Sitting of 22 March 1832

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CHARLES DUNDAS, from the Agriculturists in the vicinity of Newbury in favour of the Remedies against the Hundred Bill; and from the Inhabitants of Newbury and Hungerford, for the Repeal of the Malt Duty.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—THIRD READING— ADJOURNED DEBATE—THIRD DAY.
The Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Third Reading of the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, having been moved by Lord John Russell, and put from the Chair,
Mr. Cressett Pelhamsaid, he felt it his duty to continue to give the Bill his most strenuous opposition; he was ready to admit that no measure had ever been brought into that House of greater importance, or which tended more to affect both the present and future state of the country. He had accordingly paid the greatest

651
attention to all the arguments which had been urged in favour of it, but he had not been convinced by any of them that such a measure was necessary. In point of fact the whole of what had been said upon the subject amounted to this, that the Bill was one required by the people, and therefore that it must be passed. There were two arguments in the speech of the Attorney General on the former evening to which he, as an independent Member of Parliament could not give his assent. One of these arguments was, that it did not become them to interfere with the concerns of the other House of Parliament. Now, he certainly would be one of the last to think of infringing the rights of any other body of men; but he, nevertheless, could not help considering that, under the circumstances in which they were then placed, the decision that awaited this measure in the House of Lords was one of the main points to which they had to turn their attention. This was the second time they were about to send this Bill to another branch of the Legislature, which branch had already solemnly declared, that it could not agree in its principle. He, therefore, said, that so far as they had any right to know what the sentiments of that House were, that they would continue to oppose the Bill and thereby preserve the Constitution of the country. He would further add, notwithstanding the observations that had been made by some hon. Members who had treated the decision of the House of Lords as a severe offence, that in his opinion they had acted with wisdom and firmness, and he hoped they would continue to pursue the same course, undaunted by the invectives and threats that were held out to them. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also brought it as a charge against the Members who opposed the Bill, that they did not by their arguments appear to have given much attention to the details of the Bill. This statement had appeared the more extraordinary to him (Mr. Cressett Pelham), because he had always thought that one of the great complaints alleged against those who opposed the measure was, that they had wasted too much time in discussing the details of the Bill; and he was, therefore, extremely happy to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman give his testimony to the contrary. In the course of these discussions, hon. Gentlemen had incidentally gone into the state of the nation; he did not, however,
652
deem it necessary to pursue the line of argument that they had thus laid down; this much, however, he would take upon himself to say, that it was his firm belief that such real distresses as the people were labouring under would in nowise be relieved by the passing of this Bill; the assertion to the contrary being nothing more than mere idle declamation, for the purpose of catching the discontented and the lovers of innovation. On the one side, procrastination had been complained of; and on the other, precipitation; but in his opinion, the purification of that House—or, at least such purification as it needed—would be better effected by affording time for a more deliberate judgment, than by the hasty course which they were at present pursuing.
Mr. John Stanleyfelt that much of the difficulty that used to encompass this question was now removed from consideration; for, as heretofore, the two great grounds of opposition to any measure of such a character had been, first, the inexpediency of any Reform; and, secondly, the indifference of the people of England to the consideration of the question. Of these two which proved the groundwork and corner-stone of all Mr. Canning's arguments, the first was no longer contended for by any Member of that House, except, perhaps, the hon. member for the University of Oxford; and, with regard to the second, the fear of Gentlemen opposite now was, only, that the people of England might force the Legislature to go too far in the career of alteration. The question, then, at the present moment, resolved itself merely into one of degree, and it remained only to consider the extent of the change that was necessary, and the adequacy of the present Bill to carry into effect the objects that Reformers had in view. Was the present measure calculated to satisfy the just expectations of the wealth, numbers, and intelligence of the country? The demand for Reform was not a mere passing desire, engendered by the late events in Paris and in Belgium, but a deep-rooted feeling, which had long prevailed against the errors in the constitution of that House. To this result the people in general were brought by the combined observation of almost all the greatest Statesmen of the present and of the last century. When he mentioned the names of Brougham, Grey, Fox, and Pitt, and that greater man,

653
his father, Lord Chatham; he thought it must be allowed that he had named the highest authorities amongst the Statesmen of modern date. But, before their time, that distinguished Statesman, Lord Bolingbroke, had clearly pointed out, with the keen perception and clearness of sagacity for which he was distinguished, the evils that were to be dreaded from the constitution of the House of Commons. That acute philosopher observed, that
"The Government by influence, has succeeded the Government by prerogative; the danger from the latter is a mere chimera; whereas the former is a new and undefinite monster, far more dangerous to our liberties, and producing as its natural consequences, national corruption."
That assertion was found repeatedly expressed in the works of that great man, with the opinion that the only remedy was to be found in a Reform of Parliament, and the destruction of that system of which he so wisely foresaw the disasterous effects. In substituting the Government by influence, in the place of the Government by prerogative, the Sovereign lost the power of destroying the liberties of the people; but what the Sovereign lost, the oligarchy, not the people, gained; and so long as a few individuals possessed the exclusive power of controlling the Government of the country, so long had it been found necessary to allow the baleful effects of a Government by influence to hold undisputed sway, and produce its natural consequence—national corruption, insinuating itself into the State, destroying the high feelings of honour and self-esteem, that could alone make an aristocracy respected and esteemed, and tending to reduce them to that state in which the degraded noblesse of France was found at the Revolution, entailing on themselves, by their own worthlessness, one-half of the atrocities of that fearful period. If even these were all the evils that resulted from the Government by influence, it would make out a sufficient ground for change; but before he proceeded to state the additional evils inherent in the system, he wished to say a few words with regard to some of the accusations and taunts with which the advocates of the Bill had been assailed by their opponents, for supporting a measure which contained anomalies and theoretical absurdities. This charge might have been a legitimate ground of accusation, if the complaint had only been of theoretical
654
anomalies, and the only object theoretical perfection. He for one was ready to admit, that if he saw no practical evils to be remedied, he would agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it would be better to let things remain, than risk the hazard of a change, merely because some apparent anomalies offended the nice perception of theoretical propriety in the mind of a reforming critic. But if he considered Reform as a means, not as an end, if he desired a practical remedy for practical evils, he would not care to scrutinize too closely any petty anomalies or incongruities which might, indeed, perchance injure the beauty of its outward form, but could not affect the great principles of the Bill, or injure the efficiency of its action. A perfect piece of theoretical legislative mechanism, might, indeed, have been easily framed by a departmental division and uniform right of voting; but the preamble of the Bill declared this neither to be its object, nor the end it had in view: its object was to retain as much of what was old as was compatible with the efficient execution of Reform, and not to abolish any institution which expediency and justice did not imperiously demand. The accusations of the other side seemed to be singularly inappropriate, as they amounted to this, that the Ministers had done too little, not that they had done too much, that they had left Tavistock and Malton, Newark, and Stamford, with two Members, and given Huddersfield and Dudley, Salford and Tynemouth, but one each—in short, that they had left too much influence to property, and retained too much of what was old and established. There might be some truth in that. They had conceded much through prudence to their opponents, which otherwise they might have more consistently withheld. In spite, however, of the page in the Journals of that House, which the right hon. ex-Secretary for the Admiralty, flattered himself would be more frequently referred to than any other in its annals, he thought the country and posterity would refer to it only to wonder at the trifling grounds, the pitifulness of petty details, and the absence of all sufficient reasons, that governed the hon. Gentlemen opposite in their opposition to this great measure. Posterity would say, "What are these trivial incongruities in comparison with the great object in view?—what matters it whether Appleby is lost, or Westbury saved?" How could these affect

655
the great bearings of the question? these were of importance only, as they affected the individuals connected with these places. The great principle, the great end was attained. They would have the reality, no longer the mockery, of a Representation. Which of the objects proposed in the preamble had not been fully executed?—had inconsiderable places been deprived of their right of returning Members?—had populous and wealthy towns been enfranchised?—had the number of the Knights of the shire been increased?—had the elective franchise been extended?—would the expense of elections be diminished?—which of these things was not fully and satisfactorily done?—the pledge had been nobly redeemed. His wish for Reform proceeded from no theoretical objections, but from a strong conviction of the practical evils resulting from the close boroughs. Those boroughs, which Reformers considered as blemishes and foul stains upon the fair face of the Constitution, their opponents looked upon as the ornaments and support, nay, even the life-blood of its existence, and the grand secret by which alone a Monarchy and a Representative Government could be made compatible. In short, the opponents of Reform thought that the only way of reconciling the two forms of Government, was to delude the people, by making them believe that they were governed by their Representatives, when, in reality, they were only ruled for the convenience, and at the dictation, of a narrow and selfish oligarchy. If, as the hon. Members opposite said, the advantages of these boroughs were so great, and, as the Reformers said, the evils were so grievousś, it would be well to examine the part they had played in history. Had they not enabled Ministers to continue wars, impolitic in their origin, disgraceful in their prosecution, and humiliating in their conclusion, long after the country had been anxious to put an end to them? Had they not enabled a Minister to be indifferent to the voice of the people, as expressed by their real Representatives, by means of the majorities that the borough Members always secured to him? Had they not enabled a Minister to adopt the severest measures of coercion and oppression, engendering hostility and alienation? If they had done all this, he thought it must be allowed, that a House of Commons, so constituted, at least, did not represent the
656
wants and wishes of the country, and was not in sympathy and union with the governed. But did they not, in addition to all this, find these same boroughs, on every occasion, when the country, goaded by distress, occasioned by wanton and unnecessary taxation, had called aloud for economy, retrenchment, and relief—on the side of the lavish Minister of the day, enabling him to refuse the repeated prayers of a suffering people, or throwing their disgraceful cloak over his defeated extravagance? The reasons for these evils were not difficult to detect; the government of compromise which necessarily ensued from the possession of such enormous and irresponsible power by a few individuals, forced a Minister, as Mr. Pitt feelingly said, to be a dishonest man; who, in exchange for the support he received from this oligarchy, must repay them for their services by places, power, pensions, and emoluments, for themselves and their dependents, without reference to any merit or fitness in the individuals, except the one thing needful, of borough property. Why else was it, that the Government of this country, though in name controlled by the people through their nominal Representatives, in the expenditure of their money, should have been more lavish and extravagant than the darkest despotisms of the continent? It had been alone for the benefit of that party who had usurped all power, who had rendered the Sovereign the mere steward to the oligarchy of the people's money, and deprived alike the people and their King of their legitimate and ancient rights. But, then, the advocates and Members for such boroughs claimed exclusive loyalty, and it would be worth while to observe the grounds on which that claim rested. If they were examined with attention, it would be seen that their regard for Kings and Monarchy only endured as long as their Sovereign was their tool, and as long as they might be the Mayors of the palace, and the Crown a puppet in their exclusive hands. He would, with permission of the House, read a very short extract from the principal organ of their faith, as a proof of the extent of the loyalty of that party, who accuse their opponents of hostility to the Crown, and advocacy of republican institutions. In the last Quarterly Review, after having discussed the conduct of the King and the Government on the occasion of the late dissolution of Parliament, and

657
their subsequent conduct, the reviewer went on to say,
"Having witnessed an instance in which the King has been the chief innovator of the realm, and having thrown into the wrong scale all the weight that should have been a counterbalance, they (i. e. the Tories) begin, as their ancestors did in 1648, to discuss the theoretic uses of kingship."
If, then, all these consequences resulted from the existence of the close boroughs, it was plain that they had been injurious to the interests of the people, inasmuch as there had been an interest in the State paramount to, and at variance with, the interests of the country at large. It was also plain, that there had been a want of sympathy and union between the governed and the governors, which must have been gradually alienating the affections of the people from their rulers, and causing them to look upon those who ought to be their protectors as their enemies and their oppressors. Hence it was, from this want of unison of feeling between the rulers and the ruled, that every one had heard the astonishment expressed by foreigners at the difference between the public policy of our Government in our foreign relations, and the feelings and opinions of individual Englishmen, as expressed on every occasion. With whom had the principles and practice of our foreign policy hitherto been identified?—With a Metternich, a Nicholas, and a Ferdinand. With whom our feelings and our vows?—With the suffering Italian, the struggling Pole, and the exiled Spaniard. What, then, was the remedy for all these evils? The answer seemed to be plain—to destroy irresponsible power, which was tyranny, and to make it responsible, which was good government—to restore sympathy between the governors and the governed, and to reform the system, so as to place it on the broad basis of Representation, and the affections and interests of the people, and this it was which his Majesty's Ministers had wisely, ably, and boldly attempted, and, in the words of Lord Chatham, had infused new vigour into the veins of the Constitution, to enable it the better to bear with its infirmities. No fallacy seemed so great as that which would infer the duration of a social system from the length of time that it had already endured; as well might one infer that an old man of seventy was more likely to live than the youth of twenty. But political constitutions might
658
be renovated, though, without timely alterations, they, as sure as all other human things, would fall into decrepitude and decay; and those who wisely read in the altered circumstances of the times the increasing wants and wishes of the country, might, by adapting the Constitution to the exigencies of the times, preserve inviolate all that was held most dear, while they remedied the evils which blindness alone refused to observe; and he would ask, who was the greatest friend to the Constitution, he who would preserve its errors with its virtues, or he who would preserve its virtues, but discard its errors? Before he concluded, he wished to make one or two observations on what fell from the hon. Baronet (the Member for Okehampton) on presenting a petition from the county of Chester. He triumphantly adduced it as a proof of re-action, and decisive of the state of the real feelings of that county, though it rather ought to be considered as a proof that no reaction had taken place, for not one additional name was to be found in that petition than was to be met with at the late election for the county, when all those gentlemen—respectable he admitted them to be—in vain contributed the utmost exertions which their high character, great influence, and hereditary connexions, enabled them to use for the purpose of defeating the Reform candidates, and preventing the triumphant success of the great cause in which the Reformers were embarked. It always had struck him, that the adducing these county declarations was fallacious as a proof of the state of opinion in a county, and most impolitic and injurious to the gentlemen who so triumphantly put them forward. What was it but saying, that, with all the nobles and all the clergy on one side, with all that influence which old associations, constant residence, mutual interchange of kind offices, wealth and power, could give, they had failed in their attempts to resist the mighty torrent of public opinion. They showed at once their impotence, and yet their will to strike. Was it wise in them to hold themselves up as a separate party in the State, apart from the great body of their countrymen, as an isolated band, with different feelings and different interests, and struggling for different ends? Let them remember, that, if they seemed to act for their own separate purposes, exclusive privilege, and private ends, the

659
country might ask, whether, if successful, they might not be a body whose existence as a separate caste, was incompatible with the best interests and honour of the State. That this or any other human measure was final, who could say? All that one could say was, that it effected the object the present Reformers had in view; and, if it should not suit the circumstances of future times, it would surely be ridiculous to bind posterity to the forms which, though adapted to the present times, might be as much at variance with future interests and future wants, as the present system is to the present times. Till they were perfect, or till human society stood still, succeeding generations would demand and obtain further alterations to meet the altered circumstances of their condition, and the novelty of their wants. That House ought to be satisfied with legislating for the present generation, without being shackled by the fetters of the past, or embarrassed by anticipations of the future.
Mr. Charles Stewarthad listened with the deepest attention to the arguments adduced by the supporters of the Bill, and they had failed in convincing his mind that the House of Commons proposed to be constituted, was likely to prove more beneficial to the community than the present House of Commons; that it was likely to enact better laws—to enforce a more rigid control over the public expenditure, consistently with national faith, or to maintain more permanently the rights and liberties of the people of England. This appeared to him to be the real object of investigation; and in forming a decision upon this question, it would be necessary to bear in mind the difference between Parliaments of late years, whose acts and deliberations had been influenced by a free and enlightened Press, and those of former times. The accusations brought against the House were more suited to the corrupt times of Sir Robert Walpole than to the present age; and it behoved them, at least, not to add to public prejudice and error. If they looked back to the history of our country, and traced the rise and progress of Parliament—its slow yet steady acquisitions of liberty in the earliest times—its struggles at later periods with despotic power—and, finally, its success in settling and consolidating our institutions, we should indeed pause before we altered so completely the Constitution of that body to which the coun-
660
try owed such inestimable advantages. The richest and the poorest man in the State had an equal interest in the permanence of these institutions, and in the stability of the Government. If he thought the people would be happier under the new Constitution—that their comforts would be increased or their sufferings diminished, he should vote for the adoption of this measure; but he knew that their permanent interests were bound up in the prosperity of the higher orders, and that that prosperity could only be secured by a strong and powerful Government—protecting on the one hand the possessions of the rich, and encouraging on the other the accumulation of property in the lower ranks of society. But this Bill, instead of strengthening the Government, already too weak, added power to a party in the State opposed to all property. There was a current under the surface of society setting in strongly against the old institutions of Europe—against its monarchies, its privileges, its religion; and the Legislature ought indeed to beware of adding to its force, lest it should accelerate the ruin of those institutions under which this country had so long flourished. To the present Constitution of Parliament, with some trivial changes we were indebted for the possession of nearly all our liberties. We owe to it the curtailment of the excessive prerogatives of the Crown—the abolition of monopolies and of benevolences—of the Star Chamber—and of the power of taxing the people without their own consent signified through Parliament. We owe to it the Petition of Right; and finally, at the great Revolution the placing of our liberties upon that firm and solid basis which nothing but the imprudence of the Legislature could overturn. The House of Commons was accused of not having kept pace with the intelligence of the times, of not having adapted itself to those changes which had been brought about in the feelings of the country. Now he contended that the House of Commons, from the time of its modelling in the reign of the first Edward, had been in advance of its age; that the laws by which this country has been governed had been progressively improving; and that many acts, which appeared to us now merely those of common humanity and justice, were, when enacted, totally repugnant to the wishes and feelings of the people. From the time of the first dawn of sound

661
legislation in this country down to the great measure of Catholic Emancipation he scarcely knew of one single measure of enlightened policy, with the exception of the abolition of the slave trade, that received, when enacted, the consent and approbation of the body of the people; and, even now, he asked if that measure of emancipation was popular with the people, or if they had given their consent to the new doctrines of free trade and political economy? But if the supporters of the Bill would not demonstrate the advantages likely to be derived from the new Constitution of Parliament, he was anxious to point out what he conceived to be its dangers. In the first place, it unsettled completely the relative weight of the different interests represented in that House; it took from the land that power which it had so long and so properly possessed, and gave the preponderance to the commercial and manufacturing interests; and why did he desire to protect the interests of the landed proprietors? Because they enabled us to retain our faith with the public creditor—because they were the best and most legitimate consumers of our manufactures, and because they bore nearly all the burthens of the Church and supported almost exclusively the poor. But the great object of the Bill was, to give Representatives to the large commercial and manufacturing interests which had grown up of late years in this country; but even this object, he feared, would not be accomplished, in consequence of the low rate of franchise fixed upon by the framers of the Bill. He believed that in Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and the other great towns, Representatives would be chosen totally unconnected with the trade in those places. He believed that the master manufacturers would have little or no control over their workmen, and that Members would be returned to this House of the most dangerous and revolutionary principles. He must state, that this was not merely his own conviction it was the conviction of persons of the greatest experience whom he had consulted, and who, from the operation of local Acts of Parliament, were enabled to predict the probable working of this measure in the great and populous towns. He believed, that at the first election for a Reformed Parliament, the Vote by Ballot and Universal Suffrage would be clamoured for by those classes to which by this Bill was
662
given the possession of political power. He believed they would demand the abolition of the Corn-laws—an equitable adjustment of the National Debt, and the destruction of Church property; but the excited appetite of the people would not be restrained here—and the abolition of the hereditary Peerage and the downfall of the monarchy would sooner or later, follow the adoption of this ill-fated measure. But let them look to the Acts of a reforming Parliament, such as the one he had attempted to describe. Let them look, for instance, at the Acts of the long Parliament, which, whatever great names it may have contained, disgraced itself by a most atrocious system of spoliation and plunder, notwithstanding the self-denying ordinance. He would quote to the House a few instances of the spoils divided among the Members of this goodly Parliament. John Bradshaw, one of its most noted Members, obtained for his share of the spoil, the Earl of St. Albans' Manor of Summer Hill, in Kent, worth 1,500 l. per annum; the Lord Collington's estate of Fonthill, in Wiltshire; his Manor of Han-worth, in Middlesex; and the Dean's house, at the College of Westminster. John Blake-stone obtained 14,000 l., and 3,000 l. were afterwards given him out of the Marquis of Newcastle and Lord Widrington's estates, in compensation of the loss of the pedlar's ware in his shop. Colonel Brereton had the sequestration of Cashiobery and the other lands of Lord Capel, worth 2,000 l. per annum; also the Archbishop's house and lands at Croydon, where (my authority states) he turned the chapel into a kitchen—a goodly reformation, and fitted to his stomach as well as his religion. Fleetwood got Woodstock. William Pierrepoint got 7,000 l. in money, and Lord Kingston's estate, worth 10,000 l.; Sir Henry Vane obtained 5,000 l., and the Bishop of Durham's manor, park, and demesne of Evenwood; Sir T. Walsingham got the Earl of Dorset's manor of Eltham, also Mr. White's house and park, where he cut down 5,000 l. worth of timber trees, and scarcely left (as the writer stated) one single tree to make his own gibbet. Sir John Trevor got 9,000 l. out of the Marquis of Winchester's estate, besides Richmond Park and grounds, and the great park at Nonsuch. He would only trouble the House with one more case—that of Serjeant Wylde (for there was a Serjeant Wylde in those

663
days)—he got 1,000 l. out of the Privy Purse of Derby house, after the hanging of Captain Burley; and it is also affirmed that he had 1,000 l. more upon the acquittal of Major Rolph; so that it was all one to the Serjeant whether he hanged or hanged not. And did the House really imagine that these things would not occur again? Did they imagine that the possession of the Abbey lands of Woburn and Tavistock—the demesnes of Raby or Chatsworth—were fixed upon such an immutable basis, that no spoliation could reach them? Our descendants would point to this Parliament as having been the first to shake the foundations of property—as having been the first to violate, in later and more civilized times, the rights of the Church, and the sanctity of charters, and of having thus opened an inroad to those revolutionary tenets which would, sooner or later, lay all our ancient institutions in ruins. But what would be the effect of this measure upon the House of Peers? By infusing so great a democratic power into this House they would paralyze the influence of the other branches of the Legislature. If the people were the only source of legitimate power, the Bill certainly would create a House drawn from its purest springs. But the House, so created would be unconnected in sympathy, in feeling, and in interest, with the House of Peers; for that body would represent the interest of the land, and this House would, he feared, too much and too exclusively represent the commerce and the manufactures of the country. The first collision between the two Houses of Parliament would prove fatal to the Peers, for no power they possessed could resist a House of Commons purely reflecting the wayward passions of the people. He earnestly hoped this fatal result would be prevented; he hoped that this last retreat of the chivalry of the country would be preserved; of that feeling which in all times of our history had filled the ranks of the Aristocracy of this country with the most devoted, the most generous spirits; and many of whom were now, from a false and mistaken notion of honour, sacrificing their own interests, and those of their country, to that insatiate spirit of democracy which was withering the best energies of the country. He trusted, indeed, he felt convinced, that the Peers of England would do their duty. He felt that that body, which had not been
664
called together in a moment of political excitement, but which reflected the successive destinies of a great and mighty people, would continue to preserve the Constitution of England from the assaults of those who sought for its destruction, reckless of the institutions they demolished, of the altars they overturned, or of the real liberties and happiness of the country which they trampled upon and destroyed.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, he wished that the hon. Member who had just sat down, had informed the House by what means the calamities which he foreboded from the passing of the Bill could be averted. The hon. Member had assumed, in common with several other hon. Members, who took the same line of argument, as a proposition not to be disputed, that if the Bill then before the House ever became law, the Crown, Peerage, and Church, would be overthrown. Without presuming to question the sincerity of these fears, it was surely necessary to examine the causes which were to produce such mighty effects. Before the hon. Member could fully state that the result of the measure would be to overthrow the Church, the Peerage, and the Monarchy, he must prove that the people of England desired the destruction of these institutions, or otherwise he was arguing that an end would be produced without means. If, as he, (Mr. Wason) contended, the people of England were not desirous of overthrowing the Church, the Peerage, and the Sovereign, what was there in this Bill itself calculated to produce such disastrous effects? Hon. Gentlemen said, that, in future Parliaments, the Members would too faithfully represent the wishes and feelings of the people: if, then, these Representatives should overturn the Crown, the Peerage, and the Church, nothing could be more clear than that the desire of the people, whose wishes and feelings they represented was, that these institutions should no longer exist. This Bill did not create such a desire, although it certainly gave to the people increased power to effect those desires, if they possess them, in a peaceable manner, and without bloodshed. Would hon. Gentlemen opposite deny that if the people of this country desired a revolution, it was not infinitely preferable that such a revolution should be effected within these walls, rather than out of doors by the

665
people themselves. Who was there who would not rather see a change effected in our institutions, in the spirit of the English revolution of 1688, rather than in that of the French revolution of 1793? But all the fears of hon. Gentlemen were without foundation; they assumed that it was the desire of the people of England to overturn the Church, the Peerage, and the Crown; he believed they were sincerely attached to these institutions; and they could not, in his opinion, show a better proof of the sincerity of that attachment than an earnest desire to sweep away the abuses which defaced them. The noble Lord, who opened the debate on this occasion, introduced his observations by stating, that the question was not between this Bill and no Reform, but between this Bill and a moderate Reform. The people of England and their Representatives, however, perfectly understood their position with regard to the question. They well knew it was between this Bill and no Reform—between a substance and a shadow; and they preferred clinging with tenacity to the substance rather than bewilder themselves by pursuing that shadow, with which hon. Gentlemen opposite had, for the last twelve months, been amusing themselves and attempting to delude the people. The hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, truly stated, that Government was not an end, but a means; and he declared the end of Government to be the protection of life, liberty, and property: in this definition he was followed by the hon. and learned member for Rye, who desired nothing from Government but protection to life and property. He could not agree in the definition given by these hon. Gentlemen. The end of good Government was the happiness of the people. Could the present system stand this test? Was the population happy and contented? Were the agricultural labourers in a state of happiness? They had already answered the question by conflagration. Were the manufacturers? let the hon. member for Aldborough, an anti-Reformer, answer for them. Within the last few days, he had harrowed up the feelings of hon. Members by detailing the wretched condition of this part of our population. Could the House forget that, on that occasion, they decided they could not, without referring the point to a Committee up-stairs, pass a Bill to prevent female infants under ten years old being
666
compelled to work twelve and fourteen hours a day. The end of Government, then, had not been answered to promote the happiness of the million, although it might have protected the lives and property of the few; and this constituted one of the just complaints of the people. They asserted that the Members of that House, who ought to represent them, and be careful of their interests, thought only of themselves, and the class to which they belonged. If those were secured in the enjoyment of life and property, he, who by courtesy was called the Representative of the people, considered that the end of good government had been attained, although thousands were daily experiencing the severest distress. There was not one of the multifarious interests of the kingdom which was not suffering from a depreciation of their property: the agricultural, the manufacturing, the commercial, and the colonial, were all in a sinking state. The borough-proprietor alone, had flourished even to the third and fourth generation. Could it, then, be a matter of astonishment, that the people should desire to possess some portion of that power which they saw had been attended with such beneficial effects to its present possessors? He should vote most cheerfully for the third reading of the Bill, although he had sought unsuccessfully to introduce some amendments into its details, because he wished it to be forwaded to the other branch of the Legislature as complete as possible, and he had therefore endeavoured in the Committee to introduce alterations which, although they might not cure all the anomalies within it, yet would prevent its possessing any at variance with its own general principles. He had failed in several instances but Ministers by granting at the last moment, a member to Merthyr Tydvil, had sanctioned in one case the correctness of his opposition. He still considered it most unjust that Gateshead should be separated from Newcastle, and have a Member of its own, while so many more important places were without Representatives or attached to adjacent towns. But be never for a moment forgot that if the Bill had this defect, it had also the much greater merit of enfranchising Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham, and Sheffield; and if it was contrary to the principles of the Bill, to deprive Helston of a Member, it was according to it that Old Sarum and

667
Gatton were disfranchised, along with many other nests of bribery and corruption. He would conclude by thanking the Government for the firmness with which it had conducted this great measure to its present stage.
Mr. O'Connor: The House may be assured that I shall not trespass long on its indulgence. Both argument and illustration have been so recently exhausted in the discussion of this question, that I feel, were I to intrude at any length, I could at best only be the feeble echo of the opinions of others; for I might well shrink from the temerity of adducing observations that had not already suggested themselves to the discernment and adoption of abilities and judgment infinitely superior to mine, Besides, at this momentous crisis, when the expectation of the nation is again brightening into hope, but is still tinged with some slight shade of fearful uncertainty, I feel that every moment that is consumed in unnecessary debate tends but to prolong the miseries of that suspense which now paralyses the best energies of the country. Impressed with these convictions, I should have observed that silence which the magnitude and the urgency of the present question ought to impose on my inability to do it justice, or to accelerate its progress, were it not for the frequent allusions that have been made to Ireland in the course of the debate by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. The noble Lord who introduced the Amendment, arraigned the Government for having altered the relative number of Members for England and Ireland, and stated, that they had thus only opened a wider field for agitation for my hon. and learned friend the member for Kerry. But if the alteration were consistent with justice, and that he could not question, they were bound to effect it, and the more justice they rendered to Ireland, the more they narrowed, rather than widened, the field of agitation in that country. Another hon. Member stated, that this alteration was unfortunate, by its having been the occasion of the progress of the Bill being impeded in the Committee by the Irish Members, who were occasionally claiming of Ireland the Members that were assigned to different boroughs in England. Now this imputation against the Irish Members is most unfounded, for they had a meeting, at which it was debated whether they ought to oppose the present Re-
668
form Bill in any of its details, so as to produce vacancies in the English Representations to be filled up by Members for Ireland; and it was unanimously agreed upon by those Irish Members who were in the habit of supporting his Majesty's Ministers, that they would seek no additional Representatives at the expense of any of those places in this country which the Government deemed entitled to the privilege of sending Members to this House, and they also determined that they would support the whole of the English Bill, because the great question of Reform which it involved was one of such paramount importance as to supersede every other consideration in the intensity of its interest. That it has progressed considerably cannot be questioned, for the necessity of some Reform at last, is now universally conceded. It is even admitted by the noble Lord who moved the present Amendment. But had his Majesty's Government introduced, as he suggests that they should have done, a half-and-half measure of Reform, its discomfiture would have been immediate. It would not have enlisted the feeling of the people in its favour, and it would have been opposed by a most formidable coalition—by some who might be emulous of supplanting the present Ministry, by many who have an interest in the continuance of existing abuses, and by others who so venerate whatever bears upon it the impress of time, that even its ravages become hallowed in their opinion, and the slightest reparation was equal to a desecration of the whole. Government must have succumbed beneath the power of this combined opposition, if they had not conciliated the support by consulting the interests of the people and the nation at large. They had no alternative but to dare nobly and be just, standing or falling by the glorious experiment. But now that the people have been promised what they are convinced is their right, it is vain to expect that they will be satisfied with less. I will not say, that to frustrate their hopes would be to kindle their resentment, but a nation that extorted Magna Charta from a reluctant tyrant, in the infancy of its power, will not, in the plenitude of its maturity, abandon rights which the most benevolent Sovereign that ever sat on the British Throne is willing to concede to them. As futile would be the attempt to stay the Nile in the hour of its increase as now to arrest the diffusion of the popular

669
feeling in favour of Reform. It will roll on in peaceful Majesty, if unopposed—the more expanded the more tranquil, and rich, I trust with future prosperity; but check, and you invest it with accumulated force, and may perhaps, arm it with ruin and desolation. Yet there are some insensible of its powers, and some who fain would stay it, until it attained the height of Universal Suffrage, and the highest gradation in the scale of radicalism, pretending that the present and the former Bill are but delusions, because they do not at once effect what they never promised to accomplish—the instant reduction of taxation, and repeal of corn duties, and cheapening of bread—because they do not legislate at once, instead of enabling the people to elect their legislators. A similar expedient was adopted to weaken the appeal of the Catholics for their Relief Bill. The people were told that it would neither lower their rents nor furnish them with food, nor liquidate the demands on them; and this House was assured that the people felt no concern in the promotion of a measure in which their individual interest were not involved. But neither were the people deceived, nor did they relax in their exertions; and this House had to pay attention to the voice of millions in their simultaneous demand for political justice. And are the people of England so much less intelligent as to be duped into the passive abandonment of one acknowledged advantage, because it does not involve other measures which it never contemplated? Will they not manifest the same buoyancy of hope and the same elasticity of exertion as the Irish nation in the pursuit of their political rights? Yes, and the Legislature will have to pay more immediate deference to wishes in which the three kingdoms participate; and therefore, notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Baronet (the member for Oakhampton) to the contrary, in reply to him, I would say, that, were this Bill unfortunately rejected in another place, another Bill, equally effective in all its provisions, must be introduced with all possible expedition to avert the consequences of that rejection. But, truly, Sir, I see no such cause of despondency in the number with which the late measure was defeated. I could almost wish it to have been something greater. I wish, instead of forty-one, it had been forty-five—that glorious majority which was so often toasted as the final defeat of
670
the Catholic claims, and yet was but the herald of their victory. I trust the late majority may be followed by a smilar result. The great ability, and I will add, the manifest sincerity, in some instances, with which the Bill was opposed in another place, are the sources whence the best hopes may be derived that they who were its former opponents may now become its warmest supporters. They who reason well can best appreciate the arguments adduced against them. They who speak with sincerity are always the most accessible to conviction. How truly this was exemplified in the passing of another great question to which I have already alluded, I at least must ever retain in grateful recollection. There was an error in the then concession which may now be redeemed. Let this be the generous offering to magnanimity—to justice—not the reluctant tribute of fear to expediency. Let it precede necessity by being immediate, and thus preclude the possibility of danger. I wish not, in saying this, to use the language of intimidation, which has been so much deprecated by Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I am aware, too, that the use of it has been imputed to the supporters of this measure by its noble opponents ever since its rejection in another place. But, perhaps, these noble Personages might trace much of it to their own reflections. In the vicissitudes of life, and in the alternations of fortune, there is a still small voice that often whispers after the first moment of triumph—'such another victory, and we may be undone.'—This may be the monition of prudence, not of fear, in the present instance. But let this question be tried on its own merits, without the bias of fear, or interest, or prejudice, and truth and justice will prevail, and security ensue. The true friends of Reform are as solicitous for the maintenance of the just rights and privileges of the Peerage as for those of the people; and they are bound to preserve them by the admiration in which they must hold the British Constitution, based as it is on a principle of perfection that was long supposed to be beyond the reach of human attainment—the balance of power in the three Orders of the State. To restore, not to subvert it, is the object of the present Reform Bill—to purify the Representative system, and thus invigorate the State. And if, in making this restoration, the nation prefers, the

671
most pure, and, if I may say, Doric simplicity for the basement of the Constitution, it cannot be questioned but such may still be the best foundation for all the glories of the most ornamented superstructure. Such is my hope and my wish. I, therefore cordially support the present Reform Bill, and unite with the hon. Members who preceded me in thanking the Government who conducted it to its present stage.
Sir George Rosespoke to the following effect:* I should have persevered in the silence which is habitual to me, had not a crisis so important in the affairs of the nation occurred, as to compel me to offer to the House some fruits of a long experience, at least in justification of my own conduct in opposing this Bill; although I have not a shadow of a hope of their producing an effect upon its supporters. I cannot in truth set myself "rectus in curiâ," like an hon. friend of mine on the preceding night, if, like him, I am to disavow all connexion with a borough: but I can safely aver that mine is such as would not in the least impede me in agreeing to any suitable measures, proposed for correcting abuses in borough transactions, such as I have always disapproved. My hon. constituents are bound to me by no tie but by that of disinterested good will: least of all by anything like pecuniary or lucrative considerations. And that station which is thus honourably and honestly given could never be, in my hands, or in those of him who preceded me, a matter of interest or gain; the boon which was freely received, was as freely given.
My main objection to the Bill is the violence and extent of its action: such a breach is made in the bulwarks of the Constitution as will let in, not the gradually rising and fertilizing stream—the Nile of the last speaker—but a torrent which will carry away whatever is held sacred, into ruin in its waves. I care little, therefore, about the provisions of this Bill; if it does not destroy enough, another within the year will do what is left undone; for this beginning is such a one as can never be stopped. And it was thus that Mr. Pitt was checked, as I know, in his progress of Parliamentary Reform, by never being able to fix in his mind a permanent basis, on which to place
* Reprinted from the corrected edition published by Hatchard and Son.
672
the new electoral franchise, or how to establish a security against future change.
In submitting my opinions to the House, I shall be anxious to lay before it views calmly formed in various habits of life, at home and abroad, and particularly in the King's diplomatic service, which I entered very nearly forty years ago, observing that cool tone which becomes best so very inconsiderable a speaker as myself: and avoiding carefully those criminations and recriminations so dear and delightful to us, which take up two-thirds of our debates, keep us out of the view of the subject, and provoke those yells and screams which I can never hear without pain—may I say—disgust? Great Britain is peculiarly circumstanced as to her foreign relations. We live in the midst of a commonwealth of nations, the complication of whose interests and relations to each other requires the most delicate and attentive management of them; and stability of engagements is essential to such a system, for the maintenance of the general peace. The popular nature of our Government already exposes us to inconvenience, from the effect of sudden changes of national feeling affecting our foreign policy. And, in that respect, the governments in which the regal power stands more prominent than it does in ours, have an advantage over us, not only as being less exposed to this action, the suddenness and power of which can never be foreseen, but because where the king actually represents the state, his personal honour and character stand far more immediately pledged in the eyes of the world, and before his brother sovereigns, for adherence to his engagements, than in a country where responsibility for it falls mainly upon the Ministers, who, moreover, may have come into power pledged to a change of system. In the last century, simply because the nation went mad about certain tenets held by a doctor of divinity, Lord Oxford and Lord Bolingbroke were able to break off all its alliances in the midst of a successful war, in which the Duke of Marlborough was on the point of reducing France to a situation compatible with the safety of Europe. Forfeiting friends, character, and consideration, and the reward of all the blood and treasure expended, the nation became the object of the derision of its enemies and the hatred of those who had been its devoted friends. Again, we got weary of our seven years' war, and, abandoning the

673
king of Prussia, reaped the bitterest fruits of our inconstancy. From that time he shunned and hated us. France and Austria, allied in the war, remained closely united in the peace; and during the American war, the whole of Europe, Portugal excepted, was in open hostility, or full of secret enmity towards us. But if it is our doom that the waters of the straits of Calais should wash all foreign politics out of the head of the Englishman returning to his country, and, if separated as we are by the sea from the continent, and engaged with far greater eagerness in the immediate, and more personally attractive object of domestic party matters, how much more oblivious shall we be of foreign relations, and, therefore, ignorant of them—and how much more inconstant and vehement in our transitions—in a House of Commons composed as ours will be, where every Member will have a never-ceasing pressure of local interests and contentions on his mind, and where there will be no longer found a number of them less immediately acted upon by the starts of public opinion, and qualified and able to temper its first vehemence and fury? We shall be perpetually tiring our friends, and have to pay exorbitant penalties for our inconstancy and short-sightedness. We may buy new friends, which we shall always be able to do, at a ruinous price; but confidence cannot be bought.
In another view of the effects of this measure to be produced beyond our own immediate limits, our colonies demand our most serious attention. After the very full information respecting them given by the hon. member for Middlesex, I should be guilty of an indiscretion if I entered into any details. Hitherto they have been virtually represented in this House, and it has been sometimes asserted that Bengal and Jamaica enjoyed but too extensive a Representation; and this advantage they will completely forfeit in the new House of Commons, through causes which will be afterwards stated. But surely the most unfortunate moment possible to destroy such a Representation is that in which, first, you are making an immense change in the Constitution, under an alleged sense of the claim of the home subjects of the empire to have a far fuller Representation than was ever dreamt of before; and, secondly, when those colonies have immensely increased their own claim to be represented, somehow or
674
another at least, in Parliament. Consider how our colonies have risen in the scale of nations, either by increase of wealth and extent, or of the number of inhabitants, either British, or of British origin, or by the expansion and elevation of the minds of the people, by the acquisition of our literature, and of the knowledge of our institutions—causes producing astonishing effects amongst our subjects in India at this particular period, where, for instance, the effects of Irish pauperism upon England are discussed in Hindoo newspapers. We must remember that they are compelled to see their commerce made subordinate to our interests: and they themselves, without policy of their own, and submitting, of necessity, to follow ours, are engaged in our wars, often invaded and ravaged, and at times ceded to a foreign power, whilst the mother country has almost forgotten that it ever saw its own soil trodden by the foot of an enemy. Above a hundred millions of men must follow the will and the fate of a nation of some twenty-five millions, divided from them by immense oceans. It is true that the mother country is the body; but its transmarine possessions are the immense wings which have raised it to so enormous a height: and should they be disconnected from it, the fall would be proportionably fearful. Let us anxiously do whatsoever is most calculated to conciliate their feelings, and to promote their interests—warned by the fate of other nations, and even by our own, and most carefully avoiding whatever has an opposite tendency. But having said thus much, I am compelled to admit, that I can discover no means of removing the obstacles which exist to the grant of a direct Representation to the colonies, and I see in this effect of this so called Reform, one of its most evil and portentous consequences. What must be the nature of a measure which is the parent of eminent injustice, and extreme impolicy, neither of which it is possible to remedy? I should say that the present indirect Representation has a most beneficial effect, not at once obvious. The great danger of discontent in colonies arises from the ardent spirits of the most energetic and the boldest of the young; and justice and policy require that they should be enabled to find their way into the professions of the mother country; they will become as useful to it when admitted into them, as dangerous when ex-

675
cluded. Now their virtual Representatives are they who alone can usefully bring forward and support their claims, and this channel will unfortunately be closed.
If I could set aside the whole of the results, both of study and of speculations, upon things at a distance, I cannot shut my eyes to such as have been actually presented to them, and in the scene of action the most instructive to an Englishman; and I should not stand acquitted to my conscience, if I did not state some of them, however briefly, to the House. They were made during a special mission, with which I was charged to the government of the United States, whilst the Congress was sitting at Washington; and I was there during a considerable portion of that session; and I can the less mistrust my own judgment, because I found that three gentlemen who accompanied me, two of them at that time to the full as well qualified to observe as I am, both by their age, their education, their habits of life, and talents, arrived precisely at the same results as I did. Some of them were such as we were no wise prepared for; they were forced upon us; and so much of what was passing, referred to the relations of that nation with Great Britain, that we were, of necessity, anxious observers of that translantic parliament. And here I am anxious to guard myself against any expression of my opinions being construed as disadvantageous to that people of our descendants, in whom, as the heirs of our blood, our language, our laws and institutions, we are bound to honour ourselves. The power of these things cannot have been extinguished in a possession of fifty years, by a free people. I have always deplored the tone of disparagement of manners, and modes of living and thinking in the United States, with which so many of our modern writers of travels abound, and which tend to disunite two nations, whose union would confer incalculable advantages on the civilized world. It would, I own, lighten my mind of an immense load of care, generated by a state of things which presents itself to our view in other quarters. They are an enlightened and energetic people, to whom mighty destinies appear to be confided. For these reasons, and because I am grateful for the kindness I experienced there, even in a period of great excitement, I can affirm that I speak as dispassionately of their institutions as I should of our own. We have heard it asserted, that the choice
676
of the whole House of Commons by popular election will procure to us one of a description superior to that which has hitherto sat within these walls—fitter Representatives of the intellect, energies, education, and virtues of the nation. On this point, my right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth, expressed his doubts, but did not insist on them, at not having an experience upon which he could reason; but, having that experience, I am compelled to put myself at issue upon it with the advocates for this Bill, and to express the astonishment with which we ascertained, notwithstanding some unequivocal exceptions, that the tone of the House of Representatives, members of society, was decidedly below that of the casually congregated society which we found at and near Washington—one which laboured under so many disadvantages, that, though very respectable in many points, it can in nowise compete with such as will be found in cities like New York, Boston, and Philadelphia. It is not, indeed, necessary to determine the exact positive merits of the society existing, for the statement is a relative one; that its tone was decidedly better than that of the generality of the then Members of the Lower House, whose mode of life, habits, and means of existence, if specified, would make this apparent at once. We found that all the books of travels had underrated the character of the society of the United States, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, over-rated that of the component parts of its House of Representatives. The far greater part of them never appeared in society. We understood that there were amongst them, whose numbers were not 150, three Irish weavers and a cutting-butcher; and the cause of this is not difficult to discern. When the Representation is effected by popular election alone, the body of the people will be easily put and kept in a state of perpetual agitation by men who will hunt them with flatteries and solicitations addressed to their most irritable passions. Each town will rival with the other in sending determined patriots; and amongst them, those will be the most persuasive, who exhort them not to confide their interest to men who, by birth, wealth, and education, are too much raised above them to be able to sympathise with them; but to choose men of their own class, who will best know both their wants, and the means of promoting their

