LIBRARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 
 
 Class 
 
SPEECHES 
 
 
 BY 
 
 THE RT. HON. THOMAS BABINGTON MACAULAY, M.P. 
 
 AUTHOR OF "THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES 
 
 THE SECOND," " LAYS OF ANCIENT ROME," " ESSAYS FROM THE 
 
 EDINBURGH REVIEW," ETC., ETC. 
 
 IN TWO VOLUMES. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 /y 
 
 REDFIELD, 
 
 110 A 112 NASSAU STREET, NEW YORK, 
 
 1853. 
 

 ENTERED, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1852, by 
 
 . J. S. REDFIELD, 
 In the Clerk s Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York. 
 
 R. CRAIGHEAD, PRINTER AND STEREOTYPER, 
 
 .53 retey ttreet, New York. 
 
PUBLISHER S PREFACE. 
 
 FEANCIS, the author of a collection of portraits of con 
 temporary statesmen, entitled the Orators of the Age, 
 has given in that work a sketch of the Parliamentary 
 manner and successes of Macaulay. He claims for him 
 the first rank of the speakers of the day no less for 
 the literary and historical illustrations of his speeches, 
 than for their fidelity to the immediate interests of the 
 discussion. In the union of these two qualities may be 
 summed up Macaulay s characteristic merits. " He is a 
 great reconciler of the new with the old. Although he 
 may adorn a subject with the lights afforded by his rare 
 genius, he never trifles with it. His historical research 
 renders him a living link with the old and uncorrupted 
 constitution of the country. * * There is no speaker now 
 before the public who so readily and usefully, and with 
 so little appearance of effort, infuses the results of very 
 extensive reading and very deep research into the com 
 mon, every-day business of Parliament. But his learn 
 ing never tyrannizes over his common sense. 7 * The 
 
 * Francis s Orators of the Age. 
 
PREFACE, 
 
 political liberality and principle of free development, 
 the honorable and humanitarian spirit of these speeches 
 ,are as obvious. 
 
 The following speeches, which are now for the first 
 time brought together, are reprinted in a connected and 
 complete series from the standard authority, Hansard s 
 Parliamentary Debates. They embrace the whole of the 
 distinguished orator s course in the House of Commons, 
 from 1830 to the present day. Among them will be 
 found in due chronological order, the several speeches 
 on the Reform Bill, which brought the orator so promi 
 nently forward in the arena of the House of Commons 
 and before the world, in his vindication of the exten 
 sion of the suffrage and the principles of representation, 
 supported by every resource of wit, skilful argument, 
 ingenuity of detail, and historical precedent, including 
 those memorable passages, on the lessons of the French 
 and English Revolutions ; the discussion of questions 
 growing out of the agitations in Ireland in 1833, and 
 later, the measures of repression, the reform of the Pro 
 testant Church Establishment, the Maynooth College 
 Bill ; his eloquent review of the East India policy, which 
 recalls the triumphs of Burke ; his Copyright speeches, 
 in which he places literary property on the ground of 
 expediency ; his views on the Corn Laws, the Ballot, 
 the Charter petition, the Dissenters Chapel Bill ; his 
 remarks on the Treaty of Washington ; with many dis 
 cussions incidental to these and other important topics, 
 springing up during his Parliamentary career. 
 
 Thomas Babington Macaulay was born in 1800. In 
 1818 he entered Trinity College, Cambridge, obtaining 
 
a fellowship of that college in 1824. He then became 
 a law student at Lincoln s Inn, and was called to the 
 bar in 1826. At this period he laid the foundation 
 of his literary fame by his celebrated articles in the 
 Edinburgh Review (one of the earliest of which, a paper 
 on the Reform Question, is printed in the present 
 volumes), having previously given some brilliant poems 
 and sketches to Knight s Quarterly Magazine. We find 
 him in 1830 in Parliament under the nomination system, 
 sitting for the Marquis of Lansdowne s borough of Calne 
 before the Reform Bill. He was elected member for 
 Leeds in 1833, but soon resigned his seat to proceed 
 to India as member of the Supreme Council of Calcutta, 
 where he was at the head of the Commission for the 
 Reform of East India Legislation. In 1838 he returned 
 to England, and shortly afterwards was elected member 
 for Edinburgh. In 1839 he joined the Cabinet as Secre 
 tary at War, supporting the Whig cause by some of his 
 most vigorous speeches. His course in the advocacy of 
 the Maynooth Grant probably lost him his election at 
 Edinburgh in 1847. He was installed Rector of the 
 University of Glasgow in 1849, and, as is well known, 
 employed his time out of Parliament up to his re-elec 
 tion in the present year, in the composition of his 
 History of England. His Lays of Ancient Rome, pub 
 lished in 1842, are a noble illustration of the poetic 
 force with which he revivifies the dead facts of history. 
 As some curiosity may be felt in this connexion to 
 know something of Macaulay s personal manner as a 
 speaker, we may add that, Mr. Francis describes his 
 voice as " monotonous, pitched in alto, shrill, pouring 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 forth words with inconceivable velocity a voice well 
 adapted to give utterance with precision to the conclu 
 sions of the intellect, but in no way naturally formed 
 to express feeling or passion." His face is described as 
 " literally instinct with expression : the eye, above all, 
 full of deep thought and meaning." In stature, he is 
 short and stout. 
 
 Macaulay must always be listened ,to and read with 
 pleasure, for the brilliant light he constantly throws 
 upon his object, whatever its character. Passing over his 
 great efforts in the following collection, we may refer 
 for an example of the force of picturesque treatment, 
 condensing and illuminating the argument, to the very 
 neat little casual speech on the Anatomy Bill, with its 
 prompt disposition of the comparative interests of rich 
 and poor in the question. It shows how a man of 
 genius may give value to every occasion. 
 
 New York, January, 1863. 
 

 CONTENTS OF VOL. I. 
 
 PAQB 
 
 English Politics in 1827. From the Edinburgh Review for January, 
 
 1827 9 
 
 State of Parties. (A Sequel to the Preceding.) From the Edinburgh 
 
 Review for October, 1827 40 
 
 Speech in the House of Commons, on the "Bill to Repeal the Civil 
 Disabilities affecting British-born Subjects professing the Jewish 
 Religion." April 5, 1830 63 
 
 Slavery in the West Indies. On the Presentation of a Petition of 
 West India Planters, and others interested in Property in the 
 West Indies. December 13, 1830 71 
 
 Parliamentary Reform. In the Adjourned Debate on the Motion, 
 " that leave be given to bring in a Bill to Amend the Representa 
 tion of the People of England and Wales." March 2, 1831 _.__ 75 
 
 Parliamentary Reform. On the Adjourned Debate on the Second 
 Reading of Lord John Russell s Parliamentary Reform Bill for 
 Ireland. July 5, 1831 93 
 
 Parliamentary Reform. On the Third Reading of the Reform Bill for 
 
 England. September 20, 1831 105 
 
 State of the Nation. October 10, 1831 121 
 
 Parliamentary Reform. December 16, 1831 132 
 
 The Anatomy Bill. February 27, 1832 . . . . . . .148 
 
 Parliamentary Reform. The Bill for England, Committee, Seven 
 teenth Day. February 28, 1832 151 
 
 Parliamentary Reform. On the Third Reading of the Bill for Eng 
 land. March 19, 1832 160 
 
 The Resignation of Ministers. May 10, 1832 176 
 
 Slavery in the Colonies. May 24, 1832 187 
 
viii CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Russian-Dutch Loan. July 12, 1832 191 
 
 The Affairs of the Country. February 6, 1833 200 
 
 The Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. February 28, 1833 . . . .217 
 
 Church Reform, Ireland. April 1, 1833 230 
 
 The East-India Company s Charter Bill. July 10, 1833 . . . 242 
 
 Ministerial Plan for the Abolition of Slavery. July 24, 1833 . . 282 
 
 The Ballot. June 18, 1839 291 
 
 Confidence in the Ministry. January 29, 1840 .... 309 
 
 Vote of Thanks to the Indian Army. February 6, 1840 . . . 882 
 
 Privilege Stockdale v. Hansard Bill to secure Publication. March 6, 
 
 1840 . . . . 835 
 
 The Army Estimates. March 9, 1840 343 
 
 The War with China. April 7, 1840 . . . ... 354 
 
 Colonial Passengers Bill. June 4, 1840 373 
 
 Registration of Voters Ireland. June 19, 1840 .... 377 
 
 Copyright Bill. February 5, 1841 ,387 
 
MACAULAY S SPEECHES. 
 
 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827.* 
 
 The New Antijacobin Review. Nos. I. and II. 8vo. London, 
 
 1827. 
 
 WE ought to apologize to our readers for prefixing to this article 
 the name of such a publication. The two numbers which lie on 
 our table contain nothing which could be endured, even at a 
 dinner of the Pitt Club, unless, as the newspapers express it, the 
 hilarity had been continued to a very late hour. We have met, 
 we confess, with nobody who has ever seen them ; and, should our 
 account excite any curiosity respecting them, we fear that an 
 application to the booksellers will already be too late. Some 
 tidings of them may perhaps be obtained from the trunk-makers. 
 In order to console our readers, however, under this disappoint 
 ment, we will venture to assure them, that the only subject on 
 which the reasonings of these Antijacobin Reviewers throw any 
 light, is one in which we take very little interest the state of 
 their own understandings ; and that the only feeling which their 
 
 * From the Edinburgh Review, Jan. 1827. 
 
 NOTE. This article and the following one, which have not been collected 
 in the edition of Macaulay s Edinburgh Review articles, are here printed 
 as an appropriate introduction of the celebrated Speeches on the Reform 
 Bill, to several of the leading points of which they offer no slight resem 
 blances. 
 
 i* 
 
10 ENGLISH POLITICS IW 1827. 
 
 pathetic appeals have excited in us, is that of deep regret for our 
 four shillings, which are gone and will return no more. 
 
 It is not a very cleanly, or a very agreeable task, to rake up 
 from the kennels of oblivion the remains of drowned abortions, 
 which have never opened their eyes on the day, or even been 
 heard to whimper, but have been at once transferred from the filth 
 in which they were littered, to the filth with which they are to rot. 
 But unhappily we have no choice. Bad as this work is, it is 
 quite as good as any which has appeared against the present 
 administration. We have looked everywhere, without being able 
 to find any antagonist who can possibly be as much ashamed of 
 defeat as we shall be of victory. 
 
 The manner in which the influence of the press <has, at this 
 crisis, been exercised, is, indeed, very remarkable. All the talent 
 has been on one side. With an unanimity which, as Lord 
 Londonderry wisely supposes, can be ascribed only to a dexterous 
 ase of the secret-service money, the able and respectable journals 
 of the metropolis have all supported the new government. It has 
 been attacked, on the other hand, by writers who make every 
 sause which they espouse despicable or odious, by one paper 
 which owes all its notoriety to its reports of the slang uttered by 
 drunken lads who are brought to Bow Street for breaking windows 
 by another, which barely contrives to subsist on intelligence 
 from butlers, and advertisements from perfumers. With these are 
 joined all the scribblers who rest their claim to orthodoxy and 
 loyalty on the perfection to which they have carried the arts of 
 ribaldry and slander. What part these gentlemen would take in 
 the present contest, seemed at first doubtful. We feared, for a 
 moment, that their servility might overpower their malignity, and 
 that they would be even more inclined to flatter the powerful than 
 to calumniate the innocent. It turns out that we were mistaken ; 
 and we are most thankful for it. They have been kind enough to 
 spare us the discredit of their alliance. We know not how we 
 

 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 11 
 
 should have borne to be of the same party with them. It is bad 
 enough, God knows, to be of the same species. 
 
 The writers of the book before us, \\ho are also, we believe, the 
 great majority of its readers, can scarcely be said to belong to this 
 class. They rather resemble those snakes with which Indian 
 jugglers perform so many curious tricks : The bags of venom 
 are left, but the teeth are extracted. That they might omit 
 nothing tending to make them ridiculous, they have adopted a 
 title on which no judicious writer would have ventured ; and 
 challenged comparison with one of the most ingenious and amus 
 ing volumes in our language. Whether they have assumed this 
 name on the principle which influenced Mr. Shandy in christening 
 his children, or from a whim similar to that which induced the 
 proprietors of the most frightful Hottentot that ever lived, to give 
 her the name of Venus, we shall not pretend to decide ; but we 
 would seriously advise them to consider, whether it is for their 
 interest, that people should be reminded of the celebrated imita 
 tions of Darwin and Kotzebue, while they are reading such 
 parodies on the Bible as the following : " In those days, a strange 
 person shall appear in the land, and he shall cry to the people, 
 Behold, I am possessed by the Demon of Ultra-Liberalism ; I 
 have received the gift of incoherence ; I am a political philosopher, 
 and a professor of paradoxes." 
 
 We would also, with great respect, ask the gentleman who has 
 lampooned Mr. Canning in such Drydenian couplets as this 
 
 " "When he said if they would but let him in, 
 He would never try to turn them out again," 
 
 whether his performance gains much by being compared with 
 New Morality ? and, indeed, whether such satire as this is likely 
 to make anybody laugh but himself, or to make anybody wince 
 but his publisher ? 
 
12 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 But we must take leave of the New Antijacobin Review ; and 
 we do so, hoping that we have secured the gratitude of its 
 conductors. We once heard a schoolboy relate, with evident 
 satisfaction and pride, that he had been horsewhipped by a Duke : 
 we trust that our present condescension will be as highly ap 
 preciated. 
 
 But it is not for the purpose of making a scarecrow of a 
 ridiculous publication, that we address our readers at the present 
 important crisis. We are convinced, that the cause of the present 
 Ministers is the cause of liberty, the cause of toleration, the cause 
 of political science, the cause of the people, who are entitled to 
 expect from their wisdom and liberality many judicious reforms, 
 the cause of the aristocracy, who, unless those reforms be adopted, 
 must inevitably be the victims of a violent and desolating revolu 
 tion. We are convinced, that the government of the country was 
 never intrusted to men who more thoroughly understood its 
 interest, or were more sincerely disposed to promote it to men 
 who, in forming their arrangements, thought so much of what 
 they could do, and so little of what they could get. On the other 
 side, we see a party which, for ignorance, intemperance, and incon 
 sistency, has no parallel in our annals, which, as an Opposition, 
 we really think, is a scandal to the nation, and, as a Ministry, 
 would speedily be its ruin. Under these circumstances, we think 
 it our duty to give our best support to those with whose power are 
 inseparably bound up all the dearest interests of the community, 
 the freedom of worship, of discussion, and of trade, our honour 
 abroad, and our tranquillity at home. 
 
 In undertaking the defence of the Ministers, we feel ourselves 
 embarrassed by one difficulty : we are unable to comprehend 
 distinctly of what they are accused. A statement of facts may be 
 contradicted ; but the gentlemen of the Opposition do not deal in 
 statements. "Reasonings may be refuted ; but the gentlemen of 
 the Opposition do not reason. There is something impassive and 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 182*7. 13 
 
 elastic about their dulness, on which all the weapons of controversy 
 are thrown away. It makes no resistance, and receives no im 
 pression. To argue with it, is like stabbing the water, or 
 cudgelling a woolpack. Buonaparte is said to have remarked* 
 that the English soldiers at Waterloo did not know when they 
 were beaten. The Duke of Wellington, equally fortunate in 
 politics and in war, has the rare felicity of being supported a 
 second time by a force of this description, men whose desperate 
 hardihood in argument sets all assailants at defiance, who fight 
 on, though borne down on every side by overwhelming proofs, 
 rush enthusiastically into the mouth of an absurdity, or stake 
 themselves with cool intrepidity on the horn of a dilemma. We 
 doubt whether this unconquerable pertinacity be quite as honour 
 able in debate as in battle ; but we are sure, that it is a very 
 difficult task for persons trained in the old school of logical tactics 
 to contend with antagonists who possess such a quality. 
 
