Sitting of 18 May 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. LAMB, of the Reduction and Augmentation of the Duties on Coals, Sugar, Wine, and Spirits; and of the Reductions of the Establishment and Charges of Management consequent on the Repeal of the Duties on Coal and Slate; and of the several Amounts paid from the Exchequer (Ireland), in the year 1831, for Half-pay and Superannuated Allowances.—On the Motion of Mr. MARSHALL, of the Scale of Duties on Bills of Exchange in England.
Bills. Read a second time:—Insolvent Debtors Acts Continuation (England.) Read a third time:—Insolvent Debtors (India.)
Petitions presented. By Mr. BENETT, from the Political Union, Bradford; from Melksham, Devizes, and Coggeshall;—by Mr. HODGES, from Deptford, and six other places in Kent;—by Mr. GORE LANGTON, from Shepton Mallet, and St. James's, Bath;—by Mr. ROBINSON, from Worcester;—by Mr. THICHNESSE, from Wigan;—by Sir CHARLES BURRELL, from Lewes;—and by an Hon. MEMBER, from Tewkesbury,—for stopping the Supplies till the Reform Bill 'be passed.—By Mr. TOWNLEY, from Royston and Wisbeach, for the Abolition of Slavery.

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS.
Mr. Humebegged to put a question to the noble Lord opposite, before he determined
1072
what he should do on the subject of the Call for Monday. He begged to ask, whether such an arrangement had taken place as was likely to satisfy that House, that matters were in progress by which the carrying of the Reform Bill would be secured?
Lord Althorp: I am happy, Sir, to take the earliest opportunity of rising to state, in answer to the question of the hon. Member, what has been done. I beg to state to the House, that his Majesty's Ministers conceive they have secured for the passing of the Reform Bill such an arrangement as they deem sufficient, and, therefore, that we continue to hold the offices we are now in possession of.
Lord Milton: Under the circumstances stated by my noble friend, it is, perhaps, desirable, that I should state for the information of Gentlemen to whom my intentions have been communicated, that after the assurance which my noble friend has just made, it is no longer my intention to submit to this House that Address which I had previously proposed to offer for their adoption.
Mr. Hume: And I beg, Sir, to move to discharge the Order for the Call of the House, which I had before fixed for Monday next.
Sir Robert Peel: I was not aware, Sir, of the intention of the noble Lord to submit any proposition to this House. If I had been, as a man deeply interested in the prosperity of the State, deeply interested, too, in seeing some termination of the present state of affairs consistent with the honour of all parties, I should have deprecated this untimely interference. Even if the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) had not made the announcement which he has now made, if it had been found impossible that the present Ministry should return to office, I should have risen for the purpose of entreating the noble Lord, not without notice—not without giving us an opportunity of maturing our opinions, most certainly not, while negotiations were still pending—to bring before this House any vote which could by possibility interpose fresh difficulties in the way of an arrangement. That is the course which, in the best exercise of my discretion, I should have recommended him to pursue. But all intervention on this subject on the part of the House of Commons is precluded by the communication which the noble Lord has just made. The House will, perhaps,

1073
permit me, although there is no one who is more averse to trouble them with explanations of a personal nature, yet, as the crisis is so important, and the part which I have taken has been so much discussed, the House will, perhaps, permit me to occupy their attention for a few moments, while I state the grounds on which the decision I came to was formed. I will make this explanation as briefly as possible, and what I am about to state shall be merely for my own vindication. On Wednesday last a communication was made to me by a noble friend, for whom, notwithstanding all the calumnies that have been directed against him, I avow that I entertain the sincerest esteem, I mean Lord Lyndhurst, yes, Sir, I will not shrink notwithstanding the difference of opinion which a majority of this House may express, from making an avowal of the high opinion I entertain of the talents and of the public character of that noble Lord. On Wednesday last Lord Lyndhurst waited on me, stating—not that he had authority from his Majesty to form an Administration, but that, having been his Majesty's Lord Chancellor—now holding a high judicial situation—and being, on that account, out of the immediate vortex of political affairs; he had been for these reasons, selected by his Majesty, for the purpose of conferring with him on the present state of affairs. The noble Lord inquired whether I considered it to be in my power to enter into the King's service at this crisis? He stated the difficulties in which his Majesty had been placed by the resignation of his late servants, on account of his refusal to create Peers for the purpose of carrying the Reform Bill. I was informed that the only other person who had been then consulted was the Duke of Wellington, who was determined to assist his Majesty in any way—who wished no office, but who was ready to take office, if his taking of office was considered likely to facilitate the formation of a Government. Although no communication was then made to me by the express command of his Majesty, yet, as I see no occasion to maintain any reserve when entering on an explanation of this kind, I will state that I did understand the question as formally put to me, whether I was willing to accept that office which in political life is supposed to be the highest object of ambition. I ought to state, in justice to the King, that it was at the same time notified to me, that the acceptance of
1074
office must be on the clear understanding that his Majesty's past declarations with regard to Reform be fulfilled, and that whoever took office must accept it on the condition of introducing an extensive measure of Reform. I replied to Lord Lyndhurst, I admit, upon the impulse of the moment, but upon an impulse which my maturer judgment only served to confirm, that no authority nor example of any man, or any number of men, could shake my resolution not to accept office under existing circumstances, upon such conditions. I answered under the influence of feelings which no reasoning could abate, that it would not be for my honour, or for the advantage of the country, that I should accept office, on the condition of introducing an extensive measure of Reform. In the present state of affairs, I considered, and I believe with perfect justice, that by extensive Reform was meant the adoption of the leading provisions of the Bill. I do not say all the provisions of the Bill, without exception, but all that are essential to carry into full effect its principles. I said to Lord Lyndhurst, that I must decide for myself on the instant, on a review of the peculiar situation in which I stood; that I felt the difficulties in which the King was placed; that I had never entertained so strong a wish to serve his Majesty as I now did, for the purpose of removing those difficulties; but that, if I were to accept office without an unreproaching conscience—if I were to enter this House for the purpose of discharging its duties without a light heart, a firm step, and an erect aspect, I could render no effectual service to his Majesty, or to the country. What is the situation in which I stand with respect to Reform—to that measure, the adoption of the principles of which was to be the condition of my appointment to office, I have given it the most strenuous opposition, continued to the latest moment. I deprecated the principle of the Bill, fraught as I believe it to be with injustice. I considered it a revolutionary measure, calculated to introduce such changes in the practical working of the Constitution, as, if not revolutionary in themselves, would lead to revolution; and, therefore, to the principles and details of that Bill I have offered to the last, my most decided opposition. Those with whom I have co-operated received a declaration from me very early, that I should take that course with respect to Reform

1075
and the Reform Bill, that must preclude me from taking office under circumstances like the present; and, having done that, where is he who thinks, that out of 658 Members of this House I could be the chosen man to stand in that place as Minister, in order to recommend the adoption of that Bill of which I had been the chief opponent? If it were necessary to select a person as a mediator between hostile parties, am I, who have been the head of one of those parties, proper to be selected for that purpose? Is it likely, in proposing modifications of the Bill, that I, of all men could have persuaded the majority to which I have been opposed, to acquiesce in my recommendation for the improvement of their Bill? I ground the vindication of the course I have taken (if vindication be necessary) on the peculiar position in which I personally stand. So far from calling in question the motives of others, who were inclined to take office in order to relieve the King from the difficulties with which he was surrounded, that I hold them in the utmost respect. I firmly believe, that those men who were willing, at such a crisis, to devote themselves to the service of the Crown, acted not only from the most disinterested motives, but from motives the highest and purest by which public men could be actuated. Their reasons for taking that course were, that they should have lowered themselves in their own esteem if they had not been ready to make that sacrifice; and it was precisely on the same ground, a sense of personal honour, on which I decided that I could not take office in order to carry the Reform Bill. That conviction was rooted too strongly in my mind, to make it possible that my service could be useful service. Some allowance, Sir, must be made for human failings. Other considerations were amply sufficient; but I could not cast out of my view the conduct I had been compelled to pursue with respect to the Catholic Bill. I then reviewed my former declarations, and took a course directly contrary to that I had before pursued. But, Sir, the difference between the two cases was great. I was then the responsible adviser of the Crown, and, looking at the state of the country, the state of public opinion, and at the general condition of Europe, I thought it my duty to submit to the King, on a review of the then existing circumstances, that there was an immediate and pressing evil which must be
1076
remedied without delay, and that the danger of further resistance to the claims of the Roman Catholics was, upon the whole, greater than the concession. I gave that advice to the Crown; but I say now, as I have said before, that I did all that it was possible to do to relieve myself from the necessity of proposing that measure, and to retire from office. But even if it were possible to repeat the conduct I then pursued, this is not a repetition of the Catholic Question; I have not advised the King to propose the Reform Bill; I am not a responsible Minister of the Crown; and being out of office, I felt myself perfectly justified in declining to enter it on a condition (perhaps an unavoidable condition) that my first act should be the proposal of Reform—I say the proposal of it—because it would have been a miserable evasion, to place some other person in the situation of proposer, with my consent to, and support of the proposal. It may be—indeed it has been said—that the English Bill of Reform had passed the House of Commons—and that, therefore, a Minister in the House of Commons would have had no further concern with it. This may be technically true, so far as discussion in the House is concerned—but what advice was that Minister to give to the King, with respect to the progress of the Bill in the Lords? Was he to advise that it should pass unmodified—or that it should pass subject to modification and change? In either case did he not virtually adopt the Bill, as much as if it still had remained under consideration in the House of Commons? But even if there be any force in this observation with respect to the English Bill of Reform, what is the case with respect to the Scotch, and to the Irish Bill? They have not passed the House of Commons—they are here undecided on; and the first consequence of my acceptance of office must have been the completion and perfection of two Bills, to one of which at least—namely, the Irish, I am decidedly opposed. I ask any man whther it be likely that I could, as Minister, bring either one or the other to a satisfactory termination. But I look further than to either of these Bills—I speak of the measure of Reform generally. Granted that the immediate settlement of that question is now become unavoidable—granted that there is as much danger, as circumstances now stand, in peremptory rejection, as there can be in any other