677
weal, and whose fate will be in their hands. I know that there are many, and not on the benches of this side of the House, who calculate that the larger the electoral bodies are—the more electors are sought from the lower classes of society—the more accessible they will be to such allurements as the rich can hold out; but I beg leave to tell them that they wholly miscalculate the result. It is very remarkable that, in general, by far the lowest class of men was sent as Representatives from the States where there was the most of hereditary landed property, and the best English blood; whilst the most select delegations were precisely from the States the most essentially democratic, those where the greatest equality in birth, fortune, and education prevailed. But if even we should console ourselves with the expectation that we should at least procure as our colleagues the leading tradesmen of the great towns, our Stultzes and our Hobys, I must request that this sanguine hope may be renounced. The trade of legislators would be too ruinous to them to be adopted; we shall have to content ourselves with men who will not have found in themselves the skill and industry to become eminent as tailors or shoemakers, but will have at least discovered that the trade of a patriot is a comparatively easy and profitable one, to any one who is so circumstanced. I may add that I am in no hurry to go upon a cruise to find a better commodity than the English gentleman, as he now is. We pretend to many points of superiority unjustly; we claim more to ourselves, and refuse more to others, than we should; but, after an acquaintance with foreign nations of nearly forty-six years, I can confidently state, that I have no where found elsewhere so great an extent of frank and straightforward integrity and good faith, and personal honour and firmness, as in the British gentry.
Another very detrimental result of universal popular election, is the exclusion of professional men, some lawyers excepted, and those seldom of great note, from the national Representation in the United States. As the democratic contagion spreads, pre-eminence of every sort becomes suspected, whether it be that of birth, of fortune, or of talent, education, or professional rank; and, moreover, the pursuit of popular favour will be so eager, and joined in by so many, that no man
678
will have a chance of either acquiring or maintaining it, so as to carry his election, unless he cultivates and watches it on the spot with a degree of assiduity incompatible with the calls of a profession. And even when the Legislature is sitting, then he must devote himself to its business, not from day to day only, but from hour to hour, with a dedication of his time equally incompatible with a profession. On our first arrival at Washington, our astonishment was unspeakable at the anti-commercial tendency of many of the acts of the Legislature in the second commercial nation of the universe, and at the character of other enactments, which certainly would not have led us to suppose that they were proposed in the senate of a country, where the law is almost identically our own, and where, as here, it is a very liberal profession exercised by thousands. But our friends smiled at our ignorance in not knowing, that the great merchant could find no place in the Transatlantic parliament; that it contained not the eminent lawyers of the Union: and that officers of the army and navy were complete strangers to it. Not long before I was in America, a great, perhaps the greatest merchant the commonwealth, a man of vast riches and unexceptionable character, aware that his very eminence was an effectual bar to his getting into the Congress, thought, at least, that he might be permitted to represent the city which was the seat of his immense traffic in the provincial states. An opponent, who had not arrived at the dignity of selling, but only at that of letting out horses, arose against him, and beat him out of the field. This evil is far less in the United States than it would be here. Surely it is not necessary to observe, how impotently a Legislature must act, without those sources of strength, and how blindly it must deliberate without those sources of light, the most eminent professional men of the country. But let us represent to ourselves our own Parliament so denuded, and consider the enormity of the sacrifice which we shall have to make, and the penalties we shall have to pay for it in every step of our proceedings, complicated and immense as are our revenue and expenditure, most important and extensive our manufacturing, commercial, and colonial interests.
The choice of the whole Representative body by popular election engenders also another great national evil. Whenever a

679
particularly excited state of party feelings exists, its influence upon the elections will be universal and irresistible; it will wholly overwhelm all those who are obnoxious to it; and, amongst them, it will be precisely those whom it would be the most important to retain in the senate—the most eminent and conspicuous for their talents and virtues, who for that very reason will be the most carefully excluded; they will be the objects of universal jealousy and enmity. It was thus when I was at Washington, that every one of the most gifted and distinguished of the federal party—men who would have been ornaments of any legislature—were shut out of that of their country: and, as their only means of acting upon the public opinion, they were reduced to writing beautiful and argumentative essays in New York and Boston newspapers, which of course were read by their own party alone. And this effect would be particularly felt at a general election. The country was thus left destitute of the men the best qualified to enlighten the Legislature, to watch over and control the conduct of the Government, and who would be ready to be called to exercise its powers in an altered state of things. Now to estimate how this would affect us, we have but to consider what actually took place in 1807 in this country, when the Parliament was dissolved on Lord Grenville's government coming to an end, with a strong popular feeling prevailing against it. The result of the general election respecting, those Members of the late Government who had sat for places of popular election was, that not one of them represented them in the new Parliament. Amongst the most conspicuous of these failures was that of Lord Henry Petty, who had been member for the university of Cambridge. I need not say that the loss of those eminent persons to the Legislature would have been a national and a severe one; but the close boroughs presented ports of refuge, of which they gladly availed themselves; and thus they at once appeared again in the ranks of their party as efficient Members of the Legislature in every respect, as they had been in the preceding parliament. There was a moment in 1784, when even Mr. Fox was glad to obtain a seat for a Scotch borough, greeted on the occasion by Mr. Pitt, who exclaimed,
"Via prima salutis,
Quod minime reris, Græcâ pandetur ab tube."
680
This extinction of the very voice of the beaten party has an especial tendency to weaken and to degrade it, and to render the conquerors insolent and unreasonable. You lose, moreover, men who would keep in order weak and dangerous men who may happen to be in their party.
It behoves us to look to another effect of the whole Representative body being returned by popular election, in producing and fostering disunion between component parts of the empire, through the violence of the local feelings which will be put in motion and kept up, when the minds of the least educated and the least considerate of the population acquire a decided influence on our affairs. The demagogues who court the people, will always excite in them eager feelings as to local interests, as those to which they will be the most sensitive, which will be nearest to their hearts, and, moreover, be the easiest understood. Jealousies will be fomented between the towns of different manufactures; and then, between the manufacturing and agricultural districts, and then between them both and the commercial interests. Whoever has visited, or indeed read of the United States, must be aware, that these causes act there with a force and violence, threatening at times the existence of the Union, the dissolution of which is talked of with a coolness which astonishes a stranger; and whoever remembers the proceedings of the convention of Hartford, during our last war with the United States, and the effects produced by this war upon the Eastern States, with reference to their fellow States of the Union, will be able to estimate the extent of that which may be produced on the national interests here in similar instances. Do not let us be told that the United States contain more inflammable materials—greater seeds of internal discord—than Great Britain does. There, alas! we must claim no precedence of exemption; and, therefore, it is that those who advocate a dissolution of the union between Great Britain and Ireland, do very wisely in giving their best support to the Reform Bill. When all the causes of discord, which are now dormant, shall have ripened into maturity under universal popular Representation, they will reap rich and abundant fruits of their sagacity. When, in a debate in this House, an hon. member for Cork long ago suggested a dissolution of the Union as expedient, Mr. Canning exclaimed vehemently, "Dissolve the Union!

681
Restore the Heptarchy!" and, should those measures go hand in hand, then as democratic constitutions are suited to states almost universally in the inverse ratio of their extent and population, our new Constitution in due season may fit extremely well the kingdom of Sussex, or that of the East Angles, if by that day a fragment of it should be left in existence. But there is no case in which the presence of a number of Members not returned by popular election acts more beneficially than in obviating the mischief here contemplated, by their resisting and allaying the action of local and angry feelings, which explode to the detriment of the empire.
There is another gigantic evil, which appears to me to be a necessary consequence of this Bill, but which I shall merely glance at, as it has been ably and fully brought into view by an hon. friend of mine; I mean its effects upon the position of the Church. I speak with no unkindness whatever of those who stand opposed to it by very different degrees of divergence from, or opposition to, it on religious grounds; but the number of them who will now have political influence will be so immense as to leave it exposed to an extent of danger, of which that which has arisen in so formidable a shape to the Church of Ireland is but a foretaste. Those will be far keener eyes than mine which will be able to discern, some twenty years hence, the vane on Salisbury steeple, or the cross of St. Paul's, above the waves.
But, if we return to the domestic effects of this Bill, we find ourselves gravely assured of an admirable effect to be produced by the new system, inasmuch as we are told that the Members of the Reformed Parliament will be exposed to fewer solicitations on the part of their constituents, and will have fewer wherewith to embarrass the Government than we have. But, by what magic of the wand of the new Thaumaturgists are natural causes to cease to produce their invariable effects? Why should large bodies of men, very many of whom will be in the lower ranks of life, feel less urgency of circumstances than small bodies of richer men—why should they have fewer claims to urge, and bring them forward with less importunity? Now, in this matter, I have a long experience to state. It happened to me to represent for twenty-four years a town and county by popular election; I had a most respectable constituency; but yet, where
682
every man who was supporting a Member who was himself supporting Government, had a fair right to seek his assistance in the furtherance of blameless pretensions—where no man could know what claims another was advancing, it was quite impossible but that I should at times feel a, pressure of applications, which at times also bore upon the Government. I have had seven addressed to me within a very few days. Now, in fourteen years, in which I have represented Christchurch, it has not even had its own just and natural patronage. It was, in my absence, unjustly deprived of a revenue office vacant there; and for this I, after some years, obtained an indemnification; and one Christchurch man, not, however, the son of a burgess, nor recommended by one, has been sent as a common exciseman to Ireland. And this is the whole sum of its patronage in that time; whilst various strange revenue officers have been sent to Christchurch. Nor have I now, nor have I had for some years past, any application pending from any one of my constituents. I need scarcely say, that, in that whole time, not one favour was sought for of the Treasury, or conferred upon any one member of my own family. In truth, it is in proportion to the numbers and necessities of their constituents that the Members will be pressed forward on the Government, and in no predicament will a Member be put to a more embarrassing test of his principles than if he should be so circumstanced as to think it right to give a general support to a Government, but to abstain wholly from putting himself under obligations to it. It is of all positions the one which will be the least understood or sympathised with by those who have objects to attain; and few causes drive Members more into the arms of Government than the need of patronage to sustain popularity, so that the man really sacrifices his independence for the security of his re-election.
I shall, perhaps, not expose myself to censure, if I express myself very anxious to see my country maintain that high opinion for her wisdom which the various excellencies of her internal Government have conciliated to her. And I may be allowed to confess the embarrassment in which I should be placed, should any distinguished foreigner entreat me to consider how extreme is the difficulty of adapting a constitution to the wants, feelings, and cir-

683
cumstances of a people, and that it is an imprudence beyond a name to hazard any new and extensive experiments of change, and most especially in a very advanced state of civilization, we might, perhaps, say corruption of luxury in private, and of expediency in public, when men's minds are neither willing nor fit to receive new and great impressions, or to make extensive sacrifices, except under a proved and incontrovertible failure of your existing constitution. This is as true in the political, as it is in the human frame, which in advanced age, will not endure those trying operations, which might be most salutary in youth, but which, in the decline of life, are far too dangerous to be risked. Without looking back to the ages of our Edwards and our Henrys, but merely viewing the events of the present age, he will ask me, if the political constitution of any nation was ever subjected to a severer trial and proof than that which ours endured triumphantly in the memory of very many of those now present. He will remind me that, within the very last forty years, sedition, treason, mutiny, and rebellion assailed us at home, and that we had extensive warfare to sustain by sea and by land in every quarter of the world at the same moment; that almost every year brought us new enemies, or defections of allies, and we repeatedly stood alone against a power that triumphed repeatedly over the whole continent of Europe, with nearly the whole of it as her tributaries or allies; that, amidst the commotions and struggles of Europe, and the most fearful combinations formed against us, whilst all the great powers of the continent saw by turns, their capitals in the hands of their enemies, Great Britain alone escaped unscathed, and reaped a harvest of glory, of which her own soil bore no trace; and gave a proof, beyond all doubt, that her Constitution has, down to the present time, a power to endure, and a power to do, without a precedent. He will express the wonder and envy with which the continent beheld the gigantic exertions, the resources, and the untameable courage of the nation, and the strength and elasticity of the Constitution, on which this power so materially reposed. This foreigner will suppose the case of some British ship returning from the most distant seas, from the Ultima Thule of the southern hemisphere, and he will contend, that her crew, learning in the channel the fearful experiment we are engaged in,
684
must believe that despair alone could drive us to such fearful risks. He will tell me, that they will continue their voyage under the gloomiest forebodings, and with the painful certainty that dreadful calamities must have forced us to so desperate a course. They will expect to find Portsmouth in the hands of the French, Gibraltar in those of the Spaniards, Canada subdued by the United States, and some barbarous flag floating on the walls of Fort William at Calcutta; but with what surprise will they behold the British standard aloft at Portsmouth, and learn that it floats on the King's bastion at Gibraltar, and on the walls of Quebec and Fort William; that the integrity of our territory is inviolate; that the nation is in the enjoyment of profound peace, that all the other powers are giving us friendly assurances, and that England has to contend with nothing but her own restless and discontented spirit—with that which is unsound in our own minds, and which leads us to seek, in an unknown and most uncertain futurity, destinies more magnificent than even those which Providence has wonderfully vouchsafed to us.
But there next arises a question, which will press more strongly on the mind of an Englishman than it can on that of even an enlightened foreigner. It has often been remarked, that our Constitution has successfully solved Aristotle's famous problem, whether it were possible to frame a government which, if established, would exhibit the perfection of human wisdom, in which the regal, aristocratic, and democratic powers should exist together in so nice a balance as to secure a perfect tranquillity in the machine, and, consequently, the greatest mass of human happiness to the subject. Where no such equilibrium exists, and any one of these three powers preponderates decidedly, an addition to it, as, for instance, to the despotism of the Grand Seignor, to the aristocracy of ancient Venice, or to the democracy of Geneva as it was, might not affect the well-being of the state materially. But with us, the whole safety and efficiency of the machine depend upon the maintenance of these established counterweights, just as if in an experiment of naval architecture no increase would be dreamt of in the tautness of the masts, or in the squareness of the yards, without an increase in the dimensions and size of the timbers of the hull, proportionate to that of weight and canvass

685
above. I am, therefore, beyond measure, anxious to learn the legislative measures to be proposed to strengthen the authority and consideration of the Crown, and of the House of Peers, in some proportion to the immensely increased democratic power. It is true, that many noblemen have an influence in this House; though even that is anything but an increasing one; but the real question is between the two Houses of Parliament, and whether the influence of the House of Lords outweighs ours in the Constitution—which no one will assert, or whether it is an increasing one: now every one knows that it has been decidedly diminished.
There is a research of another nature, which I feel myself bound briefly to make. In proportion to the novelty and extent of an experiment which, in one way or another, must affect most deeply the wellbeing of his country, an inconsiderable person, summoned to take a part in it, is bound, in common prudence, and in the plainest duty, to weigh carefully the powers of insight into future results possessed by those who make this call upon his faith and acquiescence, in order to ascertain whether they are gifted with that sagacity which is one of the most indispensable qualities of statesmen, whether, in short, they rank amongst those second-sighted political seers to whom "the coming events cast their shadows before:" and if, on examination, it turns out that, as prophets, they have been uniformly and egregiously deficient, they cannot complain, either if I hesitate to follow their judgment, or if I should even venture to obey my own in preference, if it led me right, where theirs led them wrong. We have seen in our days, two great political experiments in action in this country, and on which opinion was greatly divided, and they give the fairer test of sagacity, as one was of foreign, the other of domestic, policy. The first was an enterprise of continental warfare in the Peninsula, as a means of finding a better field of battle than we ever before had against imperial France, of forming our army, of bringing forward nations in arms as its auxiliaries, and creating a powerful diversion in favour of eastern and northern Europe. The campaigns of the Duke of Wellington, which began on the coast of Portugal, bear the most splendid testimony to the soundness of the policy pursued, as well as to the astonishing sagacity, and the extraordinary
686
combination of military talents found in him who brought them to such an end; but yet, so loud and determined were the forebodings of woe uttered during the whole of this warfare, by the leaders of the then opposition, now leaders in the Government, even to the last moment of the contest, that their voices could only have been drowned by the sound of the cannon proclaiming his entry into Thoulouse, and the first peace of Paris. So much for their prophecies of woe. If I now turn to one of weal, I do it with pain, because it has been frustrated, and because (and I can most solemnly affirm it) it would have been a delight to me to see my own forebodings of national misfortunes falsified. Of the policy or impolicy of the great measure of 1829, I say not one word—not one syllable; I merely and solely advert to it as affording a test of prophetic powers respecting its results, and no further. I was painfully compelled to take the line I did, by convictions, which have been but too completely justified. But I may ask—that which the records of our debates so amply bear witness to—whether there was a beatitude of harmony and concord between Great Britain and Ireland, which was not confidently predicted as the infallible result of the measure of emancipation, and whether an utter mistrust of those prophecies was not scouted as gloomy and extravagant croaking. The British islands were to become the fortunate Western Isles—the Hesperides of the ancients; each bough of every tree was to bend down under the weight of golden fruit, but there was to be no dragon to watch it. Alas! has the nation beheld the golden fruit?—the fire-breathing dragon is at the foot of the tree, and he is wide awake. If there was never disastrous intelligence from across the water—if no cries for a dissolution of the Union had resounded from Ireland—still our own nightly debates would testify how these prophetic visions have been realized. Now, then, if these statesmen prophesy in foreign or domestic affairs, in weal or in woe, and uniformly fail, is there one such down-right believer as to pin his faith upon such soothsayers? If a man is summoned to a desperate enterprise, it is natural that he should seek strength in his leaders, proportionate to his own weakness. If I am called to the attack of some fortress of massive bulwarks, and hitherto impregnable, I must look for mighty men of renown,

687
for bearded men of herculean frames to head the assault. Dare I to follow with implicit compliance where every thing inspires me with dismay? There is not a circumstance with respect to our revenue, our commerce, our manufactures, our colonies, or the public mind, that gives me hope. Our oldest allies are disappearing one after another, and in their places I see nothing but fierce armed spectres gliding across our horizon. If some dreadful epidemic or contagious malady were raging, and within my walls, with what thoughts, with what feelings, should I receive the following communication from the physician who had been called in? "Sir, your groom, it is true, is dead under my hands, the gardener's case is desperate, and I have no hopes of the helper; the footman is dying, and things being so and thus, I therefore earnestly call upon you, not to be deterred by these petty casualties, but to place in my hands, with implicit confidence, the lives of the wife of your bosom, and of the daughter of your heart." The beauty and durability of the work, must be in proportion to the skill and powers of the artist. If, in eastern tales, a magnificent palace of beautiful architecture, vast in its dimensions, and gorgeous in materials, is to be raised, it is reared by the hands of the genii. If, in the poetry which the most delighted our youth, a suit of impenetrable armour is to be forged, as it is now, for the goddess of the sea, the hammers must be wielded by the brawny arms, and the giant forms of the Cyclops. In answer to all this, I am told the nation wills it so—that I must submit to the will of the people, which knows of no refusal—that, as one of our mottos expresses, "Vox populi, vox Dei." I can only reply, that the eyes so inflamed, the countenance so haggard, the features so distorted, the gesticulation so wild and vehement, denote to me anything rather than an heaven-sent inspiration. I confess, in the sincerity of my heart, that my alarm at what is in progress is so deep and overwhelming, that, between this moral pestilence now raging, and the physical pestilence abroad amongst us, aye, were it an hundred fold more devastating and devouring than it is, were the choice vouchsafed to me, as it was between like evils to one of old—I would at once, like him, for me and mine, throw myself on the mercies of Heaven, rather than on those of man.
Mr. Adeanesaid, that he had supported
688
the principle of this Bill by voting for the second reading of it, because, he thought the extinction of the decayed boroughs, and the transfer of their franchises to the landed, commercial, and manufacturing interests, absolutely necessary for the good government of the country. With the same views he had, when it was in Committee, supported such amendments as he thought should be introduced into it, without any reference to the side of the House from which those amendments emanated. He did so, because it was the duty of the House to amend the Bill in Committee, as well as it could, wherever it required amendment. He had pursued such a line of conduct, because he wished to see all defects in the details of the Bill remedied, and because he was anxious that a collision between the two Houses of Parliament should, if possible, be avoided,—an event, the occurrence of which, no one who was attached to the Constitution of the country could witness without fear and apprehension. It was upon such grounds that he had given his support to several of the amendments that had been proposed in the Committee, and he had no hesitation in now declaring his regret that the amendments which he then supported, the majority of which went to give greater power and weight to the agricultural interest, had not been adopted. He was sorry to say, that the agricultural interest was not sufficiently supported or fairly represented by this Bill, as it at present stood. The variations from the former Bill, which had been introduced into this Bill, justified him in asserting that the agricultural interest was not fairly represented by this Bill. The noble Lord (Althorp) when the first Bill was introduced, described it as a boon to the agricultural interest, and the noble Lord, in making that statement, particularly referred to the quantity of rural districts which it went to add to the towns that would return Members. There were in the first Bill eighty places, sending to that House 113 Members, and of these, twenty required full one-half, twenty more required one third, and the remainder required a fraction, at least, of a rural constituency, in order to give them that amount of constituency, which, under that Bill, would entitle them to have a Representative. The Bill was presented to the country upon that ground at the election, and that argument was successfully used to convince the landed interest

689
that they would be fairly dealt with. He, therefore, thought that a change which affected all these proportions ought not to have been adopted after the pledges which had been given. It had been asserted, by the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the former measure was under consideration, that, under no circumstances should the town voter be allowed to overpower the agricultural electors, but such would, notwithstanding be the effect of the alterations that had been since introduced. By allowing all freeholders from 40 l. up to 10 l. per annum, living in towns to have votes for the counties the landed interest would be swamped. He regretted deeply, that such changes had been made, after the pledges given to the landed interest, and after they had returned their Representatives on the faith of those pledges. If the large towns had been permitted to send their own Members to Parliament, and had not been allowed to vote for counties by their smaller freeholders, he thought a sufficient quantity of manufacturing blood could have been introduced. Lamenting, as he did, that the amendments which he had supported had not been adopted, still, as a sincere Reformer, firmly attached to the leading principle of the Bill, he should vote for the third reading of it. He knew very well that the course which he took with regard to those amendments would earn for him much odium, but he feared not the necessary consequence of his not acting on party principles, but on his honest conviction. It was from honest motives, and from an honest conviction, that he had endeavoured to get the amendments which he had supported introduced into the measure; but though he had failed in doing so, he should not have the least difficulty in voting for the third reading of the Bill.
Sir Edward Sugdenwas sure that the hon. Member who had just sat down would receive full credit from the House for having acted with regard to this question, upon conscientious grounds. But when they heard the hon. and learned Attorney General speaking of the entire satisfaction with which the Bill was regarded by a nation all harmony and content, he begged to ask, whether the sentiments of the hon. member for Cambridgeshire, supported by such sound reasoning as that hon. Member had advanced, went to support that statement of the hon. and
690
learned Attorney General? But had not the House found, by the frequent divisions which had taken place, that there were many Gentlemen who supported the Bill, and who yet had in their hearts a dread of its effects, and objections to many of its principal provisions? Had they not the other night seen a right hon. Gentleman, until very recently connected with the Government, get up in his place, after having supported the Bill all through, and take a practical objection to some of its leading principles. To one of them he expressed his intention to move an amendment. Indeed, he should like to be told who, even amongst its authors, was the supporter of the Bill in all its provisions? The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could not be satisfied with it, for he wished for the Ballot, and in the Bill there was no provision for the Ballot. To maintain his own consistency, therefore, the noble Lord must support any other measure hereafter proposed which should include the Ballot. Then, there was the noble Lord (the Paymaster of the Forces); did he look upon it as a final measure? Undoubtedly not; for, on opening the measure to the House, he stated, that the duration of a Parliament was a matter to be left open to future consideration. He believed, indeed, there was no man but his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General who had told him that it was to be regarded as a final measure. Now, his hon. and learned friend should be the last man to give it that recommendation in the House, after what he had said out of it. He wished his hon. and learned friend was present, that he might hear what he was about to say. In a Report of a conversation between his hon. and learned friend and his constituents, it had been stated, that he was asked, if he would support the Ballot, and his hon. and learned friend was further made to answer that he wished to try the Bill, and then, if it did not work well they could have the Vote by the Ballot. After this he had never heard anything with more astonishment in his life than when the hon. and learned Attorney General called upon the House to pass the measure as a final one. Then there was another Member of his Majesty's Government—the right hon. Baronet the member for Westminster—who might be considered as the organ of a certain class of Reformers, though certainly he had now been cast off by a large

691
body of them, who had elected other leaders of their own; they were told last year, by the right hon. Baronet the member for Westminster, that it was impossible the measure could be final. The right hon. Baronet had, over and over again made use of that assertion. He had told the House in fact, that this Bill was but a stepping-stone to something better. If, then, this was not to be a final measure, he asked, to what point were they to go? Where were they to look for pause and rest? He knew not; but, at all events, it was idle to talk of this measure as a permanent one, when the most active of its supporters viewed it in a contrary light. The hon. and learned member for Calne had said, that if all the blessings enjoyed by the country were to be attributed to the Constitution, so were all the miseries endured. That was rather strange reasoning; but, adopting it, let him follow the hon. and learned Member a step further. The hon. and learned Member said, he found in the Constitution a sound part and an unsound part; and what of that? Was that any reason for destroying it altogether? Was that any reason why they should break in upon the Constitution, and lop, right and left, without judgment, without science, without prudence, and without system? He did not wish to retain the corrupt or bad parts of the Constitution, but he did wish, and it was his duty to his country, to retain the Constitution itself. Now, fortunately enough, the hon. and learned Member had undertaken to show how, in the midst of so much rottenness and corruption, as he said, existed in the Constitution, so many blessings had been derived from it. The hon. and learned Member had found out a sound part. And that sound part was the county Representation and the Representation for popular constituencies. The Representatives returned by those constituencies, said the hon. and learned Member, had defended the rights and privileges of the people, and led to the blessings enjoyed under the Constitution. Why, was there ever an assertion made which was more unfounded in justice? Was it not a well known and indisputable fact, that the ablest, most powerful, and most successful advocates for the rights and liberties of the people had sat in that House for nomination or close boroughs? It was, and it was idle to attempt to deny it. He did not wish to place nomination or close boroughs higher in estimation than
692
they ought to stand; but he could not help exposing the weakness of the argument of the hon. and learned Member. For his own part he was ready to acknowledge that he looked upon nomination boroughs as an evil in principle—as something that it was desirable, if possible to get rid of, they were a sort of blot upon our admirable system of Representation; but, at the same time, he was not willing or ready to destroy that system altogether for the purpose of extinguishing them. Let a more constitutional mode be devised of securing the blessings which existed through the medium of the nomination boroughs, and he would at once give them up. His object was, not to oppose popular Representation, but to oppose such a Representation as would endanger the long established institutions of the country. Such, he declared honestly and solemnly, was his desire; and such being his feeling, he could not, upon that the third reading of the Bill, avoid raising his feeble voice against it once more, and attempting to expose to the House and to the country some of its manifold errors. He was anxious to reply to some of the observations which had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General. His hon. and learned friend, from his station, must be supposed to be acquainted with the Bill in all its bearings. He was not, or his station would imply that he was not, an unlearned person; and, therefore, it became important to try the real value of his observations before they had obtained credit upon the strength of the office filled by his hon. and learned friend. His hon. and learned friend had told the House, that he was astonished to find the Bill passed with so few alterations, as compared with the Bill of last Session. The astonishment of the Attorney General was one of pleasure at seeing the Bill now passed so extremely like the Bill of last Session. The assertion of his hon. and learned friend was far more astonishing than the resemblance of the Bills to each other. He wished not to speak with anything like unkindness of the conduct of his hon. and learned friend, especially during his absence from his place, but he must say, that he had compromised the dignity and the character of his office. His hon. and learned friend, for week after week, had been an inactive silent Member of the Committee when important legal points were in dispute, which ought to have been

693
discussed by the Law Officers of the Crown. He did not say the Attorney General had been an inattentive Member of the Committee, but certainly he could hardly suppose his hon. and learned friend knew much about the two Bills, when he said, they were so similar to each other that, when apart, it was difficult to find a difference. He must say, that no two measures, possessing any portion at all of the same principles, could, by possibility, be more unlike. Compare the two Bills, and the truth of his position would be palpable beyond dispute. The first Bill consisted of twenty pages the present Bill occupied fifty-five pages. If the Bills closely resembled each other in meaning, whence this immense difference in their dimensions? If they enacted the same things, why this great and extraordinary change in the wording? But was it mere change in the wording? Most assuredly not. The meaning was as much changed as the language. On the introduction of the first Bill the noble Paymaster of the Forces had declared, on the part of the Government, over and over again, that the measure was introduced after the most mature consideration, and that therefore, the Government would stand or fall by it. In making a comparison of the two Bills, and trying the nature of the Attorney General's assertion, it was as well to bear the assertion of the noble Paymaster of the Forces in mind. By the first Bill sixty-two Members were cut off from the whole Representation of the empire; but was that the case with the present Bill? No; the old number was to be preserved; and was that a slight and immaterial difference? Did it not go to the very foundation of the measure? Did it not attack and destroy the very judgment and calculations upon which the first measure was built? Most certainly it did. The absurdity of the first Bill was gross; but that did not make the difference between the two less. The first Bill talked of extending the elective franchise, and of admitting half a million of persons to the constituency; and of providing for the increased wants of the nation, the immense growth of commerce, and yet it reduced the number of Representatives. Well, but now the old number was to be preserved, and they had been disposed of, and that without settling the calls of Ireland or of Scotland. Ireland through her Representatives required more Mem-
694
bers; and Scotland was not silent upon the subject; but the whole of the old number had been disposed of without settling either of those questions. It was the unwise, unstatesman-like conduct of the Government, that had led to the demand of Ireland. Had not the Government said in its first Bill England can do without sixty-two of her Members, Ireland would never have required an increase of hers. If the Government had not shuffled, and dealt with the Constitution as it had done, all parts of this empire would have been content. It was lamentable to see the childishness of the Ministers; they dallied with the Constitution, which they could not estimate, as they would with a worthless toy. One day a Member was refused to Merthyr Tydvil, the next day it was conceded. One day Monmouth was put in the schedule, the next day it was taken out, and that too, without notice, without, intelligible system or design. Unless, indeed, he might build a judgment upon the manner of the noble Paymaster of the Forces, who seemed—he said seemed—to be gratified with an opportunity of punishing those, by injuring their interests, who were known to be his political opponents. The interests of Merthyr Tydvil and of Monmouth were different, and that accounted for the changes as changes of party, but not as changes, in a measure remodelling the Constitution. So much for the numbers of the House. As for schedule A, they were told, on the introduction of the first Bill that there could not possibly be an alteration in it. How stood the facts? In the schedule A of the first Bill there were sixty boroughs; in the schedule A of the present Bill there were fifty-six boroughs; and the boroughs in the two Bills differed considerably from each other. Then schedule B, like schedule A, was unalterable; but yet, in the first Bill there were forty-six boroughs in schedule B, and in the present Bill there were only thirty boroughs. Now to stop there a moment. Let the House consider those two schedules, and what would have been thought of the alteration, if any one had ventured to propose it at the general election, when the cry was for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill? If any candidate, addressing a large and Reforming constituency, had said, "I am a friend to Reform, but I think schedule A would be better if it had just fifty-

695
six boroughs in it, and schedule B would be better if it had just thirty boroughs in it," what would have been said to him? He would have been utterly rejected. That single reflection ought to excite caution in the minds of the Ministers. It would be well for them and for the country if they reasoned upon the change which had taken place—if they asked themselves how those who were returned to support the first Bill now supported so different a measure as the second? He knew not what the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) might be able to do in a Reformed Parliament, but he would have a fearful task to perform when the people, awakening from the delusion into which they had been seduced, demanded that Constitution and all its blessings which had been wontonly destroyed. In the day of anarchy and confusion—the necessary off spring of the present monstrous measure—the people would demand from the noble Lord the old Constitution which, in his most sober and reasonable moments, he had so ably and happily eulogized. But, to proceed with the differences between the two Bills. In the first Bill it was proposed to transfer to Commissioners the power of parcelling out the Representation. In the present Bill there was to be no such power. Appended to, or rather connected with, the present Bill, however, there was to be a Boundary Bill. His hon. and learned friend, the member for Boroughbridge, had formerly complained of the information being laid before Members in a state unfit for use, and at the last moment. That defect in the supply of information had been altered, for now the information was not before the House at all until long after the period at which it could be applied had passed away. So with respect to the Bill affecting this part of the subject. The Boundary Bill was to be discussed after the boundaries had been settled. These observations, as showing the difference between the Bills after the assertion of the Attorney General, were important. But there were other topics which required notice. One of them had been alluded to by the hon. member for Cambridgeshire. That hon. Member had observed upon the change in the right of voting for counties. He remembered perfectly well that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, during the debates on the first Bill, had declared over and over again that the arrangement they made respecting cities
696
and counties in themselves was a great boon to the agricultural interests. He then asked the noble Lord why was it altered? If the noble Lord said it was altered in consequence of the motion of a noble Marquis (Chandos) being carried, was he to understand that the noble Lord dissented from that supposition? He wished the Ministers would speak out, would fairly let the country know what they did mean, and, if they could, state the grounds upon which these alterations were made. But the noble Lord having declared the first arrangement a boon, and a great boon, to the agricultural interest, why, he asked, was it withdrawn, and, by a new plan, an overwhelming influence given to the commercial and manufacturing interest? [Lord Althorp "No, no."] The noble Lord appeared to entertain a different opinion, but he had considered the Bill most attentively, and he could not form a new opinion quite so hastily, or upon such grounds as the noble Lord might desire he should. He knew the noble Lord might say that, in some cases, it was necessary; but there were cases in which there was no pretence for assigning expediency as an argument. Look at the cases of Coventry and London. Why was Coventry thrown into Warwickshire, and London into Middlesex? Was there not enough of town constituents in Warwickshire, without adding to them those of Coventry, and of town constituency in Middlesex, without adding to them those of London? The reason for this alteration was plain, and not to be disguised even to the casual observer. He would not occupy the time of the House by pointing out the great difference between the agricultural tenant to the amount of 50 l. and upwards, and the tenant of a mere House to the same amount. The Attorney General had said, that he was extremely pleased at the Motion of the noble Marquis (Chandos) being carried; but his hon. and learned friend had never said so much before. On the contrary, judging from the votes of his hon. and learned friend, he had supposed him to be opposed to that motion. His hon. and learned friend had voted in the minority with Ministers, but now it appeared he voted against his wishes. Perhaps there were other points upon which his hon. and learned friend, and many who supported the Bill, would like to see alterations. An evening or

697
two ago the right hon. the member for Stamford, had also let out a little secret. That hon. Member, it appeared, like the Attorney General, had voted with the Government, but had wished against them. If they could but be placed for a short time in the palace of truth, many and curious would be the facts they should arrive at. It would be remembered that this was no unimportant part of the Bill. The regulation of the right of voting was of the utmost consequence. Indeed, if there was one part of the Bill more important than another, it was that. He then came to the 10 l. franchise clause. And what change had that undergone? At first four things were necessary. A house giving a vote was to be of the value of 10 l., the rent was to be of the annual amount of 10 l., the rating to the poor was to be upon a rent of 10 l., and the inhabitant house duty was to be upon the annual value of 10 l.; and it was required that the rent and taxes should be paid before the vote be given, or even the right registered. He had always thought that arrangement a bad one. It might be well for the landlords, but he could not see why their debts were to be paid in preference to all others, and by such an arrangement as gave them great power over their tenants. But the noble Lord abandoned the plan. He gave up the necessity of the rent being paid. And what did he do besides? Why he proposed that the rent should be payable half-yearly. Immediately the noble Lord was assailed by his friends, the Political Unions, and the noble Lord said it was a mistake. The noble Lord, if he wished anything, must have wished to recal the extension of the franchise he had promised, but he said, he wished to exclude weekly tenants merely from the exercise of the franchise. The noble Lord, however, gave way. Was that a concession, he would ask, to the middle classes? Were the middle classes to be found among the weekly tenants of 3s. 10 d. per week? It would be absurd to say so. The noble Lord had given way, not to the middle classes—that sober industrious, and meritorious part of the community—but to the Political Unions, which embodied the discontent and the bad feeling of the country. He complained of the noble Lord for compelling him to enter into a personal contest with the hon. member for Ipswich. The noble Lord said, he made the alteration in con-
698
sequence of the Representations of the hon. member for Ipswich. Supposing that hon. Member had applied to the noble Lord on the subject, had no one else applied? Had not the Political Unions applied? Would the noble Lord tell the House that the alteration was made in consequence of the Representations of the hon. member for Ipswich? [Lord John Russell, "Yes."] Then he would tell the noble Lord that he was not fit for the place he filled. When he looked at the Government of the country he expected to find it composed of men of wisdom, learning, and experience; he expected to find it directed by great talent, by grave counsel, and by consistent and enlightened principle; but when the noble Lord told him, that the mature deliberations of the Government were overturned by the Representations of the hon. member for Ipswich, he turned from the Ministers with contempt.
Mr. Wasonwished to be allowed to say one word [cries of "Order."]
Sir Edward Sugdencontinued. But although a change was made, there was still some check kept up. That check, however, was not liked, and the noble Lord again gave way. Did not a deputation wait upon the noble Lord and inform him and impress upon him that the persons paying their rent weekly were highly respectable, and that the arrangement was made solely for the convenience of the landlord? Then the last check was assailed. By the Bill it was provided that the premises for which the vote was claimed should be held for a year. That, however, was objectionable. The words "same premises" were struck out; so that a man might occupy fifty different premises in the course of a year, and yet claim and exercise the right of voting; would any one say that was a boon to the middle classes. It was a mockery to speak in such language. The noble Lord at the head of the Government said, he would satisfy the public mind without violating the Constitution, or disturbing the ancient institutions of the country, and the noble and learned Lord at the head of the law department in the Government said, that Ministers "would follow in the ancient ways of the Constitution." How were those ancient ways observed? He defied the noble and learned Lord, or any supporter of the Bill, to show that the ancient and approved principles of the re-

699
presentative part of the Constitution were regarded in the Bill. The noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, said, on the introduction of the first Bill, that it was of the greatest importance to give to the industrious, sober-minded, and respectable portion of the community, a direct share in the Representation. Did the noble Lord mean to say, that the 10 l. clause, as it stood, would have that effect? Why, that provision nearly amounted to Universal Suffrage in the metropolis. Let the noble Lord refer to the documents on the Table of the House, and examine into the facts bearing upon the metropolitan districts, and most of the large boroughs to be created, and he would find the 10 l. clause little short of Universal Suffrage. It gave a preponderance to the lower orders, which would swamp and destroy the influence of the others. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the aristocracy should not have an undue influence in the State. He did not wish that the aristocracy should have power solely for their own sakes. Let it not be supposed that he wished to maintain the aristocracy merely as an aristocracy; he had no such desire; but he did wish to maintain the aristocracy for the benefit of the lower orders themselves; and, in doing so, he believed that he was supporting their best interests. This was his sincere and honest feeling. Indeed, it was impossible that he could act from other motives on this point, sprung, as he was, from the humblest class of society himself. He had no motive—no desire—indeed he could have none—to fly in the face of his fellow-countrymen, and to deprive them of the rights which they enjoyed. He had never sought preferment, nor had he ever received any patronage. He had been advanced in life it was true, but that advancement was the fair result of his honest exertions. He had never sought for office, but he had been called to it; and although he had now the privilege of addressing that House, that privilege had not been arrived at by unworthy means. Such was his position; and he solemnly declared that if ever the time arrived when he could claim privileges for the lower classes of his countrymen, consistently with the benefit of the empire, there was no man breathing who would be more zealous, strenuous, or sincere, in his exertions to effect that object, than he would. He now stood up in defence of the aristocracy; but he
700
should be equally zealous in defence of the rights of the people, if he saw them infringed. He would then turn to the rights of the 40 s. freeholders, and see how they had been dealt with. When the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, first introduced the subject, he said he had no intention to interfere with the rights of the 40 s. freeholders. That noble Lord said, he considered the 40 s. franchise as invaluable, and entitled to respect, both from its excellence and antiquity. But how did the present Bill deal with that franchise? Why, it materially curtailed it. If a man devised a freehold of 40 s. to a son for that son's life, and to his children afterwards, that freehold would give no vote to the son. If a man married a woman, and by that marriage became seised of a 40 s. freehold, the freehold so acquired and so held would give him no vote. Surely, these were novel and unconstitutional restrictions, and ought to be exposed. The country in general naturally relied upon the professions of the Ministers, and the people out of doors had no notion whatever of the changes in the rights of their ancient and wholesome 40 s. franchise. It was very well for his hon. and learned friend to say, that no alteration had been made in this Bill, but this latter alteration was of great importance. In the first Bill, also, the patronage of appointing the Assistant Barristers was given to the Lord Chancellor, but that provision was struck out of the present Bill; and would his hon. and learned friend say that this was no alteration? In his mind it was a most desirable change. He should further glance at the remaining schedules. He had already noticed schedules A and B. In schedules C great alterations had been made. In the first Bill schedule D contained eighteen boroughs, and in the present it contained twenty-one boroughs. Schedules E and F had also been very much altered, and there were now seven counties which were to have three Members instead of two. Such were some of the differences between the two Bills, and yet his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General, said "it is astonishing to see so little change." Why there was not the crossing of a t, or the dotting of an i, in the one Bill, that resembled that in the other. "But," said the supporters of the Bill, "you who oppose it propose no plan of your own; instead of finding fault with the Bill devise a better." Why, had the

701
Opposition to this Bill shrunk from the discussion of any one topic? Had not the opponents of the Bill fully declared their sentiments, and what they thought would be desirable? It was impossible, in reflecting on the blessings derived from the Constitution, not to ask what had hitherto been the effects of the Bill. It had, in fact, reversed the principle of Government. Under the ancient system the Government restrained the violent with a paternal but a strong hand, while, under the new system, the Government were before the people in extravagance, and almost gave the signal for unconstitutional combination, and the spreading of those watch words that were dangerous to peace, to law, and to good order. If he looked to the high office which his hon. and learned friend fills, what did he find? Why, the influence of this measure had paralysed, if not destroyed, its power. The Attorney General would not dare to exercise the authority, or to pursue the course which the Constitution pointed out to him. Had he even now the power to bring to justice persons who were guilty of sedition? Again, look at the public Press. The liberty of the public Press had degenerated into licentiousness. The question now to be asked was this—was it the editor of a newspaper, or the noble Earl at the head of the Administration, who held the reins of Government? This was even the case with that part of the Press which professed to support his Majesty's Ministers, and even by its licentiousness the office of Attorney General had been paralyzed. It was surprising to him, that notwithstanding all the knowledge and ability of the conductors of the Press, it never seemed to have occurred to them, that when the institutions of the country became more popular than at present, the liberty and licentiousness in which they were now permitted to indulge must be curtailed. Under a free, and well-regulated form of Government, full liberty could with safety be given to the public Press; but the moment the balance turned from real liberty, whether towards despotism or democracy, the Press would meet with a check. That which tended, therefore, to the latter change, as did this Bill, struck as much at the liberty of the Press, as did that which tended to the former. Another consequence of this measure was, the leading of people from the old notions of responsibility, and a breaking up of the
702
social system. In illustration of this position, he would refer to the refusal to pay parish rates. Let hon. Members who held lightly the reports as to the effects of this Bill, consider well this matter. It was a dangerous beginning, and, if not checked, would lead to fearful results. Nothing could be more dangerous than for the people to be possessed with a notion that they were not bound to obedience to a law, because that law could not be enforced by violence. The laws never could be thrust upon the people. The people must support the laws, or they must fall; and dangerous would be the feeling among the people that the law was their oppressor, and not their protector. But, if in England, since the production of this Bill, there had been a refusal to pay parish rates, what had been the case in Ireland? In Ireland there had been a refusal to pay tithes, and most alarming and most dangerous doctrines had been held upon that refusal. It had been advanced in that House, because certain persons had already disobeyed the law, that, therefore, they should be released from further obedience to it. Let them once teach one set of people that they could cast their burthens on the shoulders of another set, and there would soon be no set that would bear any burthens at all. Were hon. Members and the country so little acquainted with the course of history, as to suppose that the people at large would benefit by a confiscation of Church property? If they were, great was their error, and great would be their disappointment. Another effect of the Bill was, to paralyze trade, and even to affect the credit of the country. He knew that the supporters of the measure say, the depressed state of trade was occasioned by the opposition to the Bill; but he would prove the contrary to be the fact. Every one knew that capital was a tender plant; that it shrunk at change, and was often frighted away altogether by it. But it was said that this Reform Bill was to open new sources for commerce, and to purify old ones. If so, how was it that the bare promise of it did not act as an encouragement? How was it that ever since its production, although it had been continually promised to be passed, trade had regularly gone on getting worse and worse, instead of improving? The cause was evident; the Bill promised not security from further change, but to open a vista of change of which no man could see the