 The species of argument in which the members of the Oppo 
 sition appear chiefly to excel, is that of which the Marquis, in the 
 Critique de VEcole des Femmes, showed himself so great a master: 
 " Tarte a la creme morbleu, tarte a la creme !" " He bien, 
 que veux tu dire, tarte a ta creme?" "Parbleu, tarte a la creme, 
 chevalier!" " Mais encore ?" " Tarte a la creme !" Di-nous un 
 peu tes raisons." " Tarte a la creme !" " Mais il faut expliquer ta 
 pensee, ce me semble." " Tarte a la creme, Madam." " Que 
 trouvez-vouz la a redire?" " Moi, rien ; tarte a la creme!" 
 With equal taste and judgment, the writers and speakers of the 
 Opposition repeat their favourite phrases " deserted principles," 
 unnatural coalition," "base love of office." They have not, we 
 must allow, been unfortunate in their choice of a topic. The 
 English are but too much accustomed to consider every public 
 virtue as comprised in consistency ; and the name of coalition has 
 to many ears a startling and ominous sound. Of all the charges 
 
14 ENGLISH POLITICS IX 1827. 
 
 brought against the Ministry, this alone, as far we can discover, 
 has any meaning ; and even to this we can allow no force. 
 
 To condemn coalitions in the abstract, is manifestly absurd : 
 Since in a papular government, no good can be done without 
 concert, and no concert can be obtained without compromise. 
 Those who will not stoop to compliances which the condition of 
 human nature renders necessary, are fitter to be hermits than to 
 be statesmen. Their virtue, like gold which is too refined to be 
 coined, must be alloyed before it can be of any use in the commerce 
 of society. But most peculiarly inconsistent and unreasonable is 
 the conduct of those who, while they profess strong Party -feelings, 
 yet entertain a superstitious aversion to Coalitions. Every ar 
 gument which can be urged against coalitions, as such, is also an 
 argument against party connexions. Every argument by which 
 party connexions can be defended, is a defence of coalitions. 
 What coalitions are to parties, parties are to individuals. The 
 members of a party, in order to promote some great common 
 object, consent to waive all subordinate considerations : That 
 they may co-operate with more effect where they agree, they 
 contrive, by reciprocal concession, to preserve the semblance of 
 unanimity, even where they differ. Men are not thought unprin 
 cipled for acting thus; because it is evident that without such 
 mutual sacrifices of individual opinions, no government can be 
 formed, nor any important measures carried, in a world of which 
 the inhabitants resemble each other so little, and depend on each 
 other so much, in w r hich there are as many varieties of mind as of 
 countenance, yet in which great effects can be produced only by 
 combined exertions. We must extend the same indulgence to a 
 coalition between parties. If they agree on every important prac 
 tical question, if they differ only about objects which are either 
 insignificant or unattainable, no party man can, on his own 
 principles, blame them for uniting. These doctrines, like all other 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 15 
 
 doctrines, may be pushed to extremes by the injudicious, or 
 employed by the designing as a pretext for profligacy. But that 
 they are not in themselves unreasonable or pernicious, the whole 
 history of our country proves. 
 
 The Revolution itself was the fruit of a coalition between parties, 
 which had attacked each other with a fury unknown in later times. 
 In the preceding generation their hostility had covered England 
 with blood and mourning. They had subsequently exchanged 
 the sword for the axe : But their enmity was not the less deadly 
 because it was disguised by the forms of justice. By popular 
 clamour, by infamous testimony, by perverted law, they had shed 
 innocent and noble blood like water. Yet all their animosities 
 were forgotten in the sense of their common danger. Whigs and 
 Tories signed the same associations. Bishops and field-preachers 
 thundered out the same exhortations. The doctors of Oxford and 
 the goldsmiths of London sent in their plate with equal zeal. The 
 administration which, in the reign of Queen Anne, defended 
 Holland, rescued Germany, conquered Flanders, dismembered the 
 monarchy of Spain, shook the throne of France, vindicated the in 
 dependence of Europe, and established the empire of the sea, was 
 formed by a junction between men who had many political contests 
 and many personal injuries to forget. Somers had been a member 
 of the ministry which had sent Marlborough to the Tower. Marl- 
 borough had assisted in harassing Somers by a vexatious im 
 peachment. But would these great men have acted wisely or 
 honourably if, on such grounds, they had refused to serve their 
 country in concert? The Cabinet which conducted the seven 
 years war with such distinguished ability and success, was com 
 posed of members who had a short time before been leaders of 
 opposite parties. The Union between Fox and North is, we own, 
 condemned by that argument which it will never be possible to 
 answer in a manner satisfactory to the great body of mankind, 
 the argument from the event. But we should feel some surprise at 
 
16 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 the dislike which some zealous Pittites affect to entertain for 
 coalitions, did we not know that a Pittite means, in the phraseolo 
 gy of the present day, a person who differs from Mr. Pitt on 
 every subject of importance. There are, indeed, two Pitts, the 
 real and the imaginary, the Pitt of history, a Parliamentary 
 reformer, (an enemy of the Test and Corporation Acts,) an advocate 
 of Catholic Emancipation and of free trade, and the canonized 
 Pitt of the legend, as unlike to his namesake as Virgil the 
 magician to Virgil the Poet, or St. James the slayer of Moors to St- 
 James the fisherman. What may have been the opinions of that 
 unreal being whose birth-day is celebrated by libations to Protes 
 tant Ascendency, on the subject of coalitions, we leave it to his 
 veracious hagiographers, Lord Eldon and Lord Westmoreland, to 
 determine. The sentiments of the real Mr. Pitt may be easily 
 ascertained from his conduct. At the time of the revolutionary 
 war he admitted to participation in his power those who had 
 formerly been his most determined enemies. In 1804 he connected 
 himself with Mr. Fox, and, on his return to office, attempted to 
 procure a high situation in the government for his new ally. One 
 more instance we will mention, which has little weight with us, but 
 which ought to have much weight with our opponents. They 
 talk of Mr. Pitt ; but the real object of their adoration is unques 
 tionably the late Mr. Percival, a gentleman whose acknowledged 
 private virtues were but a poor compensation to his country for 
 the narrowness and feebleness of his policy. In 1809 that minister 
 offered to serve not only with Lord Grenville and Earl Grey, but 
 even under them. No approximation of feeling between the 
 members of the government and their opponents had then taken 
 place : there had not even been the slightest remission of hos 
 tilities. On no question of foreign or domestic policy were the 
 two parties agreed. Yet tinder such circumstances was this 
 proposition made. It was, as might have been anticipated, re 
 jected by the Whigs, and derided by the country. But the 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 17 
 
 recollection of it ought certainly to prevent those who concuired 
 in it, and their devoted followers, from talking of the baseness and 
 selfishness of coalitions. 
 
 These general reasonings, it may be said, are superfluous. It is 
 not to coalitions in the abstract, but to the present coalition in 
 particular, that objection is made. We answer, that an attack on 
 the present coalition can only be maintained by succeeding in the 
 most signal way in an attack on coalitions in the abstract. For 
 never has the world seen, and never is it likely to see, a junction 
 between parties agreeing on so many points, and differing on so 
 few. The Whigs and the supporters of Mr. Canning were united 
 in principle. They were separated only by names, by badges, and 
 by recollections. Opposition, on such grounds as these, would 
 have been disgraceful to English statesmen. It would have been as 
 unreasonable and as profligate as the disputes of the blue and green 
 factions in the Hippodrome of Constantinople. One man admires 
 Mr. Pitt, and another Mr. Fox. Are they therefore never to act 
 together? Mr. Pitt and Mr. Fox were themselves willing to 
 coalesce while they were alive ; and it would therefore be strange, 
 if, after they have been lying for twenty years in Westminster 
 Abbey, their names should keep parties asunder. One man 
 approves of the revolutionary war. Another thinks it unjust and 
 impolitic. But the war is over. It is now merely a matter of 
 historical controversy. And the statesman who should require his 
 colleagues to adopt his confession of faith respecting it, would act 
 as madly as Don Quixote when he went to blows with Cardenio 
 about the chastity of Queen Madasima. On these points, and on 
 many such points as "these, our new ministers, no doubt, hold 
 different opinions. They may also, for aught we know, hold 
 different opinions about the title of Perkin Warbeck, and the 
 genuineness of the Eixwv BatfiXpoj. But we shall hardly, on such 
 grounds as these, pronounce their union a sacrifice of principle to 
 place. 
 
18 . ENGLISH POLITICS IN 182Y. 
 
 It is, in short, of very little importance whether the parties 
 which have lately united entertain the same sentiments respecting 
 things which have been done and cannot be undone. It is of as 
 little importance whether they have adopted the same speculative 
 notions on questions which could not at present be brought 
 forward with the slightest chance of success, and which, in all 
 probability, they will never be required to discuss. The real 
 questions are these : Do they differ as to the policy which present 
 circumstances require? Or is any great cause, which they may 
 have heretofore espoused, placed in a more unfavourable situation 
 by their junction ? 
 
 That this is the case, no person has even attempted to prove. 
 Bold assertions have indeed been made by a class of writers, who 
 seem to think that their readers are as completely destitute of 
 memory as they themselves are of shame. For the last two years 
 they have been abusing Mr. Canning for adopting the principles 
 of the Whigs ; and they now exclaim that, in joining Mr. Canning, 
 the Whigs have abandoned all their principles ! " The Whigs," said 
 one of their writers, but a few m- -nths ago, " are exercising more 
 real power by means of the present Ministers than if they were 
 themselves in office." " The Ministers," said another, " are no 
 longer Tories. What they call conciliation is mere Whiggism." 
 A third observed that the jest of Mr. Canning about Dennis and 
 his thunder had lost all its point, and that it was a lamentable 
 truth, that all the late measures of the government seemed to 
 have been dictated by the Whigs. Yet. these very authors have 
 now the effrontery to assert that the Whigs could not possibly 
 support Mr. Canning without renouncing every opinion which 
 they had formerly professed. 
 
 We confidently affirm, on the other hand, that no principle 
 whatever has been sacrificed. With respect to our foreign relations 
 and our commercial policy, the two parties have for years been 
 perfectly agreed. On the Catholic question the views of the 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 19 
 
 Whigs are the same with those of a great majority of their new 
 colleagues. It is true that, in an illustrious assembly, which was 
 formerly suspected of great dulness and great decorum, and 
 which has of late effectually redeemed itself from one half of the 
 reproach, the conduct of the Whigs towards the Catholics has been 
 represented in a very unfavourable light. The arguments employed 
 against them belong, we suppose, to a kind of logic which the 
 privileged orders alone are qualified to use, and which, with their 
 other constitutional distinctions, we earnestly pray that they may 
 long keep to themselves. An ingenious member of this assembly 
 is said to have observed, that the Protestant alarmists were bound 
 to oppose the new Ministers as friends to the Catholic cause, and 
 that the Catholics ought to oppose them as traitors to the same 
 cause. He reminded the former of the infinite danger of trusting 
 power to a Cabinet composed principally of persons favourable to 
 emancipation : and, at the same time, pointed the indignation of 
 the latter against the perfidy of the pretended friends who had 
 not stipulated that emancipation should be made a ministerial 
 measure ! We cannot sufficiently admire the exquisite dexterity of 
 an assailant who, in the same breath, blames the same people for 
 doing, and for not doing the same thing. To ordinary plebeian 
 understandings we should think it undeniable that the Catholic 
 question must be now either in the same situation in which it 
 was before the late change ; or it must have lost ; or it must have 
 gained. If it have gained, the Whigs are justified ; if it have lost, 
 the enemies of the claims ought zealously to support the new 
 government ; if it be exactly where it was before, no person who 
 acted with Lord Liverpool can, on this ground, consistently oppose 
 Mr. Canning. 
 
 In this view, indeed, the cause of the Whigs is the cause of the 
 ministers who have seceded from the Cabinet. Both parties have 
 put in the same plea ; and both must be acquitted or condemned 
 
20 JCNGLISjH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 together. If it be allowed that the elevation of Mr. Canning was 
 not an event favourable to the Catholic cause, the Whigs will 
 certainly stand convicted of inconsistency. But at the same time, 
 the only argument by which the ex-Ministers have attempted to 
 vindicate their secession, must fall to the ground; and it will be 
 difficult to consider that proceeding in any other light than as 
 a factious expedient to which they have resorted, in order to 
 embarrass a colleague whom they envied. If, on the other hand, 
 the effect of the late change were such, that it became tke duty of 
 those who objected to Catholic Emancipation, to decline all con 
 nexion with the Ministry, it must surely have become, at the same 
 time, the duty of the friends of Emancipation to support the 
 Ministry. Those who take the one ground, when their object is to 
 vindicate the seceders, and the other, when their object is to 
 blacken the Whigs, who, in the same speech, do not scruple to 
 represent the Catholic cause as triumphant and as hopeless, may, 
 we fear, draw down some ridicule on themselves, but will hardly 
 convince the country. But why did not the Whigs stipulate that 
 some proposition for the relief of the Catholics should be immedi 
 ately brought forward, and supported by the whole influence of the 
 Administration I We answer, simply because they could not 
 obtain such conditions, and because, by insisting upon them, they 
 would have irreparably injured those whom they meant to serve, 
 and have thrown the government into the hands of men who 
 would have employed all its power and patronage to support a 
 system w r hich, we do not scruple to say, is the shame of England, 
 and the curse of Ireland. By the course which they have taken, 
 they have insured to the sister kingdom every alleviation which 
 its calamities can receive from the lenient administration of an 
 oppressive system. Under their government, it will at least be no 
 man s interest to espouse the side of bigotry. Truth will have a 
 fair chance against prejudice. And whenever the dislike with 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 21 
 
 which the majority of the English people regard the Catholic 
 claims shall have been overcome by discussion, no other obstacle 
 will remain to be surmounted. 
 
 The friends of the Catholics have, indeed, too long kept out of 
 sight the real difficulty which impedes the progress of all measures 
 for their relief. There has been a nervous reluctance perhaps 
 a natural unwillingness, to approach this subject. Yet it is of the 
 utmost importance that it should at last be fully understood. The 
 difficulty, we believe, is neither with the King nor with the Ca 
 binet, neither with the Commons nor with the Lords. It is 
 with the People of England ; and not with the corrupt, not with 
 the servile, not with the rude and uneducated, not with the disso 
 lute and turbulent, but with the great body of the middling 
 orders ; of those who live in comfort, and have received some 
 instruction. Of the higher classes, the decided majority is, beyond 
 all dispute, with the Catholics. The lower classes care nothing at 
 all about the question. It is among those whose influence is 
 generally exerted for the most salutary purposes, among those 
 from whom liberal statesmen have, in general, received the 
 strongest support, among those who feel the deepest detestation 
 of oppression and corruption, that erroneous opinions on this 
 subject are most frequent. A faction with which they have no 
 other feeling in common, has, on this question, repeatedly made 
 them its tools, and has diverted their attention more than once 
 from its own folly and profligacy, by raising the cry of No Popery. 
 They have espoused their opinions, not from want of honesty, not 
 from want of sense, but simply from want of information and 
 reflection. They think as the most enlightened men in England 
 thought seventy or eighty years ago. Pulteney and Pelham 
 would no more have given political power to Papists than to 
 ourang-outangs. A proposition for mitigating the severity of the 
 penal laws would, in their time, have been received with suspicion. 
 The full discussion which the subject has since undergone, has 
 
22 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 produced a great change. , Among intelligent men in that rank of 
 life from which our ministers and the members of our legislature 
 are selected, the feeling in favour of concession is strong and 
 general. But, unfortunately, sufficient attention has not been 
 paid to a lower, but most influential and respectable class. The 
 friends of the Catholic claims, content with numbering in their 
 ranks all the most distinguished statesmen of two generations, 
 proud of lists of minorities and majorities adorned by every name 
 which commands the respect of the country, have not sufficiently 
 exerted themselves to combat popular prejudices. Pamphlets 
 against Emancipation are circulated, and no answers appear. 
 Sermons are preached against it, and no pains are taken to oblite 
 rate the impression. The rector carries a petition round to every 
 shopkeeper and every farmer in his parish, talks of Smithfield and 
 the inquisition. Bishop Bonner and Judge Jeffries. No person 
 takes the trouble to canvass on the other side. At an election, the 
 candidate who is favourable to the Catholic claims, is almost always 
 content to stand on the defensive. He shrinks from the odium of 
 a bold avowal. While his antagonist asserts and reviles, he 
 palliates, evades, and distinguishes. He is unwilling to give a 
 pledge : he has not made up his mind : he hopes that adequate 
 securities for the Church may be obtained : he will wait to see how 
 the Catholic States of South America behave themselves ! And 
 thus, as fast as he can, he gets away from the obnoxious subject, 
 to retrenchment, reform, or negro slavery. If such a man succeeds, 
 his vote does not benefit the Catholics half so much as his shuffling 
 injures them. How can the people understand the question, when 
 those whose business is to enlighten them, will not state it to them 
 plainly ? Is it strange that they should dislike a cause of which 
 almost all its advocates seem to be ashamed? If, at the late 
 election, all our public men who are favourable to Emancipation 
 had dared to speak out, had introduced the subject of their own 
 accord, and discussed it day after day, they might have lost a few 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 23 
 
 votes ; they might have been compelled to face a few dead cats ; 
 but they would have put down the prejudice effectually. Five or 
 six friends of the claims might have been unseated, but the claims 
 would have been carried. 
 
