in a paper devoted to his Majesty's Govern-
ment, but, two nights ago, it was maintained that the
King had a right to dissolve Parliament, and
to send writs only where he pleased.—(Hear, hear.)
A more daring and illegal assertion was never made.
Amongst other effects to he anticipated from the kill, were
raising of wages, the cheapening of bread by the overthrow
of the Corn Laws, and the striking at the hereditary reve-
nues of the Crown. In Scotland and Ireland the effect
would be to make a tremendous addition to the popular
constituency of these countries, and he exhorted the House
of Lords to take the three Bills together, and not to be se-
duced into considering them separately.—(Cheers.) It
was the bounden duty of their Lordships not to consider
those Bills separate.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and Learned
Gentleman then praised the speech of the Hon. Member
for Boroughbridge (Sir C. Wetherell) describing it as in-
genious and strong in argument, and ridiculing the attempt
of his Han. Friend the Attorney-General to meet it by al-
lusion to the peculiarity of manner with which it was de-
livered. His Hon. and Learned Friend asked him (Sir
C. W.) to lay aside his peculiarity of manner; he might
as well ask him to lay aside his power of speaking.—
(Cheers and laughter.) Nothing could be more absurd
than asking a man to divest himself of his peculiar man-
ner.—( Cheers and laughter.) The Hon. and Learned
Member next adverted to. the use made of his Majesty's
name in that House, and observed, that the fault of intro-
ducing it had originated at the Ministerial side of the
House; and he protested against it as unconstitutional in the
highest degree. The creation of a batch of Peers for the
purpose of carrying the measure, he also protested agaiagt
as dangerous, and mischievous alike to the Throne, the
Aristocracy and the whole people. It would be a sad and
degrading thing, if a dozen gentleman of England
were, after voting for the third reading of the Bill in that
House, to consent to go up to another House, and theme
answer to their call for their suffrages in a batch.—
(Loud cheers.) It was an event to be deprecated—and
if it should unfortunately take place, would he fraught
with consequences the most deplorable.—(Cheers.) All
writers agreed in the opinion, that my Lord Oxford
made an illegal use of the Royal prerogative.—(Cheers.)
Men were to be elevated to the Peerage for splendid ser-
vices or for high distinctions—even the distinction of
great wealth was allowable—but it was a positive per-
version of the King's prerogative to create Peers for the
simple purpose of forcing a measure upon the Upper
House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. R. GRANT entirely sympathised with his Hon.
and Learned Friend as to the weight and importance of
this measure; but lie objected to his Hon. and Learned
Friend's fagging through all the details of the two Re-
form Bills, and expatiating upon the dotting of the I's
and the crossing of the T's.—(Cheers.) He would not
attempt to follow the Hon. Member through all his rai-
nive and microscopic views---(Hear, hear),—brat would
simply state the principles on which he would support
tbe third reading. For himself, he could not exclude
from his consideration the object of contenting the people
of England. The Hon. and Learned Member said, the
true way to legislate was, not to look for the content of
the people, but to do that which was right, and look for
another and higher reward. Now he thought the first
duty of a Governtnent was to content the people.
The good of the country rendered it necessary to
make some arrangement and some modification of the
representative system.—(flear, hear, hear.) He
said that, upon the part of the people, there was an
alienation from the institutions of the country; and, there-
fore, he believed it necessary to popularize our representa-
tion in a sensible degree, in order to reconcile the people
and the Government; without which there could be no
good Government and no successful legislation.—( Cheers. )
He therefore maintained the Government were bound to
modify their institutions, and not proceed irrespectively to
the wishes of the people It was idle to suppose that any
law which did not accord with the wishes of the people
could be permanent, and in support of this proposition he
would read a passage from one of the admirable books of
his Hon. and Learned Friend.—(Here the Hon. Member
read a passage from one of Sir E. Segden's books, declar-
ing the inutility of passing Acts against the feelings of
the people.)—He then proceeded to say that Mr. Huskis-
son had remarked that there was excessive inconvenience
is legislating for an old country. The higher and lower
classes were every day diverging further from each other;
luxury was becoming greater with the one and the other
were approximating more and more to indigence and des-
titution. A phenomenon to be remarked in fact was,
that while the higher and lower classes were diverging
from each other in their physical condition, they were in
the same ratio converging to each other in their moral
condition. The more, too, of information which was
spread among the lower classes, the more keenly did
they feel the privations to which they were subjected.
He did not mean to me the word " lower" classes
offensively. It was a mere fallacy to call one class
high and another low, when nature and religion in-
tended all men to be equal, and when the so-called lower
class was, in almost every respect, superior to the
other. The long war, he maintained in the first instance
and secondly the long peace, had produced this pheno-
menon is the social system of this country. Capital after
the war became stagnant, and bad since evaporated.