703
close. He trembled at the thought of revolution, and who could watch and examine the effects of this Bill without expecting one? He spoke for himself, and would say conscientiously, that looking to his own interests as a member of the community, and naturally casting about to see how he could place any property he might possess in security, he was at a loss to find out a satisfactory way. He believed that a large portion of those who possessed property thought with him, and, therefore, the passing of the Bill would only add to the embarrassments of trade. He came down to that House night after night to discuss this Bill, but he felt, as he believed others did, depressed more and more on each occasion with the fear of the results that would flow from it. He was sure if the noble Lord would take the trouble to inquire, he would find that a large portion of the thinking part of the community shrunk with dismay from the probable consequences of this measure. All perceived that a storm was gathering, and no man could tell how or when it would burst! Would the passing of this Bill diminish this alarm? Would it heal all doubts and fears? Was there anything in its character likely to produce such an effect? On the contrary, in his opinion it would increase the evil tenfold, and would excite new apprehensions of the most alarming character. The stability of everything in the State would be shaken, and the anxiety of every possessor of capital would be augmented. For what would be the operation of the measure? This country differed from all other countries in the world in this that, having a numerous and intelligent population, the mass of the property was, comparatively speaking, in few hands. By the present Bill, however, the property of the country would continue in one set of hands, and the power in another. If it were necessary to instance further mischiefs produced by the Bill, he would refer to what had occurred at Bristol and Nottingham. Those outrages were entirely owing to the Bill; and, dreadful as they were, their occurrence where they did take place, probably prevented the occurrence of much greater elsewhere. The Political Unions also entirely sprung from the Reform Bill [hear, hear.] Did hon. Gentlemen mean to deny this. He admitted that there were Political Unions before that measure was introduced; but in the sense in which he used the words,
704
he was correct in their application. When he said, the Political Unions had sprung from this measure, he meant that it had led them to assume their present character, to investigate and condemn the conduct of Members of this House, and to put a bridle upon the Government. Regarded in that light, he contended that the Political Unions were the children and the champions of the Reform Bill. If the Bill should pass—which God avert!—it would be the bounden duty of his Majesty's Government immediately to put down the Political Unions, or the Political Unions would put them down. Another mischief resulting from the measure, was, the introduction in this House, and elsewhere of the most unconstitutional principles. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland formerly maintained that the Crown should omit sending Writs to those places which it was thought desirable to disfranchise. The hon. and learned Gentleman argued that at considerable length, and the consequence was, that on some hon. Gentlemen on that side expressing their indignation at such a monstrous doctrine, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, rose, and on behalf of the Government, disclaimed any participation in such sentiments. Notwithstanding that, in a paper, said to be Ministerial, it was argued, but two nights ago, that the King of England had a right to dissolve Parliament, and to send Writs only to those places which he pleased. A more daring and illegal assertion was never made. At other times such a doctrine would have been prosecuted by the Attorney General at the order of the House. Then, as to the permanency of the measure, the right hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, had argued, in the strongest manner, that the Bill could not be lasting, but that it would lead to ulterior measures. Again, the hon. and learned member for Calne said, that if the principle of Reform was once admitted, they must go to the whole extent. He would not, however, enter upon this subject now, as he had already occupied too much of the time of the House. It was impossible, however, that the Bill should be lasting, as it did not go the length which the discontented required; and nothing short of Universal Suffrage and the Ballot would meet their views. Let it not, however, be supposed, that because he opposed this Bill, that he was adverse to all

705
change. He was not prepared to say, that circumstances might not compel them to go a great way, but with other opponents of the measure, he felt that this measure went much too far. He had often expressed his sentiments with candour on that point. It was said, that the opponents of the Bill had no plan, or had proposed none. But he asked, whether their sentiments were not fully known to the country? They objected to the measure as a whole in consequence of its going too far; they also objected to several of the details on specific grounds. They objected to the metropolitan boroughs; they were opposed to the giving the freeholders of towns, being counties in themselves, votes in the counties; they thought the 10 l. franchise would destroy the constituency, and upon all other points they had fully expressed their opinions. His opinion of the conduct of the Government was this:—They had gone too far to be able to stop. The noble Lord said, "Would you be a bit-by-bit Reformer, and so never give content?" But would this measure give content? Why should it? Would it satisfy those who asked for it? Would it meet their views and effect what they wanted?—No. The great body of the lower orders wanted a relief from taxation, and an increase of trade. They wanted cheap bread, and high wages. To procure cheap bread, they would destroy the Corn-laws, and that would only tend to lead to their own misery. They would also abolish tithes; but let the Government and proprietors of all descriptions consider well before they encouraged such notions. If they did encourage them, were the rights of the Church the only ones that would be inquired into? Were there not other records—the ancient spoils of the Church—which might also be questioned? He was convinced that a Reformed Parliament, such as would be returned by a 10 l. constituency, would go far to shake the stability of the Throne. There was at present a feeling that the hereditary revenues of the Crown should be disposed of, and that all Crown lands should be sold, and the feeling appeared to be, to make the King entirely dependent for his resources on a Reformed Parliament. He was sure that there was not an institution in the country that would not be shaken by this measure. This Bill ought not to be considered by itself. It was only a part of a measure, and the Bills for Scotland and Ireland ought to be
706
taken in conjunction with it. The House of Commons was obliged to take each Bill separate; but how could the House of Lords do so? The Irish Members said, they were determined on an increase of their numbers, and that question ought to be settled before the House of Lords was called upon to decide upon this Bill. It behoved the House of Lords, therefore, to have the whole of the Bills before it, to see the entire of the measure before it entered upon the consideration of any part of it. Having considered what the measure had done, he would show in a few words, what it had not done. A Minister might be a most complete Radical Reformer, but being so would not enable him to force an unjust tax upon the funds. A Minister might be a thorough Radical Reformer, but being so would not enable him to give tranquillity to Ireland, or to maintain the law, peace, or justice there. A Minister might be a thorough Radical Reformer, but it would not enable him to remove the miseries occasioned by the Game-laws. A Minister might be a thorough Radical Reformer, but being so would not enable him to effect wholesome Reform in the judicial system of the country, or to secure efficient Judges. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, alluding to the argument of an hon. Member respecting the Nabob of Arcot, said the Emperor of Russia had as good a right to have Members in that House as the Indian Prince. He knew not how that might be, but it appeared that a Minister might be a Radical Reformer, and yet the advocate of the Emperor of Russia, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given millions to that potentate in defiance of his country's interests and her just rights. There was another remark which fell from his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General), which he could not help noticing. The Attorney General had censured the allusions which had been made on his side of the House to the threatened exercise of the royal prerogative in the creation of Peers for the purpose of passing this Bill. Could the right of that House to notice such a Motion be questioned? Had not the House on a previous occasion impeached a Minister who had advised an unconstitutional exercise of the royal prerogative, and were they then to be told, that to notice the question was foreign to their duty? Were they not threatened with danger on every side, and were they not told, if the Bill now before

707
the House did not pass a third reading elsewhere, it should be made to pass by what he had no scruple in denominating, the unconstitutional exercise of a constitutional right. He was ready to admit, that the hon. Members opposite who were leagued together to support Reform, did so from the best motives, but he claimed the same justice to those who opposed the measure. It was said, by hon. Members on the other side of the House, that the use of that illustrious name originated with those with whom he (Sir Edward Sugden) was leagued in opposition. This he confidently asserted was not the case. It was his Majesty's Ministers who had set the example, and in using that expression he did mean to say, that such example had been followed, by coupling his Majesty's name with their Reform project. Could any man deny that such was the fact? Well, and in what light ought the House to view such a use. Could it be justified on any principle whatsoever? He maintained that it could not. Indeed he would go further, and boldly assert, that the mention of the King's name with a view of prejudicing a discussion on a measure before that House was a gross breach of not only the privileges of that House but a great trespass on the people at large. But if it was a breach of privilege of that House to use the King's name with a view of swaying the opinions of its Members, how much more was it a breach of the privileges of the other House of Parliament to threaten it with the exercise of the King's authority and privilege in the creation of Peers? Hon. Members were in the habit of alluding to the creation of Peers in the reign of Queen Anne. But if the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown on that occasion was bad and deserved condemnation, how much more would its exercise on the present occasion, should it be exercised (which he could hardly believe it would), merit reprehension? The creation of Peers in the reign of Queen Anne was limited, being but an increase of twelve Members. How would the case stand should any creation be resolved upon now? Why, the increase to effect the object which Ministers had in view must be enormous; in fact, it would amount to an absolute deluging of the other House. He had ever viewed with feelings of strong reprehension the manner in which the creation in the reign of Queen Anne took place, and he should certainly
708
entertain a similar and a much stronger feeling should that proceeding be now adopted. Indeed, he could not conceive how any man could suffer himself to be invested with a Peerage under such circumstances. What would be the opinion of the people of England, if a number of Members of that House walked up to the other House and immediately voted there in favour of this Bill, after voting for the third reading here? What would be the opinion of the people of England after the fever of excitement was over? Would they not say that such persons were biassed in their votes by the circumstance of their advancement? Would they think it consistent with constitutional principles that Members of this House, after voting upon a question here, should go to the other House and vote upon it there? Nothing, in his opinion, could possibly be more inconsistent with the proper feeling which should characterize a Representative of the people, after having given his vote on a particular question, than to suffer himself to be transferred to the other House for the sole purpose of tendering in it a similar vote. The Crown, certainly, had the prerogative of creating Peers, but the individuals selected ought to be persons of eminent merit, or of wealth and property, and the Crown unconstitutionally exercised its prerogative, if it created a number of Peers expressly to carry a particular measure. But to return to the exercise of the Crown's prerogative in the reign of Queen Anne. Was there, he begged to ask, one single constitutional writer, who, speaking of that event, did not term the then creation of Peers an illegal and unconstitutional exercise of that prerogative? If reference was had to the debates in the House of Commons which took place when a Bill was brought in to regulate the Peerage in the reign of George 1st, it would be found that the strongest feelings were expressed in its reprehension. Indeed, the feeling at that period on the subject might be estimated from a perusal of a portion of the first Message which George 1st sent down to his Parliament on his accession to the Throne. Alluding to the Peerage Bill then before the House of Lords, George 1st expressed himself thus:—'His Majesty being informed that the House of Peers has under consideration the state of the Peerage of Great Britain, is graciously pleased to acquaint the House that he has so much at heart

709
the settling the Peerage of the whole kingdom upon such a foundation as may secure the freedom and constitution of Parliament in all future ages, that he is willing that his prerogative stand not in the way of so great and necessary a work.' So here they had the King telling his Parliament, in consequence of that abuse of this power, which had been committed by his predecessor—trifling as it was compared with the deluge of ennobled Gentlemen, with which they were threatened—that he had the improvement of the Peerage 'so much at heart, that he was willing his prerogative stand not in the way of so just and necessary a work.' Lord Cowper, too, in the debates of that time made use of these expressions:—'His Majesty's object was to secure the freedom of our Constitution, by preventing, for the future, the abuse of one of the highest prerogatives of the Crown; of which they had had an instance in the last reign, which had given just offence and terrible apprehensions to all sober minded people.'†He trusted this lesson, would not be lost upon the House. He hoped no Gentleman would desert his duty, as a Representative of the people, to add to the numbers of the House of Peers; he should regret to find, that the object of any Gentleman, in voting for this measure, had been to advance himself to the other House. He knew that the consequence must be, a desire to limit—as it would then be high time to limit—the just prerogative of the Crown, which he, for one, should never be desirous of doing, if it were constitutionally exercised.
Mr. Wasontrusted, the House would permit him to say a few words, strictly confining himself to explanation. The hon. and learned Member had entirely misrepresented his opinions respecting the weekly voters, to whom he objected quite as much as the hon. and learned Member, although, probably, for different reasons. He would now state exactly what occurred relative to the clause disfranchising all except half-yearly tenants; for in the first Bill the voters were to have been quarterly tenants. He received a private copy of the Bill on Saturday evening; and on turning to the 10 l. clause, he immediately perceived the alteration which had been
* Hansard's parl. Hist. vol. vii. P. 590.
† Ibid. 591.
710
made from quarterly to half-yearly. On Sunday he wrote to the noble Lord, the member for Devonshire, stating that there was scarcely a family settlement of house-property in the kingdom where the rents were not received quarterly, and he had instanced a property with which he was connected, situated in Liverpool, amounting to about 10,000 l. a-year, for which not a single tenant would have the right of voting, all the rents being paid quarterly. On the Monday following the noble Lord assured him the clause should be altered. It was not until the Wednesday after that day that any representations could have been made to Government upon the subject by Political Unions, and therefore Ministers could not have bowed to the dictation of those Unions in the manner described by the hon. and learned Member.
Mr. Robert Grantsincerely sympathized with his hon. and learned friend in looking with deep anxiety at this concluding stage of a measure fraught with such important consequences to the whole empire. He also agreed with his hon. and learned friend in thinking, that this question demanded to be treated with the greatest coolness, and the utmost propriety of demeanour, such as his hon. and learned friend had advocated, and which the learned member for Rye had beautifully illustrated. But with all respect for his hon. and learned friend, be would ask him, whether there was any necessity, at this stage of the business, for dragging the House back to every petty difference, and reverting to all the trivial and paltry details, not only of this, but also of the other Bill—debating all the dots over the i's, and crosses upon the t's, even in that which had been superseded by what his hon. and learned friend admitted to be a better Bill. But, not content with introducing these topics, which could serve no purpose but to aggravate passion on a question which peculiarly required coolness, and caution, and temper, his hon. and learned friend had also brought in every party topic that had been raised since the present Ministry came into office. He should not follow his hon. and learned friend through those minutiæ,but should confine himself to that which was really the question before the House—namely, whether this Reform Bill should, or should not, be read a third time? His hon. and learned friend had anxiously endeavoured to expose all the differences between the

711
details of this Bill and the former one; but did he recollect the observation of the right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, who said, that all the principal alterations in the Bill had been forced upon the Government by the hon. Gentlemen at the other side? If that were the case, was it fitting or was it just that the Ministers should now be taunted with having made the alterations required by their opponents? His hon. and learned friend had referred to the flame which this Bill had already spread through the country; and he argued, that much worse consequences might be expected from its future operation. But it was not fair to assume that the agitation consequent upon the discussion of an important measure, must necessarily continue and increase when the discussion was done. What claim said his hon. and learned friend had this Bill upon the country? He was far from wishing to make such an important discussion the vehicle for party accusations. He did not blame the last Government, but he thought it scarcely right that those who had quitted the helm, when the country was in a state of great agitation on this very subject, should turn round, and say to the present Government, "This flame and this commotion is all your work." He would beg to state a few of the reasons which rendered him a cordial, and, as far as his powers enabled him, an active supporter of this Bill. He could not, at any stage of this question, exclude from his consideration that which his hon. and learned friend seemed desirous to exclude from it altogether—namely, the object of giving contentment to the people of England. His hon. and learned friend said, that the true way was, not to look to popular applause, but to do what was right, and look for a higher reward. He considered it one of the first duties of a government to give satisfaction and contentment to the people; and in this view he should take the liberty of stating with what sort of feeling he contemplated the whole of this subject, and why he had adopted the determination which he had done respecting it. It was impossible to shut one's eyes to the fact that the country was in a state of intense excitement, long before the present Government came into office, caused by the agitation of a partial question of Reform. He had looked at this circumstance, and he had looked at the constituency of the country,
712
at the state of the Representation, and at the law of Representation; and comparing these elements together, he had come to the conclusion that there must be a considerable modification of the Representative system. There was this phenomenon observable in the present condition of the country, that, with prodigiously increased knowledge, the people exhibited a growing alienation from the institutions of the country, particularly that branch of them which consisted in the system of representation practically established in that House. From seeing that alienation he became convinced that it was necessary to popularise the Representation, so as to produce harmony between the Government and the governed—the Legislature and those for whom laws were made—without which harmony there could be no power in Government, and no success in legislation. The House would allow him to state what he meant by that harmony. He did not look to the ephemeral popularity of the day, but he looked at the institutions of the country, to see if they were calculated to excite disinclination and disaffection amongst the people. When he saw that there was such a tendency in them, and that the law would allow of their being changed so as to obviate that spirit, he said that the House was not only justified, but bound, to make those alterations. The institutions ought to be accommodated to the wants of the people, and, therefore, he would not consent to the doctrine of his hon. and learned friend, that they should not look to what the people wished. He could not help calling the attention of the House to what, he had no doubt, would be found a very satisfactory passage on this subject, particularly as it proceeded from an able writer, and an accomplished lawyer. The author to whom he referred had observed, that a law, almost immediately after its being made, was reduced to a nullity by the practice; and he made this remark, which was applicable to this specific measure, as well as proving the necessity of adapting laws to the wishes and feelings of the people. The passage to which he referred ran thus:—"This should operate as a lesson to the Legislature not vainly to oppose the current of general opinion; for, although it might be diverted for a time, it will regain its old channel, in spite of accumulated Acts of Parliament, which become a dead letter, and have a

713
tendency to bring the most wholesome laws into disrepute." This passage was from one of the admirable works of his hon. and learned friend opposite. It was vain to hope that they could by laws resist the mind of a nation. They must base their measures in the feelings, the interests, and the affections of the people. He had heard his lamented friend (Mr. Huskisson) say, that one of the greatest inconveniences in legislating for this country now was, that it presented this singular phenomenon, that the higher and the lower classes of society were parting more and more from one another—the higher classes becoming more luxurious—refinement becoming more refined—while the general habits and mode of living of the lower orders were approximating more and more to a state of indigence and destitution. There was, however, this additional phenomenon in the present state of the country, that while the lower orders were diverging from the higher in their physical condition, they were approximating to them in their intellectual condition, which exposed the anomaly of their physical position, and gave them every species of knowledge which their acute perception of their physical ingenuity could fasten upon, and manifested more strongly the evils of their condition. This extraordinary but undeniable state of things led to this result, it aggravated all the distresses of the people and increased their discontent. He hoped he might, without offence, use the words, "if the light of the people be darkness, how great is that darkness?" If the knowledge they possessed only tended to show them in clear colours the depth of their own degradation—if it damped all their energies, and embittered all their thoughts, it might be deplored, but the evil could not be removed by dry maxims, or often-urged reasoning. No! the House must give the subject its best attention, and must not shrink from the proposition of a new measure, under circumstances so novel, merely because the proposition was new; and must be prepared to apply even our most established principles to such a state of things with some modification. The peculiar position had been very much aggravated by the extraordinary effect produced by the late war, and the subsequent peace, which still subsisted. He would not go into that involved question of political economy and statistics, which might be naturally excited
714
by the position he had laid down; but the fact, which no man would dispute was, that the extraordinary excitement of twenty years, occasioned by the last war, had been followed by a period equally extraordinary, which had now lasted nearly as long, and was likely to last longer—a period of great distress—of great prostration of strength—of the utmost lassitude and depression. While thus the capital of the country had diminished, partly in consequence of the destruction which had taken place during the last war, and partly from the circumstances attendant upon the stagnation of all branches of trade and commerce, it had not been followed by that result which might have been expected. The destruction of one portion of capital had been followed by a loss of profits on that which remained: the lower classes, who lived by their wages, were thus placed in a most destitute and distressed situation, and were completely separated from the higher orders of society. He was very unwilling to make use of the terms "higher" and "lower" classes; but it was necessary for the sake of clearness; for every body knew that both were equal in point of political importance—indeed, if there were any difference between them, it was in favour of the lower classes, as they were called. The effect of the state of things which he had endeavoured to describe was, that the Legislature had very difficult circumstances indeed to deal with; the people were viewing the Representative system with great jealousy, and, they were aware, that the Legislature, whether rightly or wrongly, he would not say, for he did not make comments on passing events, had been the authors of those measures which affected them, and which were immediately and constitutionally connected with the subject of Representation—he alluded to the imposition of taxes; and, therefore, they were very jealous of that body whose acts, whether justifiable or not, had produced these effects. It was this state of circumstances which rendered it a matter of so much importance to look narrowly into the state of our Representation, to see whether or not the complaints of the people were justified by the condition in which they were placed. He conceived that the best system of Representation must be, not that which exposed itself to the mere ephemeral influence of popular feeling, but that which was open to that great

715
current of popular feeling and inclination, which was commonly, and very aptly, called by the name of public opinion. If a legislative body were constituted which would be properly alive to public opinion, there was this important fact which hon. Gentlemen opposite entirely lost sight of, that not only would the people influence them, but they would influence the people. It was seen that the Members in whom the people had the greatest confidence, and whom they sent to that House to fight their battles, had the greatest influence with them—that they listened to their advice, and he did not know a more important consideration than that every honest Representative of the people should possess the confidence of, and be in frequent conference with, his constituents. Narrow, indeed, must be the mind of that man who stigmatized this mutual interchange of confidence and good-will by the opprobrious epithet of dictation, when a man pursuing this course of conduct would be fulfilling one of the most sacred duties, without which he would be compromising the honour and the dignity of his station as a Representative of the people in that House. What, then, was the principle on which a newly-constructed Representation should be founded? Perhaps he ought not to say newly-constructed, but a Representation constructed on just, equitable, and constitutional principles. What was the test which ought to be fairly applied to the Representative system, to ascertain whether it was well founded or not? or, perhaps, he should rather say, what test should be applied to ascertain whether the electoral body was founded rightly or wrongly? It was distinctly this—that, inasmuch as the Representatives of the people ought to be selected by that great body, whose intelligence and sentiments on political subjects formed the great current of popular opinion, the election of those Representatives should be substantially placed in the hands of that body by whom they professed to be chosen. He had heard many artificial modes and contrivances suggested in that House, but none which, in his opinion, could equal the simple principle of placing the election itself, generally and substantially, in the hands of those by whose opinions the conduct of the Representatives was to be estimated. All the contrivances he had heard stated for constituting Representative systems de-
716
void of this principle, reminded him of the elaborate and immense undertakings by which the ancients attempted to conduct water to their great cities. Surely, the principle which he had stated was the great principle that ought to be applied to Representation; and if that principle were applied, the system would be found to work well. If this Bill had no other advantages about it than those which were connected with admitting the middle classes—by which term he understood all the respectability, intelligence, and knowledge of the kingdom—to a share in the Representation, that would in itself be a sufficient recommendation. The next topic which had been sometimes fairly and forcibly urged on the other side of the House was this; they were told that after this Bill had passed, the Representative body would do any thing which the very extreme and extravagance of popular opinion might choose to expect. In answer to this observation, he would ask, not whether such and such effects would follow, but whether, with the hope of contenting the people, it was possible, when they asked for a part of their acknowledged rights, justly to say, "We refuse to give you that which we know we withhold unjustly, because if we were to give you more, the great benefits you expect would not follow, and you would, in consequence, be disappointed?" It was said—
"Of all the ills that human kind endure,
How small the part that kings or laws can cure."
This sentiment was just; but no Government could fairly refer to or utter that sentiment in addressing the people, unless that Government cured the small part which it was in their power to remedy. As men became more intelligent and enlightened, a much greater body of them ought to be put in contact with the whole process and machinery of the Representation, and freer access to that House should be afforded to those who might be justly considered as the Representative classes of the community. The immediate question was, not so much what consequences were likely to flow from the measure about to be adopted, but whether, it was possible by any other means, to conciliate the immense majority of unrepresented classes to the present state of things; for any measure of intimidation, was, in his opinion, totally impracticable, and it was equally certain that something must be done. He did

717
not expect any immediate or violent convulsions—he hoped they were far, very far, from our happy country—but he must augur ill from the signs of the times, and unless the people were reconciled to their Government, there would be more and more dissatisfaction—more and more aversion to, and alienation from, the institutions of the country—and a state must ultimately ensue which it was terrible to anticipate, and which ought to be looked to in time. What were the opinions held by Mr. Canning on the subject? In his last days, he predicted not, as an immediate consequence, but as one which was on the cards, and in the horizon of prospective policy, that a result would take place, which would begin in distress and madness, and would end in calamity and ruin, which would be pregnant with wickedness and misery, but against which we could not close our eyes, and which all must deprecate and do their best to avoid; namely, a war between property and the mass of the population of the country, in which the mere force of numbers would be arrayed against the wealth of England—against its sacred, noble, and venerable, but defective, institutions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that the Representation of the people ought to be restricted and contracted, one-third should be returned by the influence of the Peers, and another third by the influence of the Crown. He would only touch very briefly upon this part of the subject, because the evils arising from our present state of Representation were admitted, and, therefore it was not necessary to say much upon the subject. It was said that nomination boroughs were necessary, because they acted as the portals through which men of talents and ability, who were destitute of pecuniary resources, found their way to that House. But was this a popular part of the existing system of Representation? No; it was, above all others, the most odious to the people at large—whether justifiably or not—certainly very naturally so; and why?—because they knew the Members coming to that House through such means, were sent there by aristocratic nomination, to which the people were very naturally opposed, and which must be called by its proper name; and if it was so called, it was neither more nor less than corruption. He had but one topic more on which he would trouble the House. If such were the wishes and feelings of the people, and
718
if such were the state of the Representation, the next question was, what was the state of the law, and what were the acknowledged principles of the Constitution as applied to the formation of that House? because if the fact was, that the wishes and feelings of the people were not only opposed to, but at direct variance with, the acknowledged constitutional principles of the country, it certainly was high time that the system should be amended, and the wishes of the people complied with. If the present system was constitutional, right and just, he would then admit that there was just ground for refusing to comply with the wishes of the country. But was it so?—was it consistent with the well understood, universally acknowledged, and long established principles? Was that House constituted in compliance with the doctrines and opinions held by every constitutional writer who had applied himself to the subject? An aristocratic influence was exercised in sending Representatives to that House. Was that a principle of the British Constitution? Was that the language of the Journals of that House? Was that the language of the Standing Orders? Was that in accordance with the preamble of, at least, fifty Acts of Parliament, then upon that Table?—or, on the other hand, was it, or was it not, directly in the teeth, not only of the principles which hon. Members professed, but by virtue of which they sat in the British House of Commons at all? He would ask, was there any man who would venture to get up and propose to rescind one of those Standing Orders which forbade the influence of Peers in that House? And yet those Orders were not only totally forgotten when this subject was debated, but it was actually intended to violate every principle of the Constitution—every law of the State. He could only say, that he called upon learned constitutional lawyers on the other side of the House to enlighten his ignorance, if he was wrong in stating that there were some twenty or thirty Statutes in the books of that House, which stated, that the influence of the Crown, or the Peerage, in that House was unconstitutional and improper. Was there not an Order passed at the commencement of every Session, so much a matter of course, that no one ever questioned it, which declared that it was a gross breach of privilege in any Peer to interfere in the election of Members for the lower House?

719
Were they, then, or were they not, to stand by the principles to be found in allour parliamentary books and eminent writers? Or would they tell the people, that—without altering those Orders—without repealing those laws—they would not adhere to them, for fear of encroachment? Under these circumstances, it was quite impossible that, in this great and enlightened country, the Representative system could remain in the state in which it was at present. Considerable alterations must be made—alterations which, in the truest and evident sense, should give content and satisfaction to the people; and the very worst that could be done was, to advocate that which was called moderate Reform—that which professed to give something, but which, in fact, gave nothing—that which pretended to do much, but which, in fact, did nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman opposite was astonished that he (Mr. Robert Grant) should call this a measure, not of revolution, but of restoration. He had used the term advisedly. Was it an argument to tell the House, as he had done the other day, that these corrupt boroughs had been in the same state in all periods of our history? A question like this was not to be determined simply by counting on your fingers the names and numbers of the boroughs; but reference must be made to the general state of the country, to its wealth, and to the distribution of property in it. And it surely cannot be necessary for him to say, that that which affected to be Representation could not remain unchanged, while the circumstances and condition of the country were so materially altered. It was impossible not to reflect that these boroughs were not originally used for the purposes to which they were now applied, namely, to produce a certain mixture of the aristocracy, and to give an opportunity for the interference of Peers in that House. Everybody knew, that these boroughs were orginally used by the great Barons for patriotic purposes, and that they frequently employed them for the purpose of arming themselves against the power of the Crown, in times when the grossest acts of outrage and tyranny were committed—when corruption and tyranny were defended by force, and when crime and bloodshed found their refuge in a sanctuary. In short, they were at that period the strong holds of rising freedom in a nation of slaves—while they were now the strong
720
holds of expiring servitude in a land of freedom. He would beg, before he sat down, to call the attention of the House to the language which was addressed to the people by the opponents of this Bill, and by the moderate Reformers. They said—"You are so powerful, that we dare not defy you; you are so powerful that we dare not trust you." The people would answer—"If you think proper to trust us, trust us; if you think proper to defy us, defy us; but it is impossible that you can keep us in the extraordinary state in which you would confine us." He would say to the House, do not keep the people in suspense; trust them by passing the Bill, or defy them by assenting to the proposition of the noble Lord.
Lord Porchestertrusted the House would permit him, before he proceeded to state his opinions respecting the question immediately before them, to make a few observations in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Member who had just addressed the House. That right hon. Gentleman began his speech by asking the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes, what right he had to drag the House again through the discussion of every paltry topic with which they had been engaged for so many preceding months; but he (Lord Porchester) begged leave to ask what those topics, paltry as they were termed by the right hon. Gentleman, consisted of? They were connected with the great agricultural interests of the country, and with the staple pursuits of the kingdom. He (Lord Porchester) should have believed, unless informed to the contrary by the right hon. Gentleman, that these topics were of great importance to the great body of the people; that they were connected and identified with the interests of the community. At all events they were of the utmost consequence to the landed interest, a body which deserved much more attention from Ministers than on any occasion hitherto they had thought fit to afford it. That interest would not feel very much gratified with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman; for the apparent object of the Government, of which he formed a part was, to depress the agricultural community. The right hon. Gentleman had proceeded to ask, whether it was fair to charge the existing Government with the excitement which unfortunately prevailed throughout the kingdom? He (Lord Porchester) ever felt himself

721
most unwilling to make any observations which might appear offensive to any member of the Administration; but the right hon. Gentleman must excuse him if he said, that on that point he looked rather to the conduct, than to the professions of his Majesty's Ministers. They unquestionably succeeded to office under difficult and embarrassing circumstances, but was their conduct on their accession to their situations as advisers to his Majesty, such as was calculated to appease the excitement which at the period was so strongly marked on the public mind? Was not their conduct more calculated to maintain and foster revolutionary excitement, than to appease and mollify the fever which raged in the blood of the people? They brought in, in the first place, a measure of Reform. It was deemed advisable to take the sense of the people on this measure. But how was that appeal made? Instead of referring the question of Reform to the deliberate judgment of Parliament, they appealed to the excited passions of the people. They bribed the people with offers of immense political power, and, in defiance of all proper feeling, openly and avowedly enlisted the King's name in favour of their measure. Not only did they appeal to the natural fervour of the human heart, by statements of alleged wrongs and promised justice, but by an illegal and unconstitutional use of the King's name, the influence of which on certain classes might well be conceived—they excited the most violent passions and most maddening sentiments in the breasts of the unthinking people. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it was the solemn duty of Government to take means for securing the content of the people. Unquestionably such was the case; but was it their duty to place themselves at the head of the extravagant opinions of the day, opinions which, if consented to, and acted upon, they then knew must involve the ruin of the settled institutions of the country. He maintained that it was the duty of Government to yield slowly to change, and to avoid, as much as possible, the effects of precipitate innovation. If they were obliged to concede, they ought to enter slowly upon any change, in order that the people might be able to bear the new light, instead of being dazzled by its sudden appearance. The right hon. Gentleman said, he dreaded very much collision between property and numbers, and
722
then told the House that the Reform Bill was to obviate the danger of such collision. But it appeared to him (Lord Porchester) that this Reform Bill would have quite a contrary effect; in fact, it would realize that which the right hon. Gentleman apprehended. If the House acceded to it they would place at variance the property and interest of the country on one hand, and the people on the other. The right hon. Gentleman had subsequently alluded to the Standing Order prohibiting the interference of Peers in elections of the Members of that House. He was aware that there was a Standing Order of that nature on the books of the House; but he begged to ask if it was not a virtual infringement of another Standing Order to publish the debates which took place in that House? [cries of "Oh! oh!"] He begged to be understood. He was far from favourable to the enforcing of such an order. He adverted to it with a view of showing that there was such a Standing Order; but no hon. Member was ever heard to raise his voice against that order, while night after night, day after day, and week after week, allusion was made to the order respecting the interference of Peers at elections. The right hon. Gentleman then said, that one of the reasons which made it incumbent on the House to pass this measure of Reform was, the connexion that ought to exist between that Assembly and the people. Why, if a popular cry for Reform was alone sufficient to justify a departure from the established institutions of the country, they ought, for the same reason, to have departed from them some twenty or thirty years ago. He begged to ask that right hon. Gentleman, what was the language addressed to that House on the subject of Reform, when first that question was submitted to the consideration of the Legislature? was it not, "Reform yourselves from within, or you shall be reformed, with a vengeance, from without?" This was the tone in which the Parliament of that time was addressed; it was told that Reform or civil war was inevitable. But England had at that time a Government which would not brook the language that was held out to the House. Reform was not conceded, yet civil war was averted. He could direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the still more alarming state of public affairs which occurred in 1793—that awful period when France was convulsed

723
with the most dreadful phrenzy, which excited the revolutionary feelings of this country—when those formidable associations that now existed were also established, and when they were, as now, supported by eminent persons in this realm. What was then the conduct of the illustrious man who, in that extreme moment of national peril, swayed our destinies? Why, he pursued his even course, undaunted by the tempest that raged around him; he responded to the feelings of the nation, but obeyed not the voice of the demagogue. That was the course pursued by that great and good man, who then stood at the head of affairs in this country—not forgotten, indeed, but lost to his country—lost, as far as his services were concerned, but whose memory would flourish in the affections and hearts of all to whom the liberty he preserved, the civil peace he secured, and the Crown he maintained—but maintained, perhaps, in vain—were dear. That great and good man, whose better policy preserved him from sharing in the delusion of the times, gave the people time to reflect and ponder on passing events; he turned their thoughts to a nobler object; he told them to take a pride, not in attacking, but in defending the institutions of their fathers.
"Curbed their wild zeal, restrained their fiery mood,
And bade them look to what was wise and good."
He would now proceed to make a few observations upon the merits of the Bill; and he must express his belief that the greatest peril to be apprehended from it was involved in the Representation of the large towns, the Members for which would be, not only formidable from their numbers, but still more formidable in a moral point of view. After passing the Bill, Ministers could no longer look upon the county Members as the influential body they had been considered till now. The Representatives, or rather the delegates, of the great towns—animated by the same views—acting systematically together—supported by their numerous unions—speaking the extreme opinion of their constituents—watched by committees appointed to examine into their conduct—exposed to the feelings, the interests, the prejudices of their constituents—would be the men to whom the Government would have to look up. These would be the iron men who would hereafter govern the Government, and direct the destinies of the empire.
724
When the present Representatives of the nation were on some future day struggling for life, fortune, and family—for their altars and their homes—and when they were confronted by that band of republican opponents, they would then regret the change which they had sanctioned by a rash assent—they would then reflect that
"An erring hand may scatter in an hour
The mighty fabric of imperial power."
Ministers deceived themselves in anticipating the effects of the Bill, and when they saw the ruin which would ensue, they would regret the madness of their misguided zeal. It appeared to him, that so far from adding strength to our councils, it would produce the most shallow and fluctuating policy that ever enfeebled the energies of a people. Government, instead of being judged by its general policy, would be estimated by the course it followed on subordinate questions, and Members would be continually harassed by the demand of pledges at the hustings, and an inquisition into all the details of their parliamentary conduct, on the ground of responsibility. The honest pride of independent feeling would be despised. The ancient titles of Whig and Tory would be substituted by the agricultural and manufacturing interests. Those two interests would meet in that House as on a field of battle; disputes would almost amount to personal quarrels, and calm and disinterested deliberation would be forgotten amidst the squabbles for wealth and power. Now, an equal and impartial mingling of all the great interests of the state in that House, with the presence of many men of talents not connected with any one interest exclusively, gave a tone of calmness to discussion which hereafter could not be hoped for. They were about to destroy the means by which men of talents found their way into that House, who founded there the beginning of their greatness, and afterterwards applied their well-earned wealth and reputation to support the institutions which had first raised them from humble obscurity. This Constitution, great and glorious as it was, splendid and renowned as it was in the history of the world, was now about to be madly, rashly, and unsparingly destroyed, and with it that extraordinary union of the different interests of the kingdom to which he could trace the cause of the unexampled success of the Government of this country. His hon. friend, the member for the University of Oxford, observed, very justly, a few even-

725
ings ago, that Reform must be considered, not only per se, but with reference to those institutions which it might be likely to affect. But was it possible to believe that, after the passing of the Reform Bill, the Protestant Church of Ireland would maintain its present situation—and was not the Sovereign bound by a solemn oath to protect that Establishment? If the Sovereigns of this country persevered for so many years in refusing to accede to the great, and, as he thought, just measure of Catholic Emancipation, because, in their opinion, it seemed to militate against some principle, which, although not laid down, was involved in the Coronation Oath, would not their successors consider themselves bound in honour and faith to maintain that Oath, and refuse to accede to an arrangement which was clearly and indisputably opposed to the royal head? In what position, then, did they place their Sovereign, bound, as he was, by the most solemn pledges, to protect that Establishment, but unable, as he probably would be, to resist the pressure, which, through the medium of a Reformed House of Commons, would be effectually brought to bear against him. Certainly these considerations ought to have some weight with the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, who, if he misunderstood him not, on a former occasion pledged himself never to lend his powerful aid to any measure that he might consider injurious to that much calumniated Church. He entreated the House to consider well what would probably be the immediate effects of Parliamentary Reform in Ireland. They were now transferring political power from those who loved, to those who did not love the Constitution—from men anxious to preserve the legislative union with this country unbroken, to those who would rend it asunder with remorseless hands. They were breaking down all powers of resistance, and all hopes of security—abandoning a people who would still adhere to them, who clung to them for safety and protection, whose attachments, whose prejudices, nay, whose very faults and excesses were all with them, and for them. Were they not, then, depriving themselves of their own resources, rendering themselves powerless, rejecting that without which the British bayonet would be as the wave upon the rock, which, dashing against it, produced clamour and confusion, but hurting not the solid mass against which its fury was directed? Was this wisdom? Was it not weakness, or, rather, was it not mad-
726
ness? There was a great, a noble peace-offering given to Ireland, in the shape of Catholic Emancipation, but the acts of his Majesty's Ministers had rendered that peace-offering ineffective—they had rekindled the ashes of a fire which would have been speedily extinguished, and, by doing so, they had founded one great cause of commotion in that unhappy country. As soon as Ireland presented a prospect of peace and quiet, they supplied it with another theme of tumult and discord, by the agitation of the question of Parliamentary Reform; and, if to the increased influence of the democratic party in Ireland was to be added the Scotch Representation, mischievous, indeed, would be the results which would flow from the system it was proposed to introduce. When he looked to the history of Scotland, and found, that, so far back as the time of Charles 1st, the Scotch Parliament boldly stood forward and expressed their opinion—when he found that they boldly declared that the King had absolutely forfeited his Crown—when he saw this spirit lighting up every page of Scottish history—when he looked to the conduct of the Peers of Scotland—when he took into consideration the high and noble spirit of its people—when he saw, that long before the period to which he had alluded, the liberty of the subject was recognised in Scotland to an extent which was then unknown in any other country, he was irresistibly led to draw the necessary inference, if any deduction could be drawn from these circumstances, that the anti-monarchical spirit, so far from diminishing, would be increased to an alarming extent. The prosperity of Scotland was not mainly owing, as the hon. Gentleman opposite would have led them to believe, to the operation of the influx of a popular constituency. He was far from saying that no change whatever should be made in the Scottish Representation; but, he certainly did think, that the abolition of the old system, and the substitution of a popular constituency in that part of the kingdom would be attended with the very worst and most dangerous results. He would not detain the House five minutes longer; but he was desirous of troubling it with a remark on a topic which had now become rather old—the French Revolution. The first French Revolution was produced, in the first instance, by too much concession on the part of the Crown to the demands of the people. He need not remind the House of the result—it never will be for-

727
gotten. But there was one part of the subject which bore a striking analogy to the present case, and had not yet been touched upon, and which could not fail to strike home to the feelings of every hon. Gentleman who heard him—he meant the effect of the concession, not of the Crown, not of the aristocracy, but of the Legislature itself. The National Assembly of France, at that period, contained men as talented and virtuous, in both their public and private capacities, as any who sat in that House; and yet they, as a body, advocated the policy of committing an act from which, as individuals, they would have recoiled with horror and disgust. On that memorable night, when, after the death of Robespierre, the indignant members of the Assembly required some national atonement for the atrocities that had been committed—when they demanded that the most execrable minister that ever existed should render an account of his crimes, what must have been their horror when the blood-stained monster—his hands reeking with the blood of the virtuous and the brave—produced the written sanction of the very Assembly which had turned upon him for all his atrocious and sanguinary acts? And yet that Assembly contained men as virtuous, as humane, and as honourable, as those he had now the honour of addressing; but, conceding in the first place, without sufficient cause, bound down afterwards by fear and terror—they were driven along their blood-stained path, the unresisting, though reluctant, agents of the power which they had themselves created. What must have been their feelings of shame and remorse—of self-upbraiding—for deeds of disgrace and horror, committed too soon, and repented too late, when their guilty leader, their wicked companion,
—Perished by the justest doom
That ever the destroyer yet destroyed?"
Oh! might a British Legislature never look back upon the path they had trod with useless sorrow and unavailing remorse! Might they never feel the pangs of conscience and self-upbraidings which the virtuous, but erring, members of the French Assembly endured, when they saw the blood flow from the noble and the brave of the country, while they had the will, but, alas! not the power to save them! Before he sat down, he would notice an argument which had been so unsparingly and frequently urged on the other side of the House—namely, that the borough-
728
mongers forced the country into the last war, and that war was, therefore, owing to the defective Constitution of that House. But was not the late French war the most important in which this country was ever engaged—in unison with the popular feeling, and was not the conduct of Mr. Fox hailed with joy and enthusiasm years after the commencement of hostilities? Was it considered as attributable to the defective Constitution of that House, when the Minister, as he returned from the conclusion of the peace, was received with cheers, and every possible demonstration of public applause, when congratulatory addresses poured in upon him from every part of the kingdom, and when the cry of the nation was in favour of that Constitution which had produced such glorious results? Who was it that would have plunged this country into unnecessary, and, perhaps, interminable hostilities with France some seven or eight years ago, not at a period when the exuberance of national valour and impatience might be forgiven in the excess of national prosperity—not at a time when our finances were unimpaired, and our Treasury was overflowing, but at a period when distress was throughout the land—when it paralyzed every interest, and depressed every branch of trade and commerce? By whom was the propriety of embarking in hostilities advocated at that period? It was advocated, he had no doubt conscientiously, by men of talent, and by men of honour—not by the Government, however, but by stanch Reformers. He was not alluding to his right hon. friend, the member for Hampshire, who brought the subject forward with so much ability—he did not actually recommend a war, certainly, but it was recommended, notwithstanding, by some of the most distinguished members of the Reforming Cabinet. When, therefore, the French war, and all the expenses attendant upon it, were charged to the state of the Representation, he hoped that hon. Members would remember, that the same state of Representation had sanctioned a war demanded by the Reformers and by the passions of the people. He would say no more than that he conscientiously opposed this Bill because he sincerely believed, that, if it were passed, it would seal the doom of the monarchy.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he could assure the House, as well as the noble Lord who had just sat down, that the same disinterestedness which had prompted