 The popular aversion to them is an honest aversion ; according 
 to the measure of knowledge which the people possess, it is a just 
 aversion. It has been reasoned down wherever the experiment 
 has been fearlessly tried. It may be reasoned down everywhere. 
 The war should be carried on in every quarter. No misrepresen 
 tation should be suffered to pass unrefuted. When a silly letter 
 from Philo-Melancthon, or Anti-Doyle, about the Coronation Oath, 
 or divided allegiance, makes its appearance in the corner of a 
 provincial newspaper, it will not do merely to say " What stuff !" 
 We must remember that such statements constantly reiterated, 
 and seldom answered, will assuredly be believed. Plain, spirited, 
 moderate treatises on the subject, should find their way into every 
 cottage; not such rancorous nonsense as that for which the 
 Catholics formerly contracted with the fiercest and basest libeller 
 of the age, the apostate politician, the fraudulent debtor, the 
 ungrateful friend, whom England has twice spewed out to 
 America ; whom America, though far from squeamish, has twice 
 vomited back to England. They will not, they may be assured, 
 serve their cause by pouring forth unmeasured abuse on men 
 whose memory is justly dear to the hearts of a great people ; 
 men mighty even in their weaknesses, and wise even in their 
 fanaticism ; the goodly fellowship of our reformers, the noble 
 army of our martyrs. Their scandal about Queen Elizabeth, and 
 their wood-cuts of the devil whispering in the ear of John Fox, 
 will produce nothing but disgust. They must conduct the con 
 troversy with good sense and good temper, and there cannot be 
 the slightest doubt of the issue. But of this they may be fully 
 assured, that, while the general feeling of the Nation remains 
 unchanged, a Ministry which should stake its existence on the 
 
24 ENGLISH "POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 success of their claims, would ruin itself, without benefiting 
 them. 
 
 The conduct of the Catholics, on the present occasion, deserves 
 the highest praise. They have shown that experience has at last 
 taught them to know their enemies from their friends. Indeed, 
 there are few scenes in this tragicomic world of ours more amusing 
 than that which the leaders of the Opposition are now performing. 
 The very men who have so long obstructed Emancipation who 
 have stirred up the public feeling in England against Emancipation, 
 who, in fine, have just resigned their offices, because a supporter 
 of Emancipation was placed at the head of the government, are 
 now weeping over the disappointed hopes of the poor Papists, and 
 execrating the perfidious Whigs who have taken office without 
 stipulating for their relief! The Catholics are, in the meantime, in 
 the highest spirits, congratulating themselves on the success of 
 their old friends, and laughing at the condoling visages of their 
 new champions. 
 
 Something not very dissimilar is taking place with respect to 
 Parliamentary Reform. The reformers are delighted with the new 
 Ministry. Their opponents are trying to convince them that they 
 ought to be dissatisfied with it. The Whigs, we suppose, ought to 
 have insisted that Reform should be made a Ministerial measure. 
 We will not at present inquire whether they have, as a body, ever 
 declared any decided opinion on the subject. A much shorter 
 answer will suffice. Be Reform good or bad, it is at present 
 evidently unattainable. No man can, by coming into office, or by 
 going out of office, either effect it or prevent it. As we are arguing 
 with people who are more influenced by one name than by ten 
 reasons, we will remind them of the conduct pursued by Mr. Pitt 
 with regard to this question. At the very time when he publicly 
 pledged himself to use his whole power, " as a man and as a 
 minister, honestly and boldly" to carry a proposition of Parlia 
 mentary Reform, he was sitting in the same Cabinet with persons 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 25 
 
 decidedly hostile to every measure of the kind. At the present 
 juncture, we own that we should think it as absurd in any man to 
 decline office for the sake of this object, as it would have been in 
 Sir Thomas More to refuse the Great Seal, because he could not 
 introduce all the institutions of Utopia into England. The world 
 would be in a wretched state indeed, if no person were to accept of 
 power, under a form of government which he thinks susceptible of 
 improvement. The effect of such scrupulosity would be, that the 
 best and wisest men would always be out of place ; that all author 
 ity would be committed to those who might be too stupid or too 
 selfish to see abuses in any system by which they could profit, and 
 who, by their follies and vices, would aggravate all the evils 
 springing from defective institutions. 
 
 But were we to admit the truth of every charge which personal 
 enemies or professional slanderers have brought against the present 
 ministers of the Crown, were we to admit that they had abandoned 
 their principles, that they had betrayed the Catholics and the 
 Reformers, it would still remain to be considered, whether we 
 might not change for the worse. We trust in God that there is 
 no danger. We think that this country never will, never can, be 
 subjected to the rule of a party so weak, so violent, so osten 
 tatiously selfish, as that which is now in Opposition. Has the 
 Cabinet been formed by a coalition? How, let us ask, has the 
 Opposition been formed ? Is it not composed of men who have, all 
 their lives, been thwarting and abusing each other, Jacobins, 
 Whigs, Tories, friends of Catholic Emancipation, enemies of 
 Catholic Emancipation, men united only by their common love 
 of high rents, by their common envy of superior abilities, by their 
 common wish to depress the people and to dictate to the throne ? 
 Did Lord Lansdowne at any time differ so widely from Mr. 
 Canning as Lord Redesdale from Lord Lauderdale sometime 
 needle-maker, and candidate for the shrievalty of London ? Are 
 the Ministers charged with deserting their opinions ? and can we 
 VOL. I. 2 
 
26 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 find no instance of miraculous conversion on the left of the 
 woolsack ? What was the influence which transformed the Friend 
 of the People into an aristocrat, " resolved to stand or fall with his 
 order?" Whence was the sudden illumination, which at once 
 disclosed to all the discarded Ministers the imperfections of the 
 Corn Bill ? Let us suppose that the Whigs had, as a party, 
 brought forward some great measure before the late changes, that 
 they had carried it through the Commons, that they had sent it 
 up, with the fairest prospect of success, to the Lords, and that they 
 had then, in order to gratify Mr. Canning, consented, in the face 
 of all their previous declarations, to defeat it, what a tempest of 
 execration and derision would have burst upon them ! Yet the 
 conduct of the Ex-Ministers, according to the best lights we can 
 obtain upon it, was even more culpable than this. Not content 
 with doing a bad thing, they did it in the worst way. The bill 
 which had been prepared by the leader for whom they professed 
 boundless veneration, which had been brought in under their own 
 sanction, which, as they positively declared, had received their 
 fullest consideration, which one of themselves had undertaken to 
 conduct through the House of Lords, that very bill they contrived 
 to defeat : and, in the act of defeating it, they attempted to lay 
 upon the colleagues whom they had deserted, the burden of public 
 resentment which they alone had incurred. We would speak with 
 indulgence of men who had done their country noble service before 
 and of many of whom, individually, it must be impossible to 
 think otherwise than with respect. But the scene lately passed 
 in that great assembly has afflicted and disgusted the country at 
 large ; and it is not the least of its evil consequences, that it has 
 lessened in the public estimation, not only a body which ought 
 always to be looked up to with respect, but many individuals of 
 whose motives we cannot bring ourselves to judge unfavourably, 
 and from whose high qualities we trust the country may yet 
 receive both benefit and honour. Mr. Peel fortunately did not 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 27 
 
 expose himself quite as effectually as his associates; though we 
 regret that the tone he adopted was so undecided and equivocal. 
 It was not for him to pronounce any judgment on the wisdom of 
 their conduct. He was fully convinced of the purity of their 
 motives. And finally it was the eighteenth of June ! a day on 
 which, it seems, the Duke of Wellington is privileged to commit 
 all sorts of mischief with impunity to the end of his life. The 
 Duke of Wellington, however, though the part which he took was 
 unfortunately prominent, seems to have been comparatively inno 
 cent. He might not, while in office, have paid much attention to 
 the measure in its original form. He might not have understood 
 the real nature of his own unlucky amendment. But what were 
 the motives of Earl Bathurst ? Or where were they when he under 
 took the care of the bill in its former shape ? Nothing had been 
 changed since, excepting his own situation. And it would be the 
 very madness of charity to believe, that, if he had still been a 
 colleague of Lord Liverpool, or had been able to come to terms 
 with Mr. Canning, he would have pursued such a line of conduct. 
 Culpably as all his coadjutors have acted in this transaction, his 
 share of it is the most indefensible. 
 
 And it is for these, men, for men who, before they have been 
 two months out of office, have retracted the declarations which 
 they made on a most important subject just before they quitted 
 office, that we are to discard the present ministers, as inconsistent 
 and unprincipled ! And these men are the idols of those who 
 entertain so virtuous a loathing for unnatural coalitions, and base 
 compromises. These men think themselves entitled to boast of 
 the purity of their public virtues, and to repel, with indignant 
 amazement, any imputation of interested or factious motives. 
 
 We dwell long on this event; because it is one which enables 
 the country to estimate correctly the practical principles of those 
 who, if the present ministers should fall, will assuredly take their 
 
28 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 places. To call their conduct merely factious, is to deal with it far 
 too mildly. It has been factious at the expense of consistency, and 
 of all concern for the wishes and interests of the people. Was 
 there no other mode of embarrassing the government ? Could no 
 other opportunity be found or made for a division ? Was there no 
 other pledge which could be violated, if not with less awkwardness 
 to themselves, at least with less injury to the state? Was it 
 necessary that they should make a handle of a question on which 
 the passions of the people were roused to the highest point, and 
 on which its daily bread might depend that they should condemn 
 the country to another year of agitation, and expose it to dangers, 
 which, only a few months before, they had themselves thought it 
 necessary to avert, by advising an extraordinary exercise of the 
 prerogative ? There is one explanation, and only one. They were 
 out, and they longed to be in. Decency, consistency, the prospe 
 rity and peace of the country, were as dust in the balance. They 
 knew this question had divided men who were generally united, 
 and united others who were usually opposed ; and though they 
 themselves had already taken their part with their colleagues in 
 office and the more intelligent part of their habitual opponents, 
 they did not scruple, for the sake of embarrassing those they had 
 deserted, to purchase tfie appearance of a numerous following, by 
 opposing a measure jivhich they had themselves concocted, and 
 pledged themselves (6 support. From the expedients to which 
 they have resorted in /Opposition, we may judge of what we have 
 to expect if they should ever return to office. 
 
 They will return too, it must be remembered, not, as before, the 
 colleagues of men by whose superior talents they were overawed, 
 and to whose beneficial measures they were often compelled to 
 yield a reluctant consent. The late change has separated the 
 greater part of them from all such associates for ever : it has 
 divided the light from the darkness : it has set all the wisdom, all 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 29 
 
 the liberality, all the public spirit on one side ; the imbecility, the 
 bigotry, and the rashness on the other. If they rule again, they 
 will rule alone. 
 
 They will return to situations which they will owe neither to 
 their talents nor to their virtues, neither to the choice of their King 
 nor to the love of their country ; but solely to the support of an 
 Oligarchical Faction, richly endowed with every quality which 
 ensures to its possessors the hatred of a nation, a faction arbitrary, 
 bigoted, and insolent, a faction which makes parade of its 
 contempt for the dearest interests of mankind, which loves to 
 make the people feel of how little weight, in its deliberations, is 
 the consideration of their happiness. 
 
 On this party, and on this alone, must such ministers,- returning 
 from such a secession, rely to uphold them against the public 
 opinion, against the wishes of a King who has wisely and nobly 
 performed his duty to the state, against \he most beloved and 
 respected portion of the aristocracy, against a formidable union of 
 all the great statesmen and orators of the age. It was believed by 
 those of whose wisdom Lord Eldon and the Duke of Newcastle 
 think with reverence, that, in the bond between a sorcerer and his 
 familiar demon, there was a stipulation that the gifts bestowed by 
 the Powers of Evil should never be employed but for purposes of 
 evil. Omnipotent for mischief, these obligors of the fiend were 
 powerless for good. Such will be the compact between the Ex-Mi 
 nisters, if ever they should return to power, and the only party which 
 can then support them. That they may be masters, they must be 
 slaves. They will be able to stand only by abject submission and 
 by boundless profusion by giving up the People to be oppressed, 
 first for the profit of the Great, and then for their amusement, by 
 corn-laws, and game-laws, and pensions for Lord Robert, and places 
 for Lord John. 
 
 They will return pledged to oppose every reform, to maintain a 
 constant struggle against the spirit of the age, to defend abuses to 
 
30 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 which the nation is every day becoming more quick-sighted. 
 Even Mr. Peel, i unluckily, he should at last identify himself 
 with their faction, must restrain his propensity to innovation. 
 Mutterings have already been heard in high places against his 
 tendencies to liberality ; and all his schemes for the reformation of 
 our code or our courts must be abandoned. 
 
 Then will come all those desperate and cruel expedients of which 
 none but bad governments stand in need. The press is trou 
 blesome. There must be fresh laws against the press. Secret 
 societies are formed. The Habeas Corpus act must be suspended. 
 The people are distressed and tumultuous. They must be kept 
 down by force. The army must be increased ; and the taxes must 
 be increase^. Then the distress and tumult are increased : and 
 then the army must be increased again ! The country will be 
 governed as a child is governed by an ill-tempered nurse, first 
 beaten till it cries, and then beaten because it cries ! 
 
 Our firm conviction is, that if the seceders return to office, they 
 will act thus ; and that they will not have the power, even if they 
 should have the inclination, to act otherwise. And what must the 
 end of these things be? We answer, without hesitation, that, if 
 this course be persisted in, if these counsels and these counsellors 
 are maintained, the end must be, a revolution, a bloody and 
 unsparing revolution a revolution which will make the ears of 
 those who hear of it tingle in the remotest countries, and in the 
 remotest times. The middling orders in England are, we well 
 know, attached to the institutions of their country, but not with a. 
 blindly partial attachment. They see the merits of the system; 
 but they also see its faults ; and they have a strong and growing 
 desire that these faults should be removed. If, while their wish 
 for improvement is becoming stronger and stronger, the govern 
 ment is to become worse and worse, the consequences are obvious. 
 Even now, it is impossible to disguise, that there is arising in the 
 bosom of that class a Republican sect, as audacious, as paradoxical, 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 31 
 
 as little inclined to respect antiquity, as enthusiastically attached to 
 its ends, as unscrupulous in the choice of its means, as the French 
 Jacobins themselves, but far superior to the French Jacobins in 
 acuteness and information in caution, in patience, and in reso 
 lution. They are men whose minds have been put into training 
 for violent exertion. All that is merely ornamental all that gives 
 the roundness, the smoothness, and the bloom, has been exsuded. 
 Nothing is left but nerve, and muscle, and bone. Their love of 
 liberty is no boyish fancy. It is not nourished by rhetoric, and it 
 does not evaporate in rhetoric. They care nothing for Leonidas, 
 and Epaminondas, and Brutus, and Codes. They profess to 
 derive their opinions fiom demonstration alone ; and are never so 
 little satisfied with the m as when they see them exhibited in a 
 romantic form. Metaphysical and political science engage their 
 whole attention. Phi! >sophical pride has done for them what 
 spiritual pride did for the Puritans in a former age ; it has ge 
 nerated in them an aversion for the fine arts, for elegant literature, 
 and for the sentiments of chivalry. It has made them arrogant, 
 intolerant, and impatient of all superiority. These qualities will, 
 in spite of their real claims to respect, render them unpopular, 
 as long as the people are satisfied with their rulers. But under an 
 ignorant and tyrannical ministry, obstinately opposed to the most 
 moderate and judicious innovations, their principles would spread 
 as rapidly as those of the Puritans formerly spread, in spite of 
 their offensive peculiarities. The public, disgusted with the blind 
 adherence of its rulers to ancient abuses, would be reconciled to 
 the most startling novelties. A strong democratic party would be 
 formed in the educated class. In the lowest, and most numerous 
 order of the population, those who have any opinions at all are de 
 mocrats already. In our manufacturing towns, the feeling is even 
 now formidably strong ; and it is not strange that it should be so : 
 For it is on persons in this station that the abuses of our system 
 press most heavily; while its advantages, on the other hand, 
 
32 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 are comparatively little felt by them. An abundant supply of the 
 necessaries of life is, with them, almost the only consideration. 
 The difference between an arbitrary and a limited monarchy 
 vanishes, when compared with the difference between one meal 
 a-day and three meals a-day. It is poor consolation to a man who 
 has had no breakfast, and expects no supper, that the King does 
 not possess a dispensing power, and that troops cannot be raised in 
 time of peace, without the consent of Parliament. With this class, 
 our government, free as it is, is even now as unpopular as if it 
 were despotic, nay, much more so. In despotic states, the multi 
 tude is unaccustomed to general speculations on politics. Even 
 when men suffer most severely, they look no further than the 
 proximate cause. They demand the abolition of a particular duty, 
 or tear an obnoxious individual to pieces. But they never think 
 of attacking the whole system. If Constantinople were in the 
 state in which Manchester and Leeds have lately been, there 
 would be a cry against the Grand Vizier or the bakers. The 
 head of the Vizier would be thrown to the mob, over the wall of 
 the Seraglio a score of bakers would be smothered in their own 
 ovens ; and everything would go on as before. Not a single 
 rioter would think of curtailing the prerogatives of the Sultan, or 
 of demanding a representative divan. But people familiar with 
 political inquiries carry their scrutiny farther; and, justly or 
 unjustly, attribute the grievances under which they labour, to 
 defects in the original constitution of the government. Thus it is 
 with a large proportion of our spinners, our grinders, and our 
 weavers. It is not too much to say, that in a season of distress, 
 they are ripe for any revolution. This, indeed, is acknowledged by 
 all the Tory writers of our time. But all this, they tell us, comes 
 of education it is all the fault of the Liberals. We will not take 
 up the time of our readers with answering such observations. We 
 will only remind our gentry and clergy, that the question at 
 present is not about the cause of the evil, but about its cure ; and 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 182Y. 33 
 
 that, unless due precaution be used, let the fault be whose it may, 
 the punishment will inevitably be their own. 
 