From these strange circumstances it behoved the House
well to consider the representative system, and so arrange
it as to content the people. He thought that the princi-
ple of this Bill might, to a certain extent, be compared to
the aqueducts of the ancients, for, by drawing the stream
from the general electoral body of the country, they would
he getting at that pure spring which would insure a
wholesome and healthy result to the whole of the coun-
try. It had been asked what would be gained by this
measure, if it were allowed to pass into a law ? To that
he would reply, that if it were only the means of conci-
liating the great body of the middling classes of so-
ciety, a very great object would be gained, and a very
great good would be effected. The teal question in his
nand was, whether content and satisfaction could he given
to the people without this concession ? and from the very
bottormof his heart he would say, " clearly not !" As to
immediate intimidation, that was out of the question.
But they were all looking to consequences ; and he did not
see that there was anything unmanly—he was sure that
there was nothing unstatesmanlike—in confessing that
such was the case. How stood the matter at present?
The- House of Commons was evidently too contracted in

its constitution for the people of England; and what was
still worse, that contraction might be said to be a growing
l'ontractioil when COMVIrrd with the growing population

of the Etnpire.--(Cheers.) The result of this was, that
every day there was more and more disaffection—more
and more aversion—more and more alienation from the
ancient institutions of the country ; and ultimately, he
was afraid, if no alteration took place, that they would
become exposed to that consequence which was almost too
terrible to contemplate—that tremendous consequence
which he had been told (though he would not vouch for
the fact) Mr. Canning had, on his death bed, predicted—
that fearful consequence which would commence in wicked-
ness and misery, and end in crime and anarchy.—( Hear.)
The argument of the Anti-Reformers was, that the aris-
tocracy ought to have due weight in the House of Com-
mons, in order that their voice might be heard before any
appeal was made to the Upper House of Parliament; but
let him ask was that consonant with what appeared on
t},e Journals of the House in its standing orders, or in
the preambles of, perhaps, twenty Acts of Parliament?—
( Hear, hear, hear.) So far from it, it was in direct
variance with all these ; and yet did any man get up in
that House and venture to propose that those standing
orders should be rescinded?—(Hear, hear, hear.) Not
at all ; and yet one of the choice arguments against
the Reform Bill was, that the influence exercised in the
elections by the Peers of England would be destroyed by
this measure. Did the House mean to stand by those
laws and those orders ; or, did it not ? If it did, then
this was the very measure of all others most judicious, for
it would settle the whole matter ; and if it did not, then
let the question be brought forward at once in a tangible
shape, and the sense of Parliament taken on the electoral
interference of the Aristocracy.—(Cheers.) The language
of the people was sufficiently plain on this head. What
they said was, " If you mean to rescind your own decla-
rations, tell us so at once, and let it be done openly, by
which means we shall know what you mean; but do not
do the thing by a blind. Do not conceal your intentions--
do not show us that the House of Commons has an outward
and an inward sense. —(Cheers.) And had not the peo-
ple of England a right to say this much ? Had net those
from whom the bulk of the Revenue was derived, and on
whom the distresses of the country fell most heavily, a
right to demand that they should at least be dealt with
openly and fairly ?—(Hear, hear.) And yet, this cer-
tainly was not the course which those who were opposed
to this measure seemed willing to pursue—their language
appeared to be, " We dare not defy you ; but we dare not
trust you."—(Cheers.) For all these reasons it was to him
quite clear that a concession to the popular feeling roust
be made : nor would that sort of concession which had of

- . .
late been passing under the name of " a moderate reform"
be sufficient ; for it was time that the people of England
should be really represented in that [House, and that the
real sound influence of the general constituency of the
empire should be felt i❑ the British House of Commons.

—(Cheering).
Lord PORCHESTER began by expressing his disap-
probation of the manner in which the Government had
acted with resp, ct to the Reform Bill. Instead of ap-
pealing, as they ought to have done, to the Elected Parlia-
ment, they had caused a general election to take place, and
had placed their hopes in the excited feelings of the people,
whose passions they had bribed with promises which he
hoped never to see carried into effect. In fact, the present
Minis'ers hal felt that their only resoutce was a desperate
donfidence in the extreme opinion of the day, for the pur-
pose of destroying all the oldest and most valuable institu-
tions of the country.—(Cheers.) In this the Ministers
had, in his opinion, acted most improperly.—(Cheers.)