729
the noble Lord to give vent to his opinions would mark the observations he should offer. He trusted that he might be allowed, however feebly, to express his opinions on the subject now before the House—opinions not now taken up for the first time, not for the occasion, but opinions which he had long formed, and been able to form, from his education—an education which, thank God, was now open to every man in a fair condition of life who had been born on this happy soil. He must be excused for saying (and he did so with all due deference to the noble Lords and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and to their characters and opinions), that nothing he had heard, during the whole of the long discussions on the question before the House, had shaken his conviction upon that question. He begged to repeat the words of a great Reformer, in the present as well as another way (he meant Mr. Wilberforce), who had said, in a speech upon this very question, "that hon. Members were so afraid of innovation, that they would not go into any new argument." He repeated that the hon. Gentlemen had offered no new argument in opposition to the Ministers. They had tried to frighten the agricultural interests. They had tried to frighten the funded interests, the people, the King, Lords, and Commons; and doing all this, they had charged the Government with attempting to intimidate; whereas the fact was, that not a single argument had been used by the opposite side of the House, but with a view to terrify the Government from that which they and the people of England thought, not only right, but actually indispensable. The effects of their attempts to terrify had happily been the reverse of what was expected. A reference to the Members elected by the counties would show that they did not respond to the patriotic feelings of the hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The agricultural interests, therefore, were not terrified by their efforts, for it would be found that no less than seventy-six Members for counties had been returned to vote for this very Bill. The opinion of the funded interests could not be made so palpable, but it was evident that they had not been alarmed (though he was not sure if the right hon. Gentleman, the ex-Secretary to the Admiralty, was a fundholder, from the tenor of his observations); but if the right hon. Gentleman felt alarm himself, his panic had not been responded too, as was evident from the state of the funds and fundhold-
730
ers now, compared with their state at the period when the present Government came into power. He thought that when the Reform Bill or cause of Reform as connected with the present Government became the question with the country, then it had been seen that the three per cents in England, in spite of the efforts made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, had not only stood the terrors of the Reform Bill, but the terrors of the opposition. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Porchester), the eldest son of a noble house, alluded to the agricultural interests. He begged to ask the noble Lord if the interest he had advocated sympathized with the noble Lord and his friends on this question. He would plainly tell the noble Lord they did not. It had been said, that one county (Dorsetshire) had manifested this feeling, and the noble Mover of the Amendment (Lord Mahon) had referred to it "with pride and pleasure," as an exception to the other counties of England and Wales. He (Sir John Hobhouse) did not regret the result of that election; it was a triumph gained, and he was proud it had fallen upon such a head as it had done, and he was perfectly willing to give the hon. Gentleman opposite the advantage of that fact. It was in vain to say, that the county Representation was a proof of hostility to the measure, or that its support was gained by Ministers under feverish excitement. This last, of all others, was the strangest argument that had been used, particularly coming from Gentlemen who, when the Catholic question came on, in the year 1829, called upon the Government to dissolve the Parliament for the special purpose of applying to the people for their opinions upon the subject. The hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford University, had used that language; and had on that question repeatedly said, that Parliament not being called upon to try whether or not Roman Catholics should be permitted to sit in that House, and be relieved of the disabilities under which they laboured—that Parliament not being called ad hoc, the people should be called on for their opinion, and when they had given their verdict, that then, and not till then, should the Government come forward with their measure. But the present Government had been charged with making use of the king's name. That was not true: but supposing it were, did it deserve what was said of it? Was it a novelty in the history of our Constitution? Was it not justified by preced-

731
ents? 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 dissolution of 1784, which took place against the positive sense of the House of Commons? On March the 24th of that year Parliament was dissolved, because Mr. Pitt had only a majority of forty-eight. The Crown made an appeal to the people, and, after the election, the Ministers had a majority on the first division of 282 to 114. Only one person, Mr. Burke, attacked the dissolution; and its defence was undertaken by Sir Archibald Macdonald, who said, that when the state of the House was such that two contending parties were nearly equal, that was exactly and precisely the case when the Royal prerogative should be called into exercise. But what happened in 1807? In all the essential circumstances of the case that was precisely like the last dissolution. The Parliament had been sitting but four months; the country was involved in foreign war, and Ireland was threatened with rebellion. The Ministers, on a division, had a majority of forty-six. At that dissolution, what said the King's Commissioners?—"We are further commanded to state to you, that his Majesty is anxious to recur to the sense of his people, while the events which have recently taken place are yet fresh in their recollection. His Majesty feels that, in resorting to this measure, under the present circumstances, be at once demonstrates, in the most unequivocal manner, his own conscientious persuasion of the rectitude of those motives upon which he has acted, and affords to his people the best opportunity of testifying their determination to support him in every exercise of the prerogative of his Crown, which is conformable to the sacred obligations under which they are held, and conducive to the welfare of his kingdom."* After this, would any of the Gentlemen opposite—who, if they were anything, were the children of these their political fathers—would they say, that when the Ministers could not carry a great political principle, that they were to blame for exercising the King's authority, and that they had put the prerogative of the Crown to a use to which it ought not to be applied? One of the Ministers of that day, Mr. Perceval, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, was charged with writing an inflammatory address to
Hansard's Parl. Debates, vol. ix. P. 552.
732
his constituents just as the noble Lord, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been charged with writing to his constituents. And what was said by Mr. Perceval? that distinguished individual, in reply to the charge, when the Parliament met, simply asked, "if the cry was false, how came it to run like wildfire through the country, and produce such an effect as no speech of his in Parliament, nor his address to his constituents at Northampton, nor any speech from the Throne had ever done? It had produced the effect because, it was true." That was Mr. Perceval's answer to the charge of making use of the King's name, and of exciting the people. At the conclusion of the report of the debate, which took place on this letter of Mr. Perceval, he found a note to which he begged to call the attention of the House. It was as follows:—"Mr. Croker spoke for some time with much animation, in answer to Lord Howick and Mr. Grattan, and concluded by supporting the Ministers in their dissolution of Parliament." He referred to these extracts merely with a view to show that his Majesty's Government had resorted to the best authorities before they adopted the line of conduct which had been spoken of, and they had at least a precedent if not a justification, for the course which they had pursued in what had been done in the olden times, even in the memorable days of Charles 1st., with the details of which he would not trouble the House. He admitted he had been at first much shaken when he saw men of high talent and character entertaining doubts upon this measure; and if he thought there was any thing like innovation, or one-tenth part of the danger stated by some right hon. Gentlemen opposite as likely to ensue from this measure, he would give it up. He regretted with the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes—and he honoured him for the sentiment—that this question had not 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. Good God! could they contemplate with cold hearts those threatened evils? If he thought they would arrive, he would say, retrace your steps. He regretted that it could not be based on principles which would promote an amicable settlement. Language could not express the vast importance which he ascribed to this subject; it was a vital question, and he

733
regretted that all parties could not have come to an amicable adjustment of the greatest question, perhaps, which any deliberative assembly had to discuss. 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. He said that the country felt that it had been discussed as a party question ["No, no"]. Well, then, that was his opinion. He did not make any charge he was only stating a fact. One party proposed the measure, and another resisted it. The Administration had scarcely taken office when strange questions were put to, and personal charges brought against, individuals composing it, showing that it was to be treated as a party. What, too, was the conduct of the opposition on the Budget? What happened also on the question of the Timber Duties, when the Government was only endeavouring to carry into execution the recorded designs of the Gentlemen opposite? That ran through their whole conduct; he might refer to the sugar duties and the Russian-Dutch loan, concerning which a right hon. Gentleman asked an important question on the very night that the Reform Bill stood for a second reading. Could the Ministers, with such an opposition, make concessions? It was not possible. It was said if the present question was not a party one, why not have met it half way, so that the country might be satisfied? Why, it was impossible that the Government could have done that with such an opposition. It was a mockery to think it. The Government would have been laughed at by their opponents, and become the joke of the lobby itself. They would have been laughed at by all the green and blue box-men even, and their conduct would have been described as childish, silly, and contemptible. 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. What! conciliate an enemy, modify the Reform Bill with Gentlemen who were only trying to trip up the heels of the Administration! The Opposition had appealed to the passions and feelings of the House, and had called into action all the rules of tragedy and
734
poetry as laid down by Aristotle. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, engaged in the no-pleasing task of keeping together his almost beaten party, and the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Harwich, who stated, he "was armed too strong in honesty" and so forth, ought to have come boldly forward with their opposition to the Bill. Then the right hon. Gentleman poured forth his profound soul, and gave his plan; and what did he say? "You are for giving every thing, and I am for giving nothing." And now the right hon. Gentleman must excuse him for imitating him a little in taking the argument of the hon. member for Calne, who had taunted them with having no plan to propose; but now it appeared that he had a plan to propose. Well, was he entitled to say, to those who should throw ridicule on his plan, not merely "ingrata patria," but "ingrati omnes," since thus was treated his plan, which—hear it—was just this—not to alter the number of Members returned to Parliament. They were grateful for small matters, and he felt his share of the gratitude to be great. The question now before the House was, not by any means that which had been put by a noble Lord (Valletort) the other night, when he said, that he wished to see such an alteration in this Bill as would enable him to cross the House and support Ministers, which, too, if the Bill were altered as he wished, the noble Lord had magnanimously and gallantly said he would do even though he were alone. The question, in point of fact, is not what kind of Reform we are to have, but whether we are to have Reform, or the right hon. member for Tamworth in office, with his Reform—that is, no Reform at all. Unfortunately, politics and principles were so mixed up with individuals, that the question in general was, not what principles were to guide, but who was to be the Minister of the country. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that it would be better to leave matters as they were than to expose the country to the danger which must result from perpetual changes of Administration. An instability of Government was always an evil. The right hon. Baronet 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 suppose that it

735
was possible to form a Government in this country of which the leading principle should not be Reform. He was not aware of any middle course that could be taken; and there must be either a Government on the old principles, under which it was said they had flourished so much; or a Government on the principle of that the ministerial side of the House, founded above all on the basis of free Representation. And now allow him to allude to the manner in which the Bill had been opposed, and he would take the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Robert Peel) as an exemplification. The right hon. Gentleman had at one time complained of the raising the qualification of borough voters, and then concluded by deprecating pauper votes. Another time he had said, that the Government had not adopted any of his suggestions, while again in a short time he said, that they had all been taken. Then came the charge of revolution, which came strangely as an accusation from those who lauded the Revolution of 1688. That the Bill was a change there was no doubt; but what state had ever reached greatness that had not frequently changed, or as Macchiavelli expressed it, which had not recurred to first principles. It had been said, the other night, that not only would the House of Peers be destroyed, but that the Throne would be upset; this was urged as a menace not to be misunderstood, as references were made to James 2nd, with some hints given to the King now upon the Throne. But he (Sir John Hobhouse) would say, that this was a revolution better than that of 1688. We were not going to cashier a monarch, we were not going to change from James to William; we had our own William; and the only change was that of Gatton and Old Sarum for Manchester and Birmingham. It was only that change long wished for in England—that of having a Parliament responsible to its constituency, instead of an irresponsible Parliament. The hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge had gone a little too far the other night with respect to the other House of Parliament, for we were to presume that they would act rightly. They had exercised a sound discretion before and, he trusted, that they would do so now. But there had been so much said of the House of Peers—it had been so constantly repeated that the English Peers should avoid the fault into which the French peers had fallen—that he could not avoid saying a word or two upon that
736
topic. The right hon. Gentleman had talked to them of the fault committed by the noblesse of France early in the revolution, and remarked that by their yielding too soon they lost every thing. When he (Sir John Hobhouse) heard this, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not read history aright, and the fact was so. Unhappily for the French peers, they took the contrary line, and took their stand upon privileges which had grown obsolete. On this subject he would beg leave to read a passage from the work of a distinguished lady—Madam de Stael. When the illustrious daughter of Necker composed her reflections on the principle events of the French Revolution, it was not at a moment when passions or prejudices were in a high state of excitement, nor was the work written in her early life, but when her judgment was matured, after the restoration of the House of Bourbon. The passage was this:—
"The minority of the noblesse—that is to say, more than sixty members of the most illustrious birth, and partaking by their genius the intelligence of the age—were also of opinion that it was proper to deliberate by number, and not by order, on the future constitution of France; but the majority of their brethren, together with a portion of the clergy, although they showed themselves more moderate, refused, with an unheard of obstinacy to adopt any mode of conciliation. They did, indeed, declare that they were ready to renounce their exemption from taxes, but nevertheless at the opening of their Session they chose to treat that which the whole nation considered as their right, as if it were merely a subject for negotiation. Time was lost in wretched quibbling, in polite refusals, in new difficulties. When the tiers etats raised their tone and displayed their force, that force which consisted in the will of the nation, the court noblesse all-accustomed as they were to bend to power, gave way; but when the crisis appeared to be past, they re-assumed their arrogance, and began again to talk of the tiers etat as if they lived in the time when the serfs solicited their franchises from the hands of their territorial lords. The smaller nobility of the provinces were even less tractable than the great Lords. The latter felt a security guaranteed by historic recollections; but the former, with titles scarce known except to themselves, saw that they were on the eve of losing distinctions which now imposed on no one. To hear them talk of their rank, one would have supposed that their patents dated from the creation of the world; whereas all the world knew that they were of very recent origin. They considered their privileges, useless as they were to all but themselves, in the same light as property, on which the security of all is necessarily founded.

737
Privileges are sacred only when they contribute to the public good; in order to preserve them, it is indispensable that we should have recourse to reasoning, and they cannot be really stable except when consecrated by public utility. But the majority of the noblesse contented themselves with these words, 'It was so formerly.' It was in vain that they were told that former circumstances had brought about the events of former days, and that present circumstances had produced those of their own times. Nothing could convince them; they laboured under a certain aristocratical fatuity, inconceiveable except in France—a mixture of frivolous manners with pedantic opinions and all combined with the most complete disdain for superior intelligence and for genius, except indeed when that genius chose to stultify itself, that is to say, employed itself in the attempt to force back the march of human 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 permission also to read:—
"The majority of the noblesse finding itself, in 1789, abandoned by intelligence and talent, indiscreetly proclaimed the necessity of employing force against the popular party. We shall see if there was any such force then in existence: at all events we may say, beforehand, that if it did not exist it was very imprudent to threaten it."
So much for the French Revolution, which the friends of freedom had more cause to deplore than their opponents, who always held it up as a ready example to scare the lovers of liberty from an attempt to attain it. This, he hoped, would be a lesson to some of the illustrious persons in the other House of Parliament, and sincerely given, not to terrify, but to set them right with respect to the misrepresentation which was so industriously circulated. He or his friends did not use such terms as those of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Croker)—namely, calling the people of England a populace, saying that they were like wild beasts, insatiable, and would run headlong until there was a general war. These terms had been used by that Gentleman, and particularly that of "deluging with blood" seemed a favourite. Such phrases as these might do for an article in a Review, or might have answered in a packed Parliament, but they would never do in that House again; and the right hon. Gentleman belied his genius, and degraded his talent, when he used such an argument to
738
terrify men who, if they were degraded enough to be wrought upon by such means, were unworthy of his care or attempts to preserve them. Then the opponents of the Bill talked of the Press, but had they no Press of their own? Was this not black ingratitude to the Morning Post; and could not the right hon. Gentleman recognise a friendly hand in the daily eulogiums that were lavished on him. They not only had a Press, but it would be odd if they had not when it was their boast that all the learned men of England were against this Bill. Still they would talk of the venomous Press in favour of Reform; but he held in his hand what came from the opposite party, and he could scarcely believe it when he read it. It was an extract from a publication which enjoyed great reputation in the north, and appeared monthly; the prophecy in August last, to be fulfilled in two months, was this:—"By that time there will be no peers in France; we shall have war by land and sea. There will be a dust at Manchester, which will be laid in blood, and the new Parliament will meet in peace and jollity." Then the prophecy went on—"I trust the Duke of Wellington has a campaign or two in him still. Sir Henry Hardinge, if things go well, will be a Secretary of State, and he may come down and raise his standard in Yorkshire." That was the prophecy. 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? Surely those who spoke thus cavalierly of laying dust in blood, and raising the standard in Yorkshire, had no reason for blaming that portion of the Press which advocated Reform: For himself he contemplated no such evils as those which some hon. Members seemed to anticipate. His belief was, that everything would go on well. He did not contemplate a revolution like that of 1688, he did not look for any "restoration." He had no doubt that those who had hitherto opposed Reform would see the necessity of yielding; and that they would recollect the opinion of one of the greatest men that ever lived, expressed at a time of great peril, which ended in his ruin, and that of his country. He alluded to a passage in one of Cicero's letters to Lentulus, stating the reasons which rendered it expedient to yield to inevitable power; and he remembered that when he heard of the conversion of the right hon.

739
Baronet opposite to the cause of Catholic Emancipation, it occurred to him that that right hon. Baronet had been influenced by the passage in question:—
"Nam neque pugnandum arbitrarer contra tantas opes; neque delendum, etiam si id fieri posset, summorum civium principatum: neque permanendum in una sententia, conversis rebus, ac bonorum voluntatibus immutatis: sed temporibus assentiendum. Numquam enim præstantibus in republica gubernanda viris laudata est in una sententia perpetua permansio: sed ut navigando tempestati obsequi artis est, etiamsi portum tenere non queas: cùm verò id possis mutata velificatione assequi, stultum est eum tenere cum periculo cursum, quem ceperis, potiùs qùam, eo commutato, quò velis, tandem prevenire; sic, cùm omnibus nobis in administranda republica propositum esse debeat id, quod à me sæpissmè dictum est, cum dignitate otium: non idem semper dicere, sed idem semper spectare debemus."
Mr. Crokersaid, that after the most irregular illusion which had been made to him, he trusted he might be heard for a few moments. The right hon. Baronet imputed to him violent language in speaking of the people of England. He wished the right hon. Baronet had noticed it at the time at which it was uttered. 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 speaking at the time; and what he said was in reference to the abstract principle of innovation, which he said would be insatiable if once allowed to taste its food until wild beast like, it had destroyed all that came within its reach, when it might fall down, not so much because it was glutted, as because it could find nothing more to devour. The right hon. Baronet had also alluded ["cries of spoke" here compelled the right hon. Gentleman to stop].
Sir Robert Peelsaid, in the very multifarious speech of the right hon. Baronet—a speech which some persons seemed to think amusing, there was one topic wholly omitted, and that topic the Bill of Reform. As it was his wish, however, to address himself solely to that topic, involving, as it unquestionably did, the most important matter that had been ever agitated in Parliament, he should not waste the time of the House by the slightest notice of far the greater part of the speech of the right honourable Gentleman, which
740
had not the slightest connection with the subject. This was the first speech of the right hon. Gentleman since his acceptance of office, and was it to be expected that, on a subject of such vital interest, he should have thought merely of defending the conduct of his new colleagues on matters entirely extraneous to Reform? Was that the only opportunity he could find of setting forth his own merit as the champion of the Administration? Was that a time to dig from its grave the unfortunate Budget of 1831? The right hon. Gentleman charged the opposers of the Reform Bill with having entered into a party combination to strangle in its cradle that unfortunate and ricketty offspring of the Government. Combination, indeed! why, there was no necessity for them to lift a hand or say a word against it. It was quite enough for them to stand quietly by, and leave the Budget to be smothered by the Reformers. The misshapen offspring of financial love fell beneath the blows of the Reformers. Who extinguished the threatened tax on funded property? Why, the hon. Member (Mr. John Smith), he, who, on the night when the Reform Bill was brought in, said, he lost his breath with delight and admiration of the measure, retained sufficient to puff out the life of that wretched abortion. The proposed taxes on landed property and on steam vessels vanished, not through the exertions of the opponents of Reform, but because the friends of that measure denounced such taxes as mischievous and absurd. So much for the misrepresented facts of the right hon. Baronet. Now, to say one word of his doctrine: Was Reform, then, already come to this, that the Members of that House were not at liberty to examine the conduct of Government? Must they be altogether silent upon the Budget? must they take no notice of the public expenditure? must they hold their peace upon all the subjects, however important, the Government might think fit to introduce; because Government must not be disturbed in its great labour of hatching Reform? The right hon. Baronet referred, with particular emphasis, to a question put on the subject of the Russian-Dutch loan on the night the Reform Bill stood for a second reading. And why not on that night? Were such inquiries distasteful to Reformers, and incompatible with their Reforms? But he would pass to other and more important matter than the speech of the right hon. Baronet. There was, indeed, something in the personal appeal made to

741
himself by the right hon. Gentleman which might, even upon an occasion like the present, justify him in intruding for some time upon the House, in answer to such an appeal, but, as that was the last opportunity he should have of stating his sentiments on the Bill, he would proceed, without further observation on the speech they had last heard, to the proper subject of debate—that tremendously important change, on which the future prosperity and grandeur of this mighty empire would depend. After the long lapse of time that it had been in progress through the House—after giving to it all the consideration its importance required—after the various alterations made in it, he should have felt happy if it was in his power now to say, that he saw in it less that was objectionable than when it was first proposed. He must, however, declare, that the reverse was the case. The time expended on it, however long, had cured none of the evils of the original measure. The more he considered that measure, the more he reflected on the consequences to which it would lead—consequences embracing every thing most valuable in the institutions and frame of society—the more he felt anxiety and apprehension, the more his objections were confirmed and strengthened. In whatever view he regarded it—whether with reference to its origin, to the period at which it was brought forward, to the example on which it was founded, to the means by which it was attempted to be carried, or to the consequences which might be expected from its adoption—he was filled with astonishment, mortification, and dismay. But vague and general condemnation of the measure was not his object. He had no other wish than calmly to review the main arguments on which an experiment—admitted by its authors to be a most perilous one—had been justified. The leading grounds on which the Bill rested for its defence were two. First, that it was fraught with great practical benefit, since it remedied actual defects in the Constitution long complained of by the people, by giving them a more full and free Representation, by putting an end to small boroughs, conferring the elective franchise on large towns now unrepresented, and providing a guarantee for future good government. The second ground for it was, that there was so general a demand for Reform that no discretion was left to the Legislature, that, whether
742
good or bad per se, that or some equally efficient measure must be adopted to conciliate the people, and to enable any Administration to carry on the Government of the country. For anything in the shape of real substantial argument in support of either of these grounds he must again refer to the speech of the member for Calne. That hon. and learned Gentleman supported the measure upon the ground that it would improve the present system of Representation, by giving the people more influence in the election of their Representatives; and more control over the action of the Executive Government; and he inferred, as a necessary consequence of this increased influence and control on the part of the people, an increase of the general happiness. If that inference were a just one, there was an end of the question; but the whole point at issue was, on the justness of that inference, on the question—whether the great ends for which Government was constituted would be promoted, in this country, by a vast increase of democratic power. The learned Gentleman exhorted us to make the experiment of a great change in the Representative system, on the express ground that the present system has proved a failure. He totally denied the assertion of Mr. Canning—which was the foundation of his argument against Reform, namely, "That the system has worked well." The learned Gentleman admitted, that, if it had worked well—well for the country at large—the reasons for extensive change were materially weakened. As a proof that it had not worked well, he desired them to survey the whole structure of society, and to deny, if they could, that there was great privation, great suffering, great distress. They could not deny it, but they asserted, at the same time, that that suffering and that distress were not justly attributable to defects in the form or constitution of the governing power. How could society be formed, how could it exist, without vast and striking inequalities in human condition—without the extremes of worldly prosperity, and worldly privation? They had the "humble shed" and the "contiguous palace," that sheltered rather than shamed it. And it was not enough to allege, or to prove, such inequalities, or the existence of much real and undeniable evil, much unmerited and incurable suffering;—was that evil caused by defects in the Representation, and would it be removed by the removal of the supposed defects? This was the question.

743
The learned Gentleman was obliged to admit, that, in many most important particulars—in its influence on the administration of justice—on the formation of national character—the system had worked well. But, then he maintained, that all that was good in the constitution of society was attributable to popular control on the action of Government; that all that was evil was attributable to the absence or diminution of that control. Therefore, said the hon. Gentleman, "increase the control, and you will increase the good, and abate the evil." But surely that reasoning took for granted much that could not hastily be admitted. Was it so clear that to democratic influence we owed all that was estimable in social life? Did it follow, that, admitting that the existence of that influence was essential to the maintenance of the blessings we enjoyed, that the increase of that influence must necessarily make a corresponding increase of the good which flowed from it? Might not all depend, in politics as well as physics, on the due admixture and proper proportions of contending elements? Suppose the learned Gentleman were to argue thus:—"I find the air we breathe a compound of certain qualities—one pure, the other noxious—one essential to combustion, to respiration, to the maintenance of vegetable and animal life. To the one I attribute all the enjoyment of life, and to the other, all that is destructive of it; let us separate the evil principle from the good one, and let us in future breathe nothing but oxygen." His argument in that case would be just as rational as his argument in the present case—that we have nothing to do but increase the democratic power, in order to ensure good government and public happiness. The great inequalities in the condition of mankind might be, in one point of view, an evil. There was—who could deny it—superfluous affluence co-existent with acute and undeserved suffering. But could they eradicate the evil, if it be one, without evils ten times greater—without destroying the security of property—the incentive to industry and virtuous exertion—without undermining the foundations of society? Nay, was there not reason to doubt whether one of the consequences of improved civilization, by stimulating ingenuity, by protecting property, was not to create and increase those inequalities in worldly prosperity—those contrasts of extravagant wealth and deplorable penury, which were
744
alleged as the proofs of defective government? It was useless, and worse than useless, to excite the hope that any Reform, or any powers of legislation, could remedy much of the evil which they knew and admitted to exist. What had been the course which, in this Session, the authors of the measure of Reform had themselves pursued, with respect to cases of notorious and grievous suffering? In the course of the last fortnight petitions 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 earn their livelihood? The facts were admitted; and what course did the Government take? Did they encourage any hope of relief from legislation? 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 improve your situation by parliamentary interference—nay, we will not even inquire into the causes of your distress, for the inquiry itself would only raise expectations which must be disappointed." And such language might be wise. But if wise on that point, it was wise also with reference to the Constitution. It proved that severe privations might be suffered, without an impeachment of that Constitution. That language, as he before observed, might be wise, but what was it that had enabled the Government to hold it? What was it that had enabled the Government, at different periods, to act independently of petty local interests and popular prejudices, and to follow that course only which they thought for the benefit of the people at large—what but the borough Representation? What was it but that which had enabled Mr. Canning to pursue such a course? He had given up the Representation of Liverpool, because he found that the protection of local interests might embarrass his action as a Minister of the Crown. He had taken refuge in a small borough, where he had no such interests to consult, and, by that means, was enabled to devote all the energies of his mind to a general and comprehensive view of the various and complicated concerns of the whole country. The present Ministers had been able to adopt a similar course with respect to many minor questions, in consequence of the excitement which existed about the Reform Bill. They had been made, in a manner, inde-

745
pendent of their own supporters—independent of popular clamour on commercial subjects, by the overwhelming interest attached to one particular question. 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." But would they always be able to do that? Certainly not. The time would come when they could no longer avail themselves of the powerful lever of Reform—when they could not direct, but must submit, to popular impulse. When that time came, he doubted whether they would have the same power of applying general principles, and disregarding temporary clamour, whether they would then be able to refuse Committees, which would be required on every depression of trade, and at every moment of partial distress, deranging the course of commerce, and unsettling the credit and the business of the country. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that if a Reform had some years since taken place in the House, we should have had, first, an improved system of legislation, both as regarded commerce and jurisprudence; and, next, an effectual discouragement of war. Such wars, he said, too, as were necessarily entered into would not have been so feebly conducted; and, in time, we should have been free both from the rancorous hostilities of domestic party spirit, and from the fear of foreign invasion. The country would have enjoyed internal repose, and the blessings of general peace. It was very easy to say these things, but extremely difficult to prove them. The hon. and learned Gentleman had assigned no reason for entertaining that opinion; but he would assign some reasons for an opposite conclusion. With respect to the subject of war, which had been already so admirably treated by his noble friend (Lord Mahon), he knew no fact the hon. and learned Gentleman could adduce to prove that if, at any given period of the history of this country, there had been such a Reform of this House as was now proposed, there would have been that discouragement to undertake war which the hon. and learned Gentleman contended for. The hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that wars had been occasionally popular in recent times; but, then, said the hon. and learned Gentleman, "however popular such wars might have been in the beginning, I think, if we had had a Reformed Parliament, those wars would have been put an end to much sooner than they ac-
746
tually had been." But when a war was once begun, it was not always in our power to choose the moment when it should terminate. If the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted, that republics and popular governments generally were inclined to war, he admitted every thing. There was an end of his prophecy of perpetual peace. The hasty inconsiderate demand for peace might be just as dangerous as the clamour for war. Now, with respect to our jurisprudence, what evidence was there that any Reform in Parliament would make that House more disposed to improve our jurisprudence than it was as at present constituted? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, that that House had evinced a disposition to oppose legal Reform. But by what portion of the House was that disposition manifested? What was the fate of a Bill brought in that Session by a staunch supporter of the Reform Bill? The Tories appointed a Committee to inquire into the law of real property, and all the Members of that Committee concurred in opinion, that one of the greatest improvements that could be made in that branch of jurisprudence was, the adoption of a General Registry Bill. The necessity of it was felt so strongly, that an hon. and learned Member of that House introduced a Bill for that purpose, and he professed himself unable to conceive how people could be so obtuse as not to see the absolute necessity of such a measure. The registries in Yorkshire and in Middlesex were held up as conclusive proofs that the landed interest would be considerably benefitted by the universal adoption of a General Registry. But, although Reformers were predominant in that House, so far from showing a disposition to act in accordance with the view taken by their brother Reformer, they totally abandoned him and his Reforms. He came down to the House and complained that there had started up a host of Attornies, actuated, no doubt, by the purest principles, who had so operated on the Reform Members, and had produced such opposition to the Registry Bill, that the learned author of the measure was obliged to take refuge in a Committee, and had not the least prospect of contending successfully against the partialities, prejudices, and obtuseness, not of the borough mongers, but of the Reformers—of those who were returned by popular elections, and were compelled to yield to popular clamour. The most strenuous

747
supporters of the Reform Bill, among whom was the noble member for Yorkshire, concurred in treating that measure of legal Reform as they treated the Budget: and nothing had been done to meet the exigencies of the times, or the just demands of the rational part of the people. Now, if that was the fate of legal Reform in the House as at present constituted, if the Attornies could raise such a storm with their present means, just conceive that House to be chosen by the newly-created constituency of 10 l. householders, and then say, whether there would be the slightest chance that the Registry Bill should pass? If that measure could be defeated now, what probability was there that a Parliament, chosen by that class who constituted the chief opponents of the measure at present, would allow it to become a law? But the hon. and learned Gentleman said, that, if we had had a Reform Bill some thirty or forty years ago, all the evils of which we now complained would have been corrected. To that observation one very manifest answer offered itself. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumes, that, if a Reform in Parliament had taken place at the period he mentions, the Reformers of that day would have seen with our eyes, and have estimated every thing by the same standard which was now adopted. But, was it not obvious that, if the Constitution of this country had been new modelled forty years since, reference must be had, in judging of the practical effects, to the then state of intelligence among the people—to the then state of their feelings, prejudices, and opinions? Let it not be supposed that there would at that period have been raised in a Reformed Parliament the present loud demand for economy; or, that a clamour against war, or an imperative call for Reform in our civil and criminal jurisprudence, or in the management of the property of the Church, would then have been heard, because we now heard it. Suppose, for instance, that, in 1784, there had been a Reformed Parliament, would such a Parliament, returned upon the principles of the present Bill, have been disposed to take enlightened views on commercial subjects? Certainly not. In 1785, Mr. Pitt brought forward his commercial propositions with respect to Ireland. Mr. Pitt said, that he proposed the measure with the view of enlarging the intercourse between this country and Ireland. He expressed his wish
748
to have the system of bounties, drawbacks, and every onerous duty, done away with; it being his opinion that the prosperity of Ireland and that of England were the same, and that the best interests of both countries would be consulted by extending their commercial intercourse. These were the opinions of Mr. Pitt: but they were not the opinions of Mr. Fox, who might be considered as a fair index of the popular opinion of that day. Did the hon. and learned Member believe, that the 10 l. householders of that time would have returned a man more enlightened than Mr. Fox? And what were the enlarged views of that eminent statesman on the subject of Trade? He said—"There is no one benefit which Ireland can derive from an extended intercourse with this country which will not lead to an insidious competition on the part of Ireland. It is this which will stir up jealousy between the two countries, and make Englishmen and Irishmen look at each other with cold hearts and suspicious eyes." At the time those sentiments were put forth they were in conformity with popular opinion. That opinion concurred with Mr. Fox, that commercial benefits were not reciprocal, and that every advantage which Ireland would reap from the Resolutions would be to our detriment. It would be absurd to measure the intelligence of a Reformed Parliament of that day by the doctrines held at present, or by the advance which science had since made. In 1786, Mr. Pitt negociated a commercial treaty with France; in defence of that Treaty in 1787, he laid down these principles:—"France was, by the peculiar dispensation of Providence, gifted, perhaps more than any country upon earth, with what made life desirable in point of soil, climate, and natural productions. It had the most fertile vineyards, and the richest harvests; the greatest luxuries of man were produced in it with little cost, and with moderate labour. Britain was not thus blest by nature; but, on the contrary, it possessed, through the happy freedom of its Constitution, and the equal security of its laws, an energy in its enterprise, and a stability in its exertions, which had gradually raised it to a state of commercial grandeur; and, not being so bountifully gifted by Heaven, it had recourse to labour and art, by which it had acquired the ability of supplying its neighbour with all the necessary embellishments of life in exchange for her natural luxuries. Thus standing with regard to each other, a friendly connexion seemed to

749
be pointed out between them, instead of the state of unalterable enmity which was falsely said to be their true political feeling towards one another."* But, what said Mr. Fox?—"France has always been the natural foe of this country: she has consented to this commercial treaty for an insidious purpose. In the reign of Charles 2nd, and of Louis 14th, an unnatural alliance was attempted between the two countries, but I deprecate all alliance for the future. Trade is a miserable consideration; and I attribute this treaty to those dirty commercial considerations which entirely shut out all higher motives of policy. England must have nothing to do with France." Now, he asked, if, in the year 1786, there had been a Reformed Parliament—the express image of the people—of the 10 l. voters to be now created—would Mr. Pitt have succeeded against Mr. Fox? Which of the two would have maintained the popular opinion of that day? Could there be a doubt, that, although we now readily acknowledge the superior wisdom and intelligence of Mr. Pitt, as to the principles of commercial intercourse, that a House of Commons returned by popular choice, in 1787, would have adopted the sentiments Mr. Fox? Therefore, he said, the learned Gentleman had no right, whatever, to assume that Reform, applied forty years since, would have insured that enlarged and enlightened legislation of which he spoke. A part of the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Hobhouse) appeared to be founded on the impression that, even at that late period of the discussion, he (Sir Robert Peel) intended to propose some measure of Reform. With respect to that matter, to which, indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman first alluded, he begged to assure both him and the right hon. Baronet, that he never meant in the slightest degree to question their right to examine and comment upon his public conduct. He admitted that right in its fullest extent. But those Gentlemen would, of course, concede to him the corresponding right of correcting their errors. The hon. and learned Gentleman especially alluded to the line of conduct he had pursued on the Catholic question; and he did him an injustice, for which he could not account. He had hoped that all unkindly feelings on that topic were at an end; and certainly he wished not to revive them. He was ready to acknow-
* Hansard's Parl. History, vol. xxvi. p. 395.
750
ledge that he always listened, not only with great attention, but with great admiration, to that flow of chaste and pure language, which, however rapid, seemed scarcely able to sustain the rich freight of thought and fancy which it bore along. Not denying the right of the hon. and learned Gentleman to attack his political conduct, not objecting to the tone of his observations; at the same time, he should have expected, if he was to be attacked for his conduct on Reform, that the learned Gentleman would have been the last man from whom that attack would come. If he was to fall from that particular shaft, he could never have believed that it would have been drawn from the quiver of the learned Gentleman. On the Catholic question the charge against him was, that he had appropriated the honour due to others; that he had stood aside, had seen others sow the seed, had watched the approach of the harvest, and then had stept in, and reaped the fruits of their toil, and the honourable reward which was justly due to their labours. But what was now the charge? That he had done the same thing on Reform? Just the reverse. The charge now was, that he had not brought in a Reform Bill; that he had not made some servile copy of the measure of the hon. Gentlemen opposite; and, because he had not done that, he was as open to accusation and censure as before. The learned Gentleman reminded him of the attack made upon the physicians who attended Mr. Fox. Mr. Trotter, the private Secretary of that Statesman, in a public letter, declared that the physicians ought to have been brought to justice for having administered foxglove to their patient for his particular disease. The physicians declared that they had not administered it: Mr. Trotter immediately turned round upon them, and exclaimed—"Why have you not? You ought to be condemned for not having administered it. It might have been the only remedy for his disorder." The charges of the learned Gentleman against himself were as contradictory as those of Mr. Trotter. When he brought in a Bill to accomplish the objects which others had so long advocated, the learned Gentleman accused him of seeking to deck himself with their plumes, and to assume a merit which was not his due. When he did not bring in a Bill for Reform, the same learned Gentleman was equally indignant, and demanded from him a Reform Bill, with just the same ve-

751
hemence with which he condemned him for having brought in the Catholic Relief Bill. He had no Reform Bill to bring forward. He did not believe that the Reform contemplated would be an improvement of the Constitution. He did not believe that it would remedy the defects of which Ministers complained, but he feared that it would expose the country to great hazard, and he was not prepared to bear the responsibility of bringing it forward. He had retired from office rather than undertake that task, and, if he differed from the public voice, surely he had a right to maintain his own opinion, being prepared to submit to all the consequences of adhering to it. The learned Gentleman asked, how could a man venture to act in opposition to the vast majority of the people of England? Did, then, the learned Gentleman mean to declare himself an enemy to private judgment? Was not a man at liberty to entertain and act upon his own opinion in political matters, even though the universal voice of the people of England should be raised against that opinion? If he differed from the people of England, he differed from them reluctantly and respectfully; if he thought that they were intoxicated, they had no right to reproach him if he chose to remain sober. He firmly believed that this measure of Reform would not promote the good government and the happiness of this great country, and, therefore, to the last he would oppose it. But then came the second of the two leading arguments for Reform, namely, that, whether good or bad, it was inevitable, that the demand for it was so universal and overwhelming, that it became impossible to administer government, and execute law, without a Reform, based on the same principles, and carried to the same extent, with the present Bill. No prudent man would assert, that, provided there was among the intelligent and reasoning classes of any country a deep-rooted and permanent feeling of dissatisfaction with any public institution connected with its Government, that feeling could, with safety, be abruptly and contemptuously disregarded. If it could be shown that, whatever might be the abstract merits of a Constitution, the people were dissatisfied with it; that they had outgrown its original dimensions, that it was no longer applicable to the wants and interests of society; that the basis on which it rested was too narrow; that the public administration could not be carried on without
752
constant suspicion on the part of the people, in such a case it became, no doubt, the duty of Parliament to devote its deliberate consideration to the means of effecting some change. He was bound to admit, that it would have been difficult if not impossible for any administration to have been formed on the principle of resisting altogether Parliamentary Reform. He had thought, also, that, whenever the time for Reform should arrive, it would be infinitely better that the question should be taken up by those who had been its uniform friends, rather than by those who had been its uniform opponents. An arrangement made by the latter would have been much less likely to be permanent and satisfactory than if it came from the friends of the measure. It was his firm belief that the Gentlemen opposite had the means of making an adjustment of this question, which would have been satisfactory to the rational and respectable portion of the country, in spite of any opposition which any other party might have offered to it. The present Ministers came into office at a period, no doubt, of great excitement, when there was existing in this country a disposition to disturbance, excited, not by any settled deliberate desire for Reform, but by the absurd admiration of the triumph of physical strength in France. It was natural enough that the people of this country, with their notions of liberty, should rejoice at that triumph—that they should rejoice at the defeat of the illegal ordinances of July, and of the military force of a despotic power; but it was ridiculous to see the people of England desirous of imitating the example of France, without its provocation, and attempting to cut their clumsy capers in revolution after the manner of the harlequins of Paris. The present Government was called to power at a great crisis, and they had the means, by common prudence, of overcoming the difficulties of that crisis. He granted, that there was a desire—a permanent, a growing desire—for Reform among the sober and intelligent classes of the community, but, surely, that feeling might have been, and ought to have been, distinguished from the drunken fit of temporary enthusiasm with which the events of Paris were regarded. It ought, too, to have been distinguished from that spirit of discontent and disaffection which, however they might constitute the Government, would always be found, varying, no doubt, in degree, among the vast masses, with complicated and conflicting inter-

753
ests, of which society was composed. At all times, and under all circumstances, they must calculate, that distress would produce the disposition to turbulence, and that evil spirits would be found able and willing to direct and to profit by such a disposition. When David raised his standard against Saul, "every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him, and he became a captain over them." Human nature had undergone no change; and he feared there would always be found a permanent fund of discontent and dissatisfaction in every country. But his argument was, that the present Ministers had it in their power to separate these angry elements of confusion, and to discriminate between the demands of dissimilar classes of men—those who acted upon a cool and deliberate judgment in favour of a temperate Reform, and those who, in the height of their maddening excitement, called for the most perilous innovations. If Ministers, instead of giving immediate notice that they intended to bring forward without delay this extensive measure of Reform—a measure much more extensive than they themselves had ever previously contemplated—totally differing, as was well known, in character and degree from that which Mr. Brougham intended to propose—if, instead of that, the Ministers had stated, that they would, at all hazards, postpone the consideration of Reform until the fits of temporary enthusiasm had subsided, and until they could distinguish the flow of the pure stream of opinion from the turbid waters of passion which were for the time mingled together—he was certain that every sober-minded and reflecting man in the country would have acquiesced in the prudence of such a delay. No doubt there must have been a pledge of Reform, but would the people of England have refused, to a Government so pledged, time to consider and mature both the principle and details of such a vital measure? Were they so infatuated as to insist, not only on a Radical Reform, but on its production within two months? The fact was, that, at no time was there a general wish expressed on the part of the rational and respectable part of the community for a change of so extensive a nature as that which Ministers had proposed. Did they mean to say, that, if they had come forward, and declared that they were determined to destroy the principle of nomination bo-
754
roughs, and confer on populous places the right of returning Representatives, that the people would have been dissatisfied, and that they would have incurred the risk of defeat either by the party which opposed all Reform, or the party which now cried aloud for greater innovations? Could Ministers assert that, if, having largely enfranchised the great towns, they had proposed to make the extent of disfranchisement depend upon the number of places enfranchised, so as to form a natural barrier against future innovation; at the same time, giving to Ireland and Scotland such benefit from an improved Representation as they were then disposed to give to those countries; did Ministers, he asked, think that, if they had adopted such a course, they would have disappointed the expectations of the most sanguine Reformers, or have failed in satisfying all reasonable and considerate men? His firm belief was, that, in spite of all opposition, Ministers had the power of carrying to a successful conclusion such a measure as would have proved perfectly satisfactory. They had, however, not only gone to a most extravagant extent in their confiscation of existing rights, but had embodied in the provisions of their Bill, principles which must eventually preclude all permanency in their far-famed work. It might have been impossible longer to up hold the principle of nomination; but where was the necessity of altering the whole Representative system of the country? That was not essential to the success of any Reform desired by the people, and not connected, in the slightest degree, with the principle which Ministers professed to act upon. They had, however, by the course taken, shaken the very foundation of the Representative system, and had destroyed all those prescriptive rights which could alone give stability to institutions of Government. If they had left all large places having popular rights of Representation, in the enjoyment of their ancient franchise it would have been perfectly consistent with rational Reform; but, no; Ministers had declared that these places should enjoy the right of representation, not because they had enjoyed it for centuries—not because their privileges were sanctioned by grants and charters of incorporation—but because they happened to correspond to a new and fanciful standard, by which they thought fit to mete out the right of representation to the people. In new boroughs new rights must, from the nature of the case,