 The history of our country, since the peace of 1815, is almost 
 entirely made up of the struggles of the lower orders against the 
 government, and of the efforts of the government to keep them 
 down. In 1816, immense assemblies were convened, secret socie 
 ties were formed, and gross outrages were committed. In 1817, 
 the Habeas Corpus Act was twice suspended. In 1819, the 
 disturbances broke out afresh. Meetings were held, so formidable, 
 from their numbers and their spirit, that the Ministry, and the 
 Parliament, approved of the conduct of magistrates who had 
 dispersed one of them by the sword. Fresh laws were passed 
 against seditious writings and practices. Yet the following year 
 commenced with a desperate and extended conspiracy for the 
 assassination of the cabinet, and the subversion of the government. 
 A few months after this event, the Queen landed. On that 
 occasion, the majority of the middling orders joined with the mob. 
 The effect of the union was irresistible. The Ministers and the 
 Parliament stood aghast; the bill of pains and penalties was 
 dropped ; and a convulsion, which seemed inevitable, was averted. 
 But the events of that year ought to impress one lesson on the 
 mind of every public man, that an alliance between the dis 
 affected multitude and a large portion of the middling orders, is 
 one with which no government can venture to cope, without 
 imminent danger to the constitution. 
 
 A government like that with which England would be cursed, if 
 the present Ministry should fall before the present Opposition, 
 would render such an alliance not only inevitable, but permanent. 
 In less than ten years, it would goad every Reformer in the 
 country into a Revolutionist. It would place at the head of the 
 multitude, persons possessing all the education, all the judgment, 
 and all the habits of co-operation, in which the multitude itself is 
 Jeficient, That great body ig physically the most powerful in the 
 
 2* 
 
34 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 state. Like the Hebrew champion, it is yet held in captivity by its 
 blindness. But if once the eyeless Giant shall find a guide to put 
 his hand on the props of the State if once he shall bow himself 
 upon the pillars, woe to all those who have made him their 
 laughing-stock, or chained him to grind at their mill ! 
 
 We do, therefore, firmly believe, that, even if no external cause 
 were to precipitate a fatal crisis, this country could not be governed 
 for a single generation by such men as Lord Westmoreland and 
 Lord Eldon, without extreme risk of revolution. But there are 
 other symptoms in the body politic, not less alarming than those 
 which we have described. In Ireland, there are several millions 
 of Catholics, who do not love our government ; and who detest, 
 with all their heart, with all their soul, with all their mind, and 
 with all their strength, the party now in Opposition. The accession 
 of that party to power, would be a death-blow to their hopes of 
 obtaining their demands by constitutional means : and we may 
 fairly expect, that all the events which followed the recall of Lord 
 Fitzwilliam, will take place again, on a greater and more formidable 
 scale. One thing, indeed, we have no right to expect, that a second 
 Hoche will be as unfortunate as the former. A civil war in Ireland 
 will lead almost necessarily to a war with France. Maritime 
 hostilities with France, and the clash of neutral and belligerent 
 pretensions, will then produce war with America. Then come 
 expeditions to Canada and expeditions to Java. The Cape of 
 Good Hope must be garrisoned. Lisbon must be defended. Let 
 us suppose the best. That best must be, a long conflict, a dear- 
 bought victory, a great addition to a debt already most burthen- 
 some, fresh taxes, and fresh discontents. All these are events 
 which may not improbably happen under any government events 
 which the next month may bring forth events, against which no 
 minister, however able and honest, can with perfect certainty 
 provide, but which Ministers, whose policy should exasperate the 
 people of Ireland, would almost unavoidably bring upon us. A 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 35 
 
 Cabinet formed by the Ex-ministers could scarcely exist for a year, 
 without incensing the lower classes of the English to frenzy, by 
 giving them up to the selfish tyranny of its aristocratical sup 
 porters, without driving Ireland into rebellion, and without 
 tempting France to war. 
 
 There is one hope, and one hope only for our country ; and 
 that hope is in a liberal Administration, in an Administration 
 which will follow with cautious, but with constantly advancing steps, 
 the progress of the public mind ; which, by promptitude to redress 
 practical grievances, will enable itself to oppose with authority and 
 effect, the propositions of turbulent theorists ; which by kindness 
 and fairness in all its dealings with the People, will entitle itself to 
 their confidence and esteem. 
 
 The state of England at the present moment bears a close 
 resemblance to that of France at the time when Turgot was called 
 to the head of affairs. Abuses were numerous ; public burdens 
 heavy ; a spirit of innovation was abroad among the people. The 
 philosophical minister attempted to secure the ancient institutions, 
 by amending them. The mild reforms which he projected, had 
 they been carried into execution, would have conciliated the people, 
 and saved from the most tremendous of all commotions the church, 
 the aristocracy, and the throne. But a crowd of narrow-minded 
 nobles, ignorant of their own interest, though solicitous for nothing 
 else, the Newcastles and the Salisburys of France, began to tremble 
 for their oppressive franchises. Their clamours overpowered the 
 mild good sense of a king who wanted only firmness to be the 
 best of sovereigns. The minister was discarded for councillors 
 more obsequious to the privileged orders ; and the aristocracy and 
 clergy exulted in their success. 
 
 Then came a new period of profusion and misrule. And then, 
 swiftly, like an armed man, came poverty and dismay. The accla,- 
 mations of the nobles, and the Te Deums of the church, grew 
 fainter and fainter. The very courtiers muttered disapprobation. 
 
36 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 The ministers stammered out feeble and inconsistent counsels. 
 But all other voices were soon drowned in one, which every 
 moment waxed louder and more terrible, in the fierce and tumul 
 tuous roar of a great people, conscious of irresistible strength, 
 maddened by intolerable wrongs, and sick of deferred hopes I 
 That cry, so long stifled, now rose from every corner of France, 
 made itself heard in the presence-chamber of her king, in the 
 saloons of her nobles, and in the refectories of her luxurious 
 priesthood. Then, at length, concessions were made which the 
 subjects of Louis the Fourteenth would have thought it impious 
 even to desire, which the most factious opponent of Louis the 
 Fifteenth had never ventured to ask, which, but a few years 
 before, would have been received with ecstacies of gratitude. But 
 it was too late ! 
 
 The imprisoned genie of the Arabian Tales, during the early 
 period of his confinement, promised wealth, empire, and super 
 natural powers, to the man who should extricate him. But when 
 he had waited long in vain, mad with rage at the continuance of 
 his captivity, he vowed to destroy his deliverer without mercy ! 
 Such is the gratitude of nations, exasperated by misgovernment, 
 to rulers who are slow to concede. The first use which they make 
 of freedom is to avenge themselves on those who have been so 
 slow to grant it. 
 
 Never was this disposition more remarkably displayed than at 
 the period of which we speak. Abuses were swept away with 
 unsparing severity. The royal prerogatives, the feudal privileges, 
 the provincial distinctions, were sacrificed to the passions of the 
 people. Every thing was given ; and every thing was given in 
 vain. Distrust and hatred were not to be thus eradicated from 
 the minds of men who thought that they were not receiving, 
 favors but extorting rights ; and that, if they deserved blame, it 
 was not for their insensibility to tardy benefits, but for their 
 forgetfulnesa of past oppression. 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 37 
 
 What followed was the necessary consequence of such a state of 
 feeling. The recollection of old grievances made the people sus 
 picious and cru^l. The fear of popular outrages produced emigra 
 tions, intrigues with foreign courts, and, finally, a general war. 
 Then came the barbarity of fear ; the triple despotism of the 
 clubs, the committees, and the commune ; the organized anarchy, 
 the fanatical atheism, the scheming and far-sighted madness, the 
 butcheries of the Chatelet, and the accursed marriages of the 
 Loire. The whole property of the nation changed hands. Its 
 best and wisest citizens were banished or murdered. Dungeons 
 were emptied by assassins as fast as they were filled by spies. 
 Provinces were made desolate. Towns were unpeopled. Old 
 things passed away. All things became new. 
 
 The paroxysm terminated. A singular train of events restored 
 the house of Bourbon to the French throne. The exiles have 
 returned. But they have returned as the few survivors of the 
 deluge returned to a world in which they could recognise nothing ; 
 in which the valleys had been raised, and the mountains depressed, 
 and the courses of the rivers changed, in which sand and sea 
 weed had covered the cultivated fields and the walls of imperial 
 cities. They have returned to seek in vain, amidst the mouldering 
 relics of a former system, and the fermenting elements of a new 
 creation, the traces of any remembered object. The old boun 
 daries are obliterated. The old laws are forgotten. The old titles 
 have become laughing- stocks. The gravity of the parliaments, 
 and the pomp of the hierarchy; the doctors whose disputes 
 agitated the Sorbonne, and the embroidered multitude whose 
 footsteps wore out the marble pavements of Versailles, all have 
 disappeared. The proud and voluptuous prelates who feasted on 
 silver, and dozed amidst curtains of massy velvet, have been 
 replaced by curates who undergo every drudgery and every humi 
 liation for the wages of lackeys. To those gay and elegant nobles 
 who studied military science as a fashionable accomplishment, and 
 
85 ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 
 
 expected military rank as a part of their birthright, have succeeded 
 men born in lofts and cellars ; educated in the half-naked ranks 
 of the revolutionary armies, and raised by ferocious valour and self- 
 taught skill, to dignities with which the coarseness of their manners 
 and language forms a grotesque contrast. The government may 
 amuse itself by playing at despotism, by reviving the names and 
 aping the style of the old court as Helenus in Epirus consoled 
 himself for the lost magnificence of Troy, by calling his brook 
 Xanthus, and the entrance of his little capital the Sca3an gate. 
 But the law of entail is gone, and cannot be restored. The liberty 
 of the press is established, and the feeble struggles of the minister 
 cannot permanently put it down. The Bastile is fallen, and can 
 never more rise from its ruins. A few words, a few ceremonies, a 
 few rhetorical topics, make up all that remains of that system 
 which was founded so deeply by the policy of the house of Valois, 
 and adorned so splendidly by the pride of Louis the Great. 
 
 Is this a romance ? Or is it a faithful picture of what has lately 
 been in a neighboring land of what may shortly be within the 
 borders of our own ? Has the warning been given in vain ? Have 
 our Mannerses and Clintons so soon forgotten the fate of houses as 
 wealthy and as noble as their own ? Have they forgotten how 
 the tender and delicate woman, the woman who would not set 
 her foot on the earth for tenderness and delicateness, the idol of 
 gilded drawing-rooms, the pole-star of crowded theatres, the 
 standard of beauty, the arbitress of fashion, the patroness of 
 genius was compelled to exchange her luxurious and dignified 
 ease for labour and dependence ; the sighs of dukes and the flattery 
 of bowing abbes for the insults of rude pupils and exacting 
 mothers ; perhaps, even to draw an infamous and miserable sub 
 sistence from those charms which had been the glory of royal 
 circles to sell for a morsel of bread her reluctant caresses and her 
 haggard smiles to be turned over from a garret to a hospital, and 
 from a hospital to a parish vault ? Have they forgotten how the 
 
ENGLISH POLITICS IN 1827. 39 
 
 
 
 gallant and luxurious nobleman, sprung from illustrious ancestors, 
 marked out from his cradle for the highest honours of the state and 
 of the army, impatient of control, exquisitely sensible of the 
 slightest affront, with all his high spirit, his polished manners, his 
 voluptuous habits, was reduced to request, with tears in his eyes, 
 credit for half-a-crown, to pass day after day in hearing the 
 auxiliary verbs misrecited, or the first page of Telemaque miscon 
 strued, by petulant boys, who infested him with nicknames and 
 caricatures, who mimicked his foreign accent, and laughed at his 
 thread-bare coat. Have they forgotten all this ? God grant that 
 they may never remember it with unavailing self-accusation, when 
 desolation shall have visited wealthier cities and fairer gardens ; 
 when Manchester shall be as Lyons, and Stowe as Chantilly ; 
 when he who now, in the pride of rank and opulence, sneers at 
 what we have written in the bitter sincerity of our hearts, shall be 
 thankful for a porringer of broth at the door of some Spanish 
 convent, or shall implore some Italian money-lender to advance 
 another pistole on his George ! 
 
40 
 
 STATE OF PARTIES.* 
 
 [A Sequel to the Preceding Article.] 
 Spirit of Party. 8vo. London, 1827. 
 
 WE design to make here a few observations, by way of supple 
 ment to the Article in our last Number, which has been in several 
 particulars!, we are sorry to find, exceedingly misunderstood in 
 some respectable quarters, as it has certainly, we are not surprised 
 to remark, been grossly misrepresented in others of a widely differ 
 ent description. 
 
 The State of Parties, and the condition of public affairs gene 
 rally, is, in some respects, materially different from anything ever 
 known in this country. For some years, indeed ever since the 
 termination of the wars arising out of the French Revolution, the 
 opinions favoured by sound reason, and avouched by the practical 
 test of experience, upon all subjects of foreign and domestic policy, 
 had been making a steady and sure, because a quiet and peaceful 
 progress among the more intelligent parts of the community. As 
 intelligence spread wider by the diffusion of knowledge, the dis 
 semination of those opinions became more .enlarged, and their 
 operation upon all classes of society more efficacious. They had 
 been making considerable advances both in France and England, 
 during the period between the American and the French Revolu 
 tions, But the latter event had cruelly disappointed in its progress 
 
 * Edinburgh Review, October, 1827. 
 
 f Among other mistakes, we find it ascribed to various persons, eminent 
 statesmen and others, who, if they have ever seen it, which we know not, 
 assuredly never oould have seen it before it was published. 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 41 
 
 the hopes raised by its first fair prospects ; and the horrors of the 
 times of Anarchy, followed by the military tyranny of Napoleon, 
 and the dreadful wars in which he involved his country and Europe, 
 otherwise so deeply his debtors, had stampt all change with the most 
 hateful characters, and accustomed men to confound reform with 
 rebellion, reckoning the friend of freedom and improvement, one 
 who would sacrifice order and peace, and all established institu 
 tions, to wild extravagant speculation a victim as it were to the 
 love of change for its own sake. The fall of Napoleon, and the 
 peace that followed the French Restoration, finally put down those 
 groundless prejudices against the safest course of policy, and made 
 an end of the calumnies so long heaped upon the best friends of 
 order and existing establishments those who, by tranquil amend 
 ments, would destroy all the purchase that revolutionists ever can 
 have whereby to work their overthrow. Accordingly, the natural 
 course of education and knowledge has silently been producing its 
 fruits ; sound and enlightened views of policy have been gaining 
 ground ; truth, no longer counteracted in its progress, has been 
 making way everywhere ; and wisdom, no longer overawed by 
 noisy clamour or childish fears, has been teaching her lessons to a 
 willing generation. 
 