1077
course that can be taken; that the best result would be, the acceptance of the Bill with extensive modifications not incompatible with its main principles. Even in that case, could such modifications be proposed by me with any prospect of advantage? From the original authors of the measure modification might be accepted; and I do trust that they will now feel, that they can originate with honour all modifications which they may think reasonable and just. But modifications suggested by a decided opponent, would not be received by the country as a final settlement of the question. The parties who are now about, for the first time, to receive privileges from the provisions of this Bill, would consider themselves under no obligations for such privileges, if they were extorted from an enemy to the Bill, but would receive them with an increased desire to acquire in a second Bill that which had not been conceded in the first. These are the reasons that prompted me to take the course which I have pursued on this occasion. The impulse on which I acted, when first applied to, satisfied me at that time, and reason has since convinced me, that neither for my own honour, nor for public advantage, could I accept office, if the acceptance of office was to be under the condition of supporting the provisions of the Bill, either as it now exists in the House of Lords, or with such modifications only as were consistent with its main provisions. These opinions separated me from some noble friends of mine, who did not feel themselves placed in the same situation. I regret that separation, even though it be temporary, particularly the separation from that man whom I chiefly honour, and I am anxious to declare, that even that separation has only raised him in my esteem. One word more. It has been insinuated, in some of those channels through which the public generally obtain their information, that I have been influenced in the course which I have pursued, by the lurking suspicion that any Government now to be established could not be permanent, and that I was a party to the formation of a phantom Government which should carry the Reform Bill, in the belief that, when that was done, I could step in and build my authority and power upon the ruins of that Administration. If there is any Gentleman in this House who thinks my conduct open to the slightest suspicion in this respect, who thinks it in
1078
the least necessary for me to explain it, I will satisfy him that that was not the motive of the course which I pursued. The only opinion I expressed was (if a reconciliation between his Majesty and the members of his Majesty's Government should prove impracticable) in favour of an arrangement which was most likely to be permanent, and which, while it continued in operation, must necessarily exclude me from office. As, however, some person has stated, that on this subject he defies contradiction, and that I was a party to an understanding such as I have mentioned, I beg leave, in as distinct words as one man is capable of using in contradicting another, to declare that it is an infamous falsehood. I look at the circumstances in which the country is placed with much deeper interest than any I can have in my return to office, and I can with truth assert, that this is the last consideration to which I have adverted in any advice I have given in reference to recent events.
Lord Althorp: After the speech just made by the right hon. Gentleman, it is quite impossible for me to avoid saying a few words. Though it has been my fate to be opposed to him in politics, I have never had reason to suspect that he, in any part of his conduct, has departed from that line which an honourable man ought to pursue. Feeling this, I can not remain silent, after hearing the right hon. Gentleman allude to the insinuations made against his conduct, but I must declare, that the statement he has made has given me great satisfaction, and it proves that the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman has been on this, as on all former occasions, worthy of his high reputation.
Mr. Baringsaid, that no one had heard with greater satisfaction than he had, the communication made by the noble Lord opposite, not only on account of the welfare of the country, but on account of the particular situation in which he found himself. He had no intention of addressing more than a few observations to the House, and in them he should cautiously abstain from employing any topics, or referring to any circumstance which might occasion a debate on the events that had just taken place. But if he should sit entirely silent after the explanation of his right hon. friend, perhaps the House would think that in some respects he might be open to the imputation that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct might seem to throw

1079
upon those who had pursued a different line of conduct. He felt all the difficulties of the case which his right hon. friend had stated. He knew the motives stated were true, because most of them had been communicated to him. He was able, therefore, confidently to state what were the motives assigned at the time, and he was happy to be able to do so, since, though those motives were so easily understood, and were so obvious to any one who judged rightly, yet there were few who did judge in that manner, or who did not willingly receive imputations on the motives of public men. At the same time, speaking of the case of the right hon. Gentleman abstractedly, he must say, that he differed from the right hon. Gentleman as to the course he had pursued. He had ventured to press upon the right hon. Gentleman a different line of conduct. The view he had taken of the matter, and that which he had reason to suppose had been taken by the noble Duke who took the principal part in the affair, was, not that any Administration was to be formed to carry the Reform Bill, or to sanction or support it, so as to sacrifice the character of the persons composing that Administration—but the simple question was, the King being ready to consent that this Bill, in substance, should pass, to obviate those circumstances connected with the passing of this Bill to which he could not adhere, and to resist which he called for assistance. That was the position of things when Lord Lyndhurst was sent for, and when the Duke of Wellington undertook to see whether some arrangements could not be made. Suppose, that Gentlemen admitted the King to be right—suppose the King said, that the passing of this Bill was essential in the state of the country—was that a reason, because Ministers had the country at their back and could not be resisted, that they were to avail themselves of these circumstances to force the King's consent to other circumstances to which, as a Monarch, the King could not agree. Because his Majesty believed that Reform was essential and necessary to the peace and tranquillity of the country, and because he had declared that opinion, should he be accused of changing his opinion, merely for not having consented to yield to other circumstances of a dissimilar nature? He (Mr. Baring) did not wish to argue that view of the question, but that being the view he took of it, then came
1080
the question, whether any man in the noble Duke's situation was to say, "No, I have taken such a line of conduct, that whatever difficulties you may labour under, whatever contumely may be heaped upon you, whatever may be your condition, I can offer you no assistance." That was the strict, and, as he considered it, the honest way of viewing the subject. No Gentleman who had read a line or passed through his mind a thought on the Constitution of the country, would say that that was not the proper view of the case. When he saw the Duke of Wellington, his Grace stated, that he should be ashamed to crawl—that was the word his Grace used—that he should be ashamed to crawl about the metropolis if he did not go to the assistance of the King. He did not wish to go further into explanation, but he must say, that, so far from what some miserable minds that were themselves actuated by the motives which they imputed to others, being true, the arrangement proposed would have excluded the noble Duke from power, and probably from office. He must say, that great as was his admiration of that great man, he had never seen any thing that was a proof of greater magnanimity than the resolution which he then came to. By his conduct he had exposed himself to the abuse and scurrility of the lower orders, and particularly of the Press; but among all who troubled themselves to understand, no one would hesitate to say, that though he might have acted more prudently and cautiously, he could not have exhibited a greater act of heroism. The object of the King was, if possible, to reform the Commons without destroying the Peers, although Gentlemen on the other side of the House might possibly think, that to have added to the number of Lords would have greatly improved them. If the Duke of Wellington had failed to answer the call of his Majesty, the necessary consequence must have been, that he would have been thrown back upon his former Ministers. What then would have been the King's situation? He would have been placed in the grasp of an Administration which compelled him to do acts to which he was entirely adverse. The King could have no will of his own. The House would recollect, that when insanity unfortunately attacked George 3rd, the utmost care was taken to ascertain whether his Majesty could exercise any degree of volition, before a Re-

1081
gency was appointed; but with respect to William 4th there would not be an absence of volition, but a presence of an adverse volition. He put it to any man, whether such would be a proper situation in which to place the King of this country according to its Constitution. The Duke of Wellington saw his Majesty's extremity, and finding, too, that nobody would go to assist him, he stepped forward and did his duty. To say the least of it his conduct had been highly meritorious.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, he had always understood that the King of England was not responsible, but that his Ministers were. He must protest against the doctrine that had been broached, insinuating responsibility in the Monarch. If the great and fundamental principle that the King can do no wrong, were to be abolished, he believed it would be most dangerous for the country. In all previous changes of Administration a new policy had been the result of the change. The King, in changing his Administration, might have personal opinions with regard to the basis on which the new Government should be formed; and as the choice of Ministers was in the breast of the Crown, those opinions might form the basis of any future system of Government, provided the Minister who accepted the responsible situation, chose to be answerable for the consequences that might be the result of adopting such a line, and thus, the mere acceptance of office was in itself an act for which a Minister would have to answer to Parliament, if the acceptance was connected with any great measure of State policy. He did not mean to deny that the King had a right to choose his own Minister, or to submit to that Minister the line which he expected him to adopt; but he maintained, that the King of England in so doing, acted upon his own free will—that he could be pledged or bound to no one upon the subject—that he was as perfectly at liberty to change the whole plan of State management, as the new Minister was at liberty to accept or refuse being a party to any arrangement as a basis upon which the Government should be conducted. To apply this doctrine to present circumstances: his Majesty's present Ministers had resigned, in consequence of a refusal of the King to exercise the prerogative of the Crown to an extent never before heard of; and the Duke of Wellington was called upon to form a new Administration, it
1082
being understood that the basis upon which such a Government was to be formed should be the Reform Bill of Earl Grey, or something like it. To propose this basis to the new Minister, or to the person whom his Majesty wished to be his Minister, was within the competency of the King; but that proposition could only be the result of his own free will. The Duke of Wellington, who had strenuously opposed Reform, had but one alternative, since his Majesty had expressed so decided an opinion about the Bill; he was either to undertake to pass the Bill, or a measure in all its leading features like it, or else he was to retire with the certainty that the Bill would be passed, and that a large creation of Peers would be made. The choice, therefore, of rejecting the Bill was not in the power of his Grace, that was not the alternative; for whether he refused or accepted the King's commission, it was predetermined that the Bill should pass; but he had to decide whether the independence of the House of Lords should be annihilated, or he would consent to be a party to the proposed arrangement. He had stated the case in as fair a manner as he could, and he hoped to the satisfaction of those most disposed to find fault with the Duke of Wellington's consistency. His Grace adopted the noble course of not deserting the country in the hour of need; and he used every effort to save the House of Lords, finding that he was compelled to concur in passing the Bill. Posterity would judge whether his Grace was right or wrong in offering to make a sacrifice of himself and of his personal opinions, with the view of preventing what was obviously a double evil. He declared that he disapproved of the Reform of the House of Commons; but being under no circumstances able to prevent that Reform, he would have accepted office to save the independence of the other branch of the Legislature. He fully appreciated the motives that had induced his right hon. friend, the member for Tam worth, to decline being a party to such a proceeding; the situation in which he stood with regard to the Reform of Parliament was different from that of the Duke of Wellington—he had made more decided and solemn protestations on the subject of the Reform Bill—he had declared that no circumstances should ever induce him to bring such a Bill into the House of Commons, and considering his position in the House—it