755
be called into existence; but why not create the new, and, at least, where it was a popular one—leave untouched the ancient franchise. The destruction of it was a mere wanton innovation, a gratuitous sacrifice of that prescription which was the foundation of their rights, and the main stay and strength of all civil government. Ministers never had any valid reasons for the extent of the alteration to which they had gone, either upon the ground of the defects of the Constitution, or upon that of popular demands. That there had now arisen such a demand, which it might be difficult for any statesman to resist, he could not deny; but why had it arisen? Because, for the first time in the history of this country, the people had seen the Throne and the Government ranged against those restraints of authority which had hitherto been considered necessary for the well-being of the empire. Difficult, indeed, must it be to maintain those restraints, when the King's Ministers were united with the populace in denouncing them, in holding up the Members of the House of Lords as corrupt, and, in the wild spirit of destruction, devoting the whole Constitution of the country to annihilation as a rotten and evil thing. Who, when they beheld Ministers siding thus with popular clamour, could be surprised at the popularity of Reform? It appeared as if the reins of the State had been confided to some youthful and inexperienced hands; and who, left without any guiding principle, or any controlling sense of duty, were rushing on with headlong violence, which wiser men could not moderate or restrain. If the older and more experienced members of the Cabinet chose to confide the conduct of this dangerous measure to the care of their youthful colleagues, known and distinguished only for their rashness and presumption—they should have at least forewarned them of the 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 himself and injury to others—
"Non est tua tuta voluntas;
Magna petis Phaeton, et quæ nec viribus istis
Munera conveniant, nec tam puerilibus annis."
They should have given him the salutary caution, that the fiery steeds, which he aspired to guide, required the hand of restraint, and not the voice of incitement—
756
"Sponte sua properant, labor est inhibere volentes,
Parce puer stimulis, ac forties utere loris."
If the caution had not been given—or if it had been disregarded—let them hope, at least, that the example of their suffering might be a warning to others, and that another lesson to the folly and rashness of mankind might be read by the light of their conflagration. He had stated his reasons for dissenting from the conclusions in favour of this measure of Reform urged by its supporters. He denied that there was any such degree of practical evil attributable to defects in the present constitution of the House of Commons as to justify the hazardous experiment they were about to make, and if there was a necessity for yielding, against their judgment, to a popular demand for Reform, he asserted, that that necessity had been created by the King's Government—by the use which they had made of the King's name, and by their uniform endeavours to increase, instead of to allay, public excitement. He had been challenged to state the specific dangers which he apprehended from this Bill of Reform, and he would obey that call. In his opinion, the Bill would give an additional influence to the democratic power of the State, as distinguished from the monarchy and the House of Lords, so great as to make that power supreme, and virtually, therefore, to convert the mixed government under which we had lived into a simple democracy. He saw no prospect that the King would hereafter be enabled to exercise an unpopular prerogative, however necessary that prerogative might be to the permanent interests of the country. He thought they were about to sacrifice the means which they then possessed of resisting the first impulse of the tide of popular opinion. If that tide set in with a steady unchanging course, it was sure even then to prevail: but they had at present barriers against the first shocks which enabled them to outlive a temporary storm of passion, and to yield, if it should become necessary to yield, with a cautious and gradual relaxation of the ties and holdings which secured the established order of things. But hereafter there would be no vis inertiœ in the machine of Government—none of that power of resistance to the restlessness of a desire of perpetual change which, at present resulted, not only from the monarchical principle of government, but, from the feelings, habits, and prejudices which were interwoven with ancient pre-

757
scriptive institutions. The power of the House of Commons would hereafter be supreme; the other branches of the Legislature would exist merely by sufferance, until it was discovered that institutions which had merely the shadow and semblance of authority were useless and expensive pageants, and had better be abolished. How could the King hereafter change a Ministry? How could he make a partial change in the Administration in times of public excitement with any prospect that the Ministers of his choice, unpopular, perhaps, from the strict performance of necessary duties, would be returned to Parliament? How many men pre-eminently fit for official station would be excluded, because they would not condescend, or had not the art to recommend themselves to popular constituencies? By the very act of making all places necessarily places of popular election, an end was effectually put to the exercise of this prerogative of the Crown, and so far a revolution had been worked In the State. Ministers of the Crown might lose the confidence of their constituents: it had happened in the case of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston). Such a case might occur again, under other circumstances. Take, for instance, the Law Officers of the Crown. Let not his opponents say—"We deal with general principles, and not with petty details; and that the Crown officers, like other candidates, must recommend themselves, by popular courses, to popular approval. They might hold that language, but men acquainted with the practical workings of the British Constitution knew that it was fallacious. It was not right that men filling high and responsible offices should be compelled to court popular favour, by making sounding speeches about the liberty of the Press, and gaining the favour of the populace by the most despicable prostitution of their minds and acquirements. How could the Crown have obtained the advantage of the services of the present Solicitor General, if it had not been for a small borough? How could they insure the return of a man who might be the ornament of his profession, and, by the admission of all, pre-eminently qualified for the office of Attorney General? They would have able, and acute, and stirring lawyers in the popular interest, returned to that House, and it would become of still more urgent importance, that the interests of the Crown should be vigorously defended by its legal advisers?
758
In what situation would the Crown be left, if it had no Attorney General in that House? It was only last night, that something fell from his hon. and learned friend (Sir Charles Wetherell)—with whom he was happy to unite on that occasion, and bury in oblivion all past differences—whose integrity he respected as much as he admired his abilities; but, even from him, something fell which struck on the sensitive ears of the Attorney General as disrespectful to the Crown. The hon. and learned Attorney General was wrong: he had mistaken the language, and the intention with which it was uttered; but the manner in which the matter was taken up by the Attorney General, though in mistake, showed how important it was, that the Crown should have an Attorney General in that House alive to any insult or disrespect which might, in the heat and inadvertence of debate, be offered to the royal authority. The King's Attorney General, faintly suspecting that his royal master had, by remote allusions, been likened to a tyrant of former times, rebuked with honourable, though mistaken, indignation, the indecent and revolting comparison. One readily for gave the mistake, in admiration of the feelings, so sensitively loyal, which prompted the Attorney General to resent an attack upon royalty. How important was it, that the Crown should always have such prompt and zealous defenders! But could any man suppose that such an Attorney General would be found, when he must obtain the suffrages of the 10 l. householders of Marylebone, Lambeth, or the Tower Hamlets? Again, it was no inconsiderable objection, in his mind, to the proposed measure, that it would disturb the operation of the great experiment made with respect to Ireland three years since. The whole constituency of that country was then to be changed. It was not the mere addition of the number of voters, but a total change in the character of the constituency, established in Ireland. Were his fears on that head visionary? No: there must still be ringing in the ears of hon. Members the speech of the learned Gentleman on the third bench (Mr. Sheil), one of the most strenuous Reformers, and most distinguished orators of his country. In language and in tone the most emphatic, he, on a late occasion, addressed to the Government some such words as these:—'Take warning in time: what is your policy? You have made a race between Le-

759
gislation and events; an incident happens, straight comes an Act of Parliament; another incident arrives, behold a Committee and another Act of Parliament. 'Thus you go on, running a race with events, and events are sure to win it. Awake, for God's sake, to a sense of the condition of Ireland; embrace her evils in one large and comprehensive system of immediate amelioration; let us have no "bit-by-bit Reforms." Lay not that unction to your souls—burn not that incense which self-adulation offers to itself—do not hope, do not so far delude yourselves as to think that, by dallying with the evils of Ireland, by procrastinations, and puttings off, by sometimes giving buffets, and sometimes offering caresses to Ireland, you can effect the tranquillization of that country. For it has come to this pass, and it is not I alone that tell you this, but events—those voiceless but eloquent monitors—call on you as they pass, to throw aside your prejudices, to legislate, not on the views of party, but on the principles of human nature, and, warned by the calamities that impend over us, to rescue from destruction the unhappy land which, under all changes of Government, and all vicissitudes of party, appears to have been foredoomed to distraction, and predestined to misrule.' The learned Gentleman concluded his eloquent speech with these pregnant and emphatic words:—'Recollect, the Reform Bill is about to pass—a general election must shortly follow—it is your turn this Session, but it will be ours the next.' The hon. Gentleman had described his own address to Government as an act of the purest good will—a friendly shaking of blind men on the edge of a precipice. Most certainly, if the friendliness of the act was at all in proportion to the force of the shaking, the Ministers were under the deepest obligation to the learned Gentleman's cordiality. One thing, however, his speech showed clearly enough, namely, his anticipations of the effect of Reform upon Ireland. There was another important topic on which the bearing of this Bill must be great: the extent of the change which it would produce with respect to the interests of the Established Church, it was impossible to calculate. By selecting the 10 l. householders as electors, a power would be given to Dissenters, with reference to the Established Church, which, under no other kind of constituency, whether the elective fran-
760
chise were higher or lower, they could have possessed. Add to the increase of power obtained in this country by the Dissenters the new Representation of Scotland, and the increased Representation of Ireland, and it would be difficult to say to what extent the interests of the Church would be affected. With respect also to the bearing of this great change on another important interest—he meant that of the public creditor—he could not help entertaining very serious apprehensions. The whole tendency of the Bill was, to give new power to the debtor at the expense of the public creditor. The mass of the people subject to taxation would acquire increased power; but the creditor would scarcely retain any influence whatever. It was very well to say, with the learned member for Calne, that public assemblies never refused to pay their debts. He knew not on what ground that assertion was made, but the hon. Member probably meant to intimate to the public creditor that his property was perfectly safe. If the Treasury contained the means of payment, such language might be held with some semblance of justice; but when, at the very moment, that the public creditor was told not to be anxious about his debt, there was an actual deficiency in the means of payment, and the taxes had to be levied every year from a people unwilling to pay, and to whom the House was about to give the power to refuse, the ground for alarm was very considerable. He did not mean to sanction the belief that danger would approach in the stern character of spoliation, but it would be quite as effectual if it came under the demure aspect, and in the seductive guise of the new doctrine of "fructification." He feared that a Reformed Parliament might act upon the principles of the present Government, and, from a desire to alleviate the sufferings of the people, might make a too extensive reduction of taxation. A fall in the revenue, occasioned by some such events as had recently occurred in the West Indies, would cause a deficit in the Treasury, which a Reformed Parliament would be very unwilling to supply by the imposition of fresh taxes, The moment such an event took place, public credit would be lost, confidence would be destroyed, and the active industry of the country would be shaken to its very centre. These were the main grounds on which he resisted the present measure. He considered it a fearful experiment, called for by no necessity other than that

761
which the proceedings of its authors and supporters had created, adopted at a moment when the experience of passing events should have taught them the hazard of unsettling ancient institutions. The right hon. Baronet who spoke last had read to them a very long extract from the work of Madam de Staël on the French Revolution, and the quotation was the more complimentary to the writer, inasmuch as it appeared to have no possible bearing on the present question. If the hon. Baronet would have referred to more recent publications on the state of France, and the condition of society in that country, he might have read to the House lessons more instructive. He would find, in the columns of a powerful advocate of Reform (The Times newspaper), from an able and impartial eye-witness of affairs in France, evidence which it was folly in them to disregard. That evidence was contained in a letter of such recent date as the 28th of February, of which he would read an extract. The writer observes, "We have now a melancholy experience of the reduction of the electoral qualification. That imprudent measure could not have been more formally condemned by its results. In that Chamber, which doubtless contains men of high talent, though of these the greater portion sit in silent dissatisfaction, the most conspicuously indiscreet keep up an agitation, and too often succeed in effecting their objects. Town-bred envy, and the spirit of animosity which animates the petty provincial land-owner, are the prominent characteristics of the elective Chamber. Those who are averse to all superiority, offended at all splendor, and hostile to all dignity, amuse themselves by decrying the ermine and purple with which the law has invested the Magistrates. The term 'economy' was never more ridiculously abused; it has become a watch-word, a sort of bell, which is rung in the ears of the ignorant classes, to elicit applause in the café or the estaminet. What do you think of the president of a sovereign court, whose emoluments are reduced to 300 of your pounds sterling, and whose salary is lower than that which you grant to an obscure clerk in one of your public offices? What say you to the war which is waged against science and literature in the persons of professors, for whose services and capacities the most degrading bargains are made? By empty words, scholastic sophistry, and declamation devoid of sincerity, the service
762
of the State is degraded and disorganized. It is a great misfortune to a country when power falls into the hands of the lower classes, and is exercised only to gratify the petty passions of petty persons. Our Director-General of Bridges and Highways, who annually executes public works at the cost of 60,000,000, has had his salary, which under Napoleon was 80,000 francs, curtailed, first to 50,000, and then to 40,000, and it is at length reduced to 20,000. For 20,000 francs, the Director-General of Domains and Registration must superintend a department which produces to the State an annual revenue of 20,000,000. As good neighbours, and men who know what belongs to the dignity of a great nation, pray do us the favour to flagellate our modern Lycurgusses. Let them be taught a lesson from the other side of the Channel, even though they should regard it as contraband merchandize. We may reciprocally exchange these little friendly services, and, as for myself personally, I am at your command." This came from the correspondent of that paper which boasted that it was incessantly spurring the galled sides of the jaded ministerial mules, who were slackening in their ardour for Reform. He maintained that all the expectations entertained by the partizans of French revolutions had been proved false. Expeditions were fitted out to propitiate the military spirit of a reckless democracy. The finances of France were in a ruinous condition. There was no public order—no tranquillity—no security—no prospect of repose. Hon. Members had spoken in that House in favour of the establishment in this country of a National Guard. Let them turn their eyes to what was passing at Grenoble, and possibly their admiration of a National Guard would be abated. He lamented the disposition that prevailed to undervalue the many blessings of the social condition of England, and to hazard them in the attainment of one object of very questionable advantage—a uniform and popular system of Representation. Let it be conceded that such a system would ensure a strict economy in the expenditure of the public money—let it be conceded that it would bear the promised fruit of pensions abolished, estimates reduced, salaries curtailed—alas! how small an ingredient were all these in that combination which constitutes the social happiness, the moral enjoyment, of a great nation? How miserable the gain, if it should be proved to have been secured at the expense

763
of that refinement in manners which was the charm of society, and of that liberty which was unworthy of the name unless it was enjoyed in common by the wealthy and by the poor—by the learned leisure of the cultivated mind, as well as by the active obtrusive talent of vulgar politicians? He could figure to himself a powerful intellect capable of appreciating that true liberty; and of weighing the causes of the moral decline of empires—contrasting the social condition that, he feared, was to be, with that condition which they had inherited, but would not transmit—he could fancy a man so endowed, scorched by the unmitigated blaze of a fierce democracy—panting for the shade and shelter of less popular institutions, and venting against them (if he were allowed to vent them) the bitter execrations of a wounded and indignant spirit. He could fancy such a man in the full enjoyment of all the blessings of Reform—taxes abated, newspapers unstamped, tithes abolished, the dying fury of the election revived by the annual Registration—he could fancy him contrasting all that had been gained with all that had been lost, and then exclaiming—'And was it for this that you have put rancour in the vessel of our peace? Was it for this that you disturbed the balance of that mixed form of government which had solved the great problem in political science, by combining with vigour in the executive the liberty and security of the subject? Was it for this that you paralyzed the remaining force of that ancient monarchy, which connected, through a long succession of centuries, the present with the past, and which being purified from every taint and deriving only strength from its association with the romance of feudal history—reposed with double confidence on the feelings of prescriptive veneration, and of affection towards a mild and paternal rule. Was it for this, that you destroyed that system of manners, equally remote from the servility and frivolity of ancient despotisms, and from the coarseness and selfishness of modern democracies—that system of manners which included many privileges, but recognized no barriers—which had high distinctions, but made them accessible to all, for the purpose of supplying, even to the humblest, an incentive to toil and virtue—more powerful, because less sordid—than the incentive of wealth? Was it for this that you robbed of its mild predominance an established religion—pure in its doctrine,
764
and tolerant in its discipline and practice—and debased Christianity, and banished peace, by the conflict of the thousand sects that range between the extremes of infidelity and superstition? Was it for this that, in the words of immortal eloquence, you dispelled those illusions that made power gentle, and obedience liberal—that harmonized the gradations of society, and, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the virtues that adorn and soften private life?' That he might not be summoned to the bar of posterity to answer those questions—that his name might be exempt from the reproach which they involve—that, in every vicissitude of public and private fortune, he might be enabled to cling to the consolation of having struggled in this contest with perseverance, and of having resigned it without dishonour, his last vote should be given, like his first, in opposition to this Bill.
Mr. Stanleywas well aware of his inability to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the very able and eloquent speech which they had just heard. Still he trusted the House would favour him with its attention, while he endeavoured to reply to some of the arguments brought forward against the Bill now before the House. In the first place he begged to assure the right hon. Baronet that there was no disposition on the part of Ministers to shift from their own shoulders any responsibility which might arise from this measure, or to shrink from the consequences of the course of policy they had pursued. He admitted that the whole responsibility of this measure rested with those who had introduced it, and he for one rejoiced at it.
"Nec Drances potius, sive est hæc ira Deorum
Morte luat, sive est virtus et gloria, tollat."
Before he proceeded to make any observations on what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet, he would, for a very short time, call the attention of the House to a point of peculiar attention and importance, and which had repeatedly been alluded to in the course of these discussions. The hon. and learned member for Borough-bridge, and also the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes, had argued as if they doubted the constitutional power of the Crown to exercise its prerogative of adding to the number of the House of Peers for the purpose of any particular measure. He knew not upon what grounds these learned Gentlemen had thought it necessary to enter upon this discussion on the third

765
reading of the present Bill; but, as a Minister of the Crown, he could not hear, without at once meeting it in argument, such a denial of the undoubted prerogative of the Crown. Be was far from denying that any Minister who advised such a step incurred a grave and serious responsibility; but it was the duty of a government not to shrink from responsibility, when it was to be incurred, as the only mode of avoiding more serious evils. He could not allow it to be said, that on no occasion should this right of the Crown be exercised. On the contrary, it was the mode, and the only mode which was provided by the Constitution, for reconciling the two branches of the Legislature, should they be at hopeless variance. Much had been said of the impeachment of Lord Oxford, for advising the exercise of this prerogative; the hon. and learned member for Borough bridge had stated, that, on his trial, he admitted his criminality, and rested his defence upon his having acted in obedience to the commands of his royal mistress. Supposing this to be a fact, the hon. and learned Gentleman might rest assured that the precedent would not be followed in the present case, and that no such defence would ever be made by his Majesty's present Ministers, for any step which they might feel it their duty to recommend to his Majesty. But what were the facts of the case in the impeachment of Lord Oxford? Was he really impeached by that House for making Peers, and for destroying the independence of the other House? Certainly there was such a charge, and it formed the sixteenth of a series of articles of impeachment preferred against him; but this charge for making Peers to destroy the independence of the House of Peers, was merely preferred to add to the odium which it was the wish of his prosecutors to heap upon him, and it never was relied on as a chief ground of accusation. That such was the case, was proved by the fact, that Lord Oxford made no allusion whatever to this charge, when he was first called upon to answer to the impeachment, and afterwards he treated it in a manner which evidently showed that he did not consider it as of importance. He was sure, that no one familiar with the history of that period, would assert that this was a charge relied upon by those who instituted the proceedings; but that the chief charge was, for making the peace, and for assenting to the articles of the Treaty of Utrecht. But the hon. and
766
learned Gentleman, said the Earl of Oxford, admitted the criminality. Certainly, that was an error on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman; for, in answer to the 16th article, he, the Earl of Oxford, insisted, that, by the laws and Constitution of this realm, it was the undoubted right and prerogative of the Sovereign, who was the fountain of honour, to create Peers, as well in time of Parliament, as when there was no Parliament sitting, or in being, and that the exercise of this branch of the prerogative was declared in the face or preamble of all patents of honour, to proceed, ex mero motu, as an act of mere grace and favour, and, therefore, it could, by no means, be considered as a reward for distinguished services only, as was asserted by the hon. and learned Member. This was what the hon. and learned Gentleman called confessing the criminality of his conduct in advising the creation of Peers. The result of the matter was, that, after the charges had stood over from time to time for the period of two years, that Nobleman was acquitted. At that period, the political enemies of Lord Oxford—those who had brought the charges as a means of political vengeance, were split, and divided among themselves. He boldly confronted the charges, and they fell to time ground. Without entering into the question how far the circumstances might be applicable to the present day, thus much he would again say, that whatever might be the advice which, on any occasion, his Majesty's confidential servants might give to the King, they would not shrink from any responsibility. He knew not why the word "impeachment" had so often been rung in their ears; but, if it was supposed that this would prevent them discharging what they believed to be their solemn duty, those who used that prophetic language would find themselves mistaken. Impeachment might be a word to frighten children, but it would not alarm those who knew the stake for which they were playing, and who had the feelings of Statesmen, and disregarded mere brutum fulmen while discharging their conscientious duty. But what was the nature of the other charges against the Earl of Oxford? This was one:—
"And whereas Robert Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, with other evil-minded persons, enemies to the true interests of their own country, as well as to the common liberties and welfare of Europe, having, by many wicked

767
acts and base insinuations, obtained access to her late Majesty Queen Anne; and, in or about the months of July or August, 1710, being admitted into her councils, and into places of the highest trust, and to make way for their wicked enterprises, did, by their evil counsel and advice, prevail on her Majesty to dissolve a Parliament which had given the most unquestionable proofs of their great wisdom, and of their true zeal for the common cause for which, as well as for the many marks of duty and affection given to her, her Majesty returned her hearty thanks, and expressed her great satisfaction."*
Had they heard no similar charges? Unless he was much mistaken, they had already been threatened with impeachment on that ground also. Why did the hon. and learned Gentleman delay to bring it forward? He was really sorry to detain the House on this incidental question; but he should do great injustice to the great authorities in this point, if he did not quote the opinions of two distinguished persons, who took an active part in opposition to the Peerage Bill. What was the language of Sir Robert Walpole and Sir Richard Steele on this subject? Did they doubt the legality of the exercise of the prerogative in creating Peers? He would read to the House the opinions of these two eminent men on the Bill, adverted to by the hon. and learned member for St. Mawes, and which they truly described as a measure brought in to limit the prerogative of the Crown, and to make the House of Lords entirely independent of, and distinct from, the other two branches of the Legislature. Sir Richard Steele said, on the occasion he had alluded to,—
"The prerogative is a power in the Sovereign not expressed or described in the laws, but to be exercised in the preservation of them by the rule of the general good; and, if it could be proved that the business of the twelve Judges was purely done to save the nation, and that it was done for the good of the whole, the Statesman who advised it would deserve the thanks of all mankind for exposing himself to the misrepresentation and resentment of future Parliaments for the good of his fellow subjects."†
But what said Sir Robert Walpole, who was one of the prime movers in the matter? How did he lay down the constitutional doctrine relative to the prerogative? He said,—
"The Crown is dependent upon the Commons by the power of granting money: the
* Howell's State Trials, vol. xv. pp. 1058–9.
† Hansard's Parl. Hist., vol. vii. p. 612.
768
Commons are dependent upon the Crown by the power of dissolution. The Lords will now be made independent of both."
Could this latter expression be understood otherwise than that the Crown had the power of adding to the House of Peers. He then proceeded,—
"It will make the Lords masters of the King, according to their own confession, when they admit that a change of Administration renders a new creation of Peers necessary; for, by precluding the King from making Peers in future, it at the same time precludes him from changing the present Administration."*
This was the language of Sir Robert Walpole relative to the royal prerogative, and this same constitutional doctrine he (Mr. Stanley) intended always to support, and he did not consider it necessary to vindicate any supposed advice which it was assumed Ministers intended to give to his Majesty, should certain circumstances arise. He would again assert, that it was the undoubted prerogative of the Crown, to add to the other House. This constitutional doctrine could not be denied by the hon. and learned Member. But whatever advice his Majesty's Ministers had given, or might give, they were responsible for it to the House and the country; and they would be unworthy of the situations they filled if they were not prepared to justify their conduct. He would now proceed to the objections of the right hon. Baronet, or rather to his doleful presentiments—the gloomy forebodings and the vain imaginings of certain undefined evils which were to arise—should this Bill pass into a law. They had long been told of dangers; but the word was used in so indefinite a sense, that it was difficult to extract a meaning from it. It was said, however, that posterity might have occasion to look back with regret to the days that had passed away, never to return, when corruption was triumphant; but he imagined that none but those who flourished by that commodity would look back with regret to "the flesh pots of Egypt." But would those melancholy forebodings of the right hon. Gentleman satisfy the people of England, and put them from the purpose which they had taken up with so much determination? It was not for him to judge of this; he left it to the House and the country. The right hon. Gentleman said, that two defences were set up for this Bill, the validity of both of which
* Hansard's Parl. Hist., vol. vii. pp. 621–2.

769
he denied. The first, that it remedied defects; the second, that it had taken such hold of the affections of the people, that whether originally right or wrong, it must now be carried. The right hon. Baronet contended, that these two defences should be considered separately. He, (Mr. Stanley) on the contrary, thought they were necessarily interwoven together. For was it not the remedy of the greatest of all defects, when they substituted for a system believed to be the cause of grievance and misgovernment, one which had taken hold of the affections of the people? He did not contend that Reform in itself could remove the distress, which the right hon. Baronet said, very truly, was inseparable from an age of refinement, and from a highly artificial state of society; but he did say, that it would make the country more contented under unavoidable distress, when the people knew that the various interests were fully and fairly protected by real Representation. The right hon. Baronet argued, that a House of Commons under the control of their constituents would sacrifice the general good to individual interests; and, in proof of his assertion, he referred to the recent discussion on the glove-trade; and said, that, if they had had a House of Commons returned by the 10 l. householders of England, a Government would not have dared to refuse the relief that was demanded, however prejudicial it might have been to the general interests of the country. Now, if there should be a House of Commons returned solely by the glove-trade, there would be some argument in this assertion, but to say, that all the 10 l. householders in this country—all the agriculturists and manufacturists—would support the peculiar interests of one branch of trade, to the general injury of the country, appeared to him to be a most monstrous doctrine. Did the right hon. Baronet think that the arguments in that House, on any particular subject, were calculated to have less influence on the minds of the people of England, from their knowing that they were truly and fairly represented in Parliament, than when there was a want of confidence in this branch of the Legislature? Was there, he would ask, a greater chance of argument having less weight with the country, because it was used by those whose interests were mixed up with those of the people, and who were sent there by them? The right hon. Baronet then said, that the Members returned
770
for large towns would be more under the control of their constituents, and would be more influenced by local interests than the majority of the House was at present, and, consequently, they were rendered more unfit for that House. This, he stated, would be more particularly the case with those connected with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that Mr. Canning would not represent Liverpool when he became Minister, because he would not connect himself with local prejudices. But who succeeded Mr. Canning as the member for Liverpool? Was it not Mr. Huskisson, the intimate friend of Mr. Canning, and who, at the time, filled the high office of President of the Board of Trade? Now, if there was any situation connected with the Government, that it was important the holder of should not be warped by local interests, surely this was that office. Neither Mr. Canning nor Mr. Huskisson, however, appeared to consider that the merely representing a large commercial town would produce an improper feeling in the mind of the Representative. So much, then, for the danger, that, if the smaller boroughs were destroyed, and public men had to be elected by large constituencies, that their minds would be warped and influenced by the wishes and opinions of their constituents. Again, the right hon. Baronet had said, that it would be unsafe to grant Parliamentary Reform, because the General Registry Bill, and other measures of legal Reform, had been violently opposed in this half-reformed Parliament. But did this opposition come from the 10 l. householders of the large towns? Had the 10 l. householders of the Tower Hamlets, or the other metropolitan districts, petitioned against this act? On the contrary, had not all the opposition been made by the county Members, and those directly connected with the agricultural districts; and yet the right hon. Baronet talked of the indifference of this half-reformed House of Commons to legal Reform. The right hon. Baronet then went back to the year 1785, and alluded to the opinion expressed by Mr. Fox relative to the commercial policy of this country, with a view to show, that Reformers did not always entertain liberal opinions on other subjects. But, surely, the right hon. Gentleman should have allowed for the feelings of the day when that opinion was given. It was well-known before, that Mr. Fox, notwithstanding his extensive knowledge and great abilities,

771
was not well-read in political economy, nor was familiar with the doctrines of free-trade. But he would remind the right hon. Baronet who had thus referred to the opinions of Mr. Fox, that the House was not now legislating for the year 1784, but for the year 1832. And it did, by no means, follow, that Mr. Fox would have pursued the same policy in the present day, which he recommended nearly half a century ago. The great advantage of the Reform Bill was, that while it satisfied the wants, it had united the feelings of the people in its favour. The right hon. Baronet had admitted, that the hopes of the people of England had been excited on this subject, and that the Bill had taken a strong hold on their feelings; but he contended, that, when the present Ministers came into office, they might have satisfied the people by a more moderate, but, at the same time, a sufficient Reform. He admitted that they came into office at a period of great danger and difficulty, and when considerable discontent prevailed, in consequence of the refusal of Reform; and it was, therefore, necessary to propose such an extensive measure as should, at the same time, satisfy the wishes of the people, and set the question at rest. The right hon. Baronet had pursued a fair and candid course of opposition to this Bill, and he had all along stated, that it went to an unnecessary length. Why, then, had not the right hon. Gentleman pointed out how. far the present Bill exceeded the measure of Reform, not which he could be willing to grant, but which he thought would have satisfied the people? But, said the right hon. Baronet, this ought not to have been done at once—not in the period of excitement—you should have postponed your measure; you should have waited until the popular excitement had gone by.
"Rusticus expectat, dum defluat amnis,
At ille labitur, et labetur in omne volubilis ævum."
But, if they had adopted this course, and had procrastinated until a calm might return, what outcries would not have been raised of broken faith! they would have been charged, with some appearance of justice, with having raised a clamour and excitement merely for the sake of gaining office, while the wishes of the people were wholly neglected, and their hopes cruelly disappointed. Would they not, having come into office on pledging themselves to Reform, and the Duke of Wellington having been compelled to resign on the
772
ground of his refusal to listen to the demands of the people for Reform, have been accused of a want of sincerity and of a broken promise? If the advice of the right hon. Baronet had been followed, there would have been good ground for some of the complaints now urged against Ministers by Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Baronet, however, admitted that some change was necessary, and he would concede Members to populous places; but, according to him, they should enfranchise first, and then disfranchise. But why, said the right hon. Baronet, meddle with the existing franchise in great places like Salisbury and Bath? Why, because, if the great mass of the more respectable classes of the population were not admitted to the enjoyment of the franchise, it mattered little whether Salisbury or Old Sarum, Bath or Gatton, nominally returned the Members. Unless, there was a respectable and responsible constituency, the one was as much a rotten borough as the other. Their object was, to get rid of the rotten boroughs, and, therefore, they threw open those large places to the householders, generally, instead of the constituency in them being limited to twelve or thirteen persons. If they had strictly adhered to the rights at present enjoyed by certain corporations, they should have lost many claims to public confidence, and justly have raised suspicions as to their sincerity in the cause of Reform. At present every Member in the House had become a Reformer, with the exception of the hon. member for the University of Oxford. Other hon. Gentlemen opposite stood up for moderate Reform in different degrees, but his hon. friend stood up for the right of the Nabob of Arcot to return Members for the preservation of all corporation rights—for vindicating the integrity of the borough of Old Sarum—and he maintained that, if Gatton was yielded, everything was given up. This was intelligible—the hon. Member went upon prescription; and, undoubtedly, prescription was as much violated in principle by placing five as fifty or sixty boroughs in schedule A. But when they came to other hon. Members, they found a strange discrepancy in their views. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment was for a moderate Reform, combining ancient prescription with modern improvement. The hon. member for Brecon was also for moderate Reform, and so was the hon. member for Okehampton, but they did not seem to have come to any

773
determination as to the degree of concession. The hon. member for Brecon said, that he was not opposed to schedule A, but that nothing could induce him to agree to schedule B. If the boroughs were nomination boroughs, put them in schedule A—if not, preserve their rights. But what said the hon. member for Okehampton? He was determined that not one borough should be found in schedule A, and he would as soon get rid of his head as of a decayed borough; but he would have no objection to an universal schedule B. An hon. Gentleman had charged Ministers with pressing the same measures forward that was submitted last year to the House; another hon. Gentleman charged them with having changed everything in this Bill. The hon. and learned member for St. Mawes complained of their having abandoned the census of 1821, and adopted that of 1831. He would not, however, at that late hour, weary the House with going through the numberless charges of the same nature brought against his Majesty's Ministers. He would not detain the House much longer, but there were one or two other topics to which he felt it his duty to call the attention of hon. Members. The hon. and learned Member for Boroughbridge had said, that they had been supported on every division on this Bill by a pledged majority. When hon. Gentlemen cried out respecting a packed majority, he would ask whether that majority, packed as it was called, never deserted his Majesty's Ministers? Had the House forgotten the Motion of the noble Lord, the member for Buckinghamshire, which was supported by a considerable portion of that majority? He would also remind those hon. Members who complained of a packed majority, of the observations of the hon. member for Okehampton, who admitted that the minority not only was, but must be, pledged; because, as he allowed, the opposition chiefly consisted of the Representatives of those places whose franchise was to be destroyed, and they were fighting, not for opinions, but for life and death. There was hardly an hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House from the opposite side, who did not profess to have his little Reform Bill; but he had not heard one describe, with any degree of clearness, the nature of the Reform he would have. The right hon. Baronet had frankly admitted that he had no plan of Reform to offer. Now, suppose that this measure of Reform was not granted, did he
774
expect the present Government would eat their words, and abandon the efficiency of the measure? Did he believe, if the present Administration were at an end, that a Government could beformed upon the principle of granting no Reform, and of not satisfying the demands of the people? When the right hon. Baronet talked of the danger of this Bill, did he think nothing of the danger of again rejecting it? If this Bill was rejected, another Bill could not be prepared and carried until after the lapse of a year. Did the right hon. Baronet think there was no danger of the agitation and excitement in keeping the measure pending, and paralysing the trade and industry of the country for another year? He (Mr. Stanley) was so convinced of the danger of delay, that he could not regard the consequences of the cause of Reform receiving another check without dismay. That some efficient measure must before long be passed—whether of greater or less extent than the present he would not say, but which must satisfy the people—was a question that the most violent opponents of Reform would be compelled to admit. They had heard much during the discussion on this Bill of the licentiousness of the Press, but was that licentiousness all on one side? Had that licentiousness grown out of the Reform Bill? The hon. and learned member for St. Mawes said, that in consequence of the Reform Bill, the Attorney General dared not do his duty. Were there any symptoms of that? Had they not dared to vindicate the laws?—to punish outrage?—to repress incendiarism? But did the hon. and learned Member recommend a crusade against the Press? He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that a strong Government had nothing to fear from the Press; but he (Mr. Stanley) did not mean, as he seemed to do, by a strong Government, one which would stifle public opinion by the strong arm of power, but one which, strong in the confidence of the people and of Parliament, might safely disregard the licentiousness of the Press, and would put down attacks by not fearing them. But further they were told that Reform was to destroy public credit, but the state of the funds was a sufficient answer to that, as they were found rising or falling as appearances were in favour of the Reform Bill or against it. To show that Reform had not tended to sink public credit, he would merely refer to the fact, that the three per cents were at seventy-seven when

775
the Duke of Wellington left office, and they were now eighty-two or eighty-three. The right hon. Baronet complained of the injury the long period of excitement had done to the public credit, and deplored the state of the monied class. So different was his opinion, that he could not have anticipated a better defence of the Bill than the case to which the right hon. Baronet had alluded. Hon. Gentlemen talked as if the franchise would be confined to the 10 l. householders, according to the Reform Bill. They forget that 10 l. was the minimum, and the very small proportion that houses of that rental bore to the whole number. The real facts of the case at once showed the erroneous reasoning that had been adopted on this subject. They were told that when this Bill should have passed, the Crown would have no power of choosing unpopular Ministers. He gave no opinion whether this power ought, or ought not to be curtailed; but if any Gentleman would look to the list of boroughs, he would ascertain, that, under the Reform Bill there would remain seventy-eight boroughs with less than 500 houses, which would entitle the occupiers to vote, and only forty-two above 1,500; and of these forty-two there were already no less than twenty-one under the present system. Surely, then, there would remain an ample number over which the legitimate influence of property might be exercised. He had himself the honour of sitting for a scot-and-lot borough, which contained 700 voters. He did not deny that it was under influence; yet the influence which returned one Member, possessed not a single house, and depended on good will alone. He had no desire to withdraw the smaller boroughs from under the fair influence of the landed proprietors. He had no wish to do away with the influence of property; on the contrary he would bind the landlord and tenant together by the exercise of reciprocal acts of kindness: such an influence was consistent with the best principles of human nature and he trusted it would continue to exist throughout the country. The right hon. Baronet said, that it would be difficult to maintain the public credit if the Reform Bill passed, it was a sufficient answer to that remark to state that the larger proportion of stock-holders consisted of those who had saved from their incomes comparatively small sums, such as retired tradesmen—clerks in public offices who had saved a portion of their salaries, and other persons of the same
776
description, being the most steady and careful part of the community? Indeed, the hon. member for Thetford referred, on a former occasion, to a document, for the purpose of showing that the very large portion of the fund-holders belonged to the middle classes of society. According to that hon. Gentleman there were in March, 1830, 273,800 accounts with the Bank, in each of which, at least, five persons were concerned, Of these 273,800, no less than 250,000 were in sums below a half-yearly dividend of 100 l.; and but 2,000 of the whole were for sums above 500 l. half-yearly. How then was it likely that the transfer of the elective franchise into the hands of the middle classes who were themselves the major part of the public creditors would be the means of endangering the safety of their own property as claimants on the State? Before he concluded the observations which he had thought it necessary to make on this subject, he begged to quote, an opinion given by the right hon. Baronet on the third reading of the Catholic Relief Bill; and, in doing so, he assured the right hon. Baronet that he did not quote his opinion in an invidious sense, but rather with a view to support the statement which he had made with his (Sir Robert Peel's) great authority. The reasoning of the right hon. Baronet on the occasion he had referred to, applied to the present state of the country as regarded the Reform Bill. On the Motion that the Catholic Relief Bill be read a third time, the right hon. Baronet said—'The rejection of this measure, will be productive of danger to a degree which can scarcely be credited. It will destroy the reconcilement which had been already effected: it will elevate the lower classes of partisans on one side, and depress them on the other, and will thus widen, to a most lamentable extent, the breach which is almost healed between the two parties. That is a consideration to which I am sure every Member of the House will give its due weight; no matter what objection he may have to the abstract policy of these measures. He may think that we are in the wrong;—he may condemn us for acting as we have done; but it will be perfectly consistent in him to argue, that having once brought such measures forward, we cannot avert the evils which are inseparable from their rejection. On these grounds I entreat the House, and every Member who has influence in the House, to pause before they come to a judgment this night. I am willing to

777
submit my conduct to public revision, but I must at the same time contend, that if any Member thinks that the consequence of rejecting these measures will produce a state of things very different from that on which he previously proposed to himself to give his vote, he will be more consistent in giving his vote conformably to the new state of things, than in adhering to his former vote, in a state of things which is completely altered. I trust that the time is now fast approaching when we shall for ever have done with the consideration of this question. If we were enabled to extricate ourselves from the innumerable mazes and ramifications of it,—if we were enabled to say, that our time shall be wasted no longer, by receiving petitions either in favour or in opposition to the Catholic claims—if we were enabled to disencumber ourselves of this endless Catholic question, and to turn to other objects the thirty or forty days which, for Sessions past, we have dedicated to it—even thus far we shall be conferring a great benefit on the country.'*
He adopted every word of this reasoning, and only regretted that the right hon. Baronet on the present occasion, repudiated his own arguments. This Bill had now been a considerable time before the House, and they were now taking leave of it, and he trusted that, ere long, it would receive the assent of the other branches of the Legislature; and he could not help hoping that the House of Lords, as they did in 1688 would comply with the loudly expressed wishes of the people and the declarations of this House; and, on this subject, he wished to refer the House to the language Hume used with respect to this subject. He said—'But it was impossible for the public to remain long in the present situation. The perseverance, therefore, of the lower House, obliged the Lords to comply, and, by the desertion of some Peers to the Whig party, the vote of the Commons, without any alteration, passed, by a majority of fifteen, in the Upper House, and received the sanction of every part of the Legislature which then subsisted.' He thought that there was no man who looked to the present state of the country, who would not feel the force of this passage. They were now arrived at the last stage of this Bill; they
* Hansard's Parl. Debates, New Series. vol. xx. p. 1594, 5.
778
had discussed it, he trusted for the last time in that House. They were about to send it to the other branch of the Legislature, accompanied by the wishes and opinions of a nation, and as he verily believed charged with a nation's destinies. God grant that those to whom it was to be remitted might have the wisdom, and the temper, and the prudence to join with that House in bringing to a successful issue this important measure, on which depended the future tranquillity of the realm, the safety and independence of the Aristocracy, not less than the prerogatives of the Crown, and the security of the liberties of the subject.
Mr. Huntsaid, although it was so late, it was impossible he could refrain from giving the Bill one parting word before it left that House. The right hon. Secretary, who had just sat down, had offered up an earnest prayer that the Bill might pass, and thus satisfy the wishes of the people; but he forgot the very important and very fair question put to him by the right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth. That right hon. Gentleman asked, how it was expected to conciliate the people when it was proposed to give the franchise to a very limited portion of the community, while nothing was to be done for the great mass? Was it intended to reduce taxation, or to get rid of the Corn-laws? No questions of that nature had been answered. He, therefore, must tell the right hon. Secretary that, if his Majesty's Ministers did not intend to grant relief to the people by the reduction of taxation, such a measure as this would go but a little way towards conciliating them. He believed that he was the only Member of that House who would get up in his place and avow himself an advocate for Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. He had been sent there by a class of persons to defend those principles in that House, and he was determined to fulfil their desire upon every occasion. The hon. and learned member for Calne had said, that the system of Representation in America was most excellent, but he forgot to add when he said so, that Universal Suffrage prevailed in that country. They had heard a number of authorities quoted on various topics, and he would refer to one also writen by a warm supporter of his Majesty's Government, but which was one of the greatest libels upon the Reform Bill, that he had seen. The authority he alluded to was the editor of The Times newspaper; and be begged to be allowed to

779
read a short paragraph from that paper, of the 6th of January, 1832, relative to the people of America. It stated:—
"The Official Report on the finances of the United States, the principal part of which we give this day, is a paper which ought to become the manual of every British Statesman. Here is a country, second only to Great Britain in power, among maritime States, overflowing with prosperity and happiness—one which knows not the meaning of internal tumult—one of which all the citizens, with scarcely an exception, can command the necessaries of life—meat, drink, clothing, and shelter from the elements, in abundance—one in which labour is sure of its reward; yet where Members of Parliament are chosen by universal suffrage—where neither tithes nor game-laws are to be found, and where the chief magistrate lives with dignity on an income from the public of about 5,000 l. per annum."
Such was the situation of a people whose Representatives were chosen by Universal Suffrage, where the taxes did not exceed 10 s. per man, while in this country they amounted to at least 6l. In that nation industry was encouraged, and property was as safe and as well protected as it was in England:—indeed, in America, riots never occurred; but what must be said of the state of London, when they could not have a fast without a riot? The working classes were more anxious than ever for Reform; but they wanted such a Reform as would give them a share in the Representation of the country. He was happy to hear the hon. and learned member for Calne had so far altered his tone as not to say a word about ragged rebels. He said, moreover, that this measure was peculiarly adapted for England, although not, perhaps, for Hindostan or America. Whether it would suit Hindostan he could give no opinion; but a plan of Representation proposed in America, which should embrace only one-eighth of the male population, would cause its author to be tarred and feathered. Standing in that House, as he did, the Representative of the working classes, he thought himself bound to inform the House of their feelings. He said, then, that, although the working classes were not anxious for the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, Gentlemen opposed to Reform must not lay the flattering unction to their souls—that, if this Bill was thrown out, any less measure of Reform would be acceptable to the people of this country. No doubt the people would rather have this Bill than none at all; but when it was passed, be was certain the right hon. Se-
780
cretary-at-War would not be able to tell his constituents of Westminster, that they must be satisfied with septennial Parliaments. He was sent to that House, because be had been imprisoned for the sake of Reform; and the right hon. Baronet was sent there because he was imprisoned for a libel on the House, and the men who elected them both would not be satisfied without shortening the duration of Parliaments. He should sit down, by declaring that he intended to follow the example of the right hon. Baronet, (Sir Robert Peel), who said, that, as he had all along voted against the Bill, he should do so now; and as he had all along voted in favour of the Bill, he intended to do so on this, the third reading.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, who appeared to be the Magnus Apollo of the other side of the House, being put forward by Ministers, who justly felt their own incompetency to argue all difficult questions, was unable to touch a single point of the unanswerable speech of his right hon. friend, the member for Tamworth. During the three quarters of an hour he spoke, he did not advance a single argument bearing upon the Bill. He said a great deal about Sir Richard Steele, Sir Robert Walpole, and Mr. Hume, but he had said little about the present state of the country. The right hon. Secretary asked, indeed, what had paralyzed the trade of the country? If the right hon. Secretary had received such information as he had received that morning from his county, he would be able to account for it. [Cries of "Question" and Murmurs.] He begged leave to move, as he could not be heard, that the debate be adjourned.
No Member seconded the Motion, and it was not put. The House divided, on the question that the Bill be now read a third time: Ayes 355; Noes 239—Majority 116.
Bill read a third time, but not passed, as amendments were yet to be proposed.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Baring, Sir T.

Adeane, H. J.

Baring, Francis T.

Althorp, Viscount

Barnet, Charles J.

Anson, Sir G.

Bayntum, S. A.

Anson, Hon. G.

Beaumont, T. W.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Benett, John

Atherley, A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Baillie, J. E.

Berkeley, Capt.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Bernal, R.

Barham, John

Biddulph, Robert M.

781

Blake, Sir F.

Foley, J. H. H.

Blamire, W.

Folkes, Sir W.

Blount, E.

Fordwich, Lord

Blunt, Sir C.

Foster, J.

Bouverie, Hon. D. P.