It was the duty of all Governments, if yield they must, to
yield slowly—to weaken the ardour of popular outcry by
judicious delay—and to grant but a tardy progress to
those changes which the could not ultimately resist.—
(Cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman had said that he dreaded
a collision between property and numbers. So did lie
(Lord Porehester) ; but to him it seemed that the most
probable way of producing that collision was by passing
this measure, which was actually putting arms into the
hands of the populace, to be used against themselves.—
(Hear, bar.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had also al-
luded to the violation of the standing orders of the House
by the interference of Peers at elections. But why had
he not also vented his virtuous indignation against the vio-
lation of another of the standing orders—that of publishing
their debates.—(Laughter.) He Legged that he might he
rightly understood. He was not at all objecting to those
publications ; but he did not see why there should be more
wrath expressed at the violation of one Standing Order
than of another.—(Hear, hear.) He could not agree
with the Noble Lord that the danger of this Bill would
arise from the preponderance of the agricultural interest:;
in his belief it would arise from the preponderance of the
town interest.—(Hear, bear.) To whom had Govern-
ment been hitherto in the habit of looking for the purpose
of feeling the pulse of the country ? To the county Mem-
bers. But did those Members hope that their voice would
ever again have like w-ight in that House when this sill
should have passed ?—( Hear, hear.) If they did, such a
hope would be vain. The voice that would in future be
predominant would be that of the town Members—Mem-
bers that would be united by a community of interest—
Members that would eagerly watch one onother, and who
in their turn would be jealously watched by Political Com-
mittees, Political Councils, and Political Unions—
, (Cheers)—these, alas ! would be the men who would go-
vern the Government, and who would take on themselves
to direct the destinies of England. And the present Mi-
nisters—what did they hope from this measure? For a short
time, and by a series of unhappy concessions, they might
contrive to hold a precarious office ; but they would have
no firm or honourable tenure of their posts, for each
Member, ins,ead of being able to identify himself with any
party, would be in the humble capacity of a delegate, and
would have to give his vote each night on each question
according to the bias or the prejudices of the majority of
his conatitu nts.—(Cheers.) But it was not the institu-
tions of England alone that would suffer. What would
become of the Church of Ireland—( Hear, hear)---of that
Church which the Sovereign by his oath has sworn to
maintain—of that much calumniated Church, which every

true friend of the Constitution ought to strive to the last I
to sustain and uphold ? The downfall of the Church of
Ireland (the Bill once passed) was certain, and the effect
would he that certain friends would be discarded for
certain enemies—friends, too, whose very prejudices were
in our favour, and whose dearest wish was to conciliate
our love.—(Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Caine had
referred to our wars as a proof of the want of a proper re-
presentation of the people. He would ask whether the
great French war was caused by any view of the borough
interests, and whether it was not in unison with the whole
popular feeling of the country ? But about seven years
ago, when the country was in distress—when all interests
were suffering, Gentlemen who were all staunch Reformers
would have hurried this country into a war, and she was
saved from it by the very borough-holders who were now
charged as wooing and seeking war. He would not trespass
further on the House—he would only say, that if the Bill
should become the law, the destiny of this country would
be sealed.—(Hear.)
Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE had listened with the greatest
attention to the arguments of the Right Honourable and
Learned Gentlemen, and he had the greatest respect for
their character and motives, but they ha'l not shaken his
conviction. He gave them full credit for their opposition
to the measure; they were afraid of everything like inno-
vation. They reminded him of what was said of a very
great and good man, Mr. Wilberforce, who said, he be-
lieved, on this very subject, that the " gentlemen were so
afraid of innovation, that they had not considered it proper
even to try a new argument."—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
That was the case with the Right Hon. Gentlemen ; they
were so much afraid of innovation, that they had advanced
no new arguments. They hail tried, particularly the Right
Hun. Gentleman the ex-Secretary of the Admiralty, to
frighten the farmer ; he had endeavoured to frighten the
landed interest ; lie had endeavoured to frighten. the Crown,
the House of Lords, and the people. Just the same, as in the
olden days, the Right Hon. Gentleman had tried to frighten
everybody. That was very natural perhaps, but while the
Gentlemen opposite had been attempting to frighten every
body, they had actually charged the Ministers with at-
tempting to intimidate them also with a view of terrifying
them from doing what they and the whole people of
England thought right and indispensible. The Gen-
tlemen opposite had not been successful ; the farmers were
not frightened. Neither was the funded interest fright-
ened. Let them look at the state of the funds ; had they
sunk since the Bill was brought in, or since Reform was
broached ? They had been told to look at the Three per
Cents, in Francs, as an index to the effects of the present
Revolution; he would say, look at the Three per Cents.
in England as a test of the effects of Reform. The Noble
Lord who spoke on the first night of the debate had said
that he was proud, and exulted in the fact, that one Eng-
lish county had returned an Anti-Reformer.—(Hear,
hear.) He would join in that triumph too, but it was
because all the other counties were of the opposite party.—
(Hear.) It was said that this was the result of a strong
state of excitement; and that was often repeated as the
strongest argument against his Majesty's Ministers, and it
was that one of which most use was made.—( Hear, hear.)
Bat that argument came from gentlemen who, in 1829, at
the period of the discussions on the Catholic Question, said
that the Parliament was not called ad hoc, and that it
purpose, and that an ap-
splemalulodughleitetaollebde frroaradtehatto telsir people.—(Cheers. ) That was
then said by the Noble Lord the Member for Buckingham-
shire,land by his Hon. Friend the Member for Oxford. It was
ret.e ited over and over again; it was said that the Parliament
had not been called together to try the question whether

Catholics should be admitted to Parliament, and that be-
fore deciding such a question, an appeal ought to be made
to the people by a general election.—(Cheers.) But those
who then held that doctrine now accused the Ministers of
exciting the people by the King's name.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) The charge was not true.—(Cheers.)
Lut supposing it were, did it deserve what was said of it ?
Was it a novelty in the history of our Constitution.—
( Hear, bear.) Was it not justified by precedents? He
would not go far to seek them—not beyond the time of
the Gentlemen who might be called the political fathers of
the Gentlemen opposite. What did they think of the dis-
solution of 1784 ? On March the 24th, of that year,
Parliament was dissolved because Mr. Pitt had only a ma-
jority of 48. The Crown made an appeal to the people,
and after the election the Ministers had a majority on the
first division of 282 to 214. But what happened in 1807 ?