 For some years of the period on which we are looking back, 
 the Government of this country was intrusted to the management 
 of men, who gave it a direction widely different from the course 
 of public opinion, and conducted it upon all the principles of the 
 most narrow and vicious policy, as if they alone, and the engine 
 in their hands, stood still amidst the general advance of the age. 
 While the Finances, and indeed all the internal affairs of the 
 State, were under the guidance of persons, whose notions were the 
 refuse of the antiquated school ; the Foreign Minister, though not 
 by nature deficient in liberal feelings, and certainly gifted with no 
 common talents, and, above all, with great sagacity, had, unhappily 
 for his country and for his reputation, become intimately connected 
 
42 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 with the Continental Sovereigns and their chief Statesmen, and 
 had imbibed from this intercourse a prejudice against free opinions, 
 and a dislike of Constitutional Government, so strong as almost to 
 renew in our political system, the exploded terrors about Jacobin 
 ism and French principles. All improvements in the Constitution 
 of the Continental States were to be discountenanced as revolu 
 tionary : everything that could lead to a change, how slowly and 
 peaceably soever, was to be resisted : the strong arm of absolute 
 power was to be deemed the only security for the public peace ; 
 and the iron hand of military force, the only means by which that 
 arm could work its destined end. These principles soon embodied 
 themselves in the famous League so universally dreaded at first, 
 then detested, and since despised, under the name of the Holy 
 Alliance. Professing only to have the intention of keeping the 
 peace, those combined Princes, extending their union over almost 
 all Europe, guaranteed to each other, not only the integrity of their 
 dominions, but the unchanged existence of all their internal insti 
 tutions ; and some of them having succeeded in reconquering their 
 dominions from Napoleon, by the aid of their people, to whom 
 they had promised a Representative Government, as the appropri 
 ate reward ..of a constancy worthy of freemen, Europe, with 
 astonishment, saw those very Monarchs become parties to this 
 combination against all improvement, as if for the very purpose 
 of preventing themselves from redeeming pledges so sacred, and 
 which had passed for so mighty a consideration. The wonder, 
 however, stopt not here : The leagued Sovereigns made war at their 
 pleasure to prevent the peace from being disturbed. Wherever a 
 Prince was compelled or induced to adopt free institutions, the 
 Allies marched an army to restore his absolute authority and his 
 people s subjection ; and the formal accession of England was 
 alone wanting to make the sway of this grand nuisance universal ; 
 nay, to extend its claims, which were once actually preferred, over 
 our own country. In all these unheard of proceedings, infinitely 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 43 
 
 more dangerous to National Independence than the wildest fury 
 of the French Republic, or the mightiest projects of Napoleon 
 himself, it was a miserable sight to behold England, once the 
 patroness of public freedom, the enemy of aggression, the 
 refuge of all oppressed nations, stoop to become the willing wit 
 ness, and even the unresisting tool of the most flagitious conspiracy 
 the world ever saw, excepting, perhaps, the high crime last perpe 
 trated by the same. despotic Princes, the partition of Poland. Yet 
 so it was ; and such was the price we paid for our Minister having 
 acted as our Ambassador, and kept the high company of absolute 
 Monarchs, and their unconstitutional and irresponsible counsellors. 
 The tone, too, of these foreign Courts was imported into our Par 
 liament and our Cabinet ; it became customary to deride everything 
 free and liberal as new-fangled, and low, and dangerous to good 
 government; men extolled all the little drivelling notions of 
 Austrian Hof-raths and Jfriegs-raths, as sound, old, well- wearing 
 maxims, and laughed at the doctrines of the New-School, as wholly 
 unknown to the warriors of Leipsic and Waterloo, or the negotia 
 tors of Vienna and of Aix. It is true, that our official statesmen 
 had all this pleasantry to themselves ; they made no converts in 
 the country ; they found neither sympathy nor support from the 
 people ; and as often as they attempted in Parliament to countenance 
 their favourite topic, the sorry reception they met with, seemed 
 adjusted in a nice proportion to its intrinsic merit, and the talents 
 by which it was recommended. 
 
 Meanwhile, upon questions of internal policy, the liberal feelings 
 of the country generally prevailed, even in Parliamentary divisions, 
 over the narrow views of the Court. One after another, the Go 
 vernment abandoned many of the most pernicious taxes and lines 
 of mercantile policy, and at length, after long resistance, it adopted 
 sound principles upon the important subject of reform in the 
 system and administration of the laws. While its opponents were 
 preparing new measures, and expecting additional triumphs at 
 
41 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 home ; while its allies abroad were about to carry their aggressions 
 on all national independence farther than ever, by the most iniqui 
 tous of all their measures for extirpating liberty ; the melancholy 
 event of the minister s decease, who had erred, we believe, much 
 more from want of foresight and deliberate reflection in the early 
 stage of the intercourse, than from any evil designs towards liberty 
 at any period, gave a new and happier aspect to the face of affairs 
 in this country, as far as the Government was concerned, and 
 eventually produced a very sensible change for the better in the 
 policy of other powers, and in the prospects of a large portion of 
 the world. He was succeeded by a statesman of far more enlarged 
 views, and more brilliant talents, his inferior certainly in some of 
 the qualities calculated to gain a following in Parliament, but 
 worthy of all acceptation in comparison of him, because uncon 
 nected with the enemies of freedom, and committed to none of 
 the worst principles at least of later times, by which improvement 
 had been stifled abroad and obstructed at home. Catastrophes 
 very different indeed, but almost equally sudden, have now deprived 
 the country of both those statesmen ; and we may be enabled 
 calmly to reflect upon their conduct and their merits, without 
 heaping on the one unmerited obloquy, though, unfortunately for 
 his fame, he died when events had brought the policy he was con 
 nected with to its lowest pitch in public consideration, without 
 raising altars to the other s memory, because we lost him when the 
 system he maintained looked the fairest in all men s eyes, and 
 dazzled them into a forgetfulness of all that had happened 
 before. 
 
 The progress of liberal opinions was immediately and rapidly 
 accelerated by the conduct, and still more by the language, of the 
 Government in 1823 and the subsequent years. In a few months 
 the disgraceful connexion with the Holy Alliance was at an end, 
 and the further proceedings of that combination were so far 
 checked, that it can hardly now be said to have any real existence. 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 45 
 
 The recognition of the new commonwealths in South America, 
 and the establishment of political as well as mercantile relations 
 with them, very soon followed ; the odious provisions of the Alien 
 Bill were suffered to expire, and a restriction of little or no moment 
 substituted in their place ; and the most decisive steps were taken 
 to defend Portugal, harassed by the intrigues, and menaced by the 
 arms of Spain, for the crime of having accepted a Constitutional 
 Government. At home, the policy so long recommended by the 
 Liberal Party both in and out of doors, was as steadily and effec 
 tually pursued, as that which they had maintained to be the sound, 
 and British, and statesman-like view of Foreign Affairs. Oppres 
 sive and impolitic taxes were repealed, among others the duties on 
 law proceedings ; the principles of Free Trade were adopted in 
 many important cases, and the way was paved for extending them 
 to all the parts of our mercantile system ; some of the reforms in 
 the Criminal Law, which Sir Samuel Romilly had so long in vain 
 laboured to recommend, and which had been resisted with too much 
 success till 1819, when Sir James Mackintosh, his follower in the 
 same honourable career, carried a Committee for examining the state 
 of that Code, were, on the principles of those enlightened indivi 
 duals, taken up by their former antagonists, and received the sanc 
 tion of the Legislature ; nay, so harmless was the name of judicial 
 reform become, and so popular its pursuit with both court and 
 country, that the same persons stopt not there, but introduced 
 improvements, though more limited in principle, into other branches 
 of jurisprudence. 
 
 The effects produced by this fortunate and unexpected change 
 in the conduct of the Ministry, upon the state and distribution of 
 parties, both in Parliament and in the Country, were such as 
 might have been expected, unless men had lost all regard for prin 
 ciple and consistency in their personal animosities, or in the worst 
 abuse of party feelings. The Opposition lent their warm support 
 to Government, as often as they saw a disposition to pursue the 
 

 46 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 sound and enlightened policy always recommended by them. Far 
 from the despicable, unprincipled inclination to discover faults in 
 the manner of executing designs often suggested by themselves, 
 and thus apparently save their consistency as to measures, while 
 they continued their opposition to the men, they were even above 
 the feeling of jealousy which would have kept inferior minds from 
 coming forward to grace the triumphs of a rival ; they scarcely 
 ever, certainly never but where the necessity of explaining their 
 conduct to the public required it, reminded either the Government 
 or the country, how long they had supported the policy, now 
 luckily adopted in the quarter most likely to give it effect. All 
 the while, (and we speak of some years, certainly of the Sessions 
 1824, 1825, and 1826, but in not a few particulars of 1823 too,) 
 there was nothing that indicated the least understanding between 
 the parties who had been so long opposed to each other ; no appear 
 ance of any intercourse in private among their chiefs ; and w 
 believe it is universally understood that no arrangement, nor any 
 treaty for an arrangement, had been so much as talked of in any 
 political circle of the least importance. Indeed one symptom must 
 remove all suspicion on this head ; whensoever the measures of 
 the Ministry were objectionable, their adversaries were at their 
 post, as ready as ever for the strife ; few more vehement debates, 
 or with more party animation, have ever been carried on, than the 
 discussions on the Catholic Association in 1825 ; and even trivial 
 matters, from time to time, furnished fuel to maintain the heats 
 which contending parties engender, though oftentimes separated 
 by a narrow space. 
 
 Nevertheless, with the symptoms which we have just noted, 
 near observers did not fail to mark others, that seemed to give 
 prognostics of greater change, and more permanent co-operation. 
 The Ministry were known to be much divided among themselves. 
 One class supported the claims of the Catholics, as essentially just 
 in themselves, and maintained the expediency of complying with 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 47 
 
 them, as necessary for the safety of the empire. Another refused 
 upon any account even to consider this great question ; they had 
 taken their ground upon it, and from that ground they announced 
 Jthat no lapse of time, no change of circumstances, could move 
 them. There seemed here a sufficient source of disunion to make 
 a disruption of the Ministry not merely a natural, but an unavoida 
 ble event. But this was very far from being the only ground. 
 The same parties were divided upon all the great principles of 
 foreign and domestic policy, which having been discountenanced 
 by the late Foreign Minister, both in the Cabinet, in his negotia 
 tions, and in Parliament, were now become the favourite maxims 
 of his successor; but on these principles, the individuals who 
 differed with him, were not so inflexible as upon the question, 
 whether Ireland should be saved to the empire ; and opposing him 
 on this, on those they only thwarted him, leaving the liberal course, 
 in all or almost all cases but the most important, to be pursued 
 by the State. That their assent was most reluctant; that it 
 often was extorted by the apprehension of breaking up the Minis 
 try ; that matters were frequently kept quiet by the common unwil 
 lingness of all parties to press them to extremities not seldom by 
 the controlling influence either of the first person in the Ministry, 
 or the first person in the State cannot any longer be doubted. 
 But in the course of these altercations two parties had been formed, 
 and differing in all questions, constant dissent had produced fre 
 quent dissensions ; and, as always happens in such cases, those 
 dissensions were not confined to things, but extended to persons, 
 until as much of animosity, probably, and as little mutual good 
 will, prevailed between the two parties that divided the Cabinet, 
 as are found to subsist in ordinary times between the parties that 
 divide the senate or the nation. 
 
 Another symptom not unconnected with this, was now more 
 and more perceptible. The Opposition became less vehement, less 
 unremitting, in proportion as the breach was supposed to widen in 
 
48 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 the Ministry ; and their support in great part, their courtesief 
 entirely, were now given with a kind of reserve or discrimina 
 tion : it was to the Liberal part of the Government that they 
 lent their aid ; it was to them they looked for- the reform of 
 abuses ; it was in their sound principles that they reposed con 
 fidence for the future. To give them encouragement in their wise 
 and honourable course, became an object of importance for the 
 good of the country ; and aware how their opponents in the Cabi 
 net endeavoured to hinder their progress, the Opposition employed 
 all means for comforting and strengthening their hands, and 
 enabling them to overcome the common enemy. 
 
 The year 1826 began with the measures rendered necessary 
 by the commercial distress ; and the Liberal Parties on both 
 sides of the House agreed fully in the support of them. A Ses 
 sion followed, remarkable for nothing so much as its want of 
 interest ;. and there had not been within the memory of man, 
 so few points of difference between the contending parties in 
 both Houses of Parliament. The General Election followed, and 
 a marked distinction was everywhere to be traced in the con 
 duct of the Opposition towards the Liberal, and towards the 
 Illiberal l portion of his Majesty s Government. The new Par 
 liament met, and the conduct pursued in Portugal, the grounds 
 upon which it was defended, and the language so worthy of 
 constitutional Ministers, in which that defence was couched, drew 
 forth the most cordial and unqualified approbation from the Oppo 
 sition Leaders. The period of the Christmas recess arrived, and it 
 is perfectly certain that up to that time no arrangement whatever 
 had been made, or even propounded, or discoursed of between 
 the two great portions of the Liberal Party, those in office, and 
 those in opposition. 
 
 Immediately after the recess, the noLle Lord at the head of 
 the Government was stricken with a grievous malady, which 
 compelled him in a few weeks to resign his situation. In what 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 49 
 
 way his place should be supplied, was a question calculated to 
 trouble his colleagues at all times ; for he had great weight with 
 them ; and though, on Irish questions, he adopted the illiberal 
 views of one party to the uttermost extent of impolicy and into 
 lerance, on other matters he leant towards their adversaries, or 
 at any rate, by his personal consideration with all, and his 
 ancient intimacy with the leader of that side, he was enabled to 
 preserve the Government from the violent end it so often seemed 
 near coming to. But if the difficulty would at any time have 
 been great, of finding a successor to that noble person, it was 
 incalculably augmented by the present aspect of affairs abroad, 
 and by the new balance of parties. What had been passing for 
 some time in Parliament, above all, what had passed just before 
 the recess, showed how infallibly the great body of the Opposition, 
 both in and out of Parliament, that is, the only powerful party 
 in both Houses, and an immense majority of all ranks in the 
 country, would give their cordial support to the liberal part of 
 the Cabinet ; and it might be safely predicted, that if Mr. Can 
 ning were placed at the head of the Government, no remains 
 either of party "or of personal animosity would interfere with 
 their desire to give him and his friends, because of the policy 
 they had so wisely adopted and so ably patronised, a cordial^ 
 and, if wanted, a systematic support. It was equally clear, that 
 should they be driven out of the Ministry, a cordial and system 
 atic co-operation would be easily established between them and 
 those who had indeed for years been their allies. So that while, 
 on the one hand, the Liberal part of the Cabinet could stand 
 more triumphantly than before, should the Illiberal resign, these 
 had not the most trifling chance of maintaining their ground, 
 should they, by taking the upper hand, drive their adversaries 
 from office. 
 
 If it be clear that such was the posture of affairs, the question 
 was manifestly decided ; and it only remained for the opponents 
 VOL. T. 3 
 
50 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 of Mr. Canning in the Cabinet, either to submit, or to retire, 
 should he be placed by their common Master at the head of the 
 Government. He was plainly in a situation to dictate his own 
 terms, while they had no power over him, either of continuing 
 to govern without his assistance, or of opposing the Ministry he 
 might form. Of the two courses, submission and resignation, 
 they chose the latter, partly upon personal grounds of objection 
 to the individual, partly upon public principles which they held 
 widely differing from his, and which would have been betrayed, 
 by serving under one who openly attached himself to the con 
 trary system. Accordingly, after a short interval spent in fruit 
 less negotiation, and in unavailing attempts to form a purely 
 Tory Ministry attempts wholly uncountenanced, it is believed, 
 by the Sovereign, and which the most sagacious of themselves 
 knew from the first to be desperate they resigned in a body, 
 leaving his Majesty without advisers, and the country without a 
 Government. 
 
