the proud," and throughout to identify | much as it is for our happiness to preEnglish interests with English honour. In domestic affairs we find Canning tolerant and a friend of freedom. He was a foe of slavery, as is evidenced by his speeches upon the African question; but aware that the abuses of centuries could not be remedied at once, he was in favour of a cautious and gradual emancipation of those then held in bondage to the West India planters. Of the claims of the Roman Catholics he was a stanch a stanch and the recognized advocate. Without having recourse to extremes he was in favour of a moderate measure of free trade, though the arguments he raised against the protection of silk he declined to adopt against the protection of corn. Prejudiced by the French Revolution and a believer in the then constitutional theory that the throne, the House of Peers, and the House of Commons were balances of power which maintained the different parts of our political system in equipoise, Canning was the resolute opponent of parliamentary reform. "The reformers," he said to his constituents at Liverpool, "reason from false premises, and therefore are driving on their unhappy adherents to false and dangerous conclusions. The constitution of this country is a monarchy controlled by two assemblies-the one hereditary and independent alike of the crown and the people; the other elected by and for the people, but elected for the purpose of controlling and not of administering the government. The error of the reformers, if error it can be called, is, that they argue as if the constitution of this country was a broad and level democracy, inlaid (for ornament's sake) with a peerage and topped (by sufferance) with a crown. "If they say that for such a constitution, that is in effect for an uncontrolled democracy, the present House of Commons is not sufficiently popular, they are right; but such a constitution is not what we have or what we desire. We are born under a monarchy, which it is our duty as serve, and which there cannot be a shadow of doubt that the reforms which are recommended to us would destroy. "I love the monarchy, gentlemen, because, limited and controlled as it is in our happy constitution, I believe it to be not only the safest depository of power, but the surest guardian of liberty. I love the system of popular representation, gentlemen-who can have more cause to value it highly than I feel at this moment, reflecting on the triumphs which it has earned for me, and addressing those who have been the means of achieving them? But of popular representation, I think we have enough for every purpose of jealous, steady, corrective, efficient control over the acts of that monarchical power which, for the safety and for the peace of the community, is lodged in one sacred family, and descendible from sire to son. "My object in political life has always been rather to reconcile the nation to the lot which has fallen to them (surely a most glorious and blessed lot among nations!) than to aggravate incurable imperfections, and to point out imaginary and unattainable excellences for their admiration. I have done so, because though I am aware that more splendidly popular systems of government might be devised than that which it is our happiness to enjoy, it is, I believe in my conscience, impossible to devise one in which all the good qualities of human nature should be brought more beneficially into action-in which there should be as much order and as much liberty-in which property (the conservative principle of society) should operate so fairly, with a just but not an overwhelming weight-in which industry should be so sure of its reward, talents of their due ascendency, and virtue of the general esteem. "For my own part, I am undoubtedly prepared to uphold the ancient monarchy of the country by arguments drawn from what I think the blessings which we have enjoyed under it, and by arguments of another sort, | nation !—by what assumption of right could if arguments of another sort shall ever be brought against it. But all that I am now contending for is, that whatever reformation is proposed should be considered with some reference to the established constitution of the country. That point being conceded to me, I have no difficulty in saying that I cannot conceive a constitution of which one-third part shall be an assembly delegated by the people, not to consult for the good of the nation, but to speak day by day the people's will, which must not in a few days' sitting sweep away every other branch of the constitution that might attempt to oppose or control it. I cannot I cannot conceive how, in fair reasoning, any other branch of the constitution should pretend to stand against it. If government be a matter of will, all that we have to do is to collect the will of the nation, and having collected it by an adequate organ, that will is paramount and supreme. By what pretension could the House of Lords be maintained in equal authority and jurisdiction with the House of Commons, when once that House of Commons should become a direct deputation, speaking the people's will, and that will the rule of the government? In one way or other the House of Lords must act, if it be to remain a concurrent branch of the legislature. Either it must uniformly affirm the measures which come from the House of Commons, or it must occasionally take the liberty to reject them. If it uniformly affirm, it is without the shadow of authority. But to presume to reject an act of the deputies of the whole 300 or 400 great proprietors set themselves against the national will? Grant the reformers, then, what they ask, on the principles on which they ask it, and it is utterly impossible that, after such a reform, the constitution should long consist of more than one body, and that one body a popular assembly. "I am not sent to Parliament to inquire into the question whether a democracy or a monarchy be the best. My lot is cast under the British monarchy. Under that I have lived-under that I have seen my country flourish under that I have seen it enjoy as great as great a share of prosperity, of happiness, and of glory as I believe any modification of human society to be capable of bestowing; and I am not prepared to sacrifice or to hazard the fruit of centuries of experience, of centuries of struggles, and of more than one century of liberty as perfect as ever blessed any country upon the earth, for visionary schemes of ideal perfectibility, or for doubtful experiments even of possible improvement." Holding these views Canning was only consistent with himself when he declared on taking office as prime minister that "he would oppose parliamentary reform as he had always done." Patriot, statesman, orator, wit, man of letters, there are few Leaders of the Senate who have had it in their power to display such an array of brilliant gifts as George Canning. The high praise accorded to him by his contemporaries has been confirmed by posterity. EARL surviving son of General Sir Charles, afterwards Earl Grey, and was born at Fallodon, the seat of his father, in Northumberland, 13th March, 1764. After a three years' preparatory education at a school in Marylebone, which he appears cordially to have detested, he was sent to Eton, and in the usual course of things went up to Cambridge. Both at school and at the university his abilities showed signs of promise, and his tutors predicted that with his social advantages it would not be long before his name emerged from obscurity. At Eton he was asked to contribute Latin verses to a publication entitled "Musa Etonenses," and at Cambridge he obtained more than one prize for English composition and declamation. Yet he afterwards admitted that his obligations to the training of his youth were but small. "He never had himself," writes his son, General Grey," "a good opinion of the system of education pursued either at Eton or the university at that time, and used to say that almost all he knew he had acquired for himself after leaving college." GREY. CHARLES Second Earl Grey was the eldest | appears to have had any sympathy, but to the principles of Fox and the rest of his party he from the very first gave his allegiance. He was as much a Foxite as Canning was a Pittite. His maiden speech was in opposition to an address moved to thank the king for the commercial treaty with France negotiated by Pitt. It was a success, and at once proved to the House that in the person of the young member for Northumberland the assembly had acquired additional strength of no mean order. "We had a glorious debate last night," writes Henry Addington to his father, "upon the motion for an address of thanks to the king for having negotiated the commercial treaty. A new speaker presented himself to the House, and went through his first performance with an éclat which has not been equalled within my recollection. His name is Grey. He is not more than twentytwo years of age, and he took his seat only in the present session. I do not go too far in declaring that in the advantage of figure, voice, elocution, and manner he is not surpassed by any member of the House; and I grieve to say that he was last night in the ranks of Opposition, from whence there is no chance of his being detached." So high an opinion did the House form of his talents, that shortly after the delivery of this maiden effort Charles Grey was selected as one of the managers charged with the task of conducting the impeachment of Warren Hastings. Upon quitting the university young Grey amused himself by forming part of the suite of Henry duke of Cumberland, and travelling through France, Italy, and part of Germany. Returning home in the summer of 1786 he was elected for Northumberland, and at the early age of twentytwo found himself a member of the House of Commons. His political views were then those which he afterwards so warmly upheld and never deviated from. With Toryism as interpreted by Pitt he never "Some Account of the Life and Opinions of Charles second Earl Grey," by Lieutenant-general Hon. C. Grey. I have to express my obligations to Messrs. Bentley for per mission to make use of this work. VOL. I. |