In all the essentiil circumstances of the case, that was pre-
cisely like the last dissolution. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman then referred to the case of Mr. Perceval, the then
Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was charged with
writing an inflammatory address, and he quoted part of
Mr. Perceval's answer to the charge, stating that the ad-
dress had only spread because it was true. At the end of
that debate, he found it stated in a note, that Mr. Croker
spoke for some time with great animation, and con-
cluded by saying, that he approved of the
dissolution of Parliament.—(Laughter and cheers.)
He regretted with the Hon. and Learned Member for St.
Mawes—and he horoured him for the sentiment—th it
this question had ❑ot been discussed so as to meet the
feelings of all parties. After the most mature consideration,
if he thought the Bill would produce all the evils the Hon.
Members opposite ascribed to it, he would give it up to-
morrow.—(Hear, hear.) But the state of the country
would not permit it. He blamed nobody. It was the
misfortune of England to be governed by parties. The
Reform Bill was the act of one set of Ministers, who had
shortly before acceded to power, and it was discussed as a
party question.—(No, no.) He said that the country felt
it had been discussed as a party question.—(No, no.)
Well, then, that was his opinion.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He did not make any charge, he was only stating a
fact. One party proposed a measure, and another re-
sisted it. The Administration had scarcely taken office
when strange qnestions were put to individuals composing
it, showing that it was to be treated as a party. What,
too, was the conduct of the Opposition on the Budget?—
(Cheers.) What happened also on the question of the
Timber Duties—(Hear, hear,)—when the Government
was only endeavouring to carry into execution the recorded
designs of the Gentlemen opposite!—(No, no, and cheers.)
That ran through their whole conduct; he might refer
to the Sugar duties and the Belgian Loans, concerning
which a Right Hon. Gentleman asked an important ques-
tion on the very night that the Reform Bill stood for a
second reading.—(Hear.) Could the Ministers, with
such an opposition, make concessions ? It was not possi-
b'e. They would have been mocked at by all the car-
riers of gree❑ and blue boxes who belong to the public offi-
c s—they would have been laughed at in the lobby, and
their conduct would have been described as childish, silly,
and contemptible.—(Cheers.) He was surprised to hear
some of the observations of the Hon. and Learned Member
the other evening, and he could not imagine where he had
been keeping his political sheep, or in what Arcadia he
had been dwelling when he talked of conciliation.—(Hear,
hear.) That would indeed have been a sacrifice. The
Right Hon. Member fur Tamworth had his plan of Re-
form, but when it came to be examined, he said that
" the Ministers were for doing everything, and I am
for doing nothing at all."—(Loud cheers and laughter.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of the Ad-
miralty said his Right Hon. Friend would not•propose a
plea; but he had proposed one; and that was, not to alter
the present number of Members.—(Hear, and a laugh.)
The question was, if we were to have Reform with the
present Government, or no Reform with the Government
of the Gentlemen opposite? The question was, what Ad-
ministration was to govern the country? An instability
of Government was always an evil. The Right Hon.
Bart. opposite had himself allowed that on a memorable
occasion he had preferred taking a step not consonant to
his wishes, rather than break up an Administration by
withdrawing from it. But even if his Majesty's present
Government were thrown out of office, did any one sup-
pose that it was possible to form a Government in this
country of which the leading principle should not be Re-
form ? There could, however, be no middle course.
Either the old principles under which the Gentlemen op-
posite contended that the country had flourished must
be reverted to, or the new principles under which
his Majesty's present Government contended that
the country would flourish must be established. A
change was, no doubt, intended. But what State
bad ever' become great without frequent changes—
without recurring (as Machiavelli termed it) to first
principles? We were not about to cashier a Mo-
narch ; we were not about to make a change from James
to William ; we had our William.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
The change we were about to make was to change Gatton
and Old Sarum for Birmingham and Manchester ; to
change an irrespointible for a responsible Parliament. Sa
much had been said about the English Peers avoiding the
fault into which the Peers of France fell at the period of
the French revolution, that he must trouble the House for
a few moments on that subject. It had been said that in
the early part of the French Revolution, the French Nobles,
by conceding too soon and too largely, had betrayed their
own interests as well as those of the Crown and the court

On this subject he begged leave to read apassage

from a posthumous work by a distinguished individual,
which work had been alluded to by the lion. Member fur
aikhampton. When the illustrious daughter of Necker
composed her " Reflections on the principal events of the
French Revolution," it was not a moment when any pas•
sions and prejudices could be excited. It was after the
Restoration of 1814. The passage to which he referred
was as follows :—" A minority of the noblesse, that is,
more than sixty member+, whose families were most illus-
trious, bat who, by their inform,tion, were fully ou a level
with the spirit of the age, were desirous that, as far as
regarded the plan of a constitution, the mode of voting
should be individually ; but the majority of their order,
supported by a portion of the clergy (although the latter
were comparatively moderate), showed an inveterate ob-
jection to any mode of conciliation. They declared
themselves ready to give up their privilege of exemption
from taxes ; but instead of taking a formal resolution to
that effect on the opening of the sittings, they were de-
sirous of making that an object of negociation which the
nation regarded as a right. Time was thus lost in cavil-
ling, in pulite refusals, and in successive difficulties. When
the Tiers Etat raised their tone and showed their strength,
supported by the wish of the nation, the noblesse of the
court gave way, accustomed, as they were, to yield to
power ; but no sooner did the prospect appear to brighten,
than they resumed their arrogance, and seemed to despise
the Tiers Etat, as in the days when vassals solicited en-
franchisement from their Lords. Ti,e provincial noblesse
was still less tractable than the nobility of the first rank.