1083
being certain that he must be the leader of the Ministerial party—he never could consent to what might be looked upon as a shuffling manœuvre, to deputing another person, either in or out of the Cabinet, to bring the Bill before the House. It was a solemn pledge repeated more than once; and not only for the consistency of his right hon. friend, but for the advantage that the public might derive hereafter from his services, he deemed it right to decline being a member of the new Administration, although he professed himself willing to give every support that he could to such a Government. Unlike the Duke of Wellington, he had not a high military reputation to fall back upon; he would have been exposed to the hatred of one party, who would look on him as the cause of their loss of office, to the envy of another, and to the misunderstanding of those who would not be able to take a correct view of the difficult position in which he had been placed. Under these circumstances his right hon. friend might have been useless to the cause he wished to serve; and, much as he lamented the decision to which his right hon. friend had come, he was fully justified in the course he had adopted. The King of England, as he had before stated, could do no wrong: his Ministers were alone responsible. The King was bound by no Letter written by that Minister or this Secretary. Ministers had attempted that which he (Sir Richard Vyvyan) had no hesitation in saying was an act of treason—for having attempted that which, in another reign, formed a subject of impeachment. The act of Ministers in that reign to which he had made allusion, was of a minor description, compared with the attempt of the present Ministers. The latter had, with one blow, recommended the overpowering of one of the branches of the Legislature, merely because a particular clause in a Bill had been postponed, contrary to the wishes of the Administration. He was quite certain that when these extraordinary transactions were fully developed and calmly reasoned upon, the conduct of the King to preserve the House of Peers would be highly esteemed. He had no apprehensions as to the results of a general election, had such a course been recommended, and he believed, that if an election had taken place, and the question raised in the country as to the determination of the King not to create Peers, his name would
1084
have been found as potent as it was last year.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, that the machinery of the Administration had disclosed some latent movements which were before unknown. Upon these the country would now have an opportunity of forming a judgment. He could not but complain of the speeches made in that House by the hon. members for Middlesex, Kerry, Calne, and Northumberland. Had the House forgotten the language used by those hon. Gentlemen, in which their sentiments were couched? Had the House forgotten the spirit in which these sentiments had been uttered? It was not for him to say what the motives of these hon. Gentlemen might be. Their motives could only be known "to the Searcher of all hearts." But he would ask, what was the effect of those speeches, conveying the sentiments to which he had adverted? He could pat no other construction upon the language than that of showing the people that the House of Commons was itself the head of all Reform. But he would now, with permission of the House, refer to what had transpired out of doors (and quote the language attributed to the hon. member for Middlesex by means of the newspapers, for he had no other authority), at a meeting recently held in one of the metropolitan districts. If Members of that House set such an example to the people, it was no surprise to find the people imitating it. The language of Parliament would not allow him to designate what he thought of such sentiments, so expressed. The hon. member for Middlesex asked at the meeting, after alluding to the introduction of troops in the metropolis, "whether the people of this country would suffer themselves to be deprived of their freedom, and branded as slaves?" This was the language of an incendiary. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to ask the people, "whether they would bend their necks to the yoke which was apparently prepared for them?" The hon. member for Middlesex told the people that 150 persons were opposed to the people, whom he described as being a miserable faction. This was language which could not be misunderstood. Then the conduct towards an Illustrious Personage of the other sex, on the part of the meeting, was odious. They gave "three groans for the Queen." Surely this was a course of proceeding which no man, having the feelings

1085
of a man and a Christian, would be envious of partaking in. Was this the way taken to support his Majesty's Government? But if Members of that House used such language at the meetings which had taken place, it was no surprise to find the people acting so shamefully. The hon. and learned Gentleman, whom he did not then see in his place, had given some advice to a meeting which he had attended. He had told them how they might assist the Ministry. It was painful to him to take this course, but he felt it his duty. The language used at the meetings in the country was such as no man would approve of. It was the language of the incendiary and the demagogue, and when the character and agency of this power were taken into consideration, it would be found one day too strong for its master: the brickbat and the missile would teach, ere long, a practical lesson to that effect.
Mr. Humethought that the hon. Member had shown a considerable degree of irritation throughout his speech, which warped his judgment. The complaint of the hon. Gentleman resolved itself into two parts—language spoken in that House, and language uttered by certain Members out of doors. The hon. Member ought at once to have taken down the words which he had uttered, if he considered them of so highly objectionable a nature. He would, however, say, that he had never uttered in that House, nor out of it, sentiments which he shrunk from: and he would challenge any hon. Member to state, if he could, any sentiment that he had made use of in the course of the debates upon this matter, which was unconstitutional. These sentiments might not be palatable to the hon. Gentleman, but he would maintain that they were perfectly constitutional, and such as had been again and again echoed in that House. He threw back with indignation the insinuations of the hon. Member. Any sentiment that he had uttered within the last ten days he was ready to defend, for he had not spoken in anger, but premeditatedly. The hon. Member had asked what was the character of those meetings? He would tell him that their character was that of peace, order, and unanimity. He had certainly stated that it might be a proper course for that House to pursue to stop the Supplies; but was that revolutionary? He would maintain that it was
1086
constitutional, and however he might regret the necessity for such a course, yet circumstances might happen which would render it proper. If the hon. Member had looked to the meetings held at Newcastle and other places, he would find that much stronger language had there been used than any which fell from him. The hon. Member had talked of demagogues and incendiaries; but who, he would ask, were the incendiaries? Those who drove the people to madness by their obstinacy, or those who sought to remove the cause of the irritation which existed in the public mind? He would retort on the hon. Member, and those who adopted the same line of conduct that he pursued, the term incendiaries. For his own part, he gloried in the late meetings, for he gloried in seeing the country united in sentiment upon this question, and calling upon their Representatives, if such an Administration as was threatened should be inflicted on the country, to stop the Supplies. The people had carried their object by their moral force; and if any one thing could be more ungrateful than another to the feelings of the hon. Member, and of the other opponents of Reform, it must be their bitter disappointment at finding that the people were not to be goaded into riot and outrage. The people, however, would use only their reason and their judgment, and had shown that they were worthy of their rights, and the means they had taken to obtain them. With respect to what had been said about the expressions he had used at the meeting, he would just say, that he had been informed, while at the meeting, that troops were coming towards the metropolis, and, coupling this with the supposed fact that the Duke of Wellington was Minister, it was not very surprising that he should have inferred as he did, and that he should have said, that the people of England never would submit to be slaves, which they would be in all respects if they submitted to a military Government. He would always act upon the sentiments which he then professed, and he hoped that he should live and die a free man. He had also alluded to the consequences to Europe of the change in the Administration, and he believed he had good reason to congratulate all Europe upon the turn which events had just taken—for Europe was looking to England, and if the latter submitted to a military Government, the hopes of free-

1087
dom in France, Belgium, and other countries, would be materially depressed. He had reason, therefore, to congratulate the whole civilized world that the yoke which threatened them had been thrown off. England for the last century had been under the dominion of a monopolizing oligarchy, and it now appeared that though the King was anxious to comply with the wishes of the people, yet he was dictated to by individuals who looked only to their own advantage. The hon. Member might think as he pleased about the Reform Bill, but the concession of it would cause the King to live in the hearts of his subjects, and he trusted the latter would soon have the happiness of seeing it become the law of the land.
Mr. George Bankessaid, he agreed in one thing, and in one thing only, which had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), and that was, that his reading of history had been of very little use to him. That hon. Member had talked of slavery; but no slavery could be more base than that of truckling to mob popularity as the basis of any Government. That hon. Member had become a prophet, but he also took care to insure his own predictions, without any regard to the fairness of the means. That hon. Member had shrunk from explaining or apologizing for his improper allusion to the Queen, who was this day, he begged to tell the hon. Member, most grossly insulted in her carriage. If the Tory party could be gratified at the commission of outrages, as the hon. Member had stated, then, indeed, they need only allude to the outrage of that day, and to another which was recently offered to a Bishop in his pulpit. In the late debates in that House, the most exciting language had been used, and the result was, that the speakers at the different public meetings had followed the bad example. His gallant friend had been asked why he had not risen before, when he heard revolutionary language made use of in that House, and the answer was, that he had repeatedly done so, although he had not been able to obtain a hearing. His gallant friend had also risen, a few evenings back, to repel the foul charges which had been made against two brothers of the King, and also when the right hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett) had gone out of his way to malign one of the Judges of the land, who had been sent for by his Sovereign in a moment of greater peril than perhaps
1088
any other Sovereign of this country had been exposed to before. In fact, the political conduct of the Government was dangerous to the country, and the cruelty with which they treated their gracious Master was happily hitherto without either parallel or example. Many charges had been made against the Duke of Wellington for changing his opinions; and it was also sought to compare the mode of his resignation with that of the present Ministers. As to the charges they were unfounded; and as to the resignation, it bore no analogy to that of the present Ministers. The Duke of Wellington did not go to his Sovereign with a resignation in one hand, and a threat in the other. The Duke of Wellington did not threaten to dissolve the Parliament. The Duke of Wellington was called upon by that House to resign, and did not the present Secretary-at-War ask his (Mr. Bankes's) right 'hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) when the Ministers would resign? The then Opposition Members said, that the fires which had raged could not be put out, nor the peace of the country secured, if the Duke of Wellington did not resign. The noble Duke did resign, and the Special Commissions being sent down were the only fulfilment of the prophecies which were uttered in favour of the present Government. In October last, when the Reform Bill was lost in the House of Lords, by a majority of forty-one, he had stated that the majority would have been greater, but for the creation of Peers who had supported the question, and was proceeding a little further when he was called to order by the noble member for Devonshire, who said, that such allusions to the conduct of the Peers could not be permitted in that House. And yet were not the Anti-reform Peers loaded with the grossest epithets, both in and out of that House? No one could doubt the prerogative of the King to create Peers for the good of his people; but the question here was, should the King be forced to create Peers against his will? The Ministers knew the embarrassment in which their gracious Master was placed, and yet they forced him to agree to a creation of Peers. If, as was stated, any troops had been assembled about the metropolis, it could neither be by the act, nor by the contrivance, of the Duke of Wellington. This was, perhaps, a new piece of history for the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) who, he hoped, when ad-

1089
dressing the people for the future, would use the words of truth. That the hon. Member had some power over the people was true, but his abuse of that power was nothing short of the grossest tyranny
Lord Althorpwould not be induced to imitate the tone and temper of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, nor would he occupy the House by repelling the attacks of the hon. Gentleman in a manner corresponding to that in which they had been made. He would only say this, that whenever the conduct of his Majesty's Ministers, and the advice which they had given to his Majesty, should come before the House in a regular and proper form, he should be prepared to give what he deemed satisfactory explanations of his own conduct, and to vindicate the conduct of his colleagues so as to place it above reproach. With respect to what the hon. Gentleman had said respecting the resignation of his Majesty's Ministers, he must confess that he was not able to understand the constitutional doctrine of the hon. Gentleman. With respect to the creation of Peers, and the resignation of the Ministry, of which he had had the honour to be a member, all that he should then be induced to say was, that in anything which that Administration had done, they did not intend to menace or threaten any party whatever.
Lord Stormonthoped that some of the hon. Members opposite would inform him by whose authority the recent movement of troops had taken place. In asking that question, however, he wished it to be understood that he was not disposed to disapprove of any measures which it had been found necessary to adopt for the preservation of the public peace. He would take this opportunity of giving notice, that on Monday he would call the attention of Ministers and the Attorney General, to certain publications of a libellous and treasonable character, with the view of obtaining from them a declaration of the course which they intended to pursue respecting those publications, and whether they would allow the King and the Queen, whose person ought to be sacred—first, on account of her station; and, secondly, because she was a woman, to be treated in the contumelious, insulting, wicked, and treasonable manner in which they had been treated by the newspapers, or whether they meant to institute actions against the proprietors of those publications?
Mr. Lamb, in answer to the hon. Member's first question, said, that he felt no hesitation in declaring that there had been no movement of troops except under the sanction of Ministers. With respect to the noble Lord's second question, if, as he supposed, it referred to what had taken place since Ministers had tendered their resignations, he must state, that they did not feel themselves in a situation to commence prosecutions against any writers. They thought that was a task which might properly be left to those who would have succeeded them. He really did not know to what publications the noble Lord alluded; but it was a matter of consideration for any Government, whether it was prudent to institute prosecutions against publications which would thereby acquire a weight and authority which they had not previously possessed. If the noble Lord's description of the publications were correct, they might safely be left to the contempt of the people, who, he hoped, were now satisfied.
Mr. Trevorsaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex had held the King and Queen up to obloquy at public meetings. He did not believe that any instance could be pointed out in the pages of history, of Ministers submitting to their Sovereign the alternative of accepting their resignation, or of making fifty, sixty, or a larger number of Peers, to carry a particular measure. He was not ashamed of uttering these sentiments, and he trusted he might long have an opportunity of repeating them in this House. The hon. member for Middlesex had professed somewhat ostentatiously his determination to live and die a freeman. God forbid that every Englishman should not be ready to adopt that sentiment. But he would ask the hon. Member to point out, in his intimate acquaintance with the history of the country for the last 100 years the period at which Englishmen had been slaves. He could not refrain from expressing his indignation when he heard such sentiments as those which were said to have been uttered by the hon. member for Middlesex. [Mr. Hume intimated his avowal of the sentiments referred to.] The hon. Member admitted all the charges that had been brought against him, and he, as a Member of a British House of Commons, blushed to hear such an admission. He would rather be torn to pieces limb from

