be set Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey, peacemakers, reformers, managers of Indian Impeachments. Then came Mr. Windham and Lord Fitzwilliam, the administrators of Mr. Burke's fury, as their new colleagues had often termed them, and going as much beyond the Grenvilles in hatred of peace, as they exceeded the Foxites in fondness of war. It is true, that all these great men strenuously supported the Catholic Claims; but those claims were as vehemently opposed by other members of the Cabinet, by Lord Ellenborough, and by Lord Sidmouth, whose former accession to office had been expressly grounded upon his hostility to the question. Yet the exigencies of the State induced Mr. Fox and Mr. Grey to form parts of this Cabinet, where the interest of Ireland was so little consulted, that by common consent the subject was not to be mentioned, unless in order to bring forward a small measure, no sooner attempted than abandoned. It is true, that one great and righteous deed was done, in spite of all the divisions which variegated the aspect of this motley piece of Cabinet-making; they abolished the Slave Trade; but not because they agreed upon this any more than upon those penal laws which they left unrepealed; for Lord Sidmouth, Lord Moira, and Lord Fitzwilliam, were determined enemies of the measure, and Mr. Windham was perhaps the most zealous of all its antagonists, not to be a planter.*

We have been meeting the two opposite objections made to the late coalition, by two very different classes of adversaries, the High Tories, who exclaimed against it as an unnatural and unprincipled league for power, at the expense of constancy; and a few much respected members of the old Whig party, whose accusations were less precise, but who seemed to dislike it only because persons once their antagonists formed a branch of it; an objection to which

* It will not be supposed that we are painting the Administration of 1806 as we ourselves view it: we are showing in what light the facts would justify its enemies in now representing it, upon the grounds on which some of its members are opposing the present Government.

every coalition must be equally liable. The answer to all these attacks is plain and simple. The inconsistency would have been in men continuing the conflict when they were no longer divided in their sentiments; the unnatural conduct would have been for men to attack their natural allies and join their natural enemies; the disregard of principle would have been shown by those who sacrificed their public duty to personal views, and regardless of their pledged opinions, sought the gratification of personal feelings, not the less personal, nor the more amiable, because they were those of hatred, jealousy, or vexation.

But suppose we come down to a more humble level in the argument, and listen to the suggestion, why did the Whigs join Mr. Canning, when, by holding out, they must have occasioned a total change? We are far from being satisfied that such a change was preferable to the united Ministry; we are sure the union was more acceptable to the country as well as to the court; but we answer the question as it is put, and after the manner of our nation, we answer it by propounding another-What was to hinder Mr. Canning from joining his former colleagues, and submitting to fill a second place, a submission which the Whigs would then have forced him to? If he found himself disappointed in the estimate he had formed of his new allies; if he found that all their regard for their common principles could not overcome their selfish lust of power, or mitigate their equally selfish hatred of him, had he not a right to distrust them, and to prefer any government which perpetuated their exclusion? Then, suppose he had been driven out of office, was there no chance of his rejoining his former colleagues, and no possibility of this union effecting at court the downfall of a party, which had showed so little moderation as to gain no credit with the Sovereign, and so little regard for its long professed principles, as to lose all respect in the country? As for the only other event that can be stated, it may be spoken of, but it surely cannot be conceived possible; we allude to the Whigs

joining those ministers who had resigned, and uniting with them in opposing their liberal colleagues. We at once pronounce so prodigious an inconsistency impossible. It would have been abandoning all their principles either to storm the government, or spite a former opponent, whose recent conduct upon all great questions of policy they had loudly applauded. It was as impossible for them to think of such a course, as it now would be for those most eminent and respected individuals, whose alienation from the government we join the whole country in deploring, to unite themselves with men, whom they differ from upon every question of public policy, and to seek with them the overthrow of a Ministry, all whose principles they profess.

In the remarks which we have made, nothing, we trust, has escaped us, tending to evince the least disrespect for the principles of party, so essential to the existence of a free government. Those attachments arising from similarity of principle, are in truth the very ground-work of our argument. They have in all good times, and among the best men, been held pure and patriotic bonds of union; honourable to the individuals, profitable to the commonwealth. Nevertheless, it is impossible to deny, that in proportion as the body of the people become more enlightened, and take a more constant interest in the management of their own affairs, such combinations becoming less necessary, lose somewhat of the public favour; and we believe that at no period of our history, did, what is called 'Party,' enjoy less popularity and exert less influence with the bulk of the community. It may indeed be affirmed with safety, that the efforts and the personal weight of individuals, have, of late years, done far more to keep alive the power and authority of Parties, than the influence of party has done for the protection of their particular members. A new casting also of political sects has taken place; the distinctions, and almost the names, of Loyalist and Jacobin, Whig and Tory, Court and Country Faction, are fast wearing away. Two great divisions

of the community will, in all likelihood, soon be far more generally known; the Liberal and the Illiberal, who will divide, but we may be sure most unequally, the suffrages of the Nation.

Nor is it in name only that this arrangement will be new; the people will be differently distributed; the coalition, which has been gradually forming among the public men whose personal respect and mutual confidence has brought about so fortunate à union, extends to the community at large. Some of the older questions, by which Whig and Tory were wont to be divided, retain all their importance; but, upon these, the Liberal party, of whatever denomination, are well agreed. Indeed, it used to be a saying of Mr. Wilberforce, when he regarded the importance of those questions, compared with the ones they still differed about, that he would not answer to the name of Tory; conveying thereby, as that great man is wont, a lesson of his mild wisdom with the relish of attractive and harmless wit. The only consequence with respect to doctrines which such a junction can produce, is likely to be beneficial both to the State and to the progress of sound opinion. Extremes will be avoided; alterations in our system will be gradual; and the only risk which the existence, or the measures of a Liberal Government could run, will be avoided-that of a reaction against them,-when it is distinctly perceived by all men, that we are governed by individuals, whose great parts are under the control of sound discretion, and whose conduct is, in all things, tempered with the moderation of practical wisdom.

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS,

APRIL 5, 1830,

On the "Bill to Repeal the Civil Disabilities affecting Britishborn Subjects professing the Jewish Religion."

In spite of the parallel which my hon. friend (the member for Oxford) has attempted-I think in vain-to draw between this case and the Roman Catholic measure before the House during the last Session of Parliament, I trust that we shall not have to forego the votes of many of those hon. Gentlemen who in the last Session were opposed to the concession of the Catholic claims. Indeed, many of those Gentlemen will be precluded, by the course they then took, from offering any opposition to the present measure. The general principle of religious toleration was involved in the question of last year, as it is now: but most of those Gentlemen who voted against the Roman Catholics declared in favour of this general principle, only they found that there were special circumstances which took the case of the Roman Catholics out of the pale of that principle. But, Sir, there are no such circumstances here. In this instance, there is no foreign power to be feared. There is no divided allegiance threatening the State-there are no bulls-there are no indulgencies-there are no dispensations-there is no priesthood exercising an absolute authority over the consciences of those who are under their spiritual control--there are no agitators rousing and exciting the people to a course contrary to all good government-there are no associations assembling, or

Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, 2d series, vol. xxiii. 1830, p. 1308–1314.