Fox, Lieut. Colonel

Bouverie, Hon. P. P.

Franco, Sir R.

Briscoe, J. I.

Gisborne, T.

Brougham, J.

Glynne, Sir S.

Brougham, W.

Gordon, R.

Buck, L. W.

Graham, Right Hon. Sir J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Buller, J. W.

Graham, Sir S.

Bulwer, E. E. L.

Grant, Rt. Hon. R.

Bulwer, H. L.

Greene, T. G.

Bunbury, Sir H. E.

Grosvenor, Earl

Burdett, Sir F.

Grosvenor, Rt. Hon. Lord R.

Burrell, Sir C.

Burton, H.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Buxton, T. F.

Gurney, R. H.

Byng, Sir J.

Handley, W. F.

Byng, G.

Harcourt, G. V.

Byng, G. S.

Harvey, D. W.

Calcraft, G. H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Calley, T.

Heathcote, Sir G.

Calvert, C.

Heathcote, G. J.

Calvert, N.

Heneage, G. F.

Carter, J. B.

Heron, Sir R.

Cavendish, Lord

Heywood, B.

Cavendish, Hon. C.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Cavendish, H. F. C.

Hodges, T. L.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Hodgson, J.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Horne, Sir W.

Clayton, Col.

Hoskins, K.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Howard, Hon. W.

Coke, T. W.

Howard, H.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Howard, P. H.

Cradock, Col.

Howick, Viscount

Crampton, P. C.

Hudson, T.

Creevey, T.

Hughes, Col.

Cripps, J.

Hughes, Alderman

Cunliffe, O.

Hume, J.

Curry, J.

Hunt, H.

Curteis, H. B.

Ingleby, Sir W. A.

Davies, Col. T. H. H.

James, W.

Denison, J. E.

Jerningham, Hon. H. V. S.

Denison, W. J.

Denman, Sir T.

Johnstone, Sir J. B.

Duncombe, T. S.

Kemp, T. R.

Dundas, Sir R. L.

King, Edward B.

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Knight, Henry G.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Knight, Robert

Dundas, C.

Labouchere, Henry

Easthope, John

Langston, J. H.

Ebrington, Viscount

Langton, Cob Gore

Ellice, Edward

Lawley, Francis

Ellis, Wynn

Lee, John L. H.

Etwall, Ralph,

Lefevre, C. S.

Evans, Col. de Lacy

Leigh, T. C.

Evans, William

Lemon, Sir C.

Evans, W. B.

Lennard, Thos. B.

Ewart, William

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Fazakerley, J. N.

Lennox, Lord G.

Fellowes, H. A. W.

Lennox, Lord W.

Ferguson, Gen. Sir R.

Lester, B. L.

Fitzroy, Lord J.

Littleton, E. J.

Fitzroy, Lieut. Col. C.

Loch, J.

Foley, Hon. T. H.

Lumley, J. S.

782

Lushington, Dr. S.

Smith, Hon. R.

Maberly, Col. W. L.

Smith, G. R.

Macaulay, Thomas B.

Smith, John

Macdonald, Sir J.

Smith, John A.

Marjoribanks, Stewart

Smith, M. T.

Marryatt, J.

Smith, R. V.

Marshall, W.

Spence, George

Mayhew, W.

Spencer, Hon. Capt.

Milbank, Mark

Stanhope, Capt. R. H.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Stanley, Lord

Mills, J.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E. G. S.

Milton, Viscount

Moreton, Hon. H.

Stanley, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Stephenson, H. F.

Morrison, James

Stewart, Patrick M.

Mostyn, E. M. L.

Strickland, G.

Newark, Viscount

Strutt, Edward

Noel, Sir G.

Stuart, Lord Dudley

North F.

Stuart, Lord P. J.

Norton, C. F.

Surrey, Earl of

Nugent, Lord

Talbot, C. R. M.

Ord, Wm.

Tennyson, Charles

Owen, Sir John

Thicknesse, Ralph

Owen, Hugh O.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. C. P.

Paget, Sir C.

Paget, T.

Thompson, P. B.

Palmer, General C.

Thompson, Alderman

Palmer, C. F.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Palmerston, Viscount

Tomes, John

Payne, Sir P.

Torrens, Col. R.

Pelham, Hon. C. A.

Townley, R. G.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Townshend, Lord C.

Penleaze, John S.

Tracy, Charles H.

Penrhyn, E.

Troubridge, Sir E.

Pepys, C. C.

Tufton, Hon. H.

Petit, Louis H.

Tynte, Charles K. K.

Petre, Hon. E.

Tyrell, Charles

Phillipps, Sir R. B.

Uxbridge, Earl of

Phillips, Chas. M.

Venables, Alderman

Philips, Geo. R.

Vere, James J. H.

Polhill, Capt. F.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Vernon, G. H.

Poyntz, W. S.

Villiers, F.

Price, Sir R.

Villiers, T. H.

Pryse, P.

Vincent, Sir F.

Ramsbottom, John

Waithman, Ald.

Ramsden, John C.

Walrond, B.

Bickford, Wm.

Warburton, H.

Rider, Thomas

Warre, J. A.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Wason, W. R.

Robarts, Abraham W.

Waterpark, L.

Robinson, Sir G.

Watson, Hon. R.

Robinson G. R.

Webb, Col. E.

Rooper, J. B.

Wellesley, Hon. W. T. L.

Rumbold, C. E.

Russell, Lord John

Western, C. C.

Russell, Sir R. G.

Weyland, Major R.

Russell, Lieut. Col.

Whitbread, W. H.

Russell, Charles

Whitmore, W. W.

Russell, W.

Wilbraham, G.

Sandon, Viscount

Wilks, J.

Sandford, E. A.

Williams, Sir J.

Schonswar, George

Williams, W. A.

Scott, Sir E D.

Williamson, Sir H.

Sebright, Sir J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Winnington, Sir T.

Slaney, R. A.

Wood, C.

783

Wood, Alderman

Carew, R. S.

Wrightson, W. B.

Chapman, M. L.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Clifford Sir A.

SCOTLAND.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Adam, Admiral C.

Copeland, Alderman

Agnew, Sir A.

French, A.

Campbell, W. F.

Grattan, H.

Dixon, J.

Grattan, J.

Ferguson, R.

Hill, Lord A.

Fergusson, R. C.

Hill, Lord G. A.

Gillon, W. D.

Hort, Sir J. W.

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Howard, R.

Haliburton, Hn. D. G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Jeffrey, Right Hon. F.

Killeen, Lord

Johnston, J. J.

King, Hon. R.

Johnstone, A.

Lambert, H.

Loch, J.

Lambert, J. S.

Mackenzie, S.

Leader, N. P.

M'Leod, R.

Macnamara, W.

Morrison, J.

Mullins, F.

Ross, H.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Sinclair, G.

O'Connel, M.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

O'Connor, Don

Stewart, E.

O'Farrell, M.

Traill, G.

O'Neil, Hon. Gen. J.

IRELAND.

Parnell, Sir H.

Acheson, Viscount

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Belfast, Earl of

Russell, J.

Bellew, Sir P.

Ruthven, E. S.

Bernard, T.

Sheil, R. L.

Bodkin, J. J.

Walker, C. A.

Boyle, Lord

Wallace, T.

Boyle, Hon. J.

Westenra, Hon. H.

Brabazon, Viscount

White, Colonel H.

Brown, J.

White, S.

Browne, D.

Wyse, T.

Brownlow, C.

Tellers.

Burke, Sir J.

Duncannon, Viscount

Callaghan, D.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

List of the NOES.

Ashley, Lord

Burge, William

A'Court, Captain

Burrard, George

Alexander, J.

Buxton, J. J.

Alexander, J. Du Pre

Capel, John

Antrobus, G. C.

Cecil, Lord T.

Apsley, Lord

Chandos, Marquis

Ashley, Hon. H.

Cholmondeley, Ld. H.

Ashley, Hon. J.

Churchill, Lord C. S.

Astell, W.

Clive, Viscount

Atkins, J.

Clive, Hon. R. H.

Attwood, M.

Cockburn, Rt. Hon. Sir G.

Bladwin, C. B.

Bankes, G.

Constable, Sir C.

Bankes, W. J.

Cooke, Sir Henry

Baring, A.

Courtenay, Rt. Hon. T. P.

Baring, H. B.

Barne, Capt. J.

Croker, Rt. Hn. J. W.

Bastard, Capt. J.

Curzon, Hon. R.

Beckett, Right Hon. Sir J.

Cust, Hon. Col. E.

Cust, Hon. Capt. P.

Beresford, Col. M.

Dawkins, James

Best, Hon. W. S.

Dering, Sir E. C.

Boldero, F. G.

Dick, Quintin

Bradshaw, Capt. J.

Domville, Sir C.

Brogden, James

Douro, Marquis of

Brudenell, Lord

Dowdeswell, J. E.

784

Drake, T. T.

Mandeville, Viscount

Drake, Col. W. T.

Martin, Sir Byam

East, James B.

Mexborough, Earl of

Eastnor, Viscount

Miles, P. J.

Elliot, Lord

Miles, William

Encombe, Viscount

Miller, W. H.

Estcourt, T. B.

Morgan, C. M. R.

Estcourt, T. H. S. B.

Mount, W.

Fane, Hon. H. S.

Neeld, Joseph

Fane, Col. J. T.

Nicholl, Right Hon. Sir G.

Farrand, Robert

Fitzroy, Hon. H.

Nugent, Sir G.

Foley, Edward T.

Peach, Nathaniel

Forbes, Sir C.

Pearse, John

Forbes, John

Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Forester, Hn. G. C. W.

Peel, Col.

Fox, S. L.

Peel, W.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Pelham, J. C.

Freshfield, James W.

Pemberton, T.

Goulburn, Rt. Hn. H.

Penruddock, J. H.

Gordon, Col. J.

Perceval, S.

Gordon, John Adam

Phipps, Hon. Gen. E.

Graham, Marquis

Pigott, G. G. W.

Grant, Gen. Sir C.

Pollington, Viscount

Grimston, Viscount

Porchester, Lord

Hardinge, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Praed, W. M.

Price, R.

Herbert, Hon. E. C. H.

Pringle, Sir W.

Herries, Rt. Hn. J. C.

Robarts, Wilson A.

Hill, Sir Rowland

Rogers, E.

Hodgson, Frederick

Rose, Rt. Hon. Sir G. H.

Holdsworth, A. H.

Holmes, W.

Rose, Capt. Pitt

Holmesdale, Viscount

Ross, C.

Hope, Henry T.

Ryder, Hon. G. D.

Hope, John T.

Sadler, M. T.

Hotham, Lord

Scarlett, Sir James

Houldsworth, T.

Scot, Sir S.

Howard, Hon. Col.

Severn, J. C.

Hulse, Sir C.

Seymour, H. B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sibthorp, Colonel C. D. W.

Irving, John

Jenkins, R.

Smith, A.

Jermyn, Earl

Smith, S.

Joliffe, Sir W. G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Joliffe, Col. H.

Stewart, Charles

Kearsley, John H.

Stormont, Viscount

Kemmis, T. A.

St. Paul, Sir H. D.

Kenyon, Hon. L.

Sugden, Sir E. B.

Kerrison, Sir E.

Taylor, George W.

Kilderbee, Sir H.

Thynne, Lord H. F.

Knight, J. L.

Thynne, Lord John

Lascelles, Hon. W.

Townshend, Hon. Col.

Legh, Col.

Trench, Col. F. W.

Lewis, Rt. Hon. T. F.

Trevor, Hon. Arthur

Loughborough, Lord

Tunno, Edward R.

Lovaine, Lord

Ure, Masterton

Lowther, Viscount

Valletort, Viscount

Lowther, Col. H.

Vaughan, John E.

Lowther, John H.

Villiers, Viscount

Luttrell, John F.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lyon, D.

Wall, Charles B.

Mackillop, James

Walsh, Sir John

Mackinnon, W. A.

Warrender, Sir G.

Mahon, Viscount

Welby, Glynne E.

Maitland, Viscount

West, F. R.

Malcolm, Sir J.

Wetherell, Sir C.

785

Weyland, John

Blaney, Hon. Capt. C.

Williams, Robert

Brydges, Sir John

Wood, Col. Thomas

Castlereagh, Viscount

Worcester, Marq. of

Clements, Col. J. M.

Wortley, Hon. J. S.

Cole, Lord

Wyndham, Wadham

Cole, Hon. Arthur

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Conolly, Colonel

Wynn, Rt. Hn. C.

Cooper, Edward J.

Wynn, C. W. G.

Coote, Eyre

Yorke, Capt. C. P.

Corry, Hon. H. L.

Yorke, J.

Ferrand, Walter,

SCOTLAND.

Fitzgerald, Sir A.

Arbuthnot, Hon. General H.

Gordon J. E.

Hancock, R

Balfour, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Blair, William

Ingestrie, Visc.

Bruce, C. C. L.

Jones, Theobald

Cumming, Sir W.

Knox, Hon. John H.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Lefroy, A.

Davidson, Duncan

Lefroy, Dr. T.

Douglas, W. R. K.

Maxwell, H.

Dundas, Robert A.

Meynell, Capt. H.

Gordon, Hn. Capt. W.

Perceval, Col.

Graham, Ld. M. W.

Pusey, Philip

Grant, Hon. F. W.

Rae, Sir W.

Hay, Sir J.

Rochford, Col. G.

Lindsay, Col. James

Shaw, F.

Maitland, Hon. C. A.

Tullamore, Lord

Murray, Sir G.

Wigram, W.

Pringle, Alexander

Wynne, John

Ramsay, Williams

Young, J.

Scot, H. F.

IRELAND.

TELLERS.

Archdall, Gen. M.

Dawson, G. R.

Bateson, Sir R.

Clerk, Sir G.

List of Thirteen pairs.

For the Bill.

Against the Bill.

Chichester, Sir A.

Bateson, Sir R.

Clive, E. B.

Beresford, Sir J. P.

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Clive, H.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Clinton, C.

Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.

Dugdale, W. S.

Godson, R.

Forbes, Viscount

Knox, Hon. J. H.

Hope, Hon. Sir A.

Newport, Sir J.

Pollock, F.

Peel, Edmond

Stewart, Sir H.

Portman, E. B.

Sym, W.

Tavistock, Marquis of

Thynne, Lord E.

Williams, J.

Williams, T. P.

Wood, J.

Wrangham, Digby, C.

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the Marquis of LANSDOWN, of the Amount of the Assessed Taxes in Dartmouth, for the years 1829, 1830, and 1831; Memorials of the Inhabitants of Ramsgate and Greenock, and of the Burgesses of Appleby, the amount of Population and Number of Houses in the present and proposed Boroughs; amount of Exemptions from Assessed Taxes on Account of Yeomanry Cavalry; a Summary of what the Returning Officer considered the Right of Voting, with a Plan of Bodmin, the Number of Voters polled at the last contested Elections, and the Number of Freemen in Boroughs and Corporate Towns:—On the Motion of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, of the Number of Vessels employed in the Repression of the Slave Trade by Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Brazil, and France, with Copies of the Special Orders issued to their Commanders.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from Merchants, Shipowners, and others, of the Town of Belfast, interested in the Trade of the West-Indies, for a reduction of the Duties on West-India produce:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Inhabitants of Moyanna and Stradbally, for the Abolition of Tithes; and from the East-India Company, to be heard by Counsel against certain parts of the Zemindar of Nozeed's Bill:—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Wellington. By Viscount LORTON, from the Clergy, Landowners, and Inhabitants of Bruera, and Foxearth.—By the Bishop of CHESTER, from the Mayor and Inhabitants of Chester. By Lord BEXLEY, from Reading and Maidenhead. By the Earl of RODEN, from Wareham; from the Presbyterians of Drumquin, Tyrone; Bandon, Cork; Monaghan; the Presbyterians of Renshaw, Down, and of Drum, Monaghan; and Renfin, Kennail. By the Earl of WICKLOW, from Murrough, against the New plan of Education in Ireland:—By the Bishop of CHESTER, from the Inhabitants of Blackburn, against the Anatomy Bill.

DUBLIN COAL TRADE BILL.
Lord Aucklandmoved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Lord Ellenboroughregretted, that the Bill had been so long delayed in coming before their Lordships, as he understood there was now a necessity for passing it forthwith. Under such circumstances, he would not move the Amendment, which he thought the Bill required, upon receiving an assurance from his noble friend, that he would look into the question, so far as regarded compensation to the individuals who claimed it; and, that if his noble friend should be satisfied that the fees were legal, that he would use his influence with Government to cause justice to be done to them.
Lord Aucklandsaid, the delay complained of by his noble friend was occasioned by the necessity of examining into the allegations of those persons who petitioned against the Bill. As to the assurance, which his noble friend required, he had no hesitation in giving it, and he pledged himself that the question of compensation should be considered.
Lord Ellenboroughwas quite satisfied with that assurance, because, he was sure that the question would be fairly considered. If it was to be left entirely to the Law Officers of Ireland, they might be biassed by party feelings.
Lord Plunkettthought the noble Lord was hardly justified in throwing out such insinuations, he surely did not mean to impute improper motives to these individuals, although his remarks sounded very like it.
Lord Ellenboroughunderstood from the most authentic reports of what passed in Parliament, that the Solicitor General of Ireland had already given an opinion in his place, not very favourable to the petitioners, but his main objection rested to the legal advisers of the Crown, in their official capacity, deciding on the property of individuals. These persons were notoriously more or less connected with party, and this question had been taken up as a party question. He, therefore, thought a more impartial tribunal ought to be selected than the Law Officers of the Crown.
Lord Aucklandsaid, they had followed the usual course adopted upon all such occasions. The opinions to be taken would, of course, be the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, and they had

583
no other means of proceeding in this Case.
Bill went through the Committee, and was reported.

MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).
The Order of the Day for the consideration of the new system of Education in Ireland, was read.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, he should feel that he owed an apology to their Lordships for bringing under their consideration a subject which had been recently much discussed incidentally on the presentation of Petitions, were it not that he was strongly impressed with its importance, not only to the future welfare of the country, but to the immediate tranquillity of Ireland. On one point they were all agreed, that to a sound and moral education of the people, rather than to any other course, which the Legislature could adopt, they were to look forward for the future improvement and future tranquillity of the country. But while they all concurred in this general proposition, they were lamentably at variance as to the best mode in which education could be imparted to the people. Had nothing been done up to the present moment, were the ground a mere waste on which they proposed to construct their edifice, they might well pause before they determined in a matter of so much importance upon any plan of proceeding. But when they found the ground occupied with a system of Scriptural education, and when they found that the hierarchy of the Established Church, that the Protestants of all classes, both Episcopalian and Presbyterian, felt the deepest conviction that no system of education which excluded the reading of the Holy Scriptures, was fit to be adopted by a Christian community, there was surely abundant reason why that plan should not be done away, without the most convincing evidence that it was unfit for its purpose. They were told, that the Roman Catholics considered the reading of the Sacred Scriptures to be repugnant and hostile to their religion, and this contrariety of opinion seemed to present a barrier against the introduction of any general system of education nearly insuperable. In consideration of this unfortunate impediment, it had been suggested that two different systems should be introduced—one for the children of Protestants, and the other for the children of Roman Catholics. But here again there arose
584
a difficulty, for they were met at the outset by a declaration of the Roman Catholic Bishops, and particularly of Dr. Doyle, that the separation of the people for the purpose of education was evidently injudicious, and that such separation was calculated to destroy some of the best principles in the mind of man. But he would ask, why were they called upon now to discuss the merits of a new system of education? What had become of the large grants of money made by Parliament for many years for this beneficial purpose. Had those grants been unproductive? No; he would assert that those grants had been highly advantageous, and, that the Society to which they were intrusted had ably, conscientiously, and successfully discharged its duty. The first parliamentary grant was in the year 1816, and from that time to the year 1825 not a whisper against the Kildare-street Society had been heard. At the latter period, however, a sudden determination sprung up to oppose it by all possible means, principally on the part of the demagogues and agitators in Ireland. From that time to the year 1831 the clamour against the Society increased, and, although it could clearly be shown that the benefits which their system bestowed upon the country had increased in an equal rate with that clamour, the Government had all at once determined to abolish the Society, and supersede the existing system. When they inquired the reasons why the Society was to be dissolved, they were told, first, that it had been partial in its conduct; secondly, that the people took but little interest in its success, inasmuch as the voluntary subscriptions for its support were inconsiderable in proportion to the amount of the grants; and, in the third place, that the system of the Society was objected to on the part of the Roman Catholics. Now, in reply to the first of these allegations, he would say, that all the transactions of the Society were open; that the knowledge of its proceedings was accessible alike to Protestants and to Roman Catholics; that, therefore, had there been any instance of partiality, it could easily have been pointed out; and, that in fact, no such instance had ever been pointed out. The fact undoubtedly was, that half the children educated in the Society's schools were the children of persons of the Protestant persuasion; but this disproportionate number of Protestant

585
children was only a proof that the Protestants were the more civilized part of the community, and thence more anxious than the Roman Catholics for the education of their children, and no proof whatever that the Society acted with partiality. Then the second allegation was, that the subscriptions were small; and no doubt the direct subscriptions to the funds of the Society were so. The object of the institution was to encourage local exertions in the establishment of schools; and there had been no less than from 1,600 to 1,700 schools established in connection with the Society. Their Lordships might then very well conceive that the expenditure of local patrons must have been very large indeed in comparison with the grant. He now came to the third reason alleged for the dissolution of the Society—that its system had incurred the disapprobation of the Roman Catholics. He had already stated, that it was not until 1825—nine years after the system had been in operation—that this disapprobation had been expressed. So far from the Society having been opposed by the Roman Catholics, the fact was, that it had at first been objected to by the High-Church party, as too favourable to the Roman Catholics; and he declared, that, at the time when he put his schools, or, rather he should say, the schools on his estate, in connection with the Society, he thought he did an act favourable to the Roman Catholics, and it was, he knew, so considered by them. Then why was it, he repeated, that the system had been abandoned? He would tell their Lordships the reason, and the only one. It was to please the demagogues and the agitators. The new system was a base submission to the clamour of faction. The noble Lords opposite would deny this, and say, as they had said before, that they had acted in pursuance of the authority of successive Commissions of inquiry. This was the whole argument of his noble and learned friend, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. His noble and learned friend did wisely in taking this ground, for it was only by this means that his Majesty's Government could escape that charge of rashness to which they would have been justly liable, had they, while yet so young in office, ventured upon their own information and authority, to adopt a measure of so much importance. Then what justification of the measure was to be found in the Reports of these
586
successive Commissions? There had been three of these Commissions: the first was that of 1812, at the head of which, stood the name of the Lord Primate of Ireland. This Board did adopt some Resolutions very similar to some parts of the present system. They recommended the use of selections from the Scriptures in lieu of the whole Bible. But they went no further. And the Kildare-street Society adopted the entire spirit of their resolutions; and so satisfied was the Parliament that this was the case, that a Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, in sanctioning the recommendation of the Commissioners, was expressed in almost the same words as the report of the Kildare-place Society. Then there was the report of another education Commission, which expressly said, that there was no reason to object to the system of the Kildare-street Society. The next Board of Commissioners was in 1825. He admitted that it was composed of very able and intelligent men, who promulgated almost the same principles as those in Mr. Stanley's letter. But what did they do? Did they recommend the abolition of the Kildare-street Society? No such thing. But after two years consideration, in 1827 they determined to try the effect of their own system as a separate experiment. And two years after this, they reported, that the experiment had wholly failed, and, that they had determined to desist from its further prosecution. This Report, acknowledging the failure of the system, was signed by every member of the Board. Yet this was the example by which his Majesty's Ministers were led—this, which was a beacon to warn then off, and not a guide to follow. Another Commission sat in 1828, under the Government of the noble Duke below him of which the then Irish Secretary was Chairman. It came to a Resolution recommending that copies of the New Testament should be introduced for the use of the children, under the care of their respective teachers—the Protestant version to the Protestant children, and the Douay edition for the Catholics. He wished to call the attention of the House to the difference between that recommendation and the letter of Mr. Stanley. The one proposed that the Scriptures should be read in a qualified manner, but Mr. Stanley did not say one word about it. He took up various other parts of the Report, but he carefully left out all which

587
appertained to the most important consideration. He might, perhaps, be told, that the new Board did not prohibit religious instruction, inasmuch as two days in the week were appointed for that purpose; but the House would soon see how inefficient such a proposition was, when they considered that the new system was founded in opposition to a Society, which required the use of the Scriptures; and, when Mr. Stanley's letter alleged that the reading of the Scriptures without note or comment, would be objected to by the Roman Catholics, the friends to the new system could triumphantly appeal to the Reports of the various Commissions. But, if he were to grant, for the argument's sake, that these recommendations were entitled to respect, he must, at the same time, appeal from the Reports to the Governments that appointed the Boards, and ask why it was, that the respective Governments did not act upon them? He put that question more particularly in reference to the Government of the noble Duke, and he thought, he might answer for the noble Duke, that he was anxious to make some improvements in the system of education, that he tried various means to effect it, that he looked to the Reports of the Boards with attention, but, that he hesitated before he rashly adopted the recommendations contained in them; and, in short, the caution of the noble Duke was so great, that, up to the last moment of his Administration, there was neither a change made nor any prospect of its being introduced. No sooner, however, did the late Government go out of office, and no sooner was the fresh Administration in possession of it, than the work of havoc began; the axe was laid to the root of all our institutions, revolution, under the name of reform, became the order of the day—reform in finance—reform in foreign and domestic policy—reform in Parliament, in Church and State—lastly, reform in the system of education. Nothing was too great for their Ministerial comprehension, nothing too small for their inquisitorial execution. In their Reform mania the system of education in Ireland, which had rendered so much actual good, was subverted, and a system of theory placed in its room. When he stated, that the Roman Catholics were not averse to the system of the Kildare-street Society, he must admit that a large portion of the priesthood were hostile to it; several of the children
588
were removed, though the parents, in other instances, refused to withdraw them. So far as his own experience went, he did not know an instance of any child being removed in his neighbourhood, but he was in possession of a memorial from several heads of families complaining that attempts were made by the Priests to keep their children away from school. He was aware that he might be asked, did he mean to excite the people against their Priests, and to discharge them from the influence of that body. To that, he could only reply by asking in his turn, if the authority of the Priests, if the influence of the Papist Church, seemed to decline, was it becoming that a Protestant Legislature should labour to revive it? was it right, when the fetters of superstition were worn out, to forge them anew? was it wise, when light was breaking in upon a benighted nation, again wilfully to replunge that nation into darkness? Should it be said, that, when the influence of the Papist Priests in Ireland was beginning to decay, a Whig Government infused new life and vigour into their system. He confessed, however, that he should not desire to see the Roman Catholic people of Ireland pass from under the dominion of Priests to that of demagogues. This would be a change from some religion to none—from some subordination to entire anarchy—from some restraint to the unbounded dominion of lawless passion. But were they utterly to despair of seeing the influence of the Roman Catholic Priesthood in Ireland impaired by the gradual and general influence of education and knowledge? He would not advocate the policy of introducing a system of proselytism under the name and disguise of a system of national education, but neither would he employ the authority of the State to prevent proselytism. What, he would ask, produced the Reformation? What, but the progressive weight and authority of truth? And because the light of truth was burning brighter and brighter each succeeding year, were they to be called upon to extinguish it? If his Majesty's Ministers bad grounds for believing that some change was desirable in the system of education, was this the moment to introduce it? What could be the effect of the general discussion of such a subject in Ireland but to tear open the wounds of civil and religious discord, which, they hoped they had succeeded in

589
closing? The course pursued by his Majesty's Ministers was equally calculated to excite surprise, whether it was considered with reference to the interests of the country, or to its certain effect of shaking their own popularity. He spoke not of the mob and rabble popularity, of the popularity which Ministers enjoyed among the incendiaries of one city, or the window-breakers of another, but of the popularity to which, an honest and able Ministry ought to aspire among the educated and intelligent classes of Society. Could anything tend so much to shake the confidence of these classes as an attempt to break down the principles of religion? This was not a party question exclusively, for the Protestantism of Ireland was part and parcel of the Protestantism of this country. That man was greatly mistaken who supposed that the interests of the Protestant religion could be deserted in Ireland, without giving a fatal blow to the interests of religion in England. He called upon their Lordships, to consider this question, and to weigh it deliberately, if it vitally affected the religion of their own country, which he considered it did. He expected the aid of all those who, although they might believe some change necessary, still thought the change of system now proposed, was a crude and undigested mass. He expected the aid of those who, carrying their Scriptural notions further, perhaps than he did, thought it an indispensable duty to diffuse the Holy Scriptures in every quarter. He relied confidently upon the aid of those orthodox friends of the Church of England, who were anxious to maintain her exalted character, and diffuse her pure and beneficent doctrines. He should now beg leave to move this Resolution:—"That, inasmuch as by the plan of national education established in Ireland, the Bible is practically excluded from schools formed under the sanction of his Majesty's Government; this House cannot view that plan with approbation."
The Duke of Norfolkrose merely to correct a misconception of the noble Earl as to the doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church with respect to the Scriptures. That Church did not refuse the use of the Holy Scriptures to the laity, as the noble Lord, in common with many others, erroneously supposed. Its denial of the right of private judgment, as inherent in every individual and applicable to all questions, was what distinguished it
590
from many of the Protestant churches, although he believed the right reverend Bench would not altogether disapprove of its reserve in this respect. He had not intended to address their Lordships, and rose merely for the purpose of correcting the misrepresentation of the noble Earl. He begged leave, however, to add, that he approved of the new system of education, because, in his opinion, it was calculated to make good Catholics and good Protestants. He considered it was unfair to impute to the Catholic Church that it denied the Bible to the laity.
The Earl of Wicklowhad not given any opinion of his own upon the point to which the noble Duke referred. He had only said, that they were told the reading of the Scriptures by the laity was objectionable to the Church of Rome; and if the noble Duke wished him to give his authority, he would refer him to Mr. Stanley's letter.
The Duke of Norfolkwas merely anxious to prevent its going forth to the public that the heads of the Catholic Church prohibited the use of the Scriptures to the great body of the laity. On the contrary, it was their uniform practice to enjoin the perusal of the Sacred volume.
The Bishop of Chesterwould not have risen but for what had fallen from the noble Duke on the subject of the Scriptures being enjoined by the authorities of the Catholic Church to be read by the laity. He had always hitherto understood that the principle of the Roman Catholic Church was, to withhold the Scriptures from the people at large, and that was wholly different from the Protestant practice, for if there was any principle which their Protestant fathers held more sacred than another, it was that of extending the Holy Scriptures to all men. But the new system of education, if he understood it right, sanctioned the Catholic principle rather than the Protestant principle; and, as a Prelate of the Protestant Church, called on to give his opinion, he could not otherwise characterize that system than as an unhappy compromise of one of the most essential duties of a Protestant Government. However he might differ in opinion from his Majesty's Government, he had no doubt that their intention was good. It must be considered that they were legislating for Ireland, and what was all legislation for that unhappy country

591
but a choice of difficulties? Nevertheless, if their Lordships sanctioned this compromise of Protestant principles, they would commit a most fatal error.
The Duke of Leinstersaid, that as one of the members of the Board recently established to promote the new system, he wished to state that it was the desire of the members, one and all, that the children taught in the Schools under their superintendence should have a Scriptural education. It was a foul and unjust reproach to them to say that they were opposed to the diffusion of the Word of God. There was every facility afforded for religious instruction, with an earnest endeavour to avoid bigotry and fanaticism, and to produce harmony among the various sects. To show in some degree the spirit in which the opposition was carried on, he would mention the case of one school in Ireland. He knew an instance of a school which had existed about fourteen years, and which was in a great degree supported by voluntary contributions. The conductors of that establishment applied to the present Board of Education for assistance, which was afforded them; when certain of the subscribers among the high Protestant party immediately withdrew their subscriptions, for no other reason that he could understand but that they were apprehensive their school would be contaminated by receiving assistance from a Board which committed no other offence than being careful to avoid any disrespect to Catholic feeling. He would merely observe that there were already upwards of 200 schools which educated 14,000 children, connected with the new Board, and regulated on its plan.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that there never was a more miserable shift of any party in opposition to raise an unjust and unfounded outcry against an Administration. It was contrary to the fact to say, that religious education was neglected by the Board. The fact was, that two days in each week, besides the Sabbath, and a part of every other day, were set aside for religious instruction. It had been said, that the use of a book of extracts from the Scriptures, would supersede the reading of the Sacred volume itself, Now, it might as well be said, that to learn the rudiments of any science would prevent the general study of that science. He would ask those who talked so loudly about the neglect of religious instruction in the
592
national schools in Ireland, where were the schools in England in which so much attention was given to religion as in those schools? He had himself sons at the public schools, as had also some of the noble Lords opposite; and he had no objection to join with those Lords in a remonstrance against the total neglect of religious instruction in all the public schools in England; but he must ask them, why did they blame the Government for neglect, at the very time that it was carefully giving to the children in the schools under its direction in Ireland a more religious education, than the sons of the noble Lords themselves were receiving at the public schools? To arraign Ministers for the most excellent regulation which had been made by the Board of Education, was absurd. It was, he repeated, a mean and miserable shift of a factious and rancorous opposition.
The Bishop of Londondid not intend to trespass on the House by going at any length into the discussion of the Resolution moved by the noble Earl opposite, because he had already had an opportunity of stating his sentiments on the subject to which it related. He then rose only to say one word in the defence of a much-calumniated body of men—the heads of the public schools in England. He himself had not had the good fortune to receive his education at one of those institutions, but he knew enough of them to be able to say, that Scriptural education was not neglected in them, and that there had been of late a great improvement in that respect. The noble Baron (Lord Suffield) had asked was there any day devoted to religious education in the public schools in England. He (the Bishop of London) answered yes; he had himself a son now receiving his education in one of them, and he would say, that his religious principles were as much attended to as any parent could desire. There were in London two public schools in which religious education was so carefully conducted, that the pupils, at the time of leaving them, were fit to pass an examination for Holy Orders. He did not know where some noble Lords had acquired their experience, but he could only suppose that the course which they described as being followed in the public schools, was that which had been pursued in their own education. At present that was not the question before their Lordships; but what

593
system of education ought to be introduced into the national schools of Ireland? And in affording education to the Irish, it was to be recollected that Parliament had a remedy in their own hands, and that it was for them to devise the most suitable and practical mode of imparting education founded upon Scriptural knowledge. The noble Lord ought to recollect that there already existed in Ireland societies which were the means of affording much valuable instruction; and it was also to be recollected that the Roman Catholics themselves were not altogether averse to the reading the Scriptures. Then why withdraw aid from those Societies which had done, and were doing, so much good? Though the Scriptures were inculcated by the several branches of the Kildare-street Society, it was clear from the Report of the Commissioners, that there was no attempt, on the part of that body, to interfere with the religion of the Catholics, or to pursue any system of proselytism. Under such circumstances he would again say, that he did not see the necessity of withdrawing funds from that Society, or otherwise interfering with it.
Lord Suffieldrose to explain. He did not mean to charge the conductors of the public schools of this country with any neglect of giving Scriptural education. What he meant was, merely to institute a comparison between the system proposed by noble Lords opposite, who called out for the unmutilated Scriptures, and the system pursued at schools in England. He would ask the right reverend Prelate whether boys in England generally upon leaving school had not a better recollection of the heroes of Homer?
Lord Tenterdensaid, that the noble Baron was out of order—he had already spoken on the subject before the House.
Lord Suffieldsaid, that be had a right to explain. In the most strictly Protestant schools in England—in those, for instance, of the British and Foreign Society, and in the national schools, to both which he was a subscriber and a zealous friend—the plan of religious instruction was the same as that which the Resolution would condemn.
The Marquis of Salisburyrose to order, and said, it was not usual that any noble Lord in the course of any debate, should trespass a second time on their Lordships with a speech which was not strictly in explanation.
Lord Suffieldwould save the noble Marquis the trouble of bringing him to order, by assuring him that he had already said every word which he had intended to say.
The Marquis of Clanricardesaid, the right reverend Prelate had entirely misconceived the principle upon which the Kildare-street Society was established. The schools under their superintendance were not co-extensive with the population; in fact they bore no proportion to the wants of the people in those districts in Munster and Connaught where they were most wanted; and it was by experience proved that their system, if extended, which it could not be, would never be palatable to the Catholics. The proposition of the Kildare-street Society was, to commit the education of Catholics to the care of Protestants; and he left it to their Lordships to judge whether that was at all likely to be successful. The present plan was, to give moral and literary instruction indiscriminately to all, allowing the parents and the pastors of each sect to impart their own particular religious opinions. It was not right, therefore, to say that the Scriptures were excluded; for, besides the two days set apart for religious instruction, extracts from the Bible were read during the school days. Neither was it correct to say that the new plan would fail; for already, during a short period of four months, there had been nearly as many applications to the Board as there had been to the Kildare-street Society from its commencement; and he could take upon himself to say, that some of those applications came from clergymen of the Established Church, and clergymen, too, as anxious and sincere in their zeal for Protestantism as any Member of their Lordships' House. In fact the opposition was not made on principle, but it was a question of party; and he would venture to assert, that those who objected to this plan could not themselves propose a better, nor any one more likely to be adopted and afford more Scriptural education.
The Bishop of Exeterspoke as follows:* My Lords, I can assure the noble Marquis who has just sat down, that I will adhere to the advice which he has been pleased to give to your Lordships, and will confine myself strictly to the question before the
* Reprinted from the corrected speech, published by Murray.

595
House. I have, in truth, no temptation to wander from it; for the question itself is far more than sufficient for me to hope to do justice to it; and it is besides far more interesting in itself than any collateral matter could help to make it. My Lords, it is, I can assure your Lordships, felt to be so by thousands out of this House, and by not a few, I trust, within it. It is a question which, as it will be my duty to endeavour to satisfy your Lordships before I conclude, has not only excited, but has also justified, the greatest anxiety and alarm, both in Ireland, and throughout the empire at large.
Before I proceed, my Lords, to enter upon the discussion of this most important subject, I will venture to make one remark in reference to an observation of the right reverend Prelate behind me (the Bishop of Chester), for whom I may be permitted to say I entertain the most sincere respect. That right reverend Prelate has said, that he could not consent, on this occasion, to raise his voice in condemnation of his Majesty's Ministers, although he disapproved of the plan proposed by them. My Lords, I, too, wish to be understood, in the observations which I am about to address to you, as meaning to say nothing unnecessarily disrespectful to his Majesty's Ministers. My remarks will be made against the measure, and not against the men. And yet, my Lords, I shall not be restrained by any apprehension of incurring the censure of a noble Lord who has recently addressed you, of being called factious, or belonging to a faction—an accusation pretty liberally bestowed of late on those who have considered it their duty on public grounds, to oppose a public measure—I say, my Lords, I shall not be restrained by any apprehension of being charged as a member of a faction from speaking as becomes a member of your Lordships' House; and if I shall find it necessary to offer any very strong observations against the measure, I shall not scruple to do so; trusting, that the noble Earl at the head of His Majesty's Government, and his colleagues, will understand that I wish my observations to apply as little as possible to them, but as much as possible to the measure itself. I say this the more readily, because I do not think that there are many among those noble Lords, although officially responsible for the measure, who know what that measure really is.
596
My Lords, I do not make this charge on slight grounds; for when I hear noble Lords who have spoken in defence of the new plan, particularly the noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) declare, that the principle of it has been sanctioned by all the Commissions and Committees that have hitherto devoted their labours to the consideration of this subject, it is plain to my understanding that they know not what this new plan really is. My Lords, instead of being the same in principle as that which has been recommended by the Reports of previous Commissions and Committees, I affirm, that the present measure not only has not the sanction of those Reports, but is in direct opposition to them all. If, therefore, my Lords, I establish this point to the satisfaction of your Lordships, I think I shall stand excused for saying that I very much doubt or rather I do much more than doubt, whether the noble Lords know what this measure really is.
My Lords, I will now beg leave to refer to the letter addressed to the noble Duke at the head of the New Board of Education, whom I am most happy to see in his place, from the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland, and I will beg leave, from that letter, which is the formal and official exposition of the new plan of national education in Ireland, to show what that plan is. It may be considered as dividing itself into three distinct particulars, as respects—first, the moral and literary instruction which it is proposed to afford to Protestants and to Roman Catholics in common; secondly, the separate religious instruction of Protestants; thirdly, the separate religions instruction of the Roman Catholics. From an examination of these several parts, I will undertake to show, that the real principle of this national plan of education is to exclude Scripture altogether from some of the schools supported by the State; and to lay the least possible stress on Scripture as a part of that education in all. In truth, my Lords, strange as it may seem, this official exposition of the plan, I mean Mr. Stanley's letter, from the point at which it commences the development of his plan, is so constructed, as to avoid the very mention of Scripture at all.
First, as respects the common instruction of Protestants and Catholics, this is the provision:—
'They will require that the schools be

597
kept open for a certain number of hours, on four or five days of the week, at the discretion of the Commissioners, for moral and literary education only. They will exercise the most entire control over all books to be used in the schools; none to be employed in the combined moral and literary instruction, except under the sanction of the Board.'
Now, your Lordships will see here is no mention of any book of Scripture to be introduced; no, not even of a book containing extracts of Scripture. I know it has been a ground of complaint against the plan, that extracts are proposed to be given from the Scriptures, and not the Scriptures themselves. This is matter of complaint which has been frequently adverted to in petitions to this House; and some of your Lordships also have made the same complaint. My Lords, my complaint is of a contrary kind. I complain, not that books of extracts of Scripture are to be used in these schools of moral instruction, but that they are not to be there used. My Lords, if volumes of well-chosen extracts from the Bible were to be used in the schools at the time of common instruction, I should not think it reasonable to complain, that the whole Bible is to be reserved for the times of separate religious instruction. I should think this no more than a fair concession to the peculiar circumstances of the case; but, my Lords, there is absolutely no security whatever, that all books containing extracts from the Scriptures are not to be excluded—rather, there is actual proof that all such books will be excluded—as far as regards the moral instruction of both Protestants and Roman Catholics.
I will take upon myself to show this presently; but, in the meanwhile, let me go on to state what the provisions of this plan are for the religious instruction of Protestants. 'They,' the Commissioners, will exercise the most entire control over all books to be used in the schools; in the separate religious instruction none are to be employed, but with the approbation of those members of the Board who are of the same religious persuasion with the children for whose use they are intended.' Why, then, my Lords, it is clear that there is no other security for the use of the Bible, even in the religious instruction of Protestants, than that derived from the character of the individuals composing that commission, and upon that point I shall speak presently.
598
I observe that some noble Lords are disposed to think that I am inclined to cavil upon this point, but I think when I come to enter further into the question, I shall prove to them that I have too good ground for the opinion which I have expressed.
With regard to the separate religious instruction of Roman Catholics, the provisions are the same as for the separate religious instruction of the Protestants; neither the Old, nor the New Testament is required—all is to be left to the Commissioners of the two several persuasions.
Such is a general view of this new plan of national education. I proceed to a more particular inquiry into its three several parts.
In respect to the first part, I think I shall make it plain, that the principle of this measure, so far as regards the joint moral and literary instruction of Protestants and Roman Catholics, is completely to exclude the use of the Bible, whether entire, or in extracts. In doing this, I fear that I must pray the indulgence of your Lordships for some trespass on your time, because I feel it necessary to have recourse to documentary evidence; and yet, however tedious that may be—and still more tedious the observations which I may consider it necessary to make on those documents—I venture to be confident that your Lordships will patiently bear with me, not only because I have not trespassed on your attention before, and am not likely often to do so again—but much more in consideration of the great importance of the question now before you.
My Lords, I have said that the Holy Scriptures, whether in the entire volume, or in the form of extracts, are, in fact, excluded from the proposed plan of general education; and I think that this will appear in the clearest possible light, if I show that the exclusion or non-exclusion of them must depend on the good pleasure of the Board, and that there is one person placed upon this Board, who is not only likely, but whose duty it is, to exclude them.
My Lords, it must be borne in mind, that this letter of the right hon. Secretary refers to the acts of a preceding Commission, which took place some years ago—I mean the Commission of 1824–27, at which latter period their labours were concluded. My Lords, the Reports of that