1091
limb by the rabble of London, than avow sentiments which he considered as disgraceful as they were unmanly.
Mr. Shaw: There is one observation of the hon. member for Middlesex, that has not yet been adverted to by any other Member, and upon which I cannot help offering a remark; it was that in which he alluded to the recent excitement, and congratulated the country that during the period of it no breach of the peace had taken place. Now I would ask the hon. Member, whether the gratification he has expressed arises from the mere circumstance of the arrangements having resulted in the accomplishment of his wishes, by the return of the late Ministers to office, or would he have been equally anxious for the maintenance of the public peace and quiet of the country had the result been otherwise? And if the latter be the case, the hon. Member must allow me to say, that the object and the tendency of the language he has used here and elsewhere, are widely different. I cannot, Sir, sit down upon this important occasion, without expressing my humble opinion, that the Duke of Wellington has entitled himself to the deep and lasting gratitude of the country, by his magnanimous though unavailing effort, in the late trying emergency, to rescue the King from the embarrassing and dangerous position in which his Ministers had placed him; end can there be in or out of this House a man of candour, of fairness, or of truth, uninfluenced by political hostility to that noble Duke, who seriously believes that he could have been induced by any private or personal motive to accept office at the present crisis? The question of a Reform of this House of Parliament is absolutely as nothing compared with the question which at the moment the noble Duke was called upon to act, presented itself to the mind of that great man—for it was no less than this, whether the other two estates of the realm were to be overborne by the pledged and clamorous will of this House—whether that democratic torrent which now threatens to desolate the whole country, was at once to deluge the House of Lords, and sap the foundations of the Throne—and a haughty Minister buoyed upon its deceitful surface was to dictate to his Sovereign a surrender of his own independence, by becoming the unwilling instrument to sacrifice the independence, destroy the functions, and annihilate the existence (at
1092
least for any useful purpose) of the other branch of the Legislature. Contemporaneously with this, we find that portion of the Press supposed to be the support, and to speak the sentiments, of his Majesty's Ministers, denouncing the sacred person of the King, and contemptuously boasting that although his Majesty had again sent for Earl Grey, that noble Earl did not condescend to obey his summons till the following day—persons, too, of whom better things should be expected, desecrating their rank and station in society, by holding forth at public meetings, our gracious Monarch as a deserter, and an object of scorn and contempt to his people, because, forsooth, he ventured to exercise his prerogative in a point in which above all others, it is unquestionable—the choice of his Ministers. But, Sir, it is in vain to think this state of things can last—let us not deceive ourselves, but manfully meet the question at once—are we to have a monarchy or a republic? For my own part, I protest I would prefer a republic in name to a worse than republic in reality. Nay; rather would I have an honest, open, and professed democracy, than that, under the guise of our ancient and venerated Constitution, the Monarch and hereditary Peers of this once proud and envied nation should be made the degraded tools of their own destruction—the despised engines of a mob tyranny. Sir, the hon. member for Middlesex vaunts of British freedom; I tell him that I am as jealous as he can be of our common birthright as British subjects—to live and die freemen—but I tell him further that while as such he only spurns at military thraldom, I will never bend my neck willingly to the yoke of either military or democratic despotism.
Colonel Sibthorpexpressed his regret, that the events of the last fortnight had brought the Ministry back to their places. One advantage, however, would result from it, that before long the country would be convinced, that the Ministers were totally inefficient, and incompetent to conduct the affairs of this nation. He must complain that proper explanation had not been given to the House as to the mode in which Ministers proposed to carry the Reform Bill. This Reform Bill was to be a panacea; but if it were brought into operation, which he trusted it would not be, the acts of Ministers would be fairly judged and duly rewarded.
Lord Newarkwould not have trespassed

1093
on the attention of the House, had he not held it to be the duty of every independent Member to declare his sentiments at a time like the present. He had supported Ministers on the Reform question from sincere conviction, and he had not hesitated to oppose them where he conceived them to be in the wrong. Without any mixture of party feeling, he could say that he deeply deplored the circumstances which had lately occurred. He must regret that this House should have found itself compelled to tender, in vindication of its honour and consistency, an Address to the Sovereign. He hoped, however, that this proceeding would soon be forgotten, and if referred to, that it would be mentioned merely as matter of history. With regard to the compromise that had been made by certain persons on the subject of Reform, it reminded him of the words of the poet, which he would venture to quote:—
"Behold the hall where Chiefs were late convened,
O dome displeasing unto British eye!
With diadem hight Fool's Cap, lo! a fiend,
A little fiend, that laughs incessantly,
There sits in parchment to be array'd, and by
His side is hung a seal and sable scroll,
Where blazoned glow names known to chivalry,
And sundry signatures adorn the scroll,
Whereat the urchin points, and laughs with all his
soul!
Convention is the dwarfish demon styl'd
That foil'd the Knights in Marialva's dome:
Of brains (if brains they had) he them beguil'd,
And turn'd a nation's early joy to gloom!
For Chiefs like these in vain may laurels bloom."
The people were for the speedy adjustment of the question, and had hitherto preserved tranquillity only from the conviction they entertained that that House was determined to do its duty.
Lord William Lennoxsaid, at this momentous crisis, when the people looked with confidence only to the House of Commons to support their rights and liberties, he felt it to be the imperative duty of every individual, fearlessly and firmly to avow his sentiments. He would not have obtruded upon the House had he not been disappointed on this evening in presenting a petition from a most numerous and respectable body of the inhabitants of King's Lynn, who expressed their satisfaction at the recall of his. In the prayer of the petition he entirely concurred, and until he had an opportunity of presenting it, he would merely confine
1094
himself to saying, that to the unmutilated Bill of Reform he would continue to give his most uncompromising support.
Conversation dropped.

MINISTERIAL ARRANGEMENTS—EXPLANATIONS.
The Archbishop of Yorkwas anxious to say a few words upon some circumstances personal, to himself, connected with the proceedings on the Reform Bill. The violence and excitement which prevailed in the Debate last night (if debate it could be called) which followed the declaration of a noble Duke not now in the House—a violence and excitement which, during the forty years he had had the honour of
1044
a seat in that House, he had never before witnessed—and God forbid he should live to witness the same again—unnerved him to such a degree, that be really had not power to address their Lordships. In these times, when the conduct of public men was so unsparingly assailed—when they were industriously and mischievously subjected to the grossest misrepresentation and falsehood, he felt it necessary to say a few words in explanation of the view he had taken on the question, and the course he intended to adopt in the further proceedings upon it. When the former Reform Bill was before their Lordships, in the course of the last Session, he was necessarily prevented from attending by the interference of various duties which he had to discharge in Yorkshire at that particular time—duties which he ever had regarded as of paramount importance to every other duty which a Bishop might, in his legislative capacity, be called upon to perform; for when either the interests of religion or the rights of the clergy were affected, he felt himself bound to make them the immediate object of his consideration. But if he had happened to be present on that occasion, he certainly should have voted for the second reading of the Reform Bill, and simply on this principle, that it was a Bill applying directly to the constitution of the other House, and had been sent up to their Lordships by a large majority of that House, and that the preponderance of political opinion was greatly in its favour; and, moreover, that the object for which the Bill proposed to provide had received the approbation of the Crown. He should, then, have voted for the second reading of the Bill, upon the plain principle, that the provisions of any measure, so sent up and so advocated, were entitled to the fullest consideration of their Lordships. On the same ground, and for the same reasons, did he give his vote for the second reading of the Bill now on the Table, and this with the sincere view of supporting in the Committee the three great principles of the Bill—enfranchisement, disfranchisement, and an extension of the right of suffrage. Let it not be supposed that, by the order in which he expressed these principles, he was the less prepared to support disfranchisement in the fullest extent; but, in his view of the case, he had ever considered that the true and proper ground for disfranchise-

1045
ment was the necessity of enfranchisement. And as it was determined not to add to the number of the House of Commons, enfranchisement must necessarily be followed by a proportional amount of disfranchisement. Therefore was it that, when the Bill was in Committee, he had voted consistently with the opinions he entertained, not at all anticipating the effect to which a decision of the House in accordance with that vote had led. He trusted that the noble Earl would give him full credit for this declaration. As to the propriety of an extensive enfranchisement, the connection he had had for a period of twenty-four years with the great manufacturing towns in Yorkshire, afforded him abundant opportunity of being convinced of its expediency. He alluded to Leeds, Halifax, Huddersfield, and Bradford; all of which places, from their population, wealth, and intelligence, were fit to be intrusted with the elective franchise: and this, of which he so much approved, would be done by the Bill. He would only trouble their Lordships with a very few words more, and on a subject personal to himself, of which he was sure their Lordships would regret to hear. He had that morning received a letter from the Lord Mayor of York, announcing to him that he had felt it necessary to call in the aid of the military to preserve his (the Archbishop's) house and property at Bishopsthorpe, which had been assailed by a lawless mob assembled there on Wednesday evening, whose object was, undoubtedly, to effect the destruction of both. In consequence of the Lord Mayor's prompt exertions, little mischief had been committed; and, when he wrote at two o'clock in the morning, the military were stationed in the house and stables. Now, he believed there was no other cause for this attack but that he had been unfortunate enough, conscientiously to think that enfranchisement should precede disfranchisement. He thought it further necessary to state, that but for the circumstances to which he had already alluded, this declaration of his would have been made last night, and, consequently, before he had received the intelligence which reached him in that letter. He, therefore, trusted the House would not imagine he was influenced to make that declaration by what had taken place.
The Duke of Rutlandafter apologising
1046
for trespassing on their Lordships' time, said, that he would not now take the liberty of addressing them, if he did not think that, in the present posture of affairs, the individual opinions of every Peer ought to be, if possible, recorded, and sent down to the latest posterity, for good or evil, on the page of our country's history. He considered that the crisis had arrived when the boasted stability of our Constitution should rise superior to the influence of misguided policy and popular violence. Much of the future prosperity of the empire was identified with the circumstances of the present moment. He had attended most anxiously to the declarations made by his noble friends, the illustrious Duke and the noble and learned Baron, last night, and, after hearing them, his mind was deeply impressed with two considerations—unmeasureable gratitude to the gracious Prince now upon the Throne, who, in a moment of more trying difficulty than had, perhaps, ever yet been experienced by Sovereigns, had displayed a firmness and decision which proved him a worthy member of the illustrious race from which he sprung. There was wanting only the utterance of one monosyllable, and their Lordships' House had ceased to be a deliberative assembly. He, therefore, begged to express his humble gratitude to his Majesty, and to observe, that, at all events, let the consequences be what they might, the evening of his Majesty's days would be cheered by the proud recollection of having acted as he did. May the close of that illustrious Prince's life be like the evening of a Midsummer-day, that glides away in pleasantness and serenity. The next feeling he had entertained was a sense of the greatest admiration of the conduct of the noble Duke. He could not but feel the greatest admiration when he reflected on that noble Duke's conduct, and considered the obloquy to which he had been exposed by his patriotic attempt again to serve an ungrateful country. It would be the natural desire of the noble Duke, after all the time he had devoted to the service of his country, to seek repose, in the evening of his days, in a happy home; but the noble Duke saw the manner in which the Crown was assailed—he did not hesitate to forego his own repose, and brave even public obloquy, to preserve the independence of the Crown and of the Legislature. Under all those circumstances, he could not but feel the