The latter were certain of preserving their dignity,—they
were guaranteed by historical recollections ; but the petty
nobles, whose titles were known only to themselves, saw
themselves in danger of losing distinctions which no longer
obtained respect from the world. These personages did
not scruple to dwell on their lately acquired rank, with as
much emphasis as if it had existed before the creation of
the world. They considered privileges which were of no
use but to themselves like that right of property which forms
the basis of general security. Privileges are sacred only
when conducive to the general advantage ; it requires then
some argument to support them, and they cannot be said to
be truly solid, except when sanctioned by public utility. But
the chief p art of the noblesse entrenched themselves in the
assertion, So it was heretofore'—` C'etoit ainsi jadis.'
Particular circumstances, they were told, produced that
state of things, and these circumstances are entirely
changed : in vain—nothing could operate conviction on
them. They were actuated by a certain aristocratic fop-
pery, of which an idea can be formed only in France ; a
mixture of frivolity in manner, and of pedantry in opi-
nion ; the whole united to a profound disdain for talent
and information, unless enlisted in the ranks of folly--
that is, employed in giving a retrograde course to reason."
This passage showed, not that the concessions of the
French Peers had been too early, but that they had been
too long delayed—delayed until ruin was the consequence.
There were three more lines from the same work which
he requested to read :—" The majority of the noblesse,
finding themselves abandoned in 1789 by men of talents
and information, proclaimed indiscreetly the necessity of
employing force against the popular party. We shall
soon see if that force was in existence; but we may ven-
ture to say at once, that if it was not in existence, the
menace was extremely imprudent." So much for the
French Revolution, and to the assertion that, by yielding
too soon, the French Peers had sacrificed themselves and the
Monarchy. Their conduct was a lesson which ought not
to be lost, and, he trusted, would not be lost on many
illustrious Members of the other House of Parlia-
ment. Did he say this for the purpose of exciting terror ?
God forbid ! He should be sorry to imitate in that respect
the conduct of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite, who,
when speaking of the people of England, called them insa-
tiable wild beasts. Such an expression might do for an
article in a Review. It might do in a packed Parliament,
but not in any other. That Right Hon. Gentleman did
not do justice to his own talents when he condescended to
talk in that way for the purpose of terrifying those whom
lie presumed to be less intelligent than himself. It was a

stratagem of which he ought to be ashamed. The Hon.
Gentlemen opposite talked of the Press. Had they no
Press of their own ? What forgetfulness ! What black
ingratitude to the Morning Post ! They had a Press,
and a very powerful one ; and yet they talked of the
" venomous" Press. He held in his hand extracts, with
which, however, he would not trouble the House, from
one of the best circulated and most intelligent periodical
publications of the day, in the interest of the party oppo-
site.—(Read, read.) He would read some of the ex-
tracts in question. Everybody in the House had, no
doubt, heard of an ingenious publication which appeared
monthly in the north of the island, and to which the
Right Honourable Gentleman opposite was said to be
one of the principal contributors. In August last
that publication contained a prophecy, that "in two
months from that period there would be no Peers in
France—that we should have war by sea and land—that
Reform would be defeated—that there would be a dust in
Manchester which would be laid in blood, and that a new
Parliament would be chosen in peace and jollity." I❑
September it was asserted " that the Duke of Wellington
hid a campaign or two to make yet; and that if things
did not go on well in London, he must come and raise his
standard in Yorkshire." What was to be thought of such
writing as this ? And what was to be thought of those
who maintained that all the intemperate writing was on
the side of his Majesty's Government? For himself he con-
templa•ed no such evils as those which come Hon. Mem-
bers seemed to anticipate. His belief was that everything
would go on well. lie did not contemplate any " Re-
storation."

Mr. CROKER, after the most irregular illusion which
bad been made to him—(Cries of spoke, spoke, adjourn)—
trusted he might be heard for a few moments. The
Right Hon. Baronet imputed to him violent language in
speaking of the people England. He wished the Right
Hon. Baronet had noticed it at the time at which it was
uttered.—(spoke, spoke; chair, chair ; adjourn, adjourn ;
go on, go on.) The Right Hon. Baronet said he had
called the people of England insatiable wild beasts. It
was the populace, not the people, of whom he was speak-
ing at the time ; and what he said, in reference to the ab-
stract principle of innovation, was, that they would be
insatiable of innovations until like wild beasts they would
lie down, having nothing more to devour. The Right
Hon. Baronet had also alluded—(shouts of chair, chair;
spoke, spoke ; amidst which the Right Hon. Gentleman
sat down.)