599
Commission furnished ample details of the opinions of the Roman Catholics, with whom they communicated. The Commissioners felt the great importance of the principle, that a literary and moral education should be based on the Scriptures, their formal communication with Dr. Murray, on the subject of common instruction, a minute of which was made at the time, they thus express themselves:—The Commissioners then stated that they could not consider any system of education as deserving the name, which should not seek to lay the foundation of all moral obligation in religious instruction.'—(So little notion had these wise and good men of any system of common instruction which should be moral and literary only.) They, therefore, 'inquired of Dr. Murray whether it would be objected to, on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy, that the more advanced of the Protestant and Roman Catholic children should, at certain times during school-hours, read portions of the Holy Scriptures together, out of their respective versions, subject to proper regulations, and in the presence of their respective Protestant and Roman Catholic teachers?' Dr. Murray answered, that serious difficulties would exist in the way of such an arrangement; but he suggested an expedient—that of introducing collections from the Scripture and books of extracts. Dr. Murray said, no 'objection would be made to a harmony of the gospels being used in the general education, which the children could receive in common, nor to a volume containing extracts from the Psalms, Proverbs, and Book of Ecclesiasticus; nor to a volume containing the history of the creation, of the deluge, of the patriarchs, of Joseph, and of the deliverance of the Israelites, extracted from the Old Testament; and that he was satisfied no difficulties in arranging the details of such works would arise on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy.' Thus it appears that the expedient of having books of extracts and collections from Scripture was first suggested by Dr. Murray; and that he then contemplated giving these extracts from the authorised Protestant version, is plain from what occurred at a subsequent meeting.
My Lords, on the occasion to which I have already referred, Dr. Murray came alone, and made this statement before the Commissioners; but in a few days after-
600
wards he returned, bringing with him the three other titular Roman Catholic Archbishops of Ireland, and he said, 'It appears to be the wish of these gentlemen,'—(not at all implying that it was so much a matter of wish to himself, and certainly implying that it was not a matter of conscience or principle to any of them).—it appears to be the wish of these gentlemen that anything given in the shape of Scripture should be in the Douay version for the Catholic children.' Thus the matter stood on the 8th of January, 1825; yet on the 16th of December of the same year, it will be found that he positively objected, as of conscience and necessity, to anything being read, as Scripture, in the presence of the Roman Catholic children, unless it was in the Douay version; he retracted, in short, all he had said, and objected to the use of any hooks that should give any part of our Lord's own words, unless it was in that version. But he went further, and said that it was contrary to the discipline of the Catholic Church, that any books whatever should be placed in the hands of the Roman Catholic children, in which there was even a quotation from the Bible of the Established Church, where that Bible differed from the Douay version. Thus it became apparent, that no books of extracts from Scripture, as Scripture, no moral instruction based on the Word of God, as such, could be admitted into the schools of common instruction, unless the Bishops of the Protestant Church would consent altogether to forego the use of their own version, the only version, I must be permitted to remind your Lordships, which the Law of the land acknowledges as the Word of God. Not a text, or even a reference to it, would be tolerated by the Roman Catholics, if the reference to it were made as to the Scriptures—so decidedly were they opposed, within the short period of ten months, to their former statement in respect of the facilities which they were willing to afford to one common principle of instruction, and in order to promote the objects which the Commissioners had in view.
And yet, my Lords. I must be permitted to remark, that whenever it may seem necessary, or possibly, expedient for Dr. Murray and his friends to act on a somewhat different principle from that which they have here announced, they find no difficulty in doing so. No doubt

601
your Lordships will all remember that it was made a matter of great triumph, and adduced by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, as a convincing proof of the liberal and Christian spirit of Dr. Murray, that a paper containing the first lesson set forth to be used under the new system, was moved for adoption by Dr. Murray; which lesson is to be suspended in every school, and enforced upon the mind of every scholar—a lesson,—most certainly, of a highly laudable nature,—a lesson of Christian benevolence towards those with whom we differ in religious belief. Now, that very lesson contains citations from the Holy Scriptures in the version of the Church of England, even in texts where that version differs from the Rhemish, (I say Rhemish, because that word, in strictness, refers to the translation of the New Testament, as the Douay version does to the Old, and, as I have said, is to be stuck upon the walls of every school. This, I repeat, was proposed by Dr. Murray, although he had joined before in saying, or, by his silence, had acquiesced in the saying, of his brother Prelates, to the Commissioners of 1825, that it was contrary to the discipline of the Roman Catholic Church that the Roman Catholic children should have any book or extract, with such a reference, placed in their hands. I state this, to show how little confidence can be placed in the sincerity of the Roman Catholic Prelates, in any transactions in which the interests of their Church are concerned.
My Lords, it will be recollected, that the Commission of 1824 abandoned the experiment which they had endeavoured to carry into effect, because they found it impossible to get extracts from the Scriptures to be read in the schools. The consent of the Roman Catholics could not be obtained to the use of our version of the Holy Scriptures, even though they were compelled to admit that their own version was not, strictly speaking, an authorized version; for it never had received any sanction from Rome, and it had been repeatedly altered since its first publication. Our Bishops, on the other hand, could not consent that the Protestant Bible—the only Bible acknowledged by the law of the land—should be abandoned at the demand, or to conciliate the co-operation, of the Roman Catholics. The consequence was, as we very well know, that the Commissioners of 1824 decided that the ex-
602
periment could not go on; for, as a volume, or volumes, of extracts from Scripture were essential, in their judgments, to the proper teaching of morality to Christian children, and as no such volume could be agreed on, nothing remained for them to do but to relinquish an attempt which was thus proved to be hopeless. Now, on this occasion, Dr. Murray said, in a letter addressed to the Commissioners:—
"I will avail myself of this opportunity to express an opinion which you will not, I am sure, consider at variance with that respect which I sincerely entertain for the Board of Education Inquiry: it is, that the Board has created for itself a very needless difficulty, by requiring, as a matter of necessity, any Scriptural compilation to be used in schools for the purpose of general instruction."
It is quite manifest, therefore, that Dr. Murray thinks any such Scriptural volumes unnecessary; and as he has also declared that any Scriptural compilation from the Bible of the Established Church ought not to be used, he will not, and cannot, assent to its introduction into the schools of general instruction. In short, my Lords, he must and will, if he have the power, exclude the Scripture from such schools altogether.
But, my Lords, that he will have the power, I proceed to show to your Lordships—and this not merely from considering the deference which would necessarily be paid to his opinion resting on alleged grounds of religious scruples, but also from a very peculiar circumstance, which will be found to deserve the closest attention of your Lordships. It certainly is most remarkable, that Dr. Murray, or some one in the interest of Dr. Murray, has assumed for him a power which was not intended to be given by Mr. Stanley's letter: no less, in short, than a veto on all books proposed to be used for general instruction; and this object has been effected by foisting in an important word into the regulations of the original.
I am very happy to see in his place this day the noble Duke (the Duke of Leinster) who is at the head of the Board of Irish Education; because I shall be set right in respect of what I call a most unwarrantable and unauthorized alteration of the instructions contained in that letter, if I am incorrect.
My Lords, it will be observed that Mr. Stanley's letter says—
"It is not designed to exclude from the list

603
of books for the combined instruction such portion of sacred history, or of religious and moral teaching, as may be approved of by the Board."
Now, under this regulation, certainly, if the Board at large should think fit that a portion of the Scriptures should be used, any objection on the part of Dr. Murray would be useless.
[The Duke of Leinster.—Hear! hear!]
I am happy to find that the noble Duke acquiesces in this, and calls the attention of your Lordships to it; for I am quite sure that, after I shall have shown what has been done, you will find your attention has not been ill bestowed.
Your Lordships will observe, that a public notice has been given by the Board of Education in Ireland, that they are ready to receive applications for aid on the part of those who may be disposed to establish schools under the direction of the Board.
My Lords, I hold in my hands the public advertisement of the Board to that effect. A noble Lord near me says, in a tone something like that of taunt, that I am quoting from a newspaper. It is very true; but it is the very same document as was cited for a different purpose, without objection from any of your Lordships, some nights ago, by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett); and I must take leave to say, that an advertisement from a newspaper is as regular a document, and as fit to be cited here, as any other paper which has not been formally laid on your Lordships' Table. I repeat, therefore, that my newspaper is as authorized a document as the noble and learned Lord's sheet, though this latter be of handsomer form, and better type. Now, my Lords, in this advertisement, purporting to be the formal announcement of the Board's new plan of national education, and subscribed by the Secretary to the Board, the rest of the regulation respecting the control of the Board over the books of general instruction is given verbatim according to the terms of Mr. Stanley's letter; but, before the word "Board" is inserted the word "entire," and the effect of the alteration, your Lordships will perceive, is to require the consent of all and every member of the Board to the use of every particular book; thus giving, as I said, a veto to Dr. Murray, and enabling him, even if he stand alone, to exclude all books of extracts of Scripture, or anything else which might displease him, from the list.
Earl Grey: Where is the word? I do not find it here, and this is the paper issued by the Board.
Why, then, my Lords, if the Board has not in its own formal act inserted the word, it is quite plain that there is some power which can effect whatever alteration shall be deemed expedient in the acts of the Board, in spite of the intentions of the Board itself. This advertisement announces to the world the plan of education, and by it the conduct of the public in forming schools will be regulated.
Earl Greyintimated that he had found the word in his paper.
Oh, then, my Lords, it is in both papers—in the handsome official document, and in the more homely one in my hand, the word is equally to be found; and I cannot be sorry for the doubt which at first existed in the noble Earl's mind on this point, as it must have increased your Lordships' attention to the circumstance, and, at the same time, perhaps, has testified the noble Earl's sense of its importance. I repeat, this word "entire" is something superadded to the instructions of Mr. Stanley—something not in any degree justified by those instructions; and I must take the liberty of saying, further, that it would be satisfactory if the noble Duke, at the head of the Board could inform us how this unauthorized and most improper interpolation was made. I am perfectly satisfied that he was no party to it. I have heard much of the noble Duke's high and honourable character—I am persuaded not too much—and, therefore, I feel myself warranted in affirming, that he never contemplated so important a change in the instructions and powers which the Board received, as is involved in the interpolation of the word "entire."
My Lords, while I am sure it is not the noble Duke's act, I am not sure whose act it was. But this I will say, it is not of English, it is not of Protestant origin—the taint of Jesuit is strong upon it—
"The offence is rank; it smells to Heaven."
Such, my Lords, has been the mode by which power has been given to every single member of the Board—to Dr. Murray, therefore, in particular, who has declared himself bound in conscience to use that power—to exclude all extracts from Scripture, if those extracts be in the version which all Protestants consider—and which alone the law of this land considers

605
—as Scripture, from the schools of common instruction of Protestant and Roman Catholic children.
My Lords, I proceed to the second part of this plan of national education—the separate religious instruction of Protestant children. Here, too, I must remind your Lordships, that we have heard this new plan repeatedly and strongly defended, especially by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, because the several reports of the various Commissioners, and Committees of the House of Commons assert principles in perfect accordance with those upon which the Government plan of education has been founded. Now, I will take the liberty of asserting—and I fearlessly refer your Lordships to the documents themselves, to prove the correctness of my assertion—that, so far from this plan being sanctioned by the previous reports, it is in direct opposition to all of them—in every part of it—and not least in the part to which I am about to invite the attention of your Lordships.
My Lords, the whole control of the religious instruction of the Protestant children of Ireland will be placed, by this plan, in the hands of three Commissioners nominated by the Crown. I need scarcely tell your Lordships, that I entertain for the Protestant portion of the Board the very highest respect; I have already spoken, and shall continue to speak, of the noble Duke at the head of the Board with the most sincere respect; but sure I am your Lordships will agree with me—and I am also sure the noble Duke himself will be perfectly ready to admit—that there is no great probability of his troubling himself much with minutely criticising the religious publications submitted to the Board. The duty of examining them must, then, of necessity, devolve upon the other two Commissioners, namely, the Archbishop of Dublin and Dr. Sadleir. I know both those learned persons, and of both of them I think most highly. Of the Archbishop of Dublin, I will say, that I never knew a man of greater powers, or of a more richly cultivated mind; I never knew a man more strenuous in the pursuit of truth; more fearless in following whithersoever the pursuit may lead him. In short, if ever I knew one man more than another who could be called a strict lover of truth, that man is the Archbishop of Dublin; and, to say of any man that he is a strict lover of truth, amounts to saying
606
that he is one of the best of men. But, having said this, I trust it will not be imagined that I speak invidiously, when I say, that this very ardent love of truth in one, who happens to have erred in the pursuit of it, only makes him the more unsafe as a guide, much more as the absolute arbiter of the opinions of others. In short, my Lords, I must not be afraid of saying, that the known opinions of the Archbishop of Dublin upon an important theological question are opinions which, in a great degree, disqualify him for the situation to which he has been called; that he is disqualified for that situation, not merely because he must be thoroughly ignorant of the state of Ireland—not because he is, therefore, in imminent danger of being duped by the Jesuitism to which I have already adverted—but also because, as I have said, of those opinions.
The opinions of this most reverend Prelate are no secret—they are known, I presume, to most of the noble Lords I have the honour to address. His opinion denying the sacredness of the Sabbath has been put forth to the world, and he is answerable for it to the world. Now, what I say is this, that any man holding such an opinion, and not only holding it, but promulgating it to the world,—is not qualified to have a veto on the books that should be used in the education of Protestant children. Suppose a tract is put into his hand, the theme of which is, "Remember, that thou keep holy the Sabbath day"*—I put it to any man, is he or
* What I here said was founded on a note at the end of the fifth Essay in the first edition of the Archbishop's work on "The Difficulties in the Writings of St. Paul." He there denies that the Fourth Commandment is binding upon Christians, and speaks of the observance of the Lord's Day simply as "an observance which has the sanction of the Church," asserting the authority of the Church to make such an appointment. I therefore scrupled not to state this opinion as disqualifying his Grace from being intrusted with the great power, which is given to him by the Commission, over the religious instruction of the children of Ireland.
In the course of the debate, I found that the Archbishop had subsequently (in a second edition) guarded his opinion more carefully, and that, while he denies the obligation of the Fourth Commandment, and the divine appointment of the Christian Sabbath, he enforces, on other grounds, "the proper observance of the Lord's Day." I therefore, in my place, retracted the objection, as "having gone too far."—H.E.

607
is he not a person who ought to be intrusted with the power of deciding as to the admissibility of such a tract? My Lords, I perceive, from the demeanour of some noble Lords near me, that they think this language invidious. My Lords, I disclaim any such intention. I mean nothing invidious. I, in common with the great body of the clergy of the Church of England, and with all, I believe, of my right reverend Brethren near me, hold that this opinion is erroneous—I impute error, but nothing more than error; and I lament to think, in these days, that a man must either be supposed insincere himself, or to ascribe insincerity to another, if he gives him credit for conscientiously avowing and maintaining an error.
But, my Lords, the case stops not here. Much worse consequences may flow from the principle on which this Commission is founded. The present Ministers would not, I dare say, advance a man to the Episcopal Bench in Ireland who holds Socinian or Arian opinions. They would not knowingly do so. But there have been instances of such appointments; even in our own times there was an Irish Bishop defamed as a Socinian. I will suppose such a man appointed to the Archiepiscopal See of Dublin, and to a seat at this Board, and then I find a Socinian vested with full power to control the religious sentiments of the rising generation of Ireland.
But, my Lords, the whole of this part of the measure is a flagrant violation of the spirit, and, I believe, even of the letter of the law of the land; it is, too, a gross usurpation upon the rights of the clergy of Ireland.
By the statute law, it is the duty of the Protestant clergy of that country to make provision for the education of the people. The earliest Act to which I think it necessary to refer your Lordships, is an Irish Act of Parliament of the 28th of Henry 8th. This Act, after stating "the importance of a good instruction in the most blessed laws of Almighty God;" and after further stating "his Majesty's disposition and zeal, that a certain direction and order be had, that all of his (Irish) subjects should the better know God, and do that thing which might in time be, and redound to our wealth, quiet, and commodity," proceeds, after other matters, to require an oath to be administered to every clergyman at ordination, and another at institu-
608
tion, that he will keep, or cause to be kept, a school for to learn English, &c. And this is re-enacted by the 7th William 3rd, c. 4, (Irish). These provisions, as I presume, I need not inform your Lordships, impose no obligation upon the beneficed clergy to maintain those schools at their own expense; they merely convey to them a power, and impose on them an obligation, of seeing that these schools be established, and that no higher rate of payment be charged than the customary rate. In truth, this act does little more than add a pecuniary penalty to the sacred obligation which, without any such statute, would have been imposed upon the clergy of attending to the instruction of the young. It is their duty upon much higher grounds than those which any Act of Parliament can impose; for, at their ordination, they receive a power, and at institution they receive the assignment of a particular place in which to execute that power, of preaching the word of God; and, by preaching, as I scarcely need tell your Lordships, is not meant merely the delivery of sermons, but the whole spiritual care of their flocks. But the letter of the Chief Secretary for Ireland not only interferes with the obligation involved in the Ministerial office, so far as concerns this most important particular of the cure of souls—the religious instruction of the children of the poor—but it also puts an end, or professes to put an end, to the obligations which positive Statutes have created;—for it, in effect, takes out of the hands of the parochial clergy that right and duty of superintendence with which several Statutes have invested them. This, i presume, will be considered by most noble Lords as the assumption of something very like a dispensing power. Be this as it may, three Commissioners are nominated by the Crown, who are to possess the absolute power of dictating what shall be the religious instruction given to the children of Ireland; thus taking from the parochial clergy in Ireland that which the laws of God and man had intrusted to their fidelity and discretion.
Now, my Lords, we are told that this plan is perfectly identical with that which was over and over again recommended by different Committees and Commissions. But so far is this from being correct that the Commission of 1824 left this matter wholly and expressly in the hands of the clergy. The first Report of that Commis-

609
sion, at great length, asserts and establishes the right of the clergy, by Statute, to the superintendence of the instruction of the children of Ireland; and the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1828 left the selection of books for the religious instruction of the Protestant children to the Bishops of the Church in general, who might be considered as the fit representatives of the clergy. But this new plan absolutely flies in the face of all that went before; and yet noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, defend this plan on the ground of its being founded on the very same principles.
But I come to the third part of this new scheme of national education, and I ask, how does it provide for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic children?
My Lords, I am not prepared to say that it is the duty of the State to insist on all persons learning in the Bible; but this I say, that it is the duty of the State not to aid in any form of education which excludes the Bible; this I say, that all persons should have free access to the Bible, whether they will avail themselves of it or not. We should recollect that the preservation of a free access to the Scriptures is a duty imposed upon us by the law of God, and especially, that every Protestant Legislature, as such, is bound to take care that the people committed to its charge enjoy that privilege in its fullest extent; is bound to see that, neither directly nor indirectly, it makes itself a party to any measure adverse to this prime and fundamental Protestant principle.
In making these statements, however, I am perfectly willing to admit, that, in the present peculiar state of Ireland, it would be at once unwise and cruel not to give more than the Protestant version of the Scriptures. All that I contend for is, the duty of a Protestant Legislature and a Protestant Government to see that a version of the Scriptures, of some kind or other be accessible to all; and that it be actually used in the instruction of all, for whose education the State shall undertake to provide. Yet this the Roman Catholic hierarchy will not now permit. In truth, it cannot have escaped the attention of your Lordships, that the present demands of that hierarchy are of a much more lofty character than those which they urged at a former period; though, to do
610
them justice, their declared principles were then the same as now. In proof of this, I will refer to a petition of the Roman Catholic Bishops of Ireland to the House of Commons, presented in 1824, and published in the first Report of the Commissioners of 1824, page 1. The words are these:—
"That the religious instruction of youth, in Catholic schools is always conveyed by means of catechetical instruction, daily prayers, and the reading of religious books, wherein the gospel morality is explained and inculcated; that Roman Catholics have ever considered the reading of the sacred Scriptures by children as an inadequate means of imparting to them religious instruction, as an usage whereby the word of God is made liable to irreverence, youth exposed to misunderstand its meaning, and thereby not unfrequently to receive, in early life, impressions which may afterwards prove injurious to their own best interests, as well as to those of the society which they are destined to form."
Such were the sentiments of the Roman Catholic Bishops at the period to which I refer, deliberately laid before the other House of Parliament. I shall now request your Lordships' attention to another document, which I think not less interesting than important, for the purpose of illustrating and sustaining the positions which it is my object to enforce. I allude to an encyclical letter from Pope Leo 12th against the use of the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, dated 3rd May, 1824, and published in Ireland with "Pastoral Instructions to all the Faithful," by the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, and is to the following effect:—
"We also, venerable brethren, in conformity with our apostolic duty, exhort you to turn away your flock, by all means, from these poisonous pastures (the Scriptures in the vulgar tongue); reprove, beseech, be instant in season, and out of season, in all patience and doctrine, that the faithful intrusted to you (adhering strictly to the rules of our congregation of the Index) be persuaded that if the sacred Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published, more evil than advantage will arise thence, on account of the rashness of men."
To this passage the Irish Prelates, in their Pastoral Instructions, refer in the following terms:—
"Our holy father reccommends to the observance of the faithful a rule of the congregation of the Index which prohibits the perusal of the sacred Scriptures in the vulgar tongue, without the sanction of the competent

611
authorities. His holiness wisely remarks, that more evil than good is found to result from the indiscriminate perusal of them, &c. In this sentiment of our head and chief we fully concur."
My Lords, you have here before you the solemn judgment of the head of the Roman Catholic Church; you have likewise before you the solemn judgment of the whole Irish Roman Catholic hierarchy. I will next state what an individual of that body—the most influential among them—Dr.Doyle—has said of his own separate sentiments—separate only in the sense, that he speaks in his individual capacity, but in no respect different from the general sentiments of the body. He says,—
"The Scriptures alone have never saved any one: they are incapable of giving salvation; it is not their object; it is not the end for which they were written."
"These are his sentiments, though St. Paul tells us that the Scriptures" are able to make us wise unto salvation." Dr. Doyle goes on to say,—
"They hold a dignified place amongst the means of the institution which Christ formed for the purpose of saving his elect; but if they never had been written, this end would be obtained, and all who were pre-ordained to eternal life would have been gathered to the Church, and fed with the breath of life."*
Such are the notions of Dr. Doyle respecting Scripture, and not of Dr. Doyle only, but of all the Roman Catholic Prelates of Ireland. They will act in conformity to these notions, and, armed with the authority of this commission, they will expel the Scriptures from the religious instruction of all their schools, even of those which are maintained at the expense of this Protestant State!
But, my Lords, does this accord with the recommendation of the Commissioners of Irish education of 1824? So far from it, that they laid it down as a fundamental, an indispensable principle, that the Testament should be put in the hands of all children, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. This was a matter which they would not permit to be brought even into question—they insisted upon it as essential (their own word, my Lords), and they required the Roman Catholic Prelates to furnish them with a version of the New Testament for the purpose. They per-
* Letters of J. K. L., p. 164.
612
mitted, indeed, that notes should be subjoined, requiring only that these notes should not contain matter of reasonable offence to Protestants. My Lords, I have pleasure in bearing testimony to the fairness and fidelity with which this has been accomplished. I have pleasure in saying, that I have read those notes, and have found in them nothing whatever which can afford fair ground of offence to any reasonable Protestant.
My Lords, the Commissioners of 1824 insisted, I repeat, on this Testament being used in the religious instruction of the Roman Catholics, and on the children reading in it, not only the epistles and gospels of the Sundays, but the epistles and gospels of the whole week, including a large portion of the New Testament.
My Lords, the Committee of the House of Commons of 1828 followed in the same line. They, too, required, that this New Testament should be printed and supplied to the national schools for the religious instruction of the Roman Catholic children:—
"Resolved, that it is the opinion of the Committee, that copies of the new Testament, &c. should be provided for the use of the children, to be read in school, &c., the established version for the use of the Protestant scholars, and the version published with the approval of the Roman Catholic Bishops for the children of that communion."
Such was the resolution of the Committee of 1828; but the new plan abandons the Testament altogether. It does so, even though it professes to carry into effect the Report of that Committee—it does so, even though some special management (I wish not to use the word in an invidious sense, but simply to state the fact, that some management) was necessary to effect the purpose. My Lords, on looking to No. 6 of the Regulations of page 5. of the Report of the Committee, and comparing it with No. 5. of the Regulations in Mr. Stanley's letter, your Lordships will perceive what I mean. In the latter, all mention of supplying "books of religious instruction" (which included Testaments) is studiously omitted, even where that letter is copying the very part of the Report which requires such a supply. Why, my Lords, is this; Why is it, that, in the plan of the present Board of Education which professes to carry into execution the recommendation of that Committee, there is no provision made for the supply of

613
Testaments to any school in Ireland? Because, my Lords, the power which dictates to Government, in all that concerns the interests or the wishes of the Roman Catholic Church, has chosen to demand the sacrifice—has chosen to demand, that the Bible should be altogether excluded from their schools. To this power our Protestant Government has consented to surrender that which never before was permitted even to be asked.
My Lords, I have now gone through the various parts of this new scheme of national Education, and I think its merits may be fairly summed up in this brief abstract. It has divorced morality from the Word of God—it has controlled the Protestant priesthood in the exercise of one of their most essential rights, and in the discharge of one of their most important duties—subjecting them to a tyranny which the laws neither of God nor of man have authorized. It has conspired with the Roman Catholic hierarchy to arrest the progress of the Book of Life—to exclude that blessed book for ever (as vain man fondly deems) from every cabin of every peasant in Ireland—and to consign the unhappy peasant himself to a deeper, deadlier state of darkness and of bondage.
My Lords, I have done—I have said what I had to say, and I thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard me. Be assured that I will not often trespass on that patience. My Lords, in the part which I have now taken, I have only endeavoured to discharge some portion of the duty which I owe to the high office in which I am placed. For why is it, my Lords, that we Bishops sit here? Why are men of our spiritual function called to mingle in the counsels of you, the mighty ones of this world, and to bear our part in legislating for the land? Why is this strict union of Church and State?—an union which, for many more centuries than I can number, has been the glory and security of England. Why, I ask, is this? Is it to make the Church political? No, my Lords; in the language of the most venerable man among you—one of whom, as he is now absent, I can more freely express my gratitude and admiration—I mean the noble and learned Earl who for so many years sat on that Woolsack—it is not to make the Church political, but to make the State religious. Therefore my Lords, it is that we sit here. We sit
614
among you mainly and chiefly (not, indeed, solely, but mainly and chiefly) that we may be at all times ready, when occasion shall demand, to instil into your counsels the holy lessons of gospel truthߞto watch over the best and highest interests of those for whom you legislate—to raise our warning voice against every attempt, from whatever quarter it may proceed, to sever policy from religion, or to sacrifice the smallest particle of that pure faith, for which your forefathers, my Lords, drove a bigot from his throne, and our predecessors were content to be led by his beadles to a gaol! My Lords, I stand before you a Bishop of the united Church of England and of Ireland—the united Church, I say—for never may we forget that it is united—Never! never! never!—least of all, in this dark hour of suffering to the Irish branch, of common trial, of common peril (it may be both) to both. I stand here, and implore your Lordships to give your most serious attention to the high religious interests, aye, and I must be permitted to add, the high religious duties, which are involved in this night's question. I stand here, and conjure you to cast off, for one brief hour, all inferior thoughts, and to remember only that you are Christian legislators.
My Lords, four-and-twenty hours have scarcely passed since we humbled ourselves in the House of God, deploring the sins of a guilty people, and beseeching him to avert the fearful scourges which those sins have merited. We all, then, "humbly acknowledged that, through our neglect of God's ordinances, through our misuse of God's bounties, offences have multiplied in the land." My Lords, of all those ordinances the most sacred is the due and free use of his Holy Word—of all those bounties, the most precious is the gift of that Holy Word. And will you, then, my Lords, on this, the first night of your assembling together after that solemn service—will you join in dereliction of your first duty—in deserting the cause of God's own Word? My Lords, I have no right to speak to you of my own feelings—if I had, I would entreat, I would beseech you—I would not, indeed, imitate the eloquent action of the most eloquent of living men—I would not bend my knee n prayer to you, for I pray not to mortal man—but if reverence did not forbid me to mingle the attitude and the words of prayer with the

615
excitement of this debate, I would humbly pray to Him, whose poor and worthless creatures we all are—aye, my Lords, the highest and the proudest, no less than the lowliest and the meekest—I would pray to Him, that He would bow the hearts of all here as of one man, "to put away the accursed thing from among you"—to disclaim all part in this most unhallowed work, even though the name and the seal of our gracious Sovereign be upon it.
My Lords, that name and that seal, affixed to such a commission—in execution of such purposes—by such instruments—fill the mind with strange musings; awaken affecting recollections; invite, perhaps, to some comparisons. But I forbear—I will not be further stirred by them, than to warn the counsellors of a gracious Prince—all whose thoughts, and wishes, and intentions, are, we know, for the good and happiness of his people—to warn them, ere it be too late—while thrones are tottering, and crowns are falling around us—while they themselves are reminding us, most properly and most wisely—I thank them for it—while they are reminding us, that even now God's judgments are in the earth—to warn them, I say, that He, by whom Kings reign, may be provoked to say again, what He once said to a monarch whom He had Himself placed over His own chosen people—"Because thou hast rejected the Word of the Lord, He hath also rejected thee from being king over Israel."
The Bishop of Chichester thought it must be admitted on all hands that there was a great want of education in Ireland, and that it could be no matter of surprise that the condition of that country in this respect should have so often attracted the attention of so many successive Governments, and thereby led to the appointment of various Commissions, and had also given occasion to so many Committees of the House of' Commons. With reference to such a subject, he felt that he ought, as a minister of religion, to avail himself of the earliest opportunity to declare his sentiments, more especially after certain observations which had just fallen from his right rev. friend on this subject, which he felt it necessary to controvert. It appeared to him that his right rev. friend had altogether kept out of sight the very peculiar nature of this experimental plan; he had looked at this scheme of education
616
as a virtual exclusion of the Bible, and a giving up of Protestant principles. If he (the Bishop of Chichester) thought such would be the effect of the system proposed, he was the last man in that House to give his assent to it; but, he thought that, in so considering it, the right rev. Prelate took a hasty and partial view of the question. No one could deny, that there was a great want of education in Ireland; and that, if this scheme of education was rejected, education could not be extended, for the Catholics would not send their children to school at all. Those who opposed this scheme kept out of sight the peculiar nature of the country for which the plan was designed. It was an experimental plan, for a people of whom the vast majority were Catholic. The question, under these circumstances was, whether a benevolent Government should not devise some plan of education by which, without offending the prejudices of the Catholics, they could induce them to send their children to the public schools for education? This had been their object, and accordingly it was proposed, that the children should be occupied for five days of the week in a moral and miscellaneous education, and during a part of those five days they were also to receive religions education. The other two days of the week were to be exclusively devoted to religious instruction, and the children were to be allowed to read the Bible at home. There was no person who would not say, that this portion of the week for the religious education of children was quite sufficient. He would quote the words of a great writer and a good Protestant—of Locke, who, in his Treatise on Education, said—
"The reading of the whole Scriptures indifferently is what I think very inconvenient for children, till, after having been made acquainted with the plainest fundamental parts of it, they have got some kind of general view of what they ought principally to believe and practise."
With this opinion he entirely concurred, and he could quote others of an equally decided nature, by other men of high attainments, of great talents, and of sound Christian principle. There was the opinion of Mr. Burke, who was another good Protestant, and who came to the same conclusion as Mr. Locke on the subject of putting the Bible into the hands of children. Mr. Burke said—

617
"The Scripture is no one summary of doctrine digested in such a manner that no man can mistake his way in reading it—it is a most valuable book, indeed, but of a multifarious description. It treats of cosmogony, of legislation, of ethics; it is divided into different books, written by different authors, in different ages, and for different ends and purposes. It is necessary, in giving it to children, that there should be selected out of it those parts which are to be examined—those which should be used as directions—those which are arguments ad hominem—those which are merely recommendations, and those which impose positive obligations—those which are appropriate to one state of man, and those which are proper for all Christians whatever."
Yet that was the book, so described by Mr. Burke, which the Government were blamed for not putting at once and entire into the hands of uneducated plough-boys. It would not be supposed that any man was to spend the whole of his time in the perusal of the Scriptures. That surely was not the argument, neither did he think that any very large portion of the time spent in school should be devoted to Biblical study. He found, as far his limited experience went, that the people of Scotland were well instructed in the principles of the Christian faith, and the humblest among them was well acquainted with, at least, the important and practical portions of the Holy Scriptures. A friend of his, who was much better acquainted with Scotland than he could pretend to be, had told him that the religious education of the children was chiefly effected at home—that in the schools very little time, indeed, was exclusively devoted to religious instruction; that in some of the schools parts of the Bible were selected for reading; but, that the main support of the religious education of the children of Scotland was to be found in the domestic instruction of their parents, and he thought that to be among the best means of affording them religious education. Under these circumstances, he could not conceive that any blame rested with the Government for the plan they had now proposed. Having thus expressed his opinion on the plan itself, he must just refer, for one moment, to what had been said about the Archbishop of Dublin and his opinions, and those observations, he must say, he thought had been somewhat invidiously introduced. He had not the honour of knowing that most rev. Prelate, and, perhaps, he might not have read his books with the attention which the right rev.
618
Prelate had paid to them, but he must express his belief that the Archbishop had not denied the sacredness of the Sabbath. It appeared to him that the Archbishop had not denied the sacredness of the Sabbath, but had only argued to show that the causes of its origin were not entirely what they were supposed to be. The right rev. Prelate had spoken as if the effect of this scheme of education would be, to exclude religious books altogether. That was, however, a mistake. The right rev. Prelate, too, appeared to fear the influence of Dr. Murray too much. Surely if his conduct became unreasonable, there could be no doubt that the noble Duke at the head of the Commission would have firmness enough to make such Representations as would lead to the exclusion of that individual. But he did not fear that such a course would become necessary. Under these circumstances, he should support the plan proposed by the Government, and give his vote against the Resolution moved by the noble Earl opposite.
Lord Montagubegged to say one word, in consequence of what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate on the subject of education in Scotland, there being no Representatives of the Scotch Church in that House. What he wished to state was, that in Scotland the Bible was considered a most essential book in advancing the education of youth.
The Earl of Radnorwas very glad that he had yielded precedence to the right rev. Prelate who had just addressed them, for the answer he had given to the former right rev. Prelate was most complete and satisfactory. Still, however, he could not reconcile it to his own feelings to remain altogether silent as to the observations of that right rev. Prelate. With respect to the latter part of the speech of the right rev. Prelate which had been evidently worked up with much care and labour, he must express his astonishment, especially as against all who differed from him in opinion he had vented his anathema. To that right rev. Prelate he would say, that he did not yield to any man in his attachment to religion, or in his anxiety to promote its interests; that he had seen with fear and dismay the symptoms of the times, so much so that it sometimes appeared to him that the judgments of God had become visible upon earth; but he denied that he acted in opposition to those judgments when he voted, as he should most cordially

619
and sincerely vote, in opposition to the Motion which had been proposed to their Lordships. The right rev. Prelate had uttered his anathema against those who differed from him. He did not join the right rev. Prelate in that respect, and least of all could he join with him in that with which he had concluded. The right rev. Prelate appeared to even pin his loyalty on this point, and had assumed to himself the voice and the words of the Holy Prophet—words which the Holy Prophet addressed to the Throne—and the right rev. Prelate, using the words addressed to the king of Israel, uttered a warning that they might not again be addressed to a king—"because you have rejected the word of God, he hath rejected you." Their Lordships and the people would determine whether the mode adopted by the right rev. Prelate was the best that could be adopted for the support of the cause of religion and charity. It was often said, that in this world wonders never ceased, and so it really seemed from what had occurred on the discussion of this question. Those who agreed with the right rev. Prelate contributed to the agitation of Ireland by the numbers of the people they collected together, and to whom they talked of the Bible being taken away from them; and these meetings were collected together, and these cries were put forth by those who complained of agitation in that country. The right rev. Prelate had mistaken the words of Mr. Stanley's letter. If the right rev. Prelate had read the letter correctly, he would see that the use of the Scripture without note or comment was there spoken of [hear, hear]. That remark was cheered by noble Lords opposite, as if there was no difference between the use of the Scriptures and the use of the Scriptures without note or comment. Why, twenty-five years had not elapsed since the time when the Bible Societies began their labours, and a great outcry was then made by the orthodox against the distribution of the Bible without note or comment, and without the Prayer-book accompanying it. At that time three-fourths of the Bishops would have deprecated the introduction of the Bible without note or comment. But now, when the tables were turned, and the Roman Catholic made the same objection, then the orthodox became of a different opinion. He thought that the Bible without note or comment should be distributed, and that each sect should
620
employ it in teaching their followers according to their own particular opinions. The right rev. Prelate had attacked Dr. Murray, as if that rev. personage was the only Bishop who had ever changed his opinion. He believed that the right rev. Prelate himself had, on one occasion, changed his opinions, and would probably change them again, if he saw sufficient reason to believe himself mistaken. He thought the constitution of the Board, as now proposed, was the best that could be adopted with a view to the benefit of the Church of England. An appellation had been applied to the Romish Church in Ireland, of a kind of which good taste should have prevented the use; but, if the appellation had any resemblance to the object to which it was applied, it should be remembered that, as they grew old, like other bodies, they lost their charms, and, as men became wiser, they lost the number of their followers. Let them remember this, and supply the education which would hasten the detection of their followers. The right rev. Prelate spoke as if they were about to sap the foundation of religion. He denied it, and he maintained that he and those who were with him were entitled to the belief that they, as honestly and as conscientiously, and with as full an attachment to religion as their opponents, supported the plan which had been proposed by his Majesty's Government.
The Bishop of Exeterwished to be allowed to say a few words in reply to the remarks of the noble Earl, and hoped their Lordships would extend their courtesy so far as to allow him to defend himself against the insinuations of the noble Earl. The noble Earl had insinuated against him that he had changed his opinions, and was ready to change them again.
The Marquis of Clanricarderose to order. It was competent to the right rev. Prelate to explain; but it was inconsistent with their Lordships' practices to allow any Peer to enter upon his defence in a second speech.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was the established courtesy of that House, though, perhaps, not strictly consonant to order, to allow any Peer, against whom a charge was brought, not only to explain what he had said, but also to make a defence; and, he never knew an instance in which a charge was thus made, and the party thus charged refused a hearing.
Lord Hollandadmitted, it was usual to extend such courtesy to a Member of their Lordships' House, as he thought that every man should be allowed to defend himself; and, though he himself might be a little out of order, he must say, that the right rev. Prelate would have done as well by abstaining from making invidious remarks on the character or opinions of another Prelate who was necessarily absent, and who, therefore, could not defend himself.
The Bishop of Exeterdid not mean to trespass long on the indulgence of their Lordships, and he must first return his thanks to the noble Earl who had made the insinuation or charge, as it afforded him an opportunity, by the statement of a few facts, of giving it a plain, but he hoped satisfactory, answer. What he was about to say was then known to one of their Lordships, and one who, if he erred in his statement, could immediately contradict him. He referred to the noble Duke lately at the head of his Majesty's Government, and he entreated that noble Duke, if he in the least erred in his statement, to contradict him. He supposed the noble Earl who made this charge concluded that he (the Bishop of Exeter) had pledged himself with the late Administration to give his unqualified support to the Catholic Question. On that question he had always held decided opinions, and he had always thought that concession should not be granted without being accompanied with strong securities. His opinions upon that subject were well known. The noble Duke, when in office, had done him the honour to communicate with him on the subject, and, having stated his intention to propose a measure for the relief of the Catholics, had condescended to ask his opinion; he (the Bishop of Exeter) told the noble Duke the securities he thought necessary; and, having ascertained through the same channel the determination of the Cabinet, he told the noble Duke that he entirely disapproved of the proposed measure, and in all his communications with the noble Duke he took the liberty of telling him that the proposed securities were inadequate. Having made this short statement, he again put it to the noble Duke, who alone knew of the communications, to contradict him if he had stated what was incorrect.
Lord Stourtonhad always avoided taking a part in similar discussions; and, in so doing, he hoped that he was interpreting
622
correctly the feelings of the House, as well as following his own. He certainly dissented entirely from the opinions and the tenets that he had heard often ascribed to persons of his religious belief. But yet he abstained from any expression of his own sentiments, and mingling in discussions that might, in his regard, appear to be somewhat of a personal nature. If he departed from this general rule upon the present occasion, it was singly and solely because the tenet ascribed to Roman Catholics of withholding the Scripture from the people, which had been rebutted by a noble Duke, a friend of his, had been again attributed to the Roman Catholics by the right rev. Prelate, who immediately followed that noble Duke in this debate, and he wished, therefore, to bring before the House the evidence of Dr. Doyle, as taken upon oath before their Lordships' Committee in 1825. And the noble Lord who opened the debate had acknowledged that Dr. Doyle was authority on those points. Dr. Doyle was asked, "In the address of the Roman Catholic Bishops to their clergy, published at the end of last year, and to which your name is affixed, it appears that you object to the possession of the Bible by the Roman Catholic laity: does that apply to the Bible attempted to be circulated by the Bible Society, or does it equally apply to any other version of the Scriptures, such as that called the Rheims or Douay Version?" "It applies to the version sought to be circulated by the Bible Society amongst us, and not to the Rhemish or Douay Version, which is sanctioned by our Prelates. That we have no aversion to the reading of the Bible, and the possession of it by the laity of our churches is best proved by the great many editions it has gone through in Ireland, under our express sanction, and to which edition there is affixed a Rescript of Pius the 6th, directed to a Prelate in Italy, called Martini, who had translated the Bible out of the Vulgate into the Italian language. We prefix this Rescript of Pius the 6th to our editions in English of the Bible, in order to show that not only we, but the head of our Church is joined with us, in exhorting the faithful to read the Word of God. We have not only procured editions of the Bible, I believe three by Coyne, two by O'Reilly, and one by Cross (perhaps it is two); but this very year we have procured a stereotype edition of the Bible, of a small print and low price,

623
to circulate it among all. So that of all things said of us, there is not any thing said of us more opposed to truth, than that we are averse to the circulation of the Word of God." "Have the editions which have been circulated of the Douay or Rheims translations been accompanied with notes?" "They have very short notes." "You think it necessary that notes should accompany the Bible for the purpose of explanation?" "In our country, where religious controversy prevails to such an extent, I do think it necessary that short notes, explanatory of the texts, on which our differences turn, should be prefixed to the Bible." He would say only one word as to Dr. Murray, a person exercising episcopal functions in Dublin, whose name had been brought before the House. Of that right rev. person he must affirm, that he knew no one who, from his great talents and virtues, and amiable, and mild, and conciliatory character, was more calculated to render important and valuable services to a country, in which conciliation and forbearance and charity were the highest requisites, as leading to that tranquillity and concord which was so truly and eminently desirable.
The Earl of Rodensaid, it was not his intention to have addressed their Lordships on this occasion, had not particular allusion been made to him for having attended certain meetings of his Protestant fellow-countrymen, who met together for the legal and constitutional purpose of petitioning for a redress of the grievances which they thought they had experienced at the hands of Ministers. He freely confessed that he had attended such meetings, and felt highly honoured in being allowed to unite with so many hundreds of his Protestant fellow-countrymen, in opposition to a system which was levelled directly against their rights and liberties. It was not his intention to occupy much of their Lordships' time on the present occasion, having addressed the House at considerable length on a former evening on the question now under consideration. Nevertheless, he could not refrain from expressing the gratification he felt at hearing the speech which the right reverend Prelate the (Bishop of Exeter) had addressed to their Lordships. It was a speech which did honour to his head and heart, and to the character of the House. That truly Christian Bishop had given utterance to sentiments which must be hailed
624
with joy by the people of this country. Standing in the high and responsible situation which the right reverend Prelate filled, he had expressed opinions which would gain for him the esteem of all good men. It would be necessary for him to bring back the attention of the House to the question before them, which had, in some degree, been lost sight of, by the introduction of circumstances totally unconnected with it. The question was, whether the system of education proposed by Ministers was calculated to prove beneficial to Ireland? and whether the Kildare-street Society had not answered every purpose for which it was constituted, considering the means placed at its disposal? On a former occasion he had proved to their Lordships that the Kildare-street Society, which took the unmutilated Scriptures as the basis of education, had given satisfaction, not only to the Protestant clergy and people of Ireland, but to the Catholic population themselves. He then stated, that the only individuals opposed to scriptural education were Roman Catholic Priests, and Roman Catholic demagogues, and that the Catholic people, when permitted to indulge their own wishes, were continually flocking to the schools established by the Kildare-street Society. He could state as a fact, that the Catholic children were even more anxious than Protestant children to attend these schools. It was an anomaly in this country to behold a Protestant Government uniting with the Roman Catholic clergy to prevent the Roman Catholic people from enjoying the free use of the Scriptures. He begged to remind their Lordships that he had presented many petitions from different parts of the kingdom, against the system of education proposed to be established in Ireland. There were now lying on their Lordships' Table, upwards of fifty petitions against this system, and only two in its favour. It had been said, that these were not to be considered the petitions of the people, but only those of factious persons, who had got them up to serve their own purposes, and in the same way noble Lords who did not approve of the proposed system, had been accused of being actuated by factious motives. He denied those statements. The petitions which he had presented were signed by persons of various sects and classes. The other day he had presented a petition from the county and city of Cork, signed by nine