1047
utmost admiration at the conduct of his noble and illustrious friend. He would now state, in the face of their Lordships and the country, what he had often and often stated in private, that there was no man in the kingdom whose opinions, if he had not an opinion of his own, he would so unhesitatingly adopt and engraft upon his mind as the opinions of his noble friend, whose late conduct had only confirmed his confidence, and strengthened his disposition to rely on his noble friend. On the subject of the Bill itself he wished to observe, that, although he opposed it, he did not mean to arraign the motives of those who introduced it. He would not deny that they might be honourable, pure, patriotic. It was not their motives, but their measure, he condemned. He could assure the House, that to a temperate and judicious measure of Reform he should not be opposed. He was opposed to the first Reform Bill, because its consequences, he conceived, would be mainly to affect the great institutions of the country. He had compared the present Bill with the former, and he saw no material alteration in it which should induce him to give his support to the one rather than to the other. He conceived that, by an extensive grant of political power to classes which had never before enjoyed it, and by depriving others of that power who had enjoyed it for centuries—by the destruction of vested rights, and the summoning of other rights arbitrarily into existence, a fatal change would be made in our constitutional policy, and consequences would ensue, the dread extent of which no human sagacity could foresee. He was far from denying to the people their just right of assembling together for the purpose of expressing their honest opinions on any point connected with the public good; and, moreover, he firmly believed there was not on the face of the globe a nation possessing more good sense and discrimination than the British nation; but he doubted whether the assemblies to which he alluded were capable of discussing, in a temperate and useful manner, those points to which they now addressed themselves, at a time when popular excitement prevailed, and when those classes were led astray by the acts of designing people, who had objects very different from the ostensible ones they set forth. He believed, that although the tone and temper in
1048
which the discussions were carried on in these assemblies were highly reprehensible, yet he considered that the same feverish agitation did not now exist throughout the country as at the period when the original Reform Bill was debated. The country was then in such a state—he meant in October—that the greatest misery which could happen to the country would have been the passing of such a measure. Certain was he that the future historian of our land might accurately describe the state of public feeling in our country in words such as those applied by a beautiful historian of old to the state of public feeling in Rome at the close of the first Jugurthine war. "Sed plebes, incredibile memoratu est, quantum intenta fuerit quantaque vi rogationern jusserit, decreverit, voluerit, magis odio nobilitatis cui mala illa parabantur, quam curâ reipublicæ—tanta lubido in partibus erat." It was some consolation that the measure was not passed at that period. Still he apprehended great danger from the discordant interests it would create, and which it would be so difficult to reconcile, and which, he feared, would lay the foundation of interminable discontent. He was ashamed to detain their Lordships so long, when he knew it was his duty to economise their time as much as possible. But before he resumed his seat, he was anxious to express the warmest admiration of the conduct of the House during the time this arduous subject had been before them. He had ever been proud that his lot had been so cast in life as to have given him the honour of sitting among their Lordships; and if such had been his opinion during his whole life, how much greater must it be now, when he had witnessed the conduct of that House under circumstances of such infinite embarrassment? It put him in mind of an anecdote in ancient history. When Saturnius, a Tribune of the Roman people, proposed a law for the division of lands taken from the Cimbri, he introduced a clause enacting that the Senate should swear to confirm whatever the people should decree. The law passed the Comitiæ by a large majority, and the Senate were called upon to swear to its observance. All consented except Metellus, who refused, stating that to do wrong was always base: to do right when there was no danger was common; but to do right, when it was attended with danger was deserving of all

1049
honour." He knew that he was addressing a Senate in which the character of Metellus was the leading feature. Their Lordships, in dealing with that momentous question, had kept the even tenour of their way, unmoved, upon the one hand, by fear of popular clamour, and unseduced, on the other hand by the meed of popular applause. The House had not been deluded by the hope of that giddy approbation which changed its objects before its acclamations had subsided into silence. It might spread its gaudy pinions, and shed down its meretricious light upon the tenants of the opposite benches; but the majority of the House were well content to hold their way undazzled by its specious splendor. Their Lordships had shown in their conduct that they were guided only by two considerations—the maintenance of our noble Constitution and the real interests of the country. So might always be that House disposed, was his fervent prayer. In conclusion he must express, however feebly he felt any such hope, that the Bill would realise the expectations of those who had brought it in, and that it might promote the good of the country.
The Earl of Harewood: My Lords, I fear I am about to be guilty of some indiscretion; but I am going to put a question to the noble Earl opposite, on the answer to which depends the course I shall pursue. My Lords, when we separated yesterday evening, it was understood, that another Ministry had not been formed. On that subject I should wish to address the House; but, before I proceed to do so, I will await the answer of the noble Earl to the question I am about to put. I do not ask it in any spirit of hostility, but merely for the purpose of satisfying myself and those who seem to be uninformed on the subject. I, therefore, ask the noble Earl, whether those negotiations have been brought to an end, and in what position he stands with regard to his Majesty's Administration?
Earl Greysaid, he was always as much as possible desirous, in answer to any proper question, to furnish as much information as was in his power, and more especially when a question was put in so courteous a manner. Certainly, if the noble Earl had not applied to him, he should have been prepared to state to their Lordships the result, he would not say of the negotiations, for he was not aware that he had ever used that word, but of the communi-
1050
cations which had taken place between his Majesty and himself since he had given up the Seals, and since the noble Duke had retired from the office he had felt it his duty to undertake. He had the satisfaction of informing the House, that those communications had been brought to this result—that, in consequence of his Majesty's desire, graciously expressed to him, and in consequence of his seeing now those grounds of confident expectation that enabled him to consider his pledge to the House, last night, of not continuing in the Administration without sufficient security for passing the Reform Bill, now on the Table, unimpaired in all its principles and all its essential provisions; and, in consequence of his now finding himself in a position, that such might be his confident anticipation; and in consequence of his having received his Majesty's commands, graciously expressed, his Majesty's present Ministers would continue in their places. Having now answered the question of the noble Earl, he would allude to nothing that was past. He felt, in common with the right reverend Prelate, deep regret and much distress at the tone of the debate last night; but he thought he could throw himself upon the House, and confidently say, that he had done nothing to provoke the asperity which was displayed. He would appeal to the House, whether he had not, however, last night, been exposed to a series of personal attacks, and to language which was not usual in their Lordships' House? And he could appeal to the House, whether, in the attempt to vindicate himself, he had been betrayed into anything which could be characterized by personal violence, or improper feeling? With the consciousness that he had not, he would let the subject drop; and he did trust, that the fever of feeling which now prevailed would subside into calmness. He felt the necessity that the measure should be conducted with calmness, to avoid furnishing fresh materials for irritation abroad; he felt, also, that that measure, by which he trusted the people would be restored to contentment, ought to be brought to a speedy conclusion. To these objects his efforts would be directed, with the same spirit and feeling as before; and he trusted he might look forward to a period, when this question would be settled, and all those hems and animosities would have subsided, and there would be a renewal of those means of prosperity

1051
which the country so abundantly possessed, and which only wanted political Reform to be developed. It was his intention—and he thought he might as well do it then, as there was no business before the House—he would accordingly move, that the Order for the Committee on the Reform Bill should be renewed for Monday next.
The Earl of Harewoodsaid, as he had informed their Lordships, what he had to say would depend on the answer of the noble Earl, and as he observed, by that answer, that the noble Earl and his colleagues were reinstated in office, he felt, that he was called upon to say a few words, declaratory of the course which it was proper for him individually to pursue. In so doing, he begged it to be understood, that he was acting altogether for himself, and without communion or connexion with any one else. The House had been given to understand, that the continuance in office of the noble Lord and his colleagues depended on the powers they should obtain to carry the Reform Bill, among which was that of the creation of Peers. In the situation in which public affairs then stood—in the situation in which that House particularly was placed—it became necessary, that he, as an individual Member of it, should look forward to see how to guide his conduct. He owned, that he deeply lamented the determination to which he believed Ministers would resort, to carry their measure of Reform, because, if the exercise of that alternative should take place, he saw, that there was an end to the independence of that House; to the independence, if not to the extinction of the Crown; and to the independence—he said it emphatically and sincerely—of the freedom of the subject. Such being the conviction of his mind, he should hesitate, by continuing his individual opposition to the Reform Bill, to add his mite to the necessity of overturning for ever the Constitution of the country. He had opposed the measure upon the second reading, because he considered it much too extensive for the necessity of the case. In Committee he had declared how far he should support it, and had pointed out where he should feel bound to oppose it. But, in consequence of the division which then took place, a different state of things ensued, and Ministers declared, that that House should not have the opportunity of amending that; or, if
1052
their policy were acted upon, any other measure that might be laid before it. In that condition were they now placed; and he maintained, that the act by which they were so placed was one of gross injustice and oppression towards that House. But what was he to do? How was he to meet the circumstances by which he was embarrassed? Was he, on his own individual behalf, to do that which would assist in bringing on the country a greater calamity? He thought, that the alterations which he wished to see introduced into the Bill were minor considerations, when compared with the mischief which must result from the means to which Ministers would resort to resist them. Upon that account, as he had already stated a few days since to a noble Earl, with whom he had some conversation upon the subject, he had determined to adopt what appeared to him to be the milder of the two alternatives which were left open to him, namely, that of withholding further opposition to the Bill. He preferred to do this rather than to incur what he regarded as a greater calamity—the infusion into that House of a large body of new Peers. Over that he had no control.
Earl Grey: I beg to say one word—[cries of "no, no."]
The Earl of Harewood: It was understood, from the noble Earl's statement, that he was to have the power of carrying the Bill. Well, then, if he (Lord Hare-wood) were to advert in any way to the circumstance of power, he should say that the power of which the noble Earl spoke, consisted in the creation of Peers. That being so, and meaning, as, under the circumstances of the case he certainly did mean, to withhold further opposition to the Bill, for fear of the greater calamity which he had mentioned, he preferred to get up in that House, and state openly to their Lordships what he intended to do, rather than to state it any where else, or not to state it at all. Having said this—having pointed out the line which he intended to pursue, he begged to add, that he only adopted that line by compulsion—by a compulsion operating so strongly upon him, that he looked upon it that this was the last time that he should have an opportunity of uttering one word in that House as an independent Member of it. Bidding farewell, then, to what he called the freedom of debate, he said, let those who brought this infliction upon