Sir R. PEEL observed that as, in the very multifarious
speech of the Right Hon. Baronet, which some persons
seemed to think amusing, there was one topic on which
the Right Hon. Baronet had said but little; and as that
topic was the Reform Bill, and as he (Sir P.. Peel) wished
to address himself mainly to that important question, be
would not waste the time of the House by attempting to
answer many of the topics on which the Right Hon.
Baronet had expatiated. It certainly did surprise him that
on such an occasion the Right Hon. Baronet had thought
proper to dig out of the grave that unfortunate offspring
of his Majesty's present Government, the budget; and to
attribute its destruction to party combination. It required
not external assault. To leave it to itself was quite sufficient.
Did the proposed tax on funded property die under the
blows of the Anti-Reformers? The very man who had
lost his breath was able to puff it out. The proposed tax
on landed property vanished in a similar manner. But it
was a new doctrine which the Right Hon. Bironet had
endeavoured to set up that those who sat on his (Sir R.
Peel's) side of the House were not at liberty to watch the
conduct of his Majesty's Government, or to question the
value of the propositions which they had brought forward.
Adverting to the question before the House, he felt
auxious on this, the last occasion which would offer
itself to express his opinion on the merits of that
great measure by which the future fate of this
country was to be so powerfully influenced. He must de-
clare, then, that after the lapse of time which bad occurred
and after the most steady contemplation of the various
features of that measure, he was unable to say that his ori-
ginal objections to it were in the slightest degree dimi-
nished. The very reverse, ind,ed, was the case. In the
course of the debate, the Bill had been defended on two
grounds; first, that it would remedy the existing defects in
the Constitution ; and, secondly, that whether it did or not,
there was such a demand for it in the public mind, that
they had no discretion, but that either this Bill, or a Bill
corresponding to it in its main features, must lie adopted
to conciliate the people, and to afford the means of carry-
ing on the Government. The Hon. and Learned Member
for Caine had stated that the Anti-Reformers, with Mr.
Canning at their head, had declared that the constitution
of Parliament worked well ; and had added, that if that
proposition could be established, setting aside the argu-
ment which arose from the dissatisfaction of the people,
of it could be proved that the present system was the guar-
dian of liberty and property, and was not the cause of dis-
tress, the Anti-Reformers would establish their case. But
that the Hon. and Learned Member denied. He denied
that the system worked well generally—he denied that it
was the guardian of liberty and property--and he as-
cribed to it all the great distress, privation, and suffering.
At the same time the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman was obliged to admit that in many important
p irticulars the system worked well. He did not deny its
influence on national character, and on the pure admi-
nistration of justice. He (Sir R. Peel) could not deny
that there was occasionally great privation in this
country. He could not deny that there was "the
humble shed," and " the contiguous Palace." He could
not deny that great property and great poverty were fre-
quently in juxtaposition. What course did his Majesty's
present Government take with reference to the alleged
cuff ring? In the course of the last fortnight Petition•
had been presented from the Silk Trade and the Glove
Trade, complaining of such distress that thousands who
had been brought up to those trades were unable to live
by them. The facts were admitted; and what course did
the Goverement take ? Did they encourage any hope of
relief from legislition 1 No. Their language was, " In the
complicated state of society, improvements in machinery,
vicissitudes of fashion, and other causes must affect your
position. it is impossible to amend your position by laws ;
and to grant a Committee on the subject would be only to
raise expectations which most be di, appointed." And
such language was wise. But if wise on that point, it
was wise with reference to the Constitution. What was
it that had enabled the Government at different periods
to act ind:pendently of petty local interests, and to follow
only that course which they thought for the benefit of the
people at large—what but the borough representation ?
What was it but that which hail enabled Mr. Canning to
pursue such a course? He had given up the representa-
tion of Liverpool, because he found that its peculiar inte-
rests affected the course he desired to pursue. The present
Government had been able to do the same with respect to
all minor questions, in consequence of the excitement
which existed about the Reform Bill.—(Hear.) They
had been able to say to their followers, do not thwart us
on this point, for if you do the success of the Reform Bill
may be endangered.—(Hear.) But would they always
be able to do so ? Certainly not. The giving the elective
franchise to the 101. freeholders would entirely rob them
of that power. He denied that a popular representation
would, as an Hon. and Learned Member supposed, make
wars shorter or less frequent ; and, indeed, the cry of a
popular representation at a moment of difficulty might
much embarrass the settlement of any contest.—(Hear,
hear.) He denied, too, that a popular representation
would improve the public jurisprudence. He denied,
too, that a popular representation would make the
commercial principles of the country more liberal.
--(Hear.) For proof of this, let them look to the
conduct of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox in 1785. At that time
Mr. Pitt proposed an improved system of commercial
intercourse with Ireland. What did Mr. Fox, who was
a popular representative, say to the motion ? Why, he
declared that nothing of the sort could he done for the be-
nefit of Ireland without an equal degree of injuiry
to England, and that an insidious competition would
arise between them to destroy their then friendly union.