 Far be from us, however, any design of imputing blame to 
 the distinguished persons who suddenly, and, it is said, without 
 any actual concert, took this step. Their feelings of personal 
 honour may have justified it ; their differences of opinion upon 
 fundamental points may have required it. We are quite aware 
 of the change in the aspect of the Catholic Question, which the 
 substituting its zealous advocate for its determined opponent, 
 as Prime Minister, was calculated to create. Indeed, we can 
 much more easily comprehend the enemies of that great mea 
 sure feeling the impossibility of acting under Mr. Canning as 
 their leader, both in the Government and the House of Com 
 mons, than we can understand their so long allowing him the 
 preponderance he had in the Cabinet, with the ostensible posi 
 tion he occupied in Parliament, before Lord Liverpool s political 
 demise. But there was one resignation not so easily under 
 stood upon any of those grounds, and which remains unexplained, 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 51 
 
 either by personal or political disunion ; we mean Lord Melville s 
 whose conduct in his important office had given satisfaction ; 
 whose opinions had uniformly been upon the liberal side in all 
 questions, Irish as well as English ; and who was not understood 
 to be separated, by any dislike, from those whose principles were 
 his own. His retirement, therefore, while it was regretted, could 
 only be accounted for upon the supposition of some punctilious 
 notions of duty towards his other colleagues, or towards the Minis 
 try, in the abstract, with which he had so long been connected ; 
 notions certainly in nowise calculated to lessen any one s respect 
 for him, though all might desire to see them give way after a sea 
 son. Mr. Peel s retirement wars also matter of some regret, 
 because he had of late shown a disposition, worthy of all encou 
 ragement in official characters, to probe abuses both in the practice 
 and structure of our judicial system,* and had adopted some of 
 
 * The Newspapers have been filled with some very singular effusions 
 during the late progress of the "Western Circuit, purporting to be charges 
 to various Grand Juries and Petit Juries, and addresses to prisoners, both 
 before and after conviction, and interlocutory observations during the 
 course of trials. To these, the name of the Chief Justice of the Common 
 Pleas is appended ; and the reader is frequently tempted to believe that 
 they must be efforts of pleasantry, as where the learned Judge tells a con 
 vict, that we (of course meaning the prisoner as well as the Judge) are 
 much indebted to the salutary change of the law, whereby the punish 
 ment is now raised from seven to fourteen years transportation. How 
 ever, be those productions genuine or not, we (and in this plural the 
 learned Judge is certainly included) are not indebted to them in any respect 
 whatever. They are distinguished by a great flow of language, eminently 
 spirited, impressive, and often felicitous; by any one judicial quality they 
 assuredly are not marked. A great magistrate, the second in England, 
 travelling the second of its circuits, to read lectures upon what ought to be 
 the law, which he is only sworn to administer as it is ; and making every 
 charge the vehicle of unmeasured praises heaped upon one of the leaders 
 of a well-k jown political party, is not a spectacle which the friends either 
 of the bench or of the law can take great delight in beholding. The 
 
52 STATE OF PAHTIES. 
 
 the principles, nay, fostered the ?ery measures of amendment so 
 long recommended, with boundless learning, and unwearied zeal, 
 by the chiefs of the Liberal Party. But though Mr. Peel s conduct 
 in leaving office might be regretted, it could not by any candid 
 man be blamed ; neither could the grounds of it be misunder 
 stood ; his resignation was widely different from Lord Melville s ; 
 he could not with any regard to his character, or with any kind 
 of consistency, have remained in office, at least in the Home 
 Department, under one so pledged to the Catholics as Mr. Canning. 
 Until this question should be settled, his retirement from power 
 seemed almost unavoidable, the impossibility of his friends forming 
 a Government being admitted on all hands ; and his wish to do so 
 being to our apprehension more than problematical, as we are con 
 fident his interest in its being done is anything but doubtful ; for 
 upon almost all other questions he has espoused the more liberal 
 policy of those whom he left in office. 
 
 We have now given the plain story of the late change, as it 
 appears from facts known to all the world ; and we have had no 
 occasion to invoke the aid of secret history for the untying of 
 any knotty passages. Although it has never been pretended 
 among all the silly and the wilful mis-statements which have been 
 put forth, that any private understanding subsisted between the 
 Liberal Ministers and the leaders of the Opposition previous to 
 
 absurd exaggeration of all those eulogies, we are convinced, must be far 
 more painful to the distinguished individual who is their subject than to 
 any other person ; if he is bepraised in respect of what he has done, he is 
 also lauded for attempts not quite successful ; and he is openly extolled for 
 what others did, and not a little for what has never been done by any one 
 With reference to his own share of the gain derived from this circuit, he 
 may be tempted to say Pessimum inimicorum genus laudatores but of 
 his panegyrist he may truly say Satis eloquentice, sapientia parum, and 
 may thus explain how he has himself contributed to make of a great Advo 
 cate, a very moderate Judge. 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 53 
 
 the Easter recess, the most groundless and even ridiculous charges 
 were advanced of perfidy and intrigue during those holidays, 
 sometimes against the Ministers, sometimes against the Opposition. 
 That not an instant was lost in opening a communication with the 
 chiefs of that party, when the former Administration had been 
 broken up, is very certain ; and that such a step was as consistent 
 with the purest honour and fair dealing in the one party, as it was 
 with entire consistency in the other, and perfectly natural in both, 
 no one who has honoured the preceding narrative with his attention 
 can for a moment doubt. Great reluctance was, however, shown 
 in the Opposition to take office. Some of the new Ministry were 
 known to oppose the Catholic claims ; some of the leading Whigs 
 felt it impossible to join them officially ; and this begot an unwil 
 lingness in those who felt no such difficulties, to become members 
 of a Cabinet divided on so great a question, and likely to be 
 opposed by so highly respected friends. 
 
 Happily for the country, happily for their own reputation as 
 statesmen of firm, consistent, and manly character, those scruples 
 were overcome. A Cabinet was formed, in which the liberal part 
 of the former Ministry were cordially united with the leading men 
 of the Opposition, and with two or three individuals not attached 
 to the same views of policy, but whose very worst errors, as we 
 must be allowed to call them, afforded, with their high*stations, a 
 security to the country against any rash and headlong attempts 
 being made to bring about changes, which, if gradually effected, 
 may yet remedy all the evils of our domestic situation. 
 
 The Session opened with much of complaint, and somewhat of 
 menace. We love not to dwell on painful recollections. We are 
 willing to hope that calmer reflection may render the retrospect 
 for ever as unnecessary as it is unpleasing. In a very short time, 
 the attacks upon the new Ministry were left in the hands of those, 
 of whom, wishing to speak with all possible respect, we may be 
 permitted to say, that their weight in the country, and the place 
 
64 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 they occupy in the annals of its Council, are proportioned to their 
 intrinsic merits ; and that their adversaries must always feel con 
 tentment, if they should feel little pride, in being opposed to 
 their hostility. 
 
 The close of the Session was speedily followed by the death of 
 the Prime Minister,- too early for his country, though not for 
 his own fame ; and the Sovereign, in strict accordance with the 
 universal desire of the people, directed the Government to be 
 reconstructed upon the same principle as before. One change, 
 though not in the Cabinet, attended this event ; the command 
 of the army was again given to its most distinguished ornament, 
 who never, in our opinion, should have for a day stooped from 
 the loftier height he had scaled by his wisdom, his valour, and his 
 brilliant fortune, to join in the little details and low intrigues of 
 vulgar politics. We have said nothing of some of the Ministers 
 who resigned ; but we suspect that no very deep affliction was 
 suffered by the country from their loss. After the very long period 
 during which they had lived in office, their departure could hardly 
 be deemed untimely ; and though one of those veterans retired 
 with a great name, and all of them in the full possession of their 
 faculties, there seemed a prevailing disposition, in the public mind, 
 to express no sorrow for the loss, until they saw whether they 
 could* be worse governed by their successors. They sunk gra 
 dually into a kind of watching Opposition a corps of observa 
 tion ; and one thing must be admitted on all hands, whatever opi 
 nion may be entertained of the new Opposition from the recollec 
 tion of their past services, that no man looked forward to much 
 occasion for them in their new capacity, since the new Ministry 
 stands unrivalled by any former Government in popularity with 
 the country, and surpassed by none in favour with the Crown. 
 
 * In this country, we are often puzzled with will, and shall, would, should, 
 and could, so we don t venture to suggest any alteration. 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 55 
 
 It must be evident to every person of ordinary understanding, 
 arid be admitted by any one of moderate candour, that, in the 
 effectual assistance which some of the Opposition render to the 
 new Government, by taking part in it officially, and the disin 
 terested, though necessarily less efficient, support which others 
 give it out of place, nothing is done by either class inconsistent 
 with the strictest notions of party principle, or which, tried by 
 the most rigorous standard of party duty, could be found wanting. 
 Suppose the whole principles and distribution of political parties to 
 have remained unaltered of late years, we affirm, nor indeed has 
 it ever been in terms denied, that the late Coalition was framed 
 on the most approved models known in the best times of our 
 history. 
 
 The only justification of party unions has always been found in 
 their necessity, sometimes for curbing the influence of the execu 
 tive power, sometimes for promoting certain other principles held 
 by the members of such associations in common, and deemed by 
 them essential to the good of the country. Men have, through 
 ambition, or avarice, or the other forms of selfishness, abused this 
 privilege, or rather duty of public men ; they have leagued them 
 selves together to extort better terms from their Sovereign, their 
 opponents, or the public; they have in reality been holding out 
 and keeping together for some personal reasons, and not because 
 they differed from their adversaries, and agreed among themselves 
 in holding certain opinions but they were never yet shameless 
 enough to avow such motives : their profligacy has always paid 
 the homage to political virtue, of pretending to act together 
 because they concurred in maintaining principles different from 
 those of other parties. Even where the ground of contention 
 seemed the most narrow, and reduced as it were to a mere personal 
 point, they sedulously magnified this by all the powers of refining 
 and sophistry, if they could put forward a larger justification, and 
 conceal the reason. Thus, when the great body of the Whigs, in 
 
56 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 an evil hour for their public reputation and their influence in the 
 country, joined Lord North against Lord Shelburne, and opposed 
 the peace which they had so long been urging, they were far from 
 admitting that the mere assumption of the Treasury by one of 
 their number instigated them to this ill-omened step, much less 
 that they had sacrificed their principles on the American Question 
 to gratify their spleen against a former colleague, and obtain the 
 highest station of power. They alleged that the new Minister 
 had changed his principles upon the recognition of American 
 independence ; that he was resolved to screen Indian delinquency ; 
 that he owed his elevation to unconstitutional designs entertained 
 by the Court against all the great parties of the country, for the 
 purpose of governing more absolutely through creatures of its 
 own. It was their adversaries who charged them with personal 
 motives, and urged as an accusation against them, that the appoint 
 ment of the Prime Minister was the real cause of their secession. 
 Does it not follow from such principles, rather is it not a proposi 
 tion of the very same purport, that when a body of men originally 
 collected and banded against others by a political faith, in holding 
 which it differed from them, finds all differences at an end, and 
 former adversaries acting upon its own much cherished principles, 
 a new line of conduct ought straightway to be pursued ? Com 
 mon honesty to the country, as well as a regard for consistency, 
 requires that there should be an end of the Opposition, when 
 *there is an end of the only diversity that called for it, or indeed 
 conld justify it. Whoever would still keep aloof in such circum 
 stances, and continue in Opposition when there is no longer any 
 public ground of difference, plainly admits his real motives all 
 along to have been personal and selfish, however cunningly he 
 may have varnished them over with the pretence of principle. To 
 this charge it is manifest the Whigs would have exposed them 
 selves, had they held back from Mr. Canning s party, whom they 
 had no tangible ground of differing with. 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 57 
 
 But we may put the case still more strongly upon mere party 
 grounds. Coalitions have ever been held allowable, and some 
 times admitted to be the duty of statesmen, when necessary to 
 further some great object of public good. To frame a strong 
 Government in 1757, Lord Chatham s Ministry was formed out 
 of every conflicting party ; and it carried the country to the 
 highest pitch of glory. This precedent was cited by Mr. Fox and 
 Mr. Burke in defence of the coalition with Lord North ; and 
 though the diversity of facts did not well justify the application, 
 there can be no doubt of the principle in proof of which it was 
 referred to. The coalition sought by many, to be effected between 
 Mr. Fox and Mr. Pitt in 1784 and 1804, could only be grounded 
 upon the necessity of giving the country a good and vigorous 
 Government; and the junction of Lord Grenville and the Whigs 
 in 1804, and afterwards in office, was dictated, as it was trium 
 phantly defended, by their agreement on some great questions, and 
 their disposition to sacrifice lesser points of opinion, and all per 
 sonal considerations, to the important object of promoting those 
 grand principles in which they coincided. But in all these cases, 
 and in none more than the last, there were various differences of 
 principle ; not only were Whig and Tory, Alarmist and Reformer, 
 to coalesce ; but during the war, and for the sake of carrying it on 
 to a better issue, they who were the authors of it, were united 
 with its constant and sturdy opponents. Yet all men approved 
 of the union, because lesser things should yield to greater, and 
 upon one or two great questions there was a fortunate concurrence 
 of opinion. It would be very difficult, however, in the present 
 case, to find the subject upon which the new allies did not agree 
 Catholic Question Currency Free Trade Judicial Reform 
 Foreign Policy South American Independence on all these they 
 had for years fought side by side ; on all these they had been 
 combating together against the Ministers who lately resigned ; 
 while, with the exception of Parliamentary Reform, upon which 
 
 3* 
 
58 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 the members of the same party differed among themselves, there 
 was not a single practical point of dissension to be descried. Any 
 two, almost any one of those great subjects was important enough 
 to justify a union, even had the parties differed upon most of the 
 others ; but when the agreement extended over the whole, can 
 any man seriously maintain that it was not their duty to coalesce, 
 if their cordial co-operation could alone secure the success of their 
 common principles, and the exclusion from power of their common 
 adversaries ? 
 
 It has been said, that there is in the Cabinet, as now composed, 
 an admixture of members unfavourable to the Catholic Claims, 
 and reports have reached us of very strong, but not perhaps very 
 well considered objections being taken on this head. Beside our 
 former general argument, we shall content ourselves with two 
 observations in reply. The first is, that three members in the 
 whole Cabinet, and these in no way connected, either with the 
 head of the Administration, or with the management of Irish 
 affairs, do not alter the features of tolerance and liberality impressed 
 upon it by the union which has created the rest of the body 
 The other is, that such a criticism proceeds with a strange air from 
 the ancient friends and associates of Mr. Fox, who, in 1783, took 
 office with Lord Shelburne, differing from him, as he afterwards 
 avowed, on many points, and extremely reluctant ever to join him, 
 and with Lord Thurlow, whom he had all his life been opposing 
 upon all points, and who had held the Great Seal during the 
 American war. But still more marvellous is such a remark from 
 any who held office in Mr. Fox s last Administration ! Is it really 
 forgotten already how the Cabinet of 1806 was composed ? There 
 was at its head Lord Grenville the colleague and kinsman of Mr. 
 Pitt the main promoter of the first war, and instigator to the 
 second the author of the letter to Bonaparte, which prolonged it 
 from 1800 the staunch enemy of reform the avowed friend 
 and protector of the Wellesleys in India. Against him were to 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 59 
 
 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 fond 
 ness of war. It is true, that all these great men strenuously sup 
 ported the Catholic Claims ; but " those claims were as vel^mently 
 opposed by other members of the Cabinet, by Lord Ellenborougl^ 
 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 men 
 tioned, unless in order to bring forward a small measure, no sooner 
 attempted than abandoned. It is true, that one great and right 
 eous 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 
 
60 STATE OF PAKTIES. 
 
 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 col 
 leagues, 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 
 
STATE OF PARTIES. 61 
 
 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 aban 
 doning 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 them 
 selves 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 common 
 wealth. 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 cast 
 ing 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 
 
62 STATE OF PARTIES. 
 
 of the community will, in all likelihood, soon be far more gene 
 rally 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 a 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 deno 
 mination, 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. 
 