1053
them—he spoke this not in anger, but in sorrow—let those, he said, who brought this infliction upon the country, be responsible for their acts to the nation, when it shall have recovered its senses. But, for his own part, he would not, if he could help it, for the sake of the slight alterations which his opposition might effect in the Bill, longer impede the return of the country to its senses, which, he believed, would not be the case until the measure of Reform was carried. With this determination for the future he must defend his conduct for the past. When they were called upon to change the Constitution of the country, were they to be stigmatized as blameable because they hesitated or disapproved? He maintained, that the opponents of the measure of Reform had given nothing more than a fair and reasonable opposition to it; he would say more—he knew that the Bill had been brought up to that House by a majority of the House of Commons? What then? Did that imply—he knew it did technically, and by the rules of the House—but, he would ask, did it, in fact, imply that the House of Commons fully approved and acquiesced in the Bill? If it did, he could only say, that he had not communicated with a single individual who had assisted in passing it through the other House of Parliament, who, in his own private opinion, entirely approved of it. He would even go further, and, in spite of all the earnestness evinced by the noble Earl and his colleagues to carry this measure, he would ask, although he supposed he should receive no answer, if the subject of Reform were again to come fresh into their hands, they would propose such a Bill as that now upon the Table? If any answer were given to him, he knew it would be—"Yes;" but such an answer he was not bound to believe. He felt persuaded, that such a measure would not again be proposed; and, therefore, he was the more hurt at the means which were now resorted to for the purpose of carrying it. Were the measure one which was firmly, honestly, and conscientiously approved of by those who had supported it in the other House, and of those who proposed it in that House, he should not so much have minded the course which the noble Earl had expressed his determination to pursue; but when a new Constitution was put upon the country, which was considered by many, even of its supporters, to
1054
have weak places, he owned that he looked with trepidation and dismay to the manner in which it might work upon the interest and welfare of the nation. God grant that it might work well—that it might be good for the country—and that he and those who opposed it might be deceived in their anticipations of its results.
The Earl of Winchilseafelt, that the independence of their Lordships' House ceased from that night; because he was satisfied, that the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government would not have resumed the office which he then filled, except he had the power to control their Lordships' voice upon the great constitutional question which had lately been agitated—a question involving not only the interests of the people, but, he would maintain, the very existence of the cherished liberties of this country. If that House was no longer to be graced and characterized by the independence which had been its pride and boast, it ceased from that hour to be a deliberative body. The noble Earl who had just sat down had explained the course which he proposed to take in the further progress of the Reform Bill. He would, in that respect, follow the noble Earl's example. The course, then, that he should take would be this: to the last moment that the Bill was under their Lordships' consideration, to offer all the opposition in his power to those parts of it to which he objected. To many of the provisions of the Bill he was prepared to assent. From first to last he had been ready to support Reform to a much greater extent than many of the noble Lords by whom he was surrounded; but differing, as he did, upon some points of the Bill, which, if carried into effect, he conscientiously believed would tend to the subversion of the Constitution, by destroying the just balance between the three powers of the State—differing from the noble Lords opposite, as he did, upon those points, he should, throughout the further progress of the Bill, by every means in his power, seek to amend them. By the same rule, upon those points in which he agreed with the noble Lords opposite, he would give them his honest support. But he felt that he was no longer a member of an independent body; he felt that, when lie left the walls of that House, he should be an object of scorn; that the finger of scorn would be pointed at him as the member of a body

1055
which had lost its independence; as the member of a political body deprived of the power of legislation. He called God to witness, that since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, upon every great question he had never allowed party or factious feelings to bias his mind, but, as far as his judgment was correct, had endeavoured to promote that which he thought most conducive to the honour, happiness, and welfare of his country. It now seemed clear that the independence of that House was to be destroyed. It might be done in two ways; either by the withdrawing of noble Lords, as the noble Earl (Harewood) behind him proposed to do, by compulsion, or by the infusion of a great number of new Peers. Iii either way the independence of that House would be lost. It was vain to maintain that their Lordships' independence would not be destroyed by the creation of a number of Peers, which would make that House as close a borough as any of those decayed places which the noble Earl was going to destroy—which would make that House a packed Jury, to try questions of right and property deeply affecting the interests of the country. And when the delusion which had been kept up by a profligate and worthless Press had passed by, the people would see how far their interests and welfare had been compromised in the destruction of the independence of one of the branches of the Legislature. Before he sat down, he wished, in his character as an English citizen, proud still of his connexion with a country whose proudest boast had been the honest, open, ingenuous conduct which had placed it far above the level of any other nation upon earth, to call the noble Earl's attention to a subject which he conceived deeply concerned that noble Earl as the bead of his Majesty's Government. In that capacity, he conceived that the noble Earl was bound to stand forward to uphold the character of his Sovereign from the base, malignant, false, and treasonable aspersions which had been cast upon him, within the last few clays, by some of the leading journals of the metropolis. In the situation of difficulty in which the noble Earl had been placed during the preceding portion of the week, it was probable, that the aspersions to which he (Lord Winchilsea) alluded had escaped the noble Earl's observation. It was probable that the noble Earl had not had time to
1056
read the daily newspapers; but, now that the question of his remaining in office was settled—now that the noble Earl again appeared as the head of his Majesty's Government, he (Lord Winchilsea) called upon him, as an English citizen, to cast his eyes over those malignant, those false, those unjustifiable attacks, which had been levelled against our gracious Queen, who, by the virtues which adorned her character, had justly entitled herself to the esteem of every friend of virtue. He called upon the noble Earl to enforce the laws against the authors of those libels; and he begged to remind the noble Earl, that, having so called his attention to this subject, if he shrunk from the sacred duty which he owed to his Sovereign and to his country, he would, to a great degree, take the odium of those false and infamous attacks upon himself. The wrong was inflicted against one who deeply felt it, for a virtuous mind could feel the blasts of calumny, while one less sensitive, perhaps, might pass them by.
"Good name, in man or woman, dear my Lord,
Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
Who steals my purse, steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
'Twas mine; 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
But he that filches from me my good name,
Robs me of that, which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."
The only ground of offence in that illustrious person had been, that she had shown herself the friend of virtue and morality. He felt convinced that no individual in the country had taken so little part—nay, who had kept so completely aloof from taking any part—upon the' great question which now agitated the public mind, as her Majesty had done. But the point of offence was, that she had refused to receive females of profligate character, and have about her persons of doubtful reputation. That was the sole cause of the attacks which had been made upon that illustrious individual. In addition to these observations, he had only to remark, that in the course which he had expressed his determination to pursue he was influenced by no party motive—he had had no consultation, no communication, direct or indirect, with any person, either within or without the walls of that House.
The Lord Chancellor: In consequence of the expressions of the noble Earl who has just sat down, which I am sure were dictated by the warmth of his feelings at

1057
the instant, I am tempted to trespass for a very few moments on your Lordships' time. Nothing can be more natural than for the noble Earl to make those remarks without considering the assembly to which he offers them, and the peculiar functions of your Lordships in respect of the subject matter of which he complains. He—as well as the noble Lord last night—called upon the Government which then was, or shortly would be, to institute prosecutions for certain libels, or supposed libels. I cautiously use the words supposed libels, and that because I, as well as the rest of your Lordships—but I, perhaps, more particularly, by the situation which I have the honour to hold in this House—may, in the event of that advice being complied with, have to sit in judgment, as Judges—criminal Judges—on the very question of whether these publications are libels or not? That, I apprehend, is sufficient at once to remind the noble Earl of the next consideration which I shall submit to him, and to your Lordships, that if there be any one place where, more than any other place, such appeals and calls for prosecutions are peculiarly inappropriate, it is the House in which I have the honour now to stand; because it is the Judges who, in the last resort, are to decide on the questions raised by such prosecutions, that are called upon to consider whether or not those prosecutions shall be instituted. I consider it as grossly contrary to the functions which your Lordships exercise as Judges, that the question shall here previously be mooted, whether any such offences as those of which the noble Earl has complained shall be made the subject of prosecutions or not? I may have taken a wrong view of my duty here, but that is the principle upon which, since I have had the honour to sit here, I have uniformly acted, and, until lam convinced I am wrong, I shall continue so to do. The noble Earl, no doubt, forgot the situation in which he was speaking at the moment that the expressions fell from him, and, therefore, I could not help trespassing thus much upon your Lordships' time, to remind him of his judicial character, and, consequently, of the inappropriateness of his remarks.
The Earl of Winchilsea: I cordially concur in the sentiment expressed by the noble and learned Lord that on any question likely to come before your Lordships in a judicial character, it would be impro-
1058
per that any prejudice should be excited by previous discussion. I hope that I should be the last to wish to pursue any course likely to create such a prejudice. But if I have read, and know what treason is, I say that this is a question that can never come before this House. If ever an individual was guilty of treason, and that of the basest character—of a character that ought to be punished by the strongest infliction of the law—I say it is the being who has put forth the publication to which I have alluded. It is a question which can never come before your Lordships.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Earl seems to have misunderstood me, and, therefore, I must beg to be permitted to say a word in explanation. Even if there were prosecutions instituted for high treason—not for seditious libels, which the publication which the noble Earl complains of can only be—because a publication cannot be treason, but only evidence of treason—but even supposing that prosecutions for high treason were to be instituted, those very prosecutions might still come before your Lordships by writ of error upon which your Lordships, as Judges in the last resort, would have to decide. What the noble Earl alludes to are seditious libels. I take it for granted that he means libellous publications. Now, it does happen that the question of libel, or not libel, may be so placed upon the record as to be brought before your Lordships in the last resort, when your Lordships would have to adjudicate the very question of whether the publication on which the party had been found guilty amounted to a libel or not. It is for a Jury in the first instance to say guilty or not guilty upon the fact of the publication, as well as upon the libellous tendency of the writing; but your Lordships may be called upon in the last resort to say whether the record be one upon which judgment can proceed, or not.
The Duke of Newcastlehad anticipated the announcement which had been made by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, from the altered demeanour of the persons who had assembled about the doors of the House. The tone of insult adopted by those persons towards the opponents of the Reform Bill seemed to have ceased. He was, therefore, prepared to hear of the noble Earl's reinstatement. As an individual, however, he (the Duke of Newcastle) did not feel