In the same manner, when, in 1786, Mr. Pitt proposed
that a commercial treaty should be entered into with
France, Mr. Fox, the representative of the popular opi-
nion, opposed it, and said that England and France were
the natural enemies of each other. He talked of the
Methuen Treaty, and insisted that a free commercial in-
tercourse could not take place between the two countries
without injury to England. But, said the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, an earlier Reform in the representation would
have cured such evils. That was a mistake, for the stand-
ard of popular representation must have been formed upon
the sort of people whose opinions Mr. Fox then repre-
sented.—( Hear, hear.) The lion. and Learned Gentle-
man opposite had made a charge egoist him for not bring_
ing in a Reform 11111 ; the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
was difficult to please. He was accused, though most un-
justly, of having stepped in at the eleventh hour,
and having monopolised the glory of introducing the
Bill for Catholic Emancipation, and with not having
done the same with respect to the Reform Bill.—( Hear. )
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman was like the celebrated
Mr. Cottle, who said his doctors ought to he hanged,
because, under p,culiar circumstances, they had admi-
nistered foxglove to him as a medicine ; and when he found
they had not, he said they ought to be hanged because they
i
had not administered it.—(A laugh.) He had not
brought in the Bill because he thought it would not be a
remedy for the evils of the country, but that it would
expose the Government to great hazards ; and he retired
from office on that very aecuutit.e.-(llear, hear.) If the

People were drunk, that was no reason why he should not
remain sober._( Hear, hear.) He asserted that the Go- {
vernment had done this mischief—that if thay could not
gtrlst.e_( country,Hear.
they had made it ungovern tble by
anyver the
He was accused by the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman of not having brought in a measure of
Reform, and yet he was told at the same time that there
was no alternative between this Bill, and anarchy. If that
were the circumstance, it was at once an answer to the •
on
charge against him, and a severe censure upon the Go- '
vernment, who had suffered themselves and the country to
be reduced to such a state.—(Hear, hear.) Another reason
why he had not introduced the Bill was, that he thought
that if the time was come when there must be Reform,'
the measure of Reform would come with a batter grace
from those who had always been its friends and supporters
than if it were introduced by him or his friends, who ,
had always been the declared enemies of such a measure.
He admitted that when the present Government came into •
office they had many difficulties to contend with--he ad-
mitted the excitement that existed in November—he ad-
mitted the degree of popular agitation that then existed—
hut he asserted that the cry of Reform was not then what
it was at present.--( Hear.) He knew that many wise, well
intentioned, and able men in the country had expressed a '
strong desire for a Reform in Parliament ; but they had
done so often before—they were not more than usu-
ally urgent at that moment ; and the persons who were so
were those who were influenced by a stupid wish to imi-
tate that which had occurred in France in July of the earns .
year. They desired that we should cut our clumsy capers
after the Harlequin of Paris had exhibited his agility with
so much fortunate success.--(Hear, hear.) That disposi-
tion existed in the country. It was the duty of Government
to check it, for it could not continue—it certainly could
not be encouraged without danger. When David left the
tents of Saul, it was remarkel that there gathered round
him all who were distressed, all who were in debt, all who •
were discontented—(Hear)—and such were the followers
whom any promoter of popular clamour would be sure to r
find.—(Hear.) He was convinced, that had the Govern-
ment postponed this question for a time—had they de-
clared that they would do so till the fit of enthusiasm then
called into existence by the events in France had subsided,
the country would quietly have acquiesced in their deci-
sion, and the Ministers might then with a firmer purpose
and more moderate conduct have fixed the limits and the
extent of the Reform.—(Hear, hear.) He insisted that
there was no valid argument to be found in the state
of the country for what they had done. Then why
had this cry been raised ? Why, but because the people
saw the Government ranged with them against those
restraints that had hither 'o existed ?—(Hear, hear,
hear.) It was difficult enough to preserve those restraints
when the King and the Government were in their favour;
but when the King and the Government were with the
people, arrayed against them, what surprise could be felt
by any one at the clamour that had been raised about
the necessity and the urgency of Reform ? If the older
and wiser Members of the Cabinet chose to confide the
conduct of this most dangerous measure to the care of the
young and inexperienced—the less known and the less
distinguished—they should have at least forewarned them
of the multitude of difficulties they had to encounter—
the perils they had to incur, and the fate which would
probably await them. They should have said to any one
of those persons whose ambition made him press for an
employment so fraught with danger to themselves and
injury to others—

" Non est tua tuta voluntas,
Magna petis Phaeton et qua: nec viribus istis
Munera conveniant, nec tarn puerilibus annis."
Hear, hear.) At least they should have given the pa-
ternal admonition.—
" Parce puer stimulis et fortius utere loris,
Sponte sua properant. Labor est inhibere volentes." ,
(Loud cheers.) But let them at least be illuminated by
the conflagration. Let them read a lesson in the blaze,
and let them resolve to act more wisely for the future.---
(Cheers.) The proposed changes would render it difficult '
to carry on any Executive Government, and if they were •
carried into effect, he did not believe any good Executive
Government could be carried on. By making all
places accessible only by popular election, a prac-
tical revolution would be effected by the Constitu-
tion. Many were the inconveniences at least, it would not '
be denied, which must result from it. How were the '
Crown lawyers to be returned ? Plenty of able lawyers,
the advocates of fashionable theories and popular rights,
would be returned to oppose the Government, but how
were they to have equally able men to answer them ? Were
the law officers to have no means of entering Parliament
except by making flashy speeches to the mob about the
Liberty of the Press, and the like catching subjects
(Loud cheers.) Were the Law Officers only to get in by
musing pledges to popular assemblies, and flattering the
prejudices of mobs?—(Cheers.) They were making a per- •
manent Constitution, and therefore they should not, in
their admiration of fine-spun theories, despise details, how-
ever humble they might be fancied to appear.—(Hear.)
