the time had arrived when no concession would avail. I have no appréhension that such a fate awaits the nobles of England. I draw no parallel between our aristocracy and that of France. Those who represent the Lords as a class whose power is incompatible with the just influence of the middle orders in the State, draw the parallel, and not I. They do all in their power to place the Lords and Commons of England in that position with respect to each other in which the French gentry stood with respect to the Tiers Etat. But I am convinced that these advisers will not succeed. We see, with pride and delight, among the friends of the people, the Talbots, the Cavendishes, the princely house of Howard. Foremost among those who have entitled themselves, by their exertions in this House, to the lasting gratitude of their countrymen, we see the descendants of Marlborough, of Russell, and of Derby. I hope, and firmly believe, that the Lords will see what their interest and their honour require. I hope, and firmly believe, that they will act in such a manner as to entitle themselves to the esteem and affection of the people. But if not, let not the enemies of Reform imagine that their reign is straightway to recommence, or that they have obtained anything more than a short and weary respite. We are bound to respect the constitutional rights of the Peers; but we are bound also not to forget our own. We, too, have our privileges-we, too, are an estate of the realm. A House of Commons, strong in the love and confidence of the people-a House of Commons which has nothing to fear from a dissolution, is something in the Government. Some persons, I well know, indulge a hope that the rejection of the Bill will at once restore the domination of that party which fled from power last November, leaving everything abroad and everything at home in confusion-leaving the European system, which it had built up at a vast cost of blood and treasure, falling to pieces in every direction-leaving the dynasties which it had restored, hastening into exile-leaving the nations which it had joined

together, breaking away from each other-leaving the fundholders in dismay-leaving the peasantry in insurrection—leaving the most fertile counties lighted up with the fires of incendiaries— leaving the capital in such a state, that a royal procession could not safely pass through it. Dark and terrible, beyond any season within my remembrance of political affairs, was the day of their flight. Far darker and far more terrible will be the day of their return; they will return in opposition to the whole British nation, united as it was never before united on any internal questionunited as firmly as when the Armada was sailing up the channel -united as when Bonaparte pitched his camp on the cliffs of Boulogne. They will return pledged to defend evils which the people are resolved to destroy; they will return to a situation in which they can stand only by crushing and trampling down public opinion, and from which, if they fall, they may, in their fall, drag down with them the whole frame of society. Against such évils, should such evils appear to threaten the country, it will be our privilege and our duty to warn our gracious and beloved Sovereign. It will be our privilege and our duty to convey the wishes of a loyal people to the throne of a patriot king. At such a crisis the proper place for the House of Commons is in the front of the nation; and in that place this House will assuredly be found. Whatever prejudice or weakness may do elsewhere to ruin the empire, here, I trust, will not be wanting the wisdom, the virtue, and the energy that may save it.

ON THE STATE OF THE NATION.*

OCTOBER 10, 1831.

I DOUBT, Sir, whether any person who had merely heard tne speech of the right hon. member for the University of Cambridge, would have been able to conjecture what the question is which we are discussing, and what the occasion on which we are assembled. For myself I can with perfect sincerity declare, that never in the whole course of my life did I feel my mind oppressed by so deep and solemn a sense of responsibility as at the present moment. I firmly believe that the country is now in danger of calamities greater than ever threatened it, from domestic misgovernment or from foreign hostility. The danger is no less than this-that there may be a complete alienation of the people from their rulers. To soothe the public mind, to reconcile the people to the delay-the short delay-which must intervene before their wishes can be legitimately gratified; and in the mean time, to avert civil discord, and to uphold the authority of law-these are, I conceive, the objects of my noble friend, the member for Devonshire-these ought, at the present crisis, to be the objects of every honest Englishman. They are objects which will assuredly be attained, if we rise to this great occasion—if we take our stand in the place which the Constitution has assigned to us-if we employ, with becoming firmness and dignity, the powers which belong to us as trustees of the nation, and as advisers of the Throne. Sir, the Resolution of my noble friend consists of two parts. He calls upon us to declare our undiminished attachment to the principles of the Reform Bill, and also our undiminished confidence in his Majesty's Ministers. I con

VOL. I.

*Hansard, 3d Series, vol. viii. p. 390-899.
6

sider these two declarations as identical. The Question of Reform is, in my opinion, of such paramount importance, that, approving the principles of the Ministerial Bill, I must think the Ministers who have brought that Bill forward, although I may differ from them on some minor points, entitled to the strongest support of Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman, the member for the University of Cambridge, has attempted to divert the course of the Debate to questions comparatively unimportant. He has said much about the coal-duty, about the candle-duty, about the budget of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. On most of the points to which he has referred, it would be easy for me, were I so inclined, to defend the Ministers; and where I could not defend them, I should find it easy to recriminate on those who preceded them. The right hon. member for the University of Cambridge has taunted the Ministers with the defeat which their measure respecting the timber trade sustained in the last Parlia ment. I might, perhaps, at a more convenient season, be tempted to inquire whether that defeat was more disgraceful to them or to their predecessors. I might, perhaps, be tempted to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether, if he had not been treated, while in office, with more fairness than he has shown while in opposition, it would have been in his power to carry his best measure—the Beer Bill? He has accused the Ministers of bringing forward financial measures, and then withdrawing those measures. not he bring forward, during the Session of 1830, a plan respecting the sugar duties? and was not that plan withdrawn? But, Sir, this is mere trifling. I will not be seduced from the matter in hand by the right hon. Gentleman's example. At the present moment I can see only one question in the State-the Question of Reform; only two parties-the friends of the Bill and its enemies. It is not my intention, Sir, again to discuss the merits of the Reform Bill. The principle of that Bill received the approbation of the late House of Commons after ten nights' discussion; and the Bill,

Did

as it now stands, after a long and most laborious investigation, passed the present House of Commons by a majority which was nearly half as large again as the minority. This was a little more than a fortnight ago. Nothing has since occurred to change our opinion. The justice of the case is unaltered. The public enthu siasm is undiminished. Old Sarum has grown no larger, Manchester has grown no smaller. In addressing this House, therefore, I am entitled to assume that the Bill is in itself a good Bill. If so, ought we to abandon it merely because the Lords have rejected it? We ought to respect the lawful privileges of their House; but we ought also to assert our own. We are constitutionally as independent of their Lordships, as their Lordships are of us; we have precisely as good a right to adhere to our opinion as they have to dissent from it. In speaking of their decision, I will attempt to follow that example of moderation which was so judiciously set by my noble friend, the member for Devonshire; I will only say that I do not think them more competent to form a correct judgment on a political question than we are. It is certain that on all the most important points on which the two Houses have for a long time past differed, the Lords have at length come over to the opinion of the Commons. I am therefore entitled to say, that with respect to all those points, the Peers themselves being judges, the House of Commons was in the right and the House of Lords in the wrong. It was thus with respect to the Slave-trade-it was thus with respect to Catholic Emancipation-it was thus with several other important Questions. I, therefore, cannot think that we ought, on the present occasion, to surrender our judgment to those who have acknowledged that, on former occasions of the same kind, we have judged more correctly than they have. Then again, Sir, I cannot forget how the majority and the minority in this House were composed; I cannot forget that the majority contained almost all those Gentlemen who are returned by large bodies of electors. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that there were single Members of