1059
more assured of his safety than he did before; and as he had suffered so much, both in person and property, he thought he had a pretty good right to appeal to their Lordships, and to ask whether the same system by which he had been injured was to be allowed to prevail throughout the whole country? In the circumstances in which they were then placed, it became necessary to come to some determination upon the matter which had been brought before the House. According to his idea, they were involving themselves in matters which were highly dangerous. He had observed that, from the beginning to the end of the discussions upon the Reform Bill, the King's name had been used to over-rule the decisions of that House. He must declare that such a use of the King's name was not to be tolerated, and he was surprised that the Ministers who sat in that House had tolerated it. Besides that, from first to last, it had been held out, that if this House would not give its assent to the provisions of the Bill, its independent voice should be overborne by the creation of a vast number of new Peers. Such a threat could not fail of being eminently repugnant to the feelings of every man who flattered himself that he belonged to a tree and independent body of legislators. To brine the matter to a point, he (the Duke of Newcastle) proposed to make borne motion upon the subject; and, if their Lordships would engage to support him, unfitted as he was for such an undertaking, he was still willing to impose it upon himself. If their Lordships would tolerate such a degree of thraldom as that which it was now proposed to subject them to, he must say they were not worthy of a seat in that House. If they would come forward as men and Englishmen to do their duty, for he (the Duke of Newcastle) said, that the King had no right to create Peers, and he called upon their Lordships to take steps to prevent such an act, which, if it were not prevented, would make them cease to be free and independent men; he called upon them, he said, to do their duty, and they might depend upon it, if they did so, the country would support them in it. He was convinced that there was not an honest man in the country who would not say that their Lordships were void of the spirit which ought to exist in the breast of every Englishman, and of English Peers particularly, if they did not exert themselves to prevent the execrable
1060
tyranny of allowing the King's Minister, on any occasion that he might think proper, to fetter the freedom of debate in their Lordships' House by the infusion of a fresh body of Peers. With their Lordships' permission, he should certainly take an opportunity of making a motion upon the subject.
Lord Wharncliffecertainly could not concur with the noble Duke who had just sat down in thinking that the King had not the power to make Peers for this or any other purpose. He apprehended that the King's prerogative upon that point was clear and indisputable. The only question was, whether the King's advisers were justified in the manner in which they would recommend him to exercise it. The noble Earl (Harewood) behind him had stated to the House the course that he intended to pursue. Before he (Lord Wharncliffe) decided upon a course, and before, as it appeared to him, any noble Peer could decide upon a course, it was necessary that he should have some further explanation from the noble Earl opposite, as to the situation in which that House was to be placed. Was he to understand that they were to have an increase of the House, or were their numbers to remain the same? Were their deliberations on the subject of Reform to be carried on under the threat and under the immediate pressure of a creation of Peers to carry the Bill? or upon what other ground did the noble Earl opposite found the expression that he made use of, viz. the confident expectation which he now had of carrying the Bill, unimpaired in principle and uninjured in all its essential provisions? Did the noble Earl found that confident expectation upon the belief that a certain number of Peers would absent themselves from the House, so as to enable him to carry the measure in any shape or form that be might think proper? Did the noble Earl found his expectation upon this, or did he intend to convert his expectation into reality by the creation of a sufficient number of Peers? He (Lord Wharncliffe) put these questions directly to the noble Earl, because he wished to know in what situation the House of Peers was to be placed. He should, therefore, return for a moment to his seat until the noble Earl had replied. He did not ask the question in a spirit of discourtesy; but as a Peer of Parliament, and, until that moment, an independent Member of it, he begged to learn of the noble Lord

1061
the precise situation in which he was then placed.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, that it was perfectly justifiable and proper in the noble Baron to ask for an explanation of anything that was stated in the House, but at the same time, he protested against that mode of questioning a Minister of the Crown, and a Privy Councillor, as to what he had or had not power to do. He did not understand on what ground it could be expected that a Minister should answer such questions, when in answering he might perhaps betray the counsels of his Sovereign, which he was bound to keep secret. They had heard last night explanations given of what passed between his Majesty and his Privy Councillors, without any intimation that his Majesty's permission to give such explanations had been asked for and obtained. He had heard it stated as a matter of doubt, whether Privy Councillors were justified in exposing what had passed confidentially between themselves and his Majesty, even when they had his Majesty's permission to explain, since they were bound by oath to keep his Majesty's counsel. But certainly he had never heard that they were at liberty to explain without having obtained his Majesty's permission. But what did the noble Baron call upon the noble Earl at the head of the Administration to say? And what was the reason assigned by the noble Baron for putting the question? Only to know on what footing he himself and the House stood? Why, the noble Baron stood exactly on the same footing as they all stood, and it was for him to exercise his own discretion and judgment as to what he should do, without having his opinions varied, or altered, or influenced by the consideration of whether new Peers were to be created, or any thing else was to be done. There was no ground whatever for putting the question. The noble Baron, and those who thought with him, would act as they pleased. Some of them said that, they acted by compulsion. He really did not know what that compulsion was, or how their independence had been in the least infringed. They said, that their independence would be infringed by the creation of Peers. By the letter, as well as by the spirit of the Constitution, the King had the right to create Peers whenever he, acting on the responsibility of his Ministers, thought that the interests of the country required it, and, if so, he
1062
would ask whether this House had not always acted under the same compulsion as it had acted under during the last twenty days? If the creation of Peers was a breach of the law and the Constitution, it was a breach that had existed for a very long period. Where was the difference, in point of principle, between creating seventy Peers for a particular purpose, and creating one at one time and another at another, with a view of supporting a particular interest? The Crown had equally the power to create Peers in one way as the other, and the Ministers were bound to advise his Majesty to create Peers, if they thought that the interests of the country required that this should be done. They acted on their responsibility, and if they did any thing wrong or improper, they were liable to be impeached in that House, where their Lordships would sit as judges.
The Earl of Carnarvon: That was, they were to be judged by their own nominees.
The Earl of Radnordid not know what the noble Earl meant by nominees, or what right he had to call any noble Lords in that House, or that might be introduced into that House, nominees of the present Ministers, any more than nominees of any other Ministers. The noble Earl had, on one occasion, talked of noble Lords being driven by Ministers, as slaves by the whip of the driver; and now their Lordships were called nominees. Why, then, when the noble Earl's father was created a Peer for some purpose, what was he but a ministerial nominee? no matter whether one was created, or whether two, or twenty-two were created, the principle was the same. Suppose that some great public measure should be obstructed by the obstinacy of one Peer, and that the obstacle was removed by the creation of two Peers, the principle was the same as if the Crown had created twenty Peers; but the noble Lords opposite sometimes abandoned the ground of principle, and talked of swamping that House: he did not know what they meant by "swamping:" how could it be called "swamping" the House, when the Crown only exercised its undoubted and ordinary prerogative? But the real truth was, he was afraid, that the principle their Lordships acted upon was not the interests of the country, but the preservation of themselves as an exclusive order. Their consideration was not the welfare of the people: their object was not, by preventing the

1063
creation of Peers, to preserve their own independence—for, after the creation of new Peers, they would be as independent as before—but they wished to prevent the creation of new Peers to preserve their own order as exclusive and unchecked. The Ministers, however, were bound not to act on that principle; on the contrary, it was their duty to advise the Crown to create new Peers, provided they thought the interests of the country required it. It was a regard to the interests of their own exclusive order that made noble Lords stand between the Crown and the country upon the great measure now depending in Parliament. He thought that the great mass of the nation was right in the opinions which they had formed on that great measure, and that the confusion and obstruction of business which had prevailed such a long time was entirely owing to the noble Lords who had opposed its progress. It was the duty of Ministers to create new Peers if the measure could not be carried otherwise, and he hoped and trusted that Ministers would do their duty, and he had no doubt but that the best consequences would follow.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, as the noble Earl who had just sat down had interfered between the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) and himself, he wished to know whether he was to take the speech of that noble Earl (Radnor) as an answer to the questions he had felt it his duty to put?
Earl Greydid not feel himself called upon to answer the questions which had been put to him by the noble Baron: he had already stated, that he continued to hold office under the confident expectation that the Bill would be carried successfully through its future stages in that House. The noble Baron had no right to put any further questions, and he would be bound only by what he himself had stated.
Lord Wharncliffewas quite aware that the noble Earl was not accountable for what others might say; but with reference to the other noble Earl (the Earl of Radnor) he must say, that of all the speeches he had ever heard, his was the most extraordinary. He had long known the noble Earl in his political life, and had long admired his ingenuity and tact in debate; but on this occasion, if he had been asked to point out any one more unlikely than another to have made such a speech, he should have named the noble Earl. That noble Earl had always acted a most independent part, and
1064
he was quite sure that he would not come to that House to hear the mockery of free debate if a creation of Peers should take place. That noble Earl had said, that he (Lord Wharncliffe), and other noble Lords on that side of the House, did not oppose the measure for the sake of the well-being of the country, but because they wished to preserve all the advantages of their exclusive order. Now, he would ask, was there then no use in the House of Lords? Was it for their own exclusive sakes they sat in deliberation in that House? Or was it not by the grace of their Sovereign they were placed there, to have a free voice in all the national deliberations? If that House was not formed for the sake of the country—if it had not been framed with a view to deliberate for the good of the country—then he would say, that the House of Lords was useless, that it was at an end—and that the sooner the House of Commons took upon themselves the functions of their Lordships' House also, the better. Could any man doubt, when he talked of revolution, that it had virtually taken place within the last few days? This was a question affecting all parties of the State, affecting every one of their Lordships in their individual capacity, and the House of Lords in its collective capacity. What was the fact? After agreeing to the second reading of the Reform Bill upon going into Committee, and upon an Amendment being carried in that Committee, the Ministers had tendered advice to the Sovereign, requesting him to create Peers, with a view to overpower the votes of their Lordships on that side of the House. The Sovereign had refused that advice. The Ministry, in consequence of this refusal, found them selves placed in a harassing situation. But he would ask any man, whether this precise Bill must not be said to be carried by the House of Commons in its present state, against the opinion of the House of Lords, and, as he might infer from what had passed, against the opinion of the Crown? Let not noble Lords deceive themselves. The power of the State was now in the House of Commons, and their Lordships must see that, if they did not pass the Bill of the House of Commons, their votes were to be overpowered by a creation of Peers. He would say, that the House of Lords was no longer free, and that it remained to be seen how long the monarchy itself would exist. In spite of all the falsehoods and calumnies