625
noblemen, and 4,900 other persons, consisting of Reformers and Anti-reformers, Orangemen and Liberals, who all united in one common cause—that of opposition to the system of education proposed by Ministers. He, and those with whom he acted, maintained that this system was impolitic and unchristian. It was in vain to say there were two days in the week set apart for religious instruction. On those two days the Roman Catholic children would be handed over to their priests, who would not allow them to read the Scriptures. He said, therefore, that Ministers, in framing these regulations, had united with the Roman Catholic clergy to prevent the people from enjoying the blessing of Scriptural education. There was one point which had been but little alluded to in this discussion, that was, the appointment of the Board of Superintendence. It appeared to him that the powers given to the Board were alarming. Those powers went to the extent of allowing them to remove the education of children completely from the influence of their parents and natural guardians. This was an authority which ought not to be tolerated in any country. He now begged leave to call their Lordships' attention to a document of considerable importance, which would prove the correctness of his assertion that the Roman Catholic people were not averse to the reading of the Scriptures. He must, however, previously state how this document came into existence. Some years ago, a society was established in Ireland, for the purpose of publishing the Scriptures in the Irish language, it being supposed, that, from the attachment which the Irish had to their native tongue, they would receive such a version of the Bible with the greater joy. That society had silently but effectually marched on its course, and had proved a great blessing to the benighted parts of Ireland. On the 17th of March last, the annual meeting of it took place in Dublin, on which occasion a deputation from 3,221 students and teachers of the Irish language presented the paper which he now held in his hand. It was addressed "To the Committee of the Irish Society for educating the Native Irish through the medium of their own Language," and is as follows;—
"It having been officially and publicly stated, that his Majesty's present Government are of opinion, 'that the determination of education societies in Ireland to enforce the reading of
626
the Scriptures in their schools had defeated their object as education societies,' and that, on these grounds, parliamentary aid is to be withdrawn from such institutions.
"We, Roman Catholics, masters, and adult scholars, in the King's-court district, in connexion with the Irish Society, having, through the instrumentality of that society, been taught to read the Scriptures, and thereby to appreciate them as the word of the living God, feel it an imperative duty—a duty which we owe to the Irish Societies, ourselves, our children, and our fellow countrymen, to come forward at this momentous period, when the present mode of education is about to be changed, and the Scriptures removed from our national schools, publicly to express our humble, but most firm, sincere, and heartfelt sentiments on this important subject.
"In that sacred book, which many of us, at an advanced age, have been taught to read in our beloved tongue—in that sacred book which to us and our fathers had been too long unknown—we are commanded to be subject to the higher powers. In obedience to that divine injunction, and with due respect for rulers, we would beg leave to assure them that the opinion 'that Education Societies in Ireland, by enforcing the reading of the Scriptures in their schools had defeated their objects as Education Societies,' is not founded in truth.
"In our humble sphere of life, mingling daily among the numerous peasantry, of which we form a part, we have more sure and certain means to know the real sentiments of that peasantry relative to Scriptural education than any Member of his Majesty's Government. We, therefore, most truly and solemnly declare, that the Irish peasantry in general are sincerely and zealously attached to the Scriptures, and, instead of objecting to send their children to Bible schools, the very circumstance of the Bible being read in a school would induce many of them to prefer that school.
"In proof of this statement, we would refer to the thousands of Roman Catholic youth in the London, Hibernian, Baptist, and Kildare-Place schools: we would refer to the thousands of the adult Catholic population at present in the Scriptural schools of the Irish Society; we would refer to the way-layings, abuse, and murders to which Irish masters and scholars have been often exposed; we would refer to the immense and annually increasing issue of Scriptures from the Hibernian Bible Society; we would refer to the thousands of Irish and English Scriptures, which Irish masters annually circulate amongst their numerous adult scholars. We can assure the Committee of the Irish Society, we can assure his Majesty's Government, that the Irish peasantry are most anxious for Scriptural knowledge for themselves and for their children. There are thousands and tens of thousands of Roman Catholics, whose cry may never reach the ear of the British Senate, and who dare not breathe a word against the tyranny that

627
oppresses them, who, from sincere love for Scriptural education, in defiance of every species of hostility, continue to send their children to Bible schools.
"Under these circumstances, though conscious that the society with which we are connected is entirely independent of parliamentary aid, and unaffected by recent legislative enactments, still, we trust that a British Parliament never will use its influence to arrest the progress of Scriptural knowledge in Ireland, deprive the Irish peasant of the book of God, which he reveres, or withdraw its usual aid from any society, merely because the Bible was read in its schools.
"Believing that the Holy Scriptures contain the mind and will of God to his creatures, that they were given for our learning, and are able to make us wise unto salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus, we consider them the only sure and safe basis for the literary education of youth, the only general centre wherein the various religious denominations can meet; and we are convinced, that, pure and entire as they came from the Deity, and were given to man, they are the property, the privilege, and the birth-right of every human being, with which no power on earth has any right to interfere."
"This Address was presented to the Irish Society at its annual meeting on Saturday last, 17th March, by a deputation of Irish masters, all Roman Catholics; and it was signed by 3,221 names. Every dependence might be placed on the genuineness of the signatures to which the abode of the party and nearest post town were attached. No individual was allowed to affix his name without being made thoroughly acquainted with the nature and contents of the document. The reverend Mr. Winning of King's-court, who lives in the midst of these people, wrote to him: 'I am confident that if time had permitted, and exertion had been made, that, instead of three, we might have had ten thousand signatures. The same persons would have signed a petition to Parliament to the same purpose; but when those persons in Dublin, who would have wished for a petition to Parliament first heard of the signing this address, there had been already 1,000 signatures attached to it.' And when Mr. Winning and other persons in the county first knew of the feeling and intentions of the people, they were afraid to urge them to sign a petition, lest, from their names getting into the hands of the demagogues, they might be exposed to personal violence. Were it not for this fear of violence, these persons would have petitioned their Lordships; but the consequence of their doing so, would be the destruction of their pro-
628
perty, by burning or otherwise. Intimidation prevailed in Ireland, at the present moment, to an extent absolutely frightful. He spoke the sentiments of the Protestant people of Ireland; and he knew then well. During the last three months, he had mixed with Protestants of every denomination, and, therefore, he might venture to say, that no individual was better acquainted with the Protestant people of Ireland than himself. They thought that the measures of Ministers would lead to the annihilation of Protestantism in Ireland, and, under this impression, they were already taking measures to emigrate from their country. Their Lordships, who lived in this country, in peace and security, could form no idea of the situation of the Protestants of Ireland. The brave, noble, and devoted Protestant people, though surrounded by Catholics, who greatly outnumbered them, and were determined, if they could, to annihilate them, still maintained their ground against superior force. Fas est et ab hoste doceri.—The agitators had set them an example of combining, and they had followed it by forming themselves into various societies, not for revolutionary purposes—not to put down the Government and overthrow the law—but to uphold the Constitution, and to protect themselves and their property. They looked for aid where aid was not to be found—for protection, whence protection was not extended to them; but, on the contrary, they saw every opportunity taken for the manifestation of the partiality which Government felt for their enemies. He held in his hand a declaration, which described, in more forcible language than he could employ, the situation of the Protestants of Ireland. This paper was their address to their Protestant brethren in England. It stated, that the Protestant clergy had been denounced; that some were suffering severe privations, and that others had been assassinated and stoned to death in the face of day; that the Protestant farmers were obliged to barricade their houses to prevent them from being broken into at night and themselves murdered; that, owing to the manufactory of pikes, which had for many years been carried on, the Catholic peasantry of Ireland were become one armed band; that the evils of their situation had broken the ties which bound them to their homes, and had induced no less than 60,000 Protestants to seek an exile on the trans-Atlantic

629
shore since the passing of the Emancipation Bill. It was not enough, too, that the Protestants were injured, they were also insulted, by those who should protect them. It was said, that they opposed the Government, but he must affirm that they had only united, and formed themselves into societies in self-defence, to uphold the law, and, for the protection of their liberties, their properties and their religion. This measure of education, forced upon the people of Ireland, was but a part of all those measures adopted by his Majesty's Ministers towards that country—it was to strike at the foundation of Protestant principles and Protestant influence. They had all the same leaven, whether the Reform Bill, the Jury Bill, or the Education Bill. The partiality of his Majesty's Government towards the agitators of Ireland was too clear not to be seen: he could enumerate many instances, but there was one which came home to the heart of every Protesttant, as an act of the greatest oppression, the greatest injustice, towards one of their body, and that, too, because he was a member of the Protestant party, and because the Roman Catholic demagogues were to be propitiated. He referred to the case of Captain Graham, a Magistrate of the county of Wexford, who, in the execution of his duty, acted in a manner which was creditable to himself, and beneficial to the public interests. To prove that position, that gentleman was indicted by Government for murder, in consequence of some person having been killed by the police under his command, in an affray which occurred about tithes. He was indicted at the last Summer Assizes at Wexford. The Grand Jury ignored the bill preferred against him, but his recognizances were still continued, and he was told that he must appear to take his trial at the next Assizes. A bill of indictment for the same offence was preferred against him at the last Spring Assizes at Wexford. The Grand Jury, which was composed of the most respectable men, some of whom were not unknown to many of their Lordships, and among whom were three Roman Catholics, again ignored the bill. What was the result? Captain Graham had been turned out of the commission of the peace, for no other reason than that he had been acquitted of all improper conduct. The Protestants considered this to be partiality. They looked upon Captain Graham's case as their own. They saw in the conduct
630
of the Ministers towards him the feeling which the Ministers entertained towards them. They knew that their interests were at stake, because Captain Graham suffered for their cause. He held in his hand the charge of a Judge who presided at the trial of an individual named Gilfroy, who was one of Captain Graham's companions in arms on the occasion when the event occurred for which he was indicted. He quested their Lordships' attention to the following extract from this charge. The learned Judge said:—
"Although Captain Graham is not personally on trial, yet his case is so mixed up with the matter before the Jury, that it is impossible to separate them. I, therefore, feel it my duty to declare my opinion, that the conduct of Captain Graham, as a Magistrate, an officer, a gentleman, and a man of humanity, before, during, and since the tithe affray, is unimpeachable."
This was the man whom the Government had thought proper to stigmatize, by depriving him of his Commission as a Magistrate for Carlow, Wexford, and Meath. He left their Lordships to decide upon such an undeserved act. He could not sit down without declaring that the Motion of the noble Earl should receive his warm support.
The Earl of Gosfordsaid, that the noble Earl who had just addressed their Lordships had asserted, that the Protestants of Ireland were unanimous in their opposition to the measures proposed by Government. No doubt, the noble Earl believed the fact to be as he stated it. But had no attempt been made to excite the passions of the people on this subject? He asserted that the utmost ingenuity had been exercised to pervert the truth, and to attribute false motives, in order to raise a spirit of opposition against the Ministers, who were adopting measures which, if allowed to go on, would, he believed, in his conscience, establish the peace and happiness of the country. He had abundant evidence to support these assertions, as to the means which had been resorted to in order to excite a spirit of opposition to the plan of education proposed by Ministers. Emissaries were sent through the country to inform the people that the object of Government was to take the Bible from them. The noble Earl talked of his knowledge of the Protestant feeling of Ireland. He did not yield to him in this particular, nor would he admit that he felt less love and reverence for

631
Protestant interests than he did. He would always advocate the Protestant cause, and if he thought that Government entertained any design of injuring it, he should consider himself base if he did not rise and declare that he withdrew all confidence from them on that account. He could not, however, but say that it was very hard that loyalty should be claimed as the exclusive possession of one party. Was no man to be considered loyal, religious, or conscientious who did not adopt the extravagant views of a particular party? This was not consistent with the true spirit of Christianity, which inculcated good will to all. When he saw a Government placed in a most arduous situation, and compelled to adopt measures which interfered with prejudices and deeply-rooted animosities, he felt bound to afford them all the support in his power. It was said that, by the new system of education, the Bible was to be excluded from the schools in Ireland. He contended that assertion was not correct. The Bible was, for all practical purposes introduced. The Scriptures might be read every morning and evening, and on two entire days in the week. How, then, could people say, that the Bible was excluded from the schools? How could any man in his sober senses come to that conclusion? The Resolution which had been submitted to the House was totally unfounded in fact. Was it possible their Lordships could agree to a resolution which stated that the Bible was practically excluded from schools. He wished it could be left to a Jury of twelve plain men to decide whether there was the slightest foundation for such a statement. The noble Earl seemed to think that the Superintending Board would possess an arbitrary control over education in Ireland. It was his opinion that this Board would prove of great utility; but if there should be any misconduct on their part, and Government refused to interfere with them, Parliament possessed a remedy in its own hands—it could refuse to grant them any money. He must again declare, that the Protestants of Ireland had been deluded with respect to the Ministerial plan. He had just received a letter from a Protestant clergyman in that country, who was a most zealous supporter of the establishment, and that gentleman said, the people in his neighbourhood could not account for the cry that was raised against the new system.
632
The noble Earl had said, that the Protestants in Ireland were united as one man against it, but there was great reason to doubt the accuracy of the noble Earl's information, for it appeared that the total number of schools applied for under the new system was upwards of 200, out of which grants had been made to sixty-one. The applicants in these sixty one cases were Protestants, Presbyterians, and Catholics, and the average number of children educated in each school was 221. He was convinced, from that fact that the opposition which had been so strenuously got up would gradually disappear, for it was impossible that in a country like Ireland things could continue to be regulated upon an exclusive system, or that it could be governed by opposing one party against another. The spirit and intelligence of the country were wholly against such a plan. He was, therefore, most happy to see symptoms of improvement, and he was determined to support a Government like the present which had originated such measures. He hoped they would persevere in their course, which he was sure, would materially tend to the permanent improvement of Ireland.
The Bishop of Bristolsaid, his objections to the proposed plan were, that no system of education from which any part of Scripture was systematically excluded could be good. They were now called upon to sacrifice a principle hitherto acted upon within the Charter schools and the Kildare-street Society's schools, in all of which the entire volume of Scripture had hitherto been allowed without restriction. A right reverend Prelate had quoted a passage from Locke expressive of his approbation of selections from Scripture for the use of schools. That great man, who considered all Scripture as having God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter, might well have recommended selections with a view to the instruction of youth in a manner and degree adapted to their ages and capacities, but this was a very different thing from a compilation of extracts, from which doctrinal points were systematically excluded, as was to be the case with the proposed compilation for the schools of Ireland. The question was of great importance, because the Government plan would gradually absorb all other plans of education, to the great injury of the Protestant religion.
The Bishop of Llandaffsaid, he felt called upon to defend the right reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of Dublin, from the imputation of entertaining anything less than the most orthodox opinions with respect to the sacredness of the Sabbath. The whole charge made against him originated in a mistake. The question which he had raised was not as to the extent which Christians were bound by the strict observance of the Sabbath, but whether they ought to observe the same day as Was enjoined to the Jews. Whether it was the first or the last day of the week that was to be observed, he held that Christians were bound to keep the Sabbath holy; and, with respect to the nature and extent of those obligations, he did not differ from the received opinions in the Church of England, for his investigations related to a branch of the subject wholly distinct. With respect to the new system of education he, the Bishop of Llandaff, thought it had been objected to in stronger terms than it deserved. At the same time, as the plan was disapproved of by the great body of the Protestants of Ireland, and as the interest of the country required that the whole Protestant strength should be united, he did not feel justified in giving the proposed plan his support.
The Marquis of Londonderryknew, from the best sources of information—indeed there was no man who had the slightest acquaintance with Ireland could doubt—that the Protestants in that country looked upon the system established by the Kildare-place Society as one of the best defences of Protestantism, and they felt that the proposed system was the first step to the establishment of the Roman Catholic religion. The next would be, to separate the two countries. So strongly did he feel that the new plan was disastrous, that he almost regretted the vote he gave in favour of the Emancipation of the Catholics, which had so soon been followed by further concessions, and by demands for other concessions.
Lord Plunkettwould briefly explain a few of the grounds upon which he should oppose the Motion. In the first place, he would affirm, and that without fear of contradiction from any impartial man, that all the reasonable portion of the Protestants of Ireland received the plan of Government education with readiness and with gratitude, notwithstanding that many
634
arts had been resorted to, and great skill exerted for the purpose of deluding the Protestant inhabitants of that country. For the purpose of exciting and deluding the Protestant mind of Ireland, there was no act that a perverted ingenuity could devise, or an unscrupulous and factious spirit call into activity, which had not been exerted on the occasion which had now been brought under their Lordships' consideration. He was unwilling to believe that holy names had been introduced into the present discussion to serve a political purpose; neither would he say, that his sentiments on religious subjects were different from those of other men; but this he would say, that the mention of those names, in that place, and upon that occasion, excited feelings in his heart which he hoped never again to experience. But, without troubling the House with any further observations of that nature, he would beg just to state the question which the present Government of this empire had to decide with reference to Ireland. No man in the present day contended that there ought to be separate systems of education established for the people of Ireland—then the question would be, whether a joint system of education should be resorted to? As things stood before the present Board was established, the Catholic population of Ireland did feel the greatest dissatisfaction at the mode in which those public funds had been administered, which were intrusted to the Kildare-street Society. The system of that association dissatisfied them—an opposite system would have given just cause of complaint to the Protestants—a joint system of education was required for the people at large, and what, then, remained for the Government but to adopt that course which had encountered so much condemnation from noble Lords on the opposite side of the House, and from some Members of the right rev. Bench? Now if that censure were well founded, and the arguments upon which it rested just, it followed of necessity that there could be no joint sysstem of education for Ireland—a state of things which the most strenuous supporters of the Kildare-street Association could not desire—at least, did not profess to aim at producing. But, setting aside altogether considerations of that nature, he would bring the matter to this issue. It was alleged that the Roman Catholics held it as

635
one of their principles that no man was to exercise any right of private judgment as to the doctrines of religion. He should not then stop to inquire how far such a principle might be in accordance with the injunctions of the Divine Founder of our religion, but he believed that the principle of the Roman Catholics, had been on that point, over-stated—they only denied the right of private judgment, that when any person brought up in their communion in reading the Scriptures arrived at a conclusion which led him to put a different interpretation upon Scripture in reference to articles of faith from that received by the heads of the Roman Catholic Church, that thence forward he ceased to be a member of that communion. That, he believed, was the principle of the Roman Catholic Church, and he trusted it would not be imputed to him, if he refrained from stating at that moment what were the principles of the Protestants—in truth, he believed no one would attempt to say, that they held in that respect doctrines different from those held by every Christian Church—namely, that, though conceding the right of private judgment, they did not hesitate to inform every one who, in reading the Scriptures, arrived at a different conclusion from that which was orthodox, must cease to be a member of that Church. Now if religion required of the Protestants that they should push their principles to an extreme, nothing was more clear than that there could be no system of national education for the Catholics. It would be in vain that they should offer to the Catholics a system of education clogged with conditions which they could not accept. The system offered by the Kildare-place Society was of that character—it offered that which the Catholics could not conscientiously accept; and when the Irish Government came forward with a system which certainly was anything but a novelty; for it had been recommended by three different sets of Commissioners, they were opposed and calumniated. And what was their great offence? Why, forsooth, that they did not insist upon the Bible being made an ordinary every-day schoolbook. He believed there was no sound Christian who would not be ready to admit, that though a man read the whole Bible, and made it a book of daily study, yet that, nevertheless, he might turn it to the worst account; while, on the other hand, his religious knowledge might be
636
confined to certain portions of the Holy Scriptures, and he might, nevertheless be a true Christian and a religious man. The constitution of the new Board was also attacked, but he felt assured that the way in which that Board was constituted would meet with general approbation. At the head of it was a noble Duke, whose known high character was a sufficient guarantee that he would act under no undue influence. Doctor Sadler was a man of equally eminent character, and of great attainments. Then came the Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, and he must express his great regret that a right reverend Prelate should, in the ardour of debate, have been betrayed in to what, by the uncharitable, might be called an invidious attack upon that right reverend Prelate, by insinuating that he could not enforce the fourth Commandment in consequence of an opinion given in his published works. He was much surprised at the accusation which had been made against Government, of intending to withdraw the Scriptures altogether from the public schools. No candid man who read Mr. Stanley's letter could put such a construction upon it, and he felt astonished to hear the right reverend Prelate join in the senseless and vulgar cry which had been raised against it by a certain party for their own purposes. The question, after all resolved itself into this, were they to have a national system of education, or one adapted for a portion of the community only? If it was intended to have a national system, then it followed that as the large majority of the people of Ireland were of the Catholic persuasion, that system must not jar with the religious feelings or prejudices of the Catholics. The priests of that persuasion did not (as had been too often falsely asserted) object to the perusal of the Scriptures, but to their indiscriminate perusal, and in this doctrine he must remark, they were joined by some of the most distinguished men in the Protestant Church. The Government measure was intended as a middle course between extreme opinions, and those who planned it wished to have such a selection of the Scripture as would promote morality and religion, and to which neither Catholic nor Protestant could object. The Government hoped to obtain the support of moderate and rational men of all parties in this attempt to soften down long existing, prejudices.
The Duke of Wellingtonfelt, that he

637
was called upon to say a few words respecting what had fallen in the course of the debate from the right rev. Prelate, and he was bound in justice to say that not one word had been uttered by him which was not perfectly correct. He had been often surprised at the imputations which had been thrown out, and the injustice which had been done to the right rev. Prelate respecting circumstances which could not have been known to the public, nor indeed to any other person but themselves? For his own part, he could say that ever since the correspondence took place, he had never mentioned it to any one, and he believed the right rev. Prelate had observed a similar reserve. As to the subject before their Lordships, he thought a different plan to that proposed by Government ought to have been adopted. He was fully convinced a separate system of education might be safely acted upon, and that such a plan would be more advantageous, and was better calculated to the circumstances of Ireland than the arrangement about to be pursued by Government. It was quite clear, that the Protestants of that country were greatly alarmed by the measures of Ministers, and were becoming daily less disposed to place confidence in the Government of this country. This he thought a great evil, for he had always felt, that the strength of the Government greatly depended upon the union and support of the Protestants of Ireland. They were the holders of five-sixths of the property of the soil, they were the best educated and most enlightened part of the community, and it was on them consequently that the Government ought to rely. There could be no doubt that it was by them that the connection between the two countries was mainly preserved. But it was said, that the Protestants of Ireland did not feel so great an anxiety upon the subject. That appeared to him very strange; for, if they did not they would be most extraordinary people. He was convinced, however, that their feelings had been outraged by the plan proposed, and, sorry was he to find that so important a body had been not only disregarded, but actually injured, in some of their most cherished sentiments. The scheme of national education proposed went to subvert a system which had been carried on for upwards of twenty years, and had continued to flourish and increase. At the moment that his Majesty's
638
Government interfered with it there were 600,000 persons receiving an education of a moral and religious nature founded on the Holy Scriptures, at a very trifling comparative expense. The number so educated was a larger proportion as compared with the number of inhabitants educated at the charge of the State in any other country. This plan was pursued for several years, and was not objected to by any party; and it was not until within the last five years that any opposition was raised to it, and then only by the Roman Catholic clergy. A charge of proselytism was brought against the Kildare-place Society, and a Commission was sent to Ireland, one of the duties of which was, to inquire into the truth of the charge: it was inquired into, and the charge was proved to be unfounded. The system which his Majesty's Government had recommended in substitution of that pursued by the Kildare-place Society was a bad one. The plan had been tried before and failed. It was recommended by the Irish Government, at the head of which was a relative of his (the Duke of Wellington). The Commission, in obedience to the desire of the Irish Government, did attempt to carry it into execution, but they found it impossible to do so. He regretted very much that sufficient attention had not been paid to the wishes and interests of the Protestants of Ireland, who were not even adverted to in the proposed measure. He, however, hoped that his Majesty's Government would abandon this plan, and substitute for it one that would give peace and tranquillity to that country.
Earl Greythought, after what had been said on that side of the House, more especially by a right rev. Prelate, by a noble Earl near him (the Earl of Radnor), and his noble and learned friend (Lord Plunkett), that much would not be required from him. He could not, however, altogether pass over in silence some of the statements of the noble Duke, who lamented that persons favourable to the plan should have been deceived. Now, the inaccuracy was in the statements on which the noble Duke himself relied. He bitterly lamented that such a discussion should have sprung up on this question. Religious animosity and party spirit had thrust themselves into the consideration of a measure, and threatened to mar it, the object of which was, to promote peace and good-will, and to put

639
an end to those conflicts of opinion by which Ireland was so unhappily convulsed. The plan of national education to which noble Lords were so hostile was, be it understood, but the complement of the great measure of national reconciliation which it had been the good fortune of the noble Duke to carry into effect. He did hope that that great measure would have ere this realized some of those beneficial results which he and the other advocates of it had predicted as among its first consequences; but he never did suppose that it could realize all the benefits expected from it, unless followed by other measures. He had ever expressed an opinion that Catholic emancipation could never possibly be a panacea for all the ills of Ireland; and he had ever looked forward to a measure like the present as essential to effecting that national regeneration to which the settlement of the Catholic question was but as a means to an end. He did not feel it necessary, after the able statements of his noble friends near him, to enter into a minute examination of the objections that had been alleged against the present system of education in Ireland, and should therefore, confine himself to one or two remarks on the strange course pursued by the noble Duke with respect to that system. That noble Duke told them, that the system was calculated to alienate the Protestants of Ireland from the Government, and had dwelt with some emphasis on the impolicy of estranging a body of so much importance, on account of their wealth, and intelligence, and historical associations. Now, the noble Duke could not entertain a stronger desire to conciliate the Protestants of Ireland than he did; nor could the noble Duke entertain a more profound conviction of the important relation which that body bore to the British connexion with Ireland. But what, he would ask was there in the present scheme incompatible with that desire and conviction? Surely bigotry was not religion. Was it not his duty, if he saw the adoption of a measure was likely to promote the peace and internal improvement of Ireland, to do all in his power to carry that measure into effect, without being intimidated by those obstructions which ill-directed zeal, party spirit, intolerance, or religious rancour might place in his way? Had not this been the conduct of the noble Duke himself on another important question? Indeed, when he recollected that
640
conduct of the noble Duke, he was astonished to hear him use the same arguments against the present plan of education, and reiterate the same assertions as those, the absurdity of which the noble Duke himself had so often and so efficiently exposed. When the measure of Catholic emancipation was in its progress through that House, the noble Duke was nightly assailed by assertions and appeals, in spirit and in letter, as senseless as those which the noble Duke now condescended to advance against the plan of national education which Ministers thought it their duty to introduce into Ireland. The very persons who were now denouncing that system, as destructive of the Protestant interests in Ireland, were loud in their denunciations of the noble Duke's policy, as fraught with ruin to the Protestant establishments of that country. On those occasions, more than once, he had defended the noble Duke. He particularly referred to the first day of the Session of 1830, when Lord Farnham attacked the noble Duke as the author of a measure which must subvert Protestant interests in Ireland, on which occasion the noble Duke properly observed, that he had a right to expect more beneficial effects from Catholic emancipation than had followed from it, and was convinced that those effects would have followed but for the opposition which party and religious feelings had raised against it. "It was not his duty," said the noble Duke, "and it was far from his inclination to cast imputations upon any man, but, still he was bound in fairness to say, that if his Majesty's Government had been properly supported upon that question—if it had been supported as vehemently as it had been opposed, in its efforts to heal the division of Ireland—if it had not been thwarted—that country would now have been in a very different state."* He would now repeat the noble Duke's language on that occasion, in answer to the noble Duke's present observations, and would tell the noble Duke he was convinced that all that the present plan of education in Ireland wanted was, fair play and a just spirit of tolerance. So far as he himself was concerned, his best energies should be devoted to securing it a fair trial, undismayed and undeterred by the taunts and insinuations of right
* Hansard's Debates (third series), vol. i. p. 51.

641
rev. Prelates and noble Lords, who would fain persuade themselves that they had a monopoly of religious faith. He would tell them that no noble Lord nor right rev. Prelate in that House was actuated by a more earnest belief in the great truths of Christianity, nor by a more warm anxiety for the prosperity of the Protestant church, than he was; but he had yet to learn that obstinate adherence to a system which had led to no good results, in a national point of view, in Ireland, but which, on the contrary, had tended to alienate the feelings of a large majority of its inhabitants, was the best mode of proving that belief and that anxiety. He had been educated in a different school, where it was taught that it was the duty of a Legislature to inquire into grievances when their existence was a matter of certainty, and not to wait too long in providing a remedy, lest the delay should impart the character of an extorted concession to what would, if granted in time, have been gratefully received as a boon. This, he feared, had been the case with the Catholic question, and was, he thought, the source of many of the ills which distracted that unhappy country. The noble Duke had not acted with his usual candour in his statement of the effects of the Kildare-street Society. The noble Duke had told them that Society had educated not less than 600,000 persons gratuitously in Ireland.
The Duke of Wellington: I said no such thing. I meant that there were 600,000 persons receiving education gratuitously in Ireland, in establishments which the new system would injure.
Earl Grey: Then the argument was good for nothing, for all the Government proposed to do was, to withdraw the grant from the Kildare-street Society, and place it at the disposal of a Board for the education of persons of all religious persuasions, leaving everything else as it was before. The Kildare-street Society was originally supported by private contributions, and he had no doubt it would continue to receive such support; but, all the other schools remained as they were originally constituted. Taking together all the children who had been educated at all the different schools of Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, the amount of the whole was 560,000. Of these, the number educated by the Kildare-street Society amounted to 57,000 only. [The Duke of Wellington: 147,000.] He
642
would give the noble Duke credit for 147,000, but, at the same time, he must say, he believed that number to be a very exaggerated estimate; however, giving him that amount, there still remained upwards of 400,000 untouched. That the Kildare-street Society's system worked well, he much questioned, for, upon reference to the Ninth Report of the Commissioners, it would be found that, in 1827, the number of children educated by that Society was, in the whole, 58,000; and he doubted much whether the numbers had increased proportionably since that period. Indeed, all the information which he had been able to obtain, led him to think, that the number had diminished. In other respects, also, he felt, that the Kildare-street Society's system was not operating beneficially, when considered as one meant to apply to national education. In the first place, as had been stated by a noble Marquis, the chief portion of the persons educated were those of the North of Ireland—in the province of Ulster; in Munster and Connaught, the numbers were comparatively very few. This fact alone showed, that the Catholics, generally, did not profit by it to the extent that was asserted, and that it did not effect the desired object of a general system of national education; because, if by a "national system" anything was really meant, it was, that it should afford the means of education to the Catholic as well as the Protestant population of Ireland. At the same time, it could not be denied that the attempt to gain over pupils to the schools of the Society had caused a great contention between the Protestant landlords and the Roman Catholic clergy, and the Roman Catholic children, in consequence of this, were prevented in a great measure, from frequenting these schools. Looking, therefore, to the state of Ireland, with a view to the suppression of that religious animosity, which unhappily so long prevailed in that country, it became necessary to adopt a system of common education. And to effect that object, Ministers had taken for their guides the Reports of two Commissions appointed by the Crown, and two Committees of Parliament authorized to inquire into the state of education in Ireland. Their Reports had the sanction of persons whose attachment to the Protestant Church it was impossible to doubt; and though Ministers had not adopted the suggestions contained in their Reports al-

643
together, yet they had proceeded upon the general principle on which they were founded. The result was, the plan for a national system of education, which had been the subject of so much animadversion; and which while holding out equal advantages to the children of both persuasions, did not require from the Roman Catholics, as a condition of their admission to the schools to be instituted according to this plan, anything that was inconsistent with the tenets of their Church. But, in acting on this principle, which was essential to any scheme of national education, they were, at the same time, careful that no injury should be done to the best interests of the Protestant religion, or of the Established Church. The question was, were they to have a system of national education or not? A system of education—as applied to Ireland—to be national, must not exclude the Catholics, who formed the great majority of the population. The intention, then, ex vi termini, must be that Catholics should be admitted. But they could not be admitted if conditions were imposed upon them contrary to their religious faith. The indiscriminate use of the Bible, without note or comment was objected to by them. It was proposed, therefore, that, for four days in the week, the education should be moral and literary, not excluding such selections from the Bible as might be agreed upon; and that, during the remaining two days, and even before and after school hours, on the other four, the children might receive the instruction of their respective Churches, in addition to the regular attendance at Divine Worship on the Sabbath. Could it be said with truth, that, in doing this, the use of the Bible was excluded, or, that they were introducing a plan subversive of the Protestant Church? That attending for four days in the week to the moral and literary instruction of the pupils of these schools, accompanying these lessons with selections from the Holy Scriptures, inculcating the great principles of charity and truth, was a departure from the principles of the established religion. They abstained undoubtedly, from introducing controverted matters, which would have the effect, if insisted on, of disgusting four-fifths of the population, whom it was their object to reclaim to habits of morality, order, and obedience to the laws, by the diffusion of education generally. The Board was now employed in making such selections from
644
Scripture as might be mutually agreed upon. Their work had successfully commenced by the adoption of the lesson which had been referred to in this and in a former day. It was proposed by Dr. Whateley, having been framed by the reverend Prelate—of whom he would say nothing more than that everything that had happened since his elevation to the See of Dublin, had amply confirmed the opinion which he had formed of him—not without inquiry—and which had induced him to recommend him to his Majesty for promotion; and it was indeed, a satisfaction to him, greater than he could express, to have had it in his power to contribute to his being placed in a situation where his services might be eminently useful both to the Church and to the country. The reflection that had been made upon this eminent person appeared to him neither charitable nor just: he heard it with great pain; but as it had been already successfully refuted, and as the right reverend Prelate himself, from whom it fell, had since retracted, and expressed his sorrow for having gone too far, he would not say anything more upon it. By the most reverend Prelate, then, a lesson had been framed and adopted upon the proposal of the titular Archbishop of Dublin, for daily use in the new schools. But this lesson, the right reverend Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), said, had been extracted from the Rhemish version of the Bible. So much the better for his argument. It showed a spirit of mutual liberality and agreement, which might lead to the happiest consequences; it was the guarantee of a well-founded hope that by the same mutual agreement, a more general selection from the Holy Scriptures—a work now in progress—might be effected, for the ordinary course of general, moral, and literary instruction, which the pupils were to receive together during their four days in the week. Surely an attempt of that kind, the obvious tendency of which was to prevent animosities and to produce agreement, could not be inconsistent with a course of Christian education, or detrimental to the course of religion and of truth. But then, they were told, that to make selections was to mutilate the Word of God. Was it not the practice of every family to use selections from the Holy Scriptures in the instruction and education of their children? For what purpose were all the excellent books

645
that were published of this description, but to abstract what was recommended in the quotation so aptly introduced by the right reverend Prelate from the works of Mr. Locke (than whom a more sincere friend to religion never existed), which stated the inexpediency of committing to the uninstructed minds of youth the examination of that sacred volume without some guide to direct them? The opinion of Mr. Burke, another authority, which he thought would not be disputed, was the same—that the multifarious character of the Bible was such, that it ought to be reserved for riper years, the mind having been previously disciplined by wholesome instruction, and prepared for the better investigation of the whole of these writings, which, it was the boast of the English Church to open to all its adherents. But, he had another authority to quote, which he was sure would never be stated as one of light weight in any matter, in which the interests of the Church was concerned. He held in his hand an extract from the evidence of Dr. Magee, the late Archbishop of Dublin, before the Irish Committee. Being asked—
"Is not the principle assumed by the Bible Society, namely, the circulation of the Scriptures in themselves, without either the explanation of the Church or any written commentary accompanying it, rather the principle of the foreign Protestant Churches than of the Churches of England and Ireland."
The Archbishop answers—"Certainly."
"Did not your Grace conceive that the admission of so broad a principle as that struck at the root of the Established Church itself, and might lead to schism, and a latitude of opinion almost approaching to that of the Independents?—Undoubtedly."
The system of circulating the Bible, without note or comment, unaccompanied by the Book of Common Prayer had been objected to by many reverend Prelates on the original institution of the Bible Societies; and was it, then, to be said, that, under the present plan, which allowed four days in the week to general education, and two days (exclusive of the Sabbath instruction) to religious education, the Ministers mutilated the Word of God in the selections that were to be used on the first four, or that they excluded the Bible, when the teachers of the respective Churches in the three last days, of the week, were granted liberty to make what use they please of it. Could any one, who re-
646
garded truth, give his assent to the words of the Resolution proposed, that the Bible was practically excluded? Such a proposition was altogether untenable and contrary to fact. It arose from one of those misrepresentations which had been disseminated in a spirit of hostility to his Majesty's Government. At an early period of the debate, an allusion had been made to the state of religious education in our public schools. A right reverend Prelate took fire at the imputation attempted to be cast on those institutions, which he stated to be now conducted with the utmost care of the spiritual interests of their scholars, and he had instanced the two great seminaries which came more immediately under his observation, as exemplary in that respect. He was glad to hear that. Great improvement, he had no doubt, had taken place; he was himself educated at one of the greatest public schools in the kingdom. He passed there nine years of his early life. He looked back at that period with grateful recollection; but he must say that if the two days set apart for the purpose of religious instruction in the new schools exclusive of Sundays, were faithfully applied, the youth would receive much more spiritual instruction than was afforded, in his time, to the scholars in the public schools of the Established Church. He regretted the feelings of animosity which unhappily existed on this subject, for he had hoped, that party feelings would have been silent upon a subject, connected as it was with the peace of Ireland, and flowing as a sort of natural consequence from the great measure intended to ensure the happiness of that country. He was sorry that he had to express his deep regret at being disappointed in that hope, for he felt certain that this plan would be eminently useful. Its beginning was the guarantee of its future efficiency, and it would have been still more prosperous, if parties, instead of inflaming the minds of the people, had cultivated among them that charitable disposition by which they ought to be united. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not withhold the support necessary to give the plan a trial. He claimed credit for the whole of the King's Ministers, for himself, and emphatically for his right hon. friend, the Secretary for Ireland, who introduced this plan, as bearing as true affection for the Church, as feeling as deeply for the interests of their religion, as any of those who heard

647
him. The question, he repeated it once more, was, whether they were to have a system of national religion or not? The necessity of it had been admitted by all parties, and for the last ten years he had never heard but one opinion upon it. How, then, was this object to be attained? It could only be by a system established on principles which would not be revolting to the religious feelings of the Catholics. It was with this view that the new plan had been introduced, and it was for their Lordships to decide whether, for the sake of throwing on his Majesty's Ministers the stigma of having proposed a measure inconsistent with the duty which they owed to the Church and to the State; they would, by this Resolution, founded on a false assertion, defeat at the outset an endeavour to diffuse the blessings of peace, good-will, and charity amongst the people of Ireland—and thus to give the most effectual support to the Protestant Church, which, founded in truth, and resting on these principles, would be secure, but which could not be safe, as long as it excited the animosity, and was exposed to the hatred of the great body of the people.
The Earl of Wicklow, in leaving his Motion to the discretion of their Lordships said, he could not regret having brought it forward when it produced the powerful and eloquent speech they had heard from the right reverend Bishop of Exeter. That speech was one of the most eloquent and argumentative appeals to which he had ever listened. Delighted and gratified as he was at it, and much as he approved of all its sentiments, he was not aware of the full force of it until he heard the attack of the noble Earl, and the indecent cheers which accompanied it, in excellent keeping with the indecent attacks made at other times on the right reverend Prelate's episcopal character in that House. The speech of the right reverend Prelate was, indeed, unanswerable, and, compared with others, was magnificent—like the ruins of Palmyra, which appeared the grander, by the nakedness of the land with which they were surrounded. He must again contend, and was prepared to show from documents, that the Kildare-street Society had always proved itself competent to the education of the people. The noble Earl at the head of the Government treated his defence of the Society as a mere ebullition of party. He denied that it proceeded from such motives; but it was not sur-
648
prising that the noble Earl disliked the name of party. Forty years of the pains and bitterness of exclusion from office had taught the noble Earl the miseries of party, and now that he had obtained the object of all his ambition, he wished to forget the name of party, and to see discord abandon the earth, and Astræea resume her reign. The declaration made against the system proposed by the Government, which was signed by two Archbishops and thirteen Bishops, was quite conclusive as to the system. It was not possible for any Government to contend on such a question against an opposition which included among its ranks all the most eminent heads of the Established Church.
The House divided, and the numbers were: Content 60; Proxies 27–87; Not content 59; Proxies 66–125—Majority against the Motion 38.

List of NOT CONTENTS.

PEERS PRESENT, 59.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex

Plunkett

Napier

DUKES

Gower

Norfolk

Dover

Somerset

Brougham

Richmond

Monteagle (Marquis of Sligo)

St. Alban's

MARQUISES

Dinorben

Queensberry

Howden

Lansdowne

Somerhill (Marquis of Clanricarde)

Cleveland

EARLS

Stourton

Mulgrave

Hill

Grey

Wellesley (Marquis Wellesley)

Cowper

Albemarle

Clements (Earl of Leitrim)

Gosford

Charlemont

Oakley

Amherst

Chaworth (Earl of Meath)

Radnor

Denbigh

Saye-and-Sele

VISCOUNTS

Fife (Earl of Fife)

Bolingbroke

Fingall, (Earl of Fingall)

Hood

Leinster (Duke of Leinster)

Dundas

Howard of Effingham

Goderich

Mendip (Viscount Clifden)

St. Vincent

BARONS

Panmure

Lilford

Ponsonby (of Imokilly)

Sefton (Earl of Sefton)

Rosebery (Earl of Rosebery)

Suffield

Clifton (Earl of Darnley)

Holland

Melbourne (Viscount Melbourne)

Lynedoch

Auckland

Sundridge (Duke of Argyll)

BISHOPS

Chichester

Foley

Killaloe

649

PROXIES, 66.

DUKES

Clinton

Portland

Vernon

Brandon

Ponsonby (Earl of Besborough)

Bedford

Devonshire

Alvanley

Grafton

Dormer

MARQUISES

Boyle (Earl of Cork)

Breadalbane

Ranfurly (Earl of Ranfurly)

Stafford

Westminster

Yarborough

Winchester

Crewe

Ailsa

Sherborne

Westmeath

Ludlow (Earl of Ludlow)

EARLS

Spencer

Dunally

Buckinghamshire

De Clifford

Ferrers

Stafford

Derby

Erskine

Nelson

Ducie

Hillsborough, (Marquis of Downshire)

Rossie (Lord Kinnaird)

Huntingdon

Byron

Fortescue

Gardner

Burlington

Kenlis (Marquis of Headfort)

Thanet

Minto

Glenlyon

Essex

Clifford (of Chudleigh)

Onslow

Cawdor

Sondes

Camperdown

Hawke

Lichfield

Mostyn

Carlisle

Poltimore

Pomfret

De Saumarez

VISCOUNTS

Cloncurry

Lake

Kilmarnock (Earl of Erroll)

Granville

Falkland

Templemore

BARONS

Lyttelton

Granard (Earl of Granard)

BISHOP

Dunmore (Earl of Dunmore)

Norwich

List of CONTENTS.

PEERS PERSENT, 60.

His Royal Highness the Duke of Gloucester

Jersey

Rossyln

Howe

DUKE

Selkirk

Wellington

Bradford

MARQUISES

Brownlow

Bute

Digby

Thomond

Westmorland

Abercorn

Chichester

Cholmondeley

St. Germain's

Salisbury

Verulam

EARLS

VISCOUNTS

Wicklow

Beresford

Vane (Marquis of Londonderry)

Lorton

Gordon (Earl of Aberdeen)

Limerick

Eldon

Falmouth

BARONS

Bathurst

Montagu

Delawarr

Wynford

650

Meldrum (Earl of Aboyne)

Manners

Penshurst (Viscount Strangford)

Bexley

Clanbrassil (Earl of Roden)

ARCHBISHOPS

Canterbury

Wallace

Armagh

Colville

BISHOPS

Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam)

Llandaff

Rochester

Kenyon

Bath and Wells

Saltoun

Exeter

Carrington

Bristol

Redesdale

Bangor

Skelmersdale

Chester

Ellenborough

Lichfield

Tenterden

Carlise

Maryborough

London

Harris

Lincoln

PROXIES, 27.

DUKE

Exmouth

Northumberland

Doneraile

MARQUISSES

BARONS

Ailesbury

Stowell

Exeter

Bagot

Hertford

Prudhoe

EARLS

Lauderdale (Earl of Lauderdale)

Darmouth

Chersterfield

Churchill

Wilton

Saltersford (Earl of Courtown)

Norwich (Duke of Gorden)

Forbes

Home

Loftus (Marquis of Ely)

Carrick

Mayo

Gray

Clancarty

BISHOPS

VISCOUNTS

St. Asaph

Hereford

Clogher