JEWS DISABILITIES BILL. 65 
 
 injury committed in return ; they are made up, from the beginning 
 to the end, of atrocious cruelties inflicted on the one hand, and 
 grievous privations endured for conscience-sake on the other. 
 With respect to all Christian sects, their changes of situation have 
 always afforded scope for charges of mutual recrimination against 
 one another ; but every one allows the side on which the balance 
 between the Jew and the Christian is weighed down. As to the 
 opposition offered to this Bill by my hon. friend, I am at a loss to 
 see on what he has grounded it, unless he takes the broad prin 
 ciple, that no one who is not a Christian is to be entrusted with 
 power, as his rule of action ; I am at a loss to see how he can refuse 
 his assent to or oppose this measure without throwing himself open 
 to the charge of inconsistency. If this Bill, like the Roman Ca 
 tholic one of last Session, is to be opposed, it is condemning the 
 strong and the weak, the violent and the patient, the proselyting 
 and the exclusive, the political and the religious. If this is the 
 course that is to be taken for our guide, persecution will never 
 want an excuse, and the wolf will ever be able to invent a pretence 
 to bear down and destroy the lamb. If this is to be the maxim 
 set up for our land-mark, it will soon appear that every thing may 
 be a reason with the aggressor, as every thing is shown to be a 
 crime in the aggressed. In all the opposition that was lately 
 evinced against the Catholics, it was never once assumed or pre 
 tended that the opposition was religious ; it was political, and 
 nothing else. When the object was to excite ill blood and rancour 
 in the country when red-hot speeches and tub-sermons went forth 
 on the subject, the people were told that the question was, whether 
 they should be compelled to worship stocks and stones, instead of 
 the true God ? But this was a point of view never alluded to by 
 the more distinguished and candid opponents of the Catholic 
 claims. I myself remember having heard the Earl of Eldon 
 declare that it was not on religious but on political grounds, that 
 he was opposed to the measure. The question just at that time 
 
60 JEWS DISABILITIES BILL, 
 
 under consideration was that of Transubstantiation ; and the noble 
 and learned Lord observed that it was not because the Catholics 
 believed in the real presence that they were objected to, but that 
 being the test by which they were kept out, they were through 
 that kept out, because they were not good subjects. But now the 
 whole case is changed. Political objection is fairly given up ; and 
 in its place religious persecution is avowed. In all that my hon. 
 friend, the member for Oxford, has offered to the House, I have 
 traced but two political objections ; and neither of them appears to 
 me to be entitled to the weight which my hon. friend would giv 
 to them. The first political argument that my hon. friend has 
 adduced against this measure is, that the Jews of this country are 
 more attached to their nation wandering and scattered as they 
 are over the face of the earth than they are to the people of 
 England. The only answer that I shall offer to this, is, that at all 
 events it is exceedingly unfair to lay down this as an objection till 
 we have tried the experiment whether, by making Englishmen of 
 them, they will not become members of the community. Till that 
 has been done, all we can say is, that as long as they are not English 
 men they are nothing but Jews. The other objection of my hon. 
 friend appears to me to be more extraordinary still. He says that 
 if this measure be granted, the power of the Jews will be such that 
 they will come into Parliament in a much greater number than is 
 proportioned to their relative number in the country, and the con 
 sequence of this will be to destroy the present system of represen 
 tation, which will be rendered odious to the people, and a reform 
 in Parliament must ensue. All that I can see in this argument is, 
 that the Jews will not get into Parliament, because we are labour 
 ing under a bad system of representation. At all events, the sys 
 tem that we have at present must be either good or bad. If the 
 system is bad, it is evident that the sooner we get rid of it the 
 better. If the system is good, why should we complain of that to 
 which it naturally tends ? These objections seem to be the only 
 
JEWS DISABILITIES BILL. 67 
 
 political objections that my hon. friend has urged against the mea 
 sure now before the House, and all the rest may be characterised 
 as purely religious persecution. But even when my hon. friend 
 has brought himself to that, he does not pretend to say that he 
 opposes the Bill because the religion of the Jews is dangerous. 
 No such pretence is put forth at all. No such outcry as that raised 
 last session is heard now. The opposition which has made its 
 appearance now is, if I may use the phrase without giving offence 
 to my hon. friend, nothing but the offal nothing but the leavings 
 of the intolerance which was so abundant last year. All that tho 
 House has been told is, that the Jews are not Christians, and that 
 therefore they must not have power. But this has not been 
 declared openly and ingenuously, as it once was. Formerly the 
 persecution of the Jews was at least consistent. The thing was 
 made complete once by taking away their property, their liberty, 
 and their lives. My hon. friend is now equally vehement as to 
 taking away their political power ; and yet, no doubt, he would 
 shudder at what such a measure would really take away. The 
 only power that my hon. friend seems to wish to deprive the Jews 
 of is to consist in maces, gold chains, and skins of parchment, with 
 pieces of wax dangling at the ends of them. But he is leaving 
 them all the things that bestow real power. He allows them to 
 have property, and in these times property is power, mighty and 
 overwhelming power he allows them to have knowledge, and 
 knowledge is no less power. Then why is all this power poisoned 
 by intolerance ? Why is the Jew to have the power of a principal 
 over his clerk of a master over his servant of a landlord over 
 his tenant ? Why is he to have all this, which is power, and yet 
 to be deprived of the fair and natural consequences of this power ? 
 Why, having conceded all this, is my hon. friend afterwards to 
 turn round and say, " You shall have all these real effects and 
 advantages of your situation, but in the fair sequence of their pos 
 session, you shall be crippled and borne down." As things now 
 
68 
 
 stand, a Jew may be the richest man in England he may possess 
 the whole of London his interest may be the means of raising 
 this party or depressing that of making East-India directors, or 
 sending members into Parliament the influence of the Jew may 
 be of the first consequence in a war which shall be the means of 
 shaking all Europe to its centre. His power may come into play 
 in assisting or retarding the greatest plans of the greatest Princes ; 
 and yet, with all this confessed, acknowledged, undenied, my hon. 
 friend would have them deprived of power ! If, indeed, my hon. 
 friend would have things thus arranged, I would put a question to 
 him thus : Does he not think that wealth confers power ? If it do, 
 can he be prepared to say that the Jews shall not have power ? If it 
 do not, where are we to draw the line ? How are we to permit all 
 the consequences of their wealth but one ? I cannot conceive the 
 nature of an argument that is to bear out such a position. If it 
 was to be full and entire persecution, after the consistent example 
 of our ancestors, I could understand it. If we were called on to 
 revert to the days, when, as a people, they were pillaged when 
 their warehouses were torn down when their every right was 
 sacrificed, the thing would be comprehensible. But this is a deli 
 cate persecution, with no abstract rule for its guidance. As to the 
 matter of right, if the word " legal 1 is to be attached to it, I am 
 bound to acknowledge that the Jews have no legal right to power ; 
 but in the same way, 300 years ago, they had no legal right to 
 be in England ; and 600 years ago they had no right to the teeth 
 in their heads : but if it is the moral right we are to look at, I say, 
 that on every principle of moral obligation, I hold that the Jew has 
 a right to political power. Every man has a right to all that may 
 conduce to his pleasure, if it does not inflict pain on any one else. 
 This is one of the broadest maxims of human nature, and I cannot 
 therefore see how its supporters can be fairly called upon to defend 
 it the onus probandi lies, not on the advocates of freedom, but on 
 the advocates of restraint. Let my hon. friend first show that 
 
JEWS DISABILITIES BILL. 69 
 
 there is some danger some injury to the State, likely to arise 
 from the admission of the Jews, and then will be the time to caH 
 upon us to answer the case that he has made out. Till such an 
 argument, however, is. fully made out, I shall contend for the moral 
 right of the Jews. That they wish to have access to the privilege 
 of sitting in Parliament has already been shown ; it now remains 
 to show that some harm is calculated to result from that admis 
 sion. Unless this is shown, the refusal is neither more nor less than 
 persecution. My hon. friend put a different interpretation upon 
 the particular word I have used ; but the meaning will still remain 
 the same; and when we come to define the sense, it must be 
 found, that we are only quibbling about a word. Any person may 
 build a theory upon phrase s : with some, perhaps, burning would 
 be persecution, while the screwing of thumbs would not be perse 
 cution ; others may call the screwing of thumbs persecution, and 
 deny the justice of that expression when used to whipping. But 
 according to my impression, the infliction of any penalties on account 
 of religious opinions, and on account of religious opinions alone, is 
 generally understood as coming within the meaning of the term, for 
 all the purposes of political argument. It is as much persecution in 
 principle as an auto da fe, the only difference is in degree. Defin 
 ing persecution, then, as I do, I cannot conceive any argument to be 
 adduced in favour of the mildest degree of this injustice, which, 
 logically speaking, though not morally, indeed, might not be used 
 with equal force in favour of the most cruel inflictions from similar 
 motives. I have to make my apology for having occupied so much 
 of the time of the hon. gentlemen present ; but I could not refrain 
 from making known my sentiments to this House of Commons, 
 which has done more for the rights of conscience than any Parlia 
 ment that ever sat. Its sessions of 1828 and 1829 have been 
 marked by a glorious course in favour of religious liberty ; and I 
 hope that, before our separation, this Session of 1830 will put the 
 
70 JEWS 1 DISABILITIES BILL. 
 
 finishing hand to that work which so many great and good men 
 wish to see accomplished, but which cannot be, till this most desi 
 rable measure shall be carried into effect. 
 
 NOTE. In his speech on this subject, which followed, Sir James Macintosh 
 said, " The speech which they had herrd from his Honourable and Learned 
 Friend was one which, he had no doubt, would make its full impression on 
 the House, it being every way worthy of the name he bore." 
 
SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES.* 
 DEC. 13, 1830. 
 
 On the Presentation of a Petition from West India Planters, and 
 others interested in Property in the West Indies. 
 
 IF the petitioners who ask for compensation, and if the noble 
 Marquis who presented the petition, and the hon. Member who 
 spoke last J3ut one, had confined themselves to the subject of com 
 pensation, he should not have thought it necessary to say one word 
 on the subject. He thought he believed the public also thought 
 that compensation ought to be given. He agreed with the noble 
 Lord and the hon. Gentleman, and he agreed, too, with the peti 
 tioners, that whenever slavery was extinguished, all the loss of pro 
 perty which might arise should be made good by the Government. 
 He agreed in this opinion, not because he agreed with what fell 
 from the hon. Member for Dumfries, which, by the by, he did not 
 understand, about the compact of society. He did not see from 
 that species of metaphysical argument how protection for property 
 was necessary ; but it was found by experience that it was bad for 
 men that property should not be secured, and that great inconve 
 nience resulted from violating property, und on that ground, it was 
 said, that men ought to have their property protected. After the 
 public had declared, by Acts of Parliament, that men should be 
 property, after they had been bought and sold, deposited as pledges, 
 and made to answer for dowers, great inconvenience would result 
 from taking away that species of property, and the masters and 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. i. p. 1054-6. 
 
72 SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES. 
 
 owners ought to be compensated. He declared, that he thought, 
 in common with most of those who petitioned the House, that 
 slavery ought to be extinguished ; but he and the petitioners all 
 contemplated, on its extinction, giving a reasonable compensation 
 to the masters of slaves. If, therefore, the noble Lord and the 
 lion. Gentleman had confined themselves to compensation, which 
 he admitted was just, he should not have said one word on the 
 subject ; but they had mingled other matters with that which he 
 always wished to see separated from it. He agreed that exagge 
 ration could not do any good, and he regretted, as much as the 
 noble Lord and the lion. Member for Dumfries, that either anger or 
 exaggeration should have been displayed on either side. It was a 
 charge against the petitions for the abolition, that they were all 
 got up under the influence of the Anti-Slavery Society. The peti 
 tions were got up under that influence was that extraordinary ? 
 Who should inform the people of England, busily employed in 
 their own domestic occupations, of what occurred in the West 
 Indies, if some such Society did not undertake the task ? But the 
 influence the Society possessed was over the public mind. It had no 
 other. It appealed to the public reason. It had no monopoly of 
 the public Press. Its reports and proceedings were open to cavil 
 and objection. The periodical literature was as much in the hands 
 of the West Indians as their opponents. Magazines and Reviews 
 were on their side ; of celebrated works, he believed that The Quar 
 terly Review had always been in their favour. He did not believe 
 that there was one of those periodical publications which were most 
 read he meant the newspapers he did not believe that there was 
 one of the London newspapers that was fully and completely on the 
 side of the abolitionists. The organs of the West-India body were 
 as numerous as those of the other side, and their funds were at 
 least equal to those of the Anti-Slavery Society. It was not long 
 ago that the West-India body gave as much to one writer as the 
 Anti-Slavery Society received and employed in a year. The fact 
 
SLAVERY IX THE WEST INDIES. 73 
 
 was, that the West-India body was in the wrong. All men were 
 active to embrace the opposite opinions. They had been progres 
 sively gaining ground, and all the efforts of the West-Indians had 
 failed to stem the tide of public opinion. They had been trying 
 since 1802, and were carried further and further away every year 
 from their object. The public feeling since that time had ebbed 
 and flowed somewhat, but, on the whole, it had been much 
 strengthened. After every ebb it had only run upwards with 
 double vigour. It required that slavery should be abolished ; it 
 required, in the interest of the West-Indians themselves, as well as 
 in the interest of the slaves, and in the interest of the country 
 generally, that the question should be brought to a speedy conclu 
 sion, and that the slaves should be emancipated. The petitions, it 
 was said, were violent-; but, though nobody supposed violence was 
 good, what good cause had escaped being disfigured by violence ? 
 The Christian religion itself at its origin was disfigured by many 
 pious frauds, and fanatics then abounded. Such was the case, too, 
 at the Reformation, and much violence was instrumental in bring 
 ing it to a conclusion. For his part, he did not charge the West- 
 India body with the calumny that was uttered against the 
 abolitionists. The body, he knew, contained many honourable 
 men, who were free from all suspicion of such a charge, and who 
 scouted as much as any honourable men could, those people 
 who lived by slander and traded in violent abuse, and in whom the 
 ideas of calumny and their dinner were inseparably associated. 
 He would do justice to the West-Indians, and let them do justice 
 to their opponents. Let neither party recriminate any longer. 
 Let them all consider the matter like statesmen and legislators. 
 Let them ask themselves, was there any evil, and was there a 
 remedy for it ? Were they the people who ought to apply the 
 remedy, and was this the time ? If this were the time, and they 
 were the people, he would implore them to apply the remedy. 
 
 He saw that there were many difficulties in the way of it; but he 
 VOL. i. 4 
 
74 SLAVERY IN THE WEST INDIES. 
 
 thought those difficulties would readily vanish if the subject were 
 taken up by statesmen of a capacious intellect and resolute heart. 
 The statesmen who had lately taken office were of that character : 
 in them he had great confidence, and he had no doubt that they 
 would bring forward the question in a proper manner. When it 
 was brought forward, he, for one, wished that it should be with a 
 view to extinguish the system of slavery ; but he wished it brought 
 forward carefully, with temperance, avoiding all causes of irritation, 
 and all violence of language ; he wished the question looked at as 
 a whole, and that it should be discussed with a sincere desire to 
 come to a calm and deliberate decision, and to do every interest 
 justice. 
 
ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.* 
 MARCH 2, 1831. 
 
 In the adjourned Debate on the motion, "that leave be given to 
 bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the people of 
 England and Wales" 
 
 IT is a circumstance, Sir, of happy augury for the measure before 
 the House, that almost all those who have opposed it have declared 
 themselves altogether hostile to the principle of Reform. Two 
 Members, I think, have professed, that though they disapprove of 
 the plan now submitted to us, they yet conceive some alteration 
 of the Representative system to be advisable. Yet even those 
 Gentlemen have used, as far as I have observed, no arguments 
 which would not apply as strongly to the most moderate change, 
 as to that which has been proposed by his Majesty s Government. 
 I say, Sir, that I consider this as a circumstance of happy augury. 
 For what I feared was, not the opposition of those who shrink 
 from all Reform, but the disunion of reformers. I knew, that 
 during three months every reformer had been employed in con 
 jecturing what the plan of the Government would be. I knew, that 
 every reformer had imagined in his own mind a scheme differing 
 doubtless in some points from that which my noble friend, the 
 Paymaster of the Forces, has developed. I felt therefore great 
 apprehension that one person would be dissatisfied with one 
 part of the Bill, that another person would be dissatisfied with 
 another part, and that thus our whole strength would be wasted 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, Vol. ii. 1830-31, p. 1190-1205. 
 
76 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 in internal dissensions. That apprehension is now at an end. I 
 have seen with delight the perfect concord which prevails among 
 all who deserve the name of reformers in this House, and I trust 
 that I may consider it as an omen of the concord which will 
 * prevail among reformers throughout the country. I will not, Sir, 
 at present express any opinion as to the details of the Bill ; but 
 having daring the last twenty-four hours, given the most diligent 
 consideration to its general principles, I have no hesitation in 
 pronouncing it a wise, noble, and comprehensive measure, skilfully 
 framed for the healing of great distempers, for the securing at 
 once of the public liberties and of the public repose, and for the 
 reconciling and knitting together of all the orders of the State. 
 The hon. Baronet (Sir John Walsh) who has just sat down has 
 told us, that the Ministers have attempted to unite two inconsistent 
 principles in one abortive measure. He thinks, if I understand 
 him rightly, that they ought either to leave the representative 
 system such as it is, or to make it symmetrical. I think, Sir, that 
 they would have acted unwisely if they had taken either of these 
 courses. Their principle is plain, rational, and consistent. It is 
 this, to admit the middle class to a large and direct share in the 
 Representation, without any violent shock to the institutions of our 
 country [hear /] I understand those cheers but surely the 
 Gentlemen who utter them will allow, that the change made in 
 our institutions by this measure is far less violent than that which, 
 according to the hon. Baronet, ought to be made if we make any 
 Reform at all. I praise the Ministers for not attempting, under 
 existing circumstances, to make the Representation uniform I 
 praise them for not effacing the old distinction between the towns 
 and the counties, for not assigning Members to districts, according 
 to the American practice, by the Rule of Three. They have done 
 all that was necessary for the removing of a great practical evil, 
 and no more than was necessary.^* T consider this, Sir, as a 
 practical question. I rest my opinion on no general theory of 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 77 
 
 government I distrust all general theories of government. I will 
 not positively say, that there is any form of polity which may not, 
 under some conceivable circumstances, be the best possible. I 
 believe that there are societies in which every man may safely be 
 admitted to vote [hear!] Gentlemen may cheer, but such is my 
 opinion. I say, Sir, that there are countries in which the condition 
 of the labouring classes is such that they may safely be intrusted 
 with the right of electing Members of the Legislature. If the 
 laborers of England were in that state in which I, from my soul, 
 wish to see them, if employment were always plentiful, wages 
 always high, food always cheap, if a large family were considered 
 not as an encumbrance, but as a blessing the principal objections 
 to Universal Suffrage would, I think, be removed. Universal 
 Suffrage exists in the United States without producing any very 
 frightful consequences ; and I do not believe, that the people of 
 those States, or of any part of the world, are in any good quality 
 naturally superior to our own countrymen. But, unhappily, the 
 lower orders in England, and in all old countries, are occasionally 
 in a state of great distress. Some of the causes of this distress are, 
 I fear, beyond the control of the Government. We know what 
 effect distress produces, even on people more intelligent than the 
 great body of the laboring classes can possibly be. We know 
 that it makes even wise men irritable, unreasonable, and credu 
 lous eager for immediate relief heedless of remote consequences. 
 There is no quackery in medicine, religion, or politics, which may 
 not impose even on a powerful mind, when that mind has been 
 disordered by pain or fear. It is therefore no reflection on the 
 lower orders of Englishmen, who are not, and who cannot in the 
 nature of things be highly educated, to say that distress produces 
 on them its natural effects, those effects which it would produce 
 on the Americans, or on any other people, that it blunts their 
 judgment, that it inflames their passions, that it makes them 
 prone to believe those who flatter them, and to distrust those who 
 
78 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 would serve them. For the sake, therefore, of the whole society, 
 for the sake of the labouring classes themselves, I hold it to be 
 clearly expedient, that in a country like this, the right of suffrage 
 should depend on a pecuniary qualification. Every argument, 
 Sir, which would induce me to oppose Universal Suffrage, induces 
 me to support the measure which is now before us. I oppose 
 Universal Suffrage, because I think that it would produce a 
 destructive revolution. I support this measure, because I am sure 
 that it is our best security against a revolution. The noble Pay 
 master of the Forces hinted, delicately indeed and remotely, at 
 this subject. He spoke of the danger of disappointing the 
 expectations of the nation ; and for this he was charged with 
 threatening the House. Sir, in the year 1817, the late Lord 
 Londonderry proposed a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. 
 On that occasion he told the House, that, unless the measures 
 which he recommended were adopted, the public peace could not 
 be preserved. Was he accused of threatening the House ? 
 Again, in the year 1819, he brought in the bills known by the 
 name of the Six Acts. He then told the House, that, unless the 
 executive power were reinforced, all the institutions of the country 
 would be overturned by popular violence. Was he then accused 
 of threatening the House ? Will any Gentleman say, that it is 
 parliamentary and decorous to urge the danger arising from 
 popular discontent as an argument for severity ; but that it is 
 unparliamentary and indecorous to urge that same danger as an 
 argument for conciliatory measures ? I, Sir, do entertain great 
 apprehension for the fate of my country. I do in my conscience 
 believe, that unless this measure, or some similar measure, be 
 speedily adopted, great and terrible calamities will befal us. 
 Entertaining this opinion, I think myself bound to state it, not as 
 a threat, but as a reason. I support this measure as a measure 
 of Reform : but I support it still more as a measure of conserva 
 tion. That we may exclude those whom it is necessary to exclude, 
 
PARLIAMKNTAKY REFORM. 79 
 
 we must admit those whom it may be safe to admit. At present 
 we oppose the schemes of revolutionists with only one half, with 
 only one quarter of our proper force. We say, and we say- 
 justly, that it is not by mere numbers, but by property and 
 intelligence, that the nation ought to be governed. Yet, saying 
 this, we exclude from all share in the government vast masses of 
 property and intelligence, vast numbers of those who are most 
 interested in preserving tranquillity, and who know best how to 
 preserve it. We do more. We drive over to the side of revohH 
 tion those whom we shut out from power. Is this a time when 
 the cause of law and order can spare one of its natural allies ? My 
 noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, happily described the 
 effect which some parts of our representative system would produce 
 on the mind of a foreigner, who had heard much of our freedom 
 and greatness. If, Sir, I wished to make such a foreigner clearly 
 understand what I consider as the great defects of our system, I 
 would conduct him through that great city which lies to the north 
 of Great Russell-street and Oxford-street, a city superior in size 
 and in population to the capitals of many mighty kingdoms ; and 
 probably superior in opulence, intelligence, and general respecta 
 bility, to any city in the world. I would conduct him through 
 that interminable succession of streets and squares, all consisting 
 of well-built and well-furnished houses. I would make him 
 observe the brilliancy of the shops, and the crowd of well-appointed 
 equipages. I would lead him round that magnificent circle of 
 palaces which surrounds the Regent s-park. I would tell him, that 
 the rental of this district was far greater than that of the whole 
 kingdom of Scotland, at the time of the Union. And then I 
 would tell him, that this was an unrepresented district ! It is 
 needless to give any more instances. It is needless to speak 
 of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield, with no repre 
 sentation ; or of Edinburgh and Glasgow with a mock repre 
 sentation. If a property-tax were now imposed on the old 
 
80 PARLIAMENTAUY REFORM. 
 
 principle, that no person who had less than ISO/, a year 
 should contribute, I should not be surprised to find, that one-half 
 in number and value of the contributors had no votes at all ; and it 
 would, beyond all doubt, be found, that one-fiftieth part in number 
 and value of the contributors had a larger share of the representa 
 tion than the other forty-nine fiftieths. This is not government by 
 property. It is government by certain detached portions and 
 fragments of property, selected from the rest, and preferred to the 
 rest, on no rational principle whatever. To say that such a system 
 is ancient is no defence. My hon. friend, the member for the 
 University of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), challenges us to show, that 
 the Constitution was ever better than it is. Sir, we are legislators, 
 not antiquaries. The question for us is, not whether the Constitu 
 tion was better formerly, but whether we can make it better now. 
 In fact, however, the system was not in ancient times by any 
 means so absurd as it is in our age. One noble Lord (Lord 
 Stormont) has to-night told us, that the town of Aldborough, 
 which he represents, was not larger in the time of Edward I. than 
 it is at present. The line of its walls, he assures us. may still be 
 traced. It is now built up to that line. He argues, therefore, 
 that, as the founders of our representative institutions gave Mem 
 bers to Aldborough when it was as small as it now is, those who 
 would disfranchise it on account of its smallness have no right to 
 say, that they are recurring to the original principle of our repre 
 sentative institutions. But does the noble Lord remember the 
 change which has taken place in -the country during the last five 
 centuries ? Does he remember how much England has grown in 
 population, while Aldborough has been standing still ? Does he 
 consider, that in the time of Edward I. this part of the island did 
 not contain two millions of inhabitants ? It now contains nearly 
 fourteen millions. A hamlet of the present day would have been 
 a place of some importance in the time of our early Parliaments. 
 Aldborough may be absolutely as considerable a place as ever. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 81 
 
 But compared with the kingdom, it is much less considerable, by 
 the noble Lord s own showing, than when it first elected burgesses. 
 My lion, friend, the member for the University of Oxford, has 
 collected numerous instances of the tyranny which the kings and 
 nobles anciently exercised, both over this House, and over the 
 electors. It is not strange, that, in times when nothing was held 
 sacred, the rights of the people, and of the Representatives of the 
 people, should not have been held sacred. The proceedings which 
 my lion, friend has mentioned, no more prove, that, by the ancient 
 constitution of the realm, this House ought to be a tool of the 
 king and of the aristocracy, than the Benevolences and the Ship- 
 money prove their own legality ; or than those unjustifiable 
 arrests, which took place long after the ratification of the great 
 Charter, and even after the Petition of Right, prove that the 
 subject was not anciently entitled to his personal liberty. We 
 talk of the wisdom of our ancestors and in one respect at least 
 they were wiser than we. They legislated for their own times. 
 They looked at the England which was before them. They did 
 not think it necessary to give twice as many Members to York as 
 they gave to London, because York had been the capital of 
 Britain in the time of Constantius Chlorus ; and they would have 
 been amazed indeed if they had foreseen, that a city of more than 
 a hundred thousand inhabitants would be left without Representa 
 tives in the nineteenth century, merely "because it stood on ground 
 which, in the thirteenth century, had been occupied by a few huts. 
 They framed a representative system, which was not indeed 
 without defects and irregularities, but which was well adapted to 
 the state of England in their time. But a great revolution took 
 place. The character of the old corporations changed. New 
 forms of property came into existence. New portions of society 
 rose into importance. There were in our rural districts rich 
 cultivators, who were not freeholders. There were in our capital 
 rich traders, who were not liverymen. Towns shrank into villages. 
 
82 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 Villages swelled into cities larger than the London of the Plan- 
 tagenets. Unhappily, while the natural growth of society went 
 on, the artificial polity continued unchanged. The ancient form 
 of the representation remained ; and precisely because the form 
 remained, the spirit departed. Then came that pressure almost to 
 bursting the new wine in the old bottles the new people under 
 the old institutions. It is now time for us to pay a decent, a 
 rational, a manly reverence to our ancestors not" by superstitiously 
 adhering to what they, under other circumstances, did, but by 
 doing what they, in our circumstances, would have done. All 
 history is full of revolutions, produced by causes similar to those 
 which are now operating in England. A portion of the community 
 which had been of no account, expands and becomes strong. It 
 demands a place in the system, suited, not to its former weakness, 
 but to its present power. If this is granted, all is well. If this is 
 refused, then comes the struggle between the young energy of 
 one class, and the ancient privileges of another. Such was the 
 struggle between the Plebeians and the Patricians of Rome. 
 Such was the struggle of the Italian allies for admission to the full 
 rights of Roman citizens. Such was the struggle of our North 
 American colonies against the "mother country. Such was the 
 struggle which the Tiers Etat of France maintained against the 
 aristocracy of birth. Such was the struggle which the Catholics 
 of Ireland maintained against the aristocracy of creed. Such is 
 the struggle which the free people of colour in Jamaica are now 
 maintaining against the aristocracy of skin. Such, finally, is the 
 struggle which the middle classes in England are maintaining 
 against an aristocracy of mere locality against an aristocracy, the 
 principle of which is to invest 100 drunken pot- wallopers in one 
 place, or the owner of a ruined hovel in another, with powers 
 which are withheld from cities renowned to the furthest ends of 
 the earth, for the marvels of their wealth and of their industry. 
 But these great cities, says my hon. friend, the member for 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 83 
 
 Oxford, are virtually, though not directly represented. Are not 
 the wishes of Manchester, he asks, as much consulted as those of 
 any town which sends Members to Parliament ? Now, Sir, I do 
 not understand how a power which is salutary when exercised 
 virtually, can be noxious when exercised directly. If the wishes 
 of Manchester have as much weight with us, as they would have 
 under a system which should give Representatives to Manchester, 
 how can there be any danger in giving Representatives to Man 
 chester ? A virtual Representative is, I presume, a man who acts 
 as a direct Representative would act : for surely it would be absurd 
 to say, that a man virtually represents the people of property in 
 Manchester, who is in the habit of saying No, when a man 
 directly representing the people of property in Manchester would 
 say Aye. The utmost that can be expected from virtual Repre 
 sentation is, that it may be as good as direct Representation. If 
 so, why not grant direct Representation to places which, as every 
 body allows, ought, by some process or other, to be represented ? 
 If it be said, that there is an evil in change as change, I answer, 
 that there is also an evil in discontent as discontent. This, indeed, 
 is the strongest part of our case. It is said that the system works 
 well. I deny it. I deny that a system works well, which the 
 people regard with aversion. We may say here, that it is a good 
 system and a perfect system. But if any man were to say so to 
 any 658 respectable farmers or shop-keepers, chosen by lot in any 
 part of England, he would be hooted down, and laughed to scorn. 
 Are these the feelings with which any part of the Government 
 ought to be regarded? Above all, are these the feelings with 
 which the popular branch of the Legislature ought to be regarded ? 
 It is almost as essential to the utility of a House of Commons, 
 that it should possess the confidence of the people, as that it 
 should deserve that confidence. Unfortunately, that which is in 
 theory the popular part of our Government, is in practice the 
 unpopular part. Who wishes to dethrone the King? Who 
 
8-4 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 wishes to turn the Lords out of their House ? Here and there a 
 crazy radical, whom the boys in the street point at as he walks 
 along. Who wishes to alter the constitution of this House ? The 
 whole people. It is natural that it should be so. The House of 
 Commons is, in the language of Mr. Burke, a check for the 
 people not on the people, but for the people. While that check 
 is efficient, there is no reason to fear that the King or the nobles 
 will oppress the people. But if that check requires checking, how 
 is it to be checked ? If the salt shall lose its savour, wherewith 
 shall we season it ? The distrust with which the nation regards 
 this House may be unjust. But what then ? Can you remove 
 that distrust ? That it exists cannot be denied. That it is an 
 evil cannot be denied. That it is an increasing evil cannot 
 be denied. One Gentleman tells us that it has been produced 
 by the late events in France and Belgium ; another, that 
 it is the effect of seditious works which have lately been 
 published. If this feeling be of origin so recent, I have read 
 history to little purpose. Sir, this alarming discontent is not the 
 growth of a day or of a year. If there be any symptoms by 
 which it is possible to distinguish the chronic diseases of the body 
 politic from its passing inflammations, all these symptoms exist in 
 the present case. The taint has been gradually becoming more 
 extensive and more malignant, through the whole life-time of two 
 generations. We have tried anodynes. We have tried cruel 
 operations. What are we to try now ? Who flatters himself that 
 he can turn this feeling back ? Does there remain any argument 
 which escaped the comprehensive intellect of Mr. Burke, or the 
 subtlety of Mr. Wyndham ? Does there remain any species of 
 coercion which was not tried by Mr. Pitt and by Lord London 
 derry ? We have had laws. We have had blood. New treasons 
 have been created. The Press has been shackled. The Habeas 
 Corpus Act has been suspended. Public meetings have been 
 prohibited. The event has proved that these expedients were 
 
PARLIAMENTARi REFORM. 85 
 
 mere palliatives. You are at the end of your palliatives. The 
 evil remains. It is more formidable than ever. What is to be 
 done ? Under such circumstances, a great measure of reconcilia 
 tion, prepared by the Ministers of the Crown, has been brought 
 before us in a manner which gives additional lustre to a noble 
 name, inseparably associated during two centuries with the 
 dearest liberties of the English people. I will not say, that the 
 measure is in all its details precisely such as I might wish it to be ; 
 but it is founded on a great and a sound principle. It takes away 
 a vast power from a few. It distributes that power through the 
 great mass of the middle order. Every man, therefore, who thinks 
 as I think, is bound to stand firmly by Ministers, who are resolved 
 to stand or fall with this measure. Were I one of them, I would 
 sooner infinitely sooner fall with such a measure than stand by 
 any other means that ever supported a Cabinet. My hon. friend, 
 the member for the University of Oxford, tells us, that if we pass 
 this law, England will soon be a republic. The reformed House 
 of Commons will, according to him, before it has sat