1065
which had gone forth, he maintained that, neither on his own part, nor on the part of any noble Lord near him, had there been any attempt made, or any desire shown to get rid of the Bill. They might have been mistaken in the course which they had pursued on a late occasion. He freely confessed he considered it a great mistake in those who were willing to proceed to the consideration of the Reform Bill. Noble Peers, however, were now placed in a different position from that in which they stood on the second reading; and the principle of Reform having been entertained, it was surely in their power to amend the Bill, reserving to themselves the right to vote against the details of the measure in Committee: then why, he would ask, had not an opportunity been afforded to those noble Lords who did not mean to oppose any of the essential points of the Bill, to propose their amendments? But no, said the noble Earl, you have said, let us have the disfranchisement clause postponed till we have considered the enfranchisement clause. Now, he thought, and confessed it, that the noble Earl's view of the case was, in some respects, right, and he had always felt, that the motion made on a previous evening was one which was likely to put both sides of the House in a difficult position, and he had resisted the bringing forward that motion as far as he could in deference to those with whom he was bound to act. The question, however, having been introduced, the noble Earl opposite maintained that it touched the principles of the Bill, and, therefore, he went to his Majesty, advising him to make a sufficient number of Peers to enable the noble Earl to effect the passing of the Bill. He must deny, however, that this motion touched the principle of the Bill, and in so saying he spoke not only his own opinion, but that of many other Lords; and he trusted noble Lords opposite him would excuse him when he declared, that they themselves had afforded him the strongest arguments which could be given in favour of the course which had been pursued. Had it been sought, in the first place, to reduce the disfranchising clause materially, the noble Earl would, in such a case, have had a right to complain: but not so when the proposition made was merely that the first clause be deferred. He would not repeat what had already been said by noble Lords behind him as to the question having been treated in a different manner in the
1066
other House of Parliament, and he would admit that this was not the time to argue the merits of the measure generally, or in detail; but as they were now threatened with something, in consequence of the votes which they had given on the occasion to which he had referred, he was anxious to know what crime they had committed in so doing; and, until he did know this, the noble Earl must pardon him when he said, that the agitation of the country for the last four days was the work of the noble Earl, and was caused wantonly and unnecessarily. As, however, the noble Earl did not seem to wish to give an answer to the question which had been put, he would presume to say something else, and would observe that, for his own part, he could not come to any conclusion as to what might be his own conduct under existing circumstances. He must know, first, what was to be the real position in which the House was to be placed, before he took that line which he might think it his duty to pursue. He did not think that noble Lords opposite had a right to call upon them to declare what their conduct would be on that side of the House, when the noble Earl had merely declared his "confident expectation that the Bill would be completely successful in its future stages." Begging pardon of their Lordships for his having run the risk of tiring them, he would only then add, that at any time when the noble Earl might think fit, he should be glad to receive some further information from him, but, in the meantime, he must declare, that he could not give any pledge as to his future conduct while he remained in ignorance of what might be the course intended to be pursued by the noble Earl.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, he rose to make what was, perhaps, a vain effort, to obtain some information from the noble Earl as to what was to be the situation in which the House was to be placed on Monday next. In doing so he did not mean to ask him to render any information which could be considered as inconsistent with his duty, or with his oath as a Privy Councillor. He wished to know and he considered he had a right to put the question—whether it was the intention of the noble Earl, after the declaration which had been made by the noble Duke (a declaration which he would say noble Lords opposite had not treated in the most courteous manner), in going into Committee, to preclude noble Lords from

1067
the exercise of that privilege which had never been refused till then, namely, the privilege of endeavouring to correct the details of that measure, without invading the essential parts of the Bill, with a view to make it more palatable to all classes of his Majesty's subjects? Conciliation, he and the rest of the noble Lords on that side of the House had tendered? [hear]. Noble Lords opposite cheered. He knew that by the word "conciliation" was conveyed, in their interpretation of the word, passive obedience. The noble Earl had once professed the real Whig principles, but the principles which the noble Earl had since substituted for them were such as he never could adopt. The time had been when, if the noble Earl had used towards that House such language as he had lately applied to them, he would have been called indignantly to order, for no real Whig Peers would have endured it. The time had been when it would have been impossible to have believed that, upon a question in a Committee of that House, such a course would have been pursued as that of the noble Earl. But here he touched upon an unfortunate subject. The Minister of the Crown to whom he alluded, still existed to witness the destruction of that Constitution of which he had formerly been one of the greatest champions. If, indeed, instead of the unheeded voice which then addressed their Lordships, the voice of a Grenville could have been raised in that House, the noble Earl would have stood rebuked and ashamed. But the question which he was desirous of putting to the noble Earl was, whether it was the noble Earl's intention to permit the House to go through the Committee temperately and calmly? For he could assure the noble Earl that, as far as he himself, and the other noble Lords who sat on the same side of the House, were concerned, all he and they wished for was, that the amendments which they had to propose might be properly discussed, and adopted, if they were thought to be improvements in the Bill. He wished to know whether it was intended to propose to his Majesty to agree to such a creation of Peers as should deprive the House of Lords of the power of coming to any independent conclusion; or whether, the noble Earl having ascertained what were the intentions of noble Lords, such proceeding would be waived? And he begged to assure the noble Earl, that while the Peers
1068
were the last men to submit to dictation, they were equally ready, on the other hand, to make every proper concession that might lead to conciliation. He begged to say, that the intention of the noble Lords on his side of the House was, not to destroy the Bill, but to endeavour to make such amendments as the noble Lords opposite might with honour accept, and such as every Reformer should not be dissatisfied with. He wished no further pledge from the noble Earl as to what he might think it proper to do; but he was desirous that, if the Committee were to pass the Bill, it should go out of that House in a manner which was fit to make it the law of the land. In short, he wished distinctly to know, whether or not the House would be permitted to proceed with the Bill uninterfered with by the exercise of the authority of the Crown in the manner which had been suggested. Having given a pledge on the part not only of himself, but also on the part, of every noble Lord on that side of the House, that the deliberations on the measure should be conducted in a spirit of conciliation and calmness, he would only add, that, should the noble Earl not condescend to give him an answer, their Lordships would, perhaps, allow him to say a few words more.
Earl Grey, in rising, said, he was quite sure that the whole House must be perfectly persuaded, that nothing could be so mild, so conciliatory, or so calm as the conduct which the noble Earl had evinced throughout the discussions on this question; conduct which the noble Earl would lead the House to suppose that he (Earl Grey) had throughout avoided. He did not mean, however, either to imitate the noble Earl's conduct or the tone of his speech on this occasion. With reference to the question of the noble Earl, as to whether it was his (Earl Grey's) intention to allow the House to proceed temperately and calmly in Committee, he thought he might with more propriety put that question to the noble Earl opposite, because he felt satisfied that the matter depended chiefly on the spirit with which the noble Earl opposite and his friends went into that Committee. He was not aware of any occasion upon which he had departed from that conduct which was due to the House. "With respect to the other question," said the noble Earl, "it is one which the noble Earl opposite has no right to put, and which I certainly will not answer."
The Earl of Carnarvonagain rose, and said, that the refusal of the noble Earl to answer might arise from contempt towards him; if so, he was at a loss to determine whether he should esteem it as a compliment, or otherwise. In allusion to what had fallen from the noble Earl, he challenged the noble Earl to state, that one intemperate word had passed his lips during a six weeks' discussion on this subject. His questions remained unanswered, for when the noble Earl said, that whether their Lordships should proceed with temper to the consideration of the Bill in Committee or not, depended upon him (the Earl of Carnarvon), that was no answer to the question which had been put to the noble Earl. The question which had been put was, whether their Lordships would be permitted to proceed with the Bill, without the interference of the noble Earl, and without the exercise of the royal authority, by which the exertions of their Lordships to improve the measure would be rendered abortive, and whether that threat was to be carried into effect after their Lordships' labours in Committee were completed. Temper and conciliation had been offered to the noble Earl, but he, in form calm, though not in substance, never had held out a hand in return—nay, he would not submit to the least alteration in the measure, not even to the amount of a vulgar fraction. Warm, certainly, he should be, and loud also, while he could raise his voice against this attempt made to destroy their Lordships' authority, and forcibly to put down the independence of Parliament. He entreated the noble Earl, for the sake of himself, and for the sake of their Lordships, to answer the question which he had put, for he, (the Earl of Carnarvon) for one would never sit in that House in such a kind of mock debate, or to bandy arguments with the fifty or sixty liveried lacquies of the noble Earl. The language he was now expressing was the expiring language of British honour in this country, He was told by the noble Earl, that he should consider in a calm, and, what the noble Earl would designate a conciliatory manner, that which he must contemplate as the future degradation of that House. Now he should hold himself unworthy of a seat in that House if he did not express the warm and indignant feelings which he entertained in considering such a subject as this. The noble Earl opposite might
1070
talk of those gentlemen which he intended to introduce into that House. Gentlemen! Perhaps he was not justified as yet in giving them that name. Probably the bellman had not as yet gone round to summon to the peerage the first fifty or sixty persons of the age of twenty-one and upwards, who would condescend to accept of such a dubious honour; their patents, at all events, would be different from the patents of all former Peers. His father had received his patent for no unworthy act; he received it on account of his conduct in resisting mob dictation in the time of Lord George Gordon's riots. He was quite sure that his father would never have received a patent on such grounds at the present period. The peerage had not been conferred on his father on a pledge from him that he would assist in drowning the independent voice of that House. The noble Earl alluded to the possibility of a collision between the two Houses of Parliament. Now no collision existed between the two Houses at present, and he was certain, that if that House were left to is own will, no collision between the two Houses would be produced by the Amendments which that House might make in the Bill. He held his seat in that House on account of no act of oppression towards that House, nor on account of any act that tended to its degradation and destruction. It was to him a matter of indifference whether that House died by an act of suicide or by one of the foulest assassination. But he had one request to make of the noble Earl, the last that he should ever prefer to him, and it was this—that the noble Earl, before he did that which would effectually swamp that House, would bring in a bill—and he made this an earnest request, to deprive him (the Earl of Carnarvon) of the degradation of belonging to such a House, or of sitting in company with those who would permit themselves to be made Peers to serve the temporary purposes of that noble Earl. He further wished that the noble Earl would introduce a clause into that bill to restore him to those privileges which he believed he had never done any thing to forfeit—the privileges of an English commoner—privileges of which he should be always proud, and which, together with the privileges of a British Statesman, he trusted he should, even after the passing of this measure, he allowed to exercise. He hoped the noble Earl would grant a request which he now

1071
preferred to him in perfect seriousness. He meant to petition the noble Earl and the House to that effect. He was sure that it would not be long before the people of this country would be roused from that state of intoxication into which they had been plunged by certain persons, for reasons of their own, and before they would learn to distinguish their real friends from their treacherous oppressors.
The Bishop of Bristolwished to offer a very few observations to their Lordships on this occasion. He considered that it would be a most unconstitutional exercise of the royal prerogative to create a number of Peers in order to swamp the independence of that House. He trusted that the noble Lords on the other side of the House would not withdraw from it during the discussions in the Committee on the Bill, but that they would attend and do their duty, by endeavouring to amend the Bill, if they could; and if they should thus succeed in bringing it to such a shape that it would be more serviceable and more palatable to the country, they would effect great good. From the representations which he had that day received from Bristol and the neighbouring country he could state, that a large portion of the people there were inimical to the extent of the present Bill.
Motion for going into Committee on Monday next, agreed to.