He repeated, they would have plenty of popular lawyers
representatives for Marylebone, the Tower Hamlets, and
the like places, but how, in the event of the Crown and ,
the Ministry ceasing to be so wonderfully in favour with
the millions, were they to have lawyers equally learned
and talented to reply to them upon the part of the Go-
vernment ?—(Cheers.) Was Government to be left with-
out an Attorney-General ? When his HOD. and Learned
Friend, with whom, notwithstanding their difference upon
a former occasion, he had acted most cordially, and with
the best and most perfect understanding upon this, not•
withstanding the sneer and insinuation to the contrary--
(Cheers)—when his Hon. and Learned Friend was
wrongly supposed to have made a disrespectful allusion to
his Majesty—when, in the warmth of his argument, he
said something which to the sensitive ears of the Attorney-
General seemed a disrespectful allusion to the Crown--
(Loud laughter, and cheers), how eagerly did the At-
torney-General spring up and call his Hon. and Learned
Friend to account for the indiscretion of which he imagined
he was guilty.—(Laughter, and cheers.) His opinion was
founded in delusion, but nevertheless, bow important wee
it, that when a fancy arose that the Sovereign had been
compared to a tyrant—(Continued laughter and cheers)--
there should be present and independent and bold Attorney-
General, sensitive in the highest degree to the dignity and
sacred nature of the Crown—(Loud laughter)—to stand
forth as he might have occasion to do in a case when '
there was no mistake—(Hear, bear, and laughter)and repel the calumny—(Cheers)—and vindicate in a
manner so warm and so honourable the insulted dignity
of the Crown.—(Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Baronet
then proceeded to consider the question as affecting Ire-
land, and contended that the Bill would have the effect
of destroying the great experiment of Catholic Eanancipa"
tion. It was not simply the increased numbers of the
constituency there which was to be dreaded, but the
change in its nature and character—(Cheers)—a change
which, it could scarcely be doubted, would fatally affect
the interests of property in that country, and those of the
Established Church.—(Cheers.) He was not singular it,
those opinions. What did the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman say to the Ministers on a former night
" Take warning in time ; what is your policy ? You
have got up a race between legislation anti events; an
incident happens, straight comes an Act of Parlia-
ment; another incident arrives, behold a Committee
and another Act of Parliament. Titus you go our
running a race with events, and events are sure to win
it. Awake, for Gun's sake, to a sense of the condition of
Ireland ; embrace her evils in one large and comprehensive
system of immediate amelioration ; let us not have, to use
a phrase of such powerful homeliness, uttered with such
pregnant familiarity by lips so touched with fire—let us nal
have a " bit-and-bit Reform." Lay not that unction t°
your souls—do not burn that incense which self-adalation
offers to itself—do not hope, conceive, nor so far delude,
yourselves as to think that by dallying with the evils 0'
Ireland, by procrastinations, and putting off, and sate
times giving buffets, and sometimes offering caresses tj°
Ireland, you can effect her tranquillization, or, I sboul"
rather say, that you can save the country.—(Hear.)
those tonoueless,but eloquent monitor",
call on you, as they pass,
pass-3nd it is not I alone that tell
)itoluratshcisotneevteo this
this—events,
to throw your prejudices aside,
to legislate not on the views of party, but on the prince"
pies of human nature, and, from the calamities that i,11,-1
pend upon us, to rescue the country which, under all
changes of Government, awl all vicissitudes of party, ar
pears to have been foredoomed to distraction, and predey
lined to misrule."—(Cheers.) He further contended that
the interests of the public creditor were not taken int°
consideration in this measure. Attention had only been
paid to the interests of the tax-payers, and this, he (I,'
tended, was impolitic, and highly dangerous, eYC
though it presented itself under the dismal as'
pert, and destructive form, of fructification.—(Great
laughter and cheering.) By this unstatesmanlike
attempt to mitigate, as it was said, the sufferings of the
people, the first effect that would follow would be a peac-
tical, though perhaps, not a sanguinary Revolution. 'Dell
would, most probably, succeed a state of things not tit,'
like that at present prevailing in the West Indies---
(Cheers.)—next, there would be a deficit in the public
treasury, which it would be impossible by any ordinary
means to repair; for difficult, indeed, would it be to ir",
duce Reformed Parliament to impose new taxes to wee"
the loss which the revenue would have suffered. They
would come a feeling of insecurity upon the part of t}',
;
public creditor, and the moment a feeling of insecurity ej
any species of property arose, the suspicion of the ri'')
concerned could not fail to shake the count' y,—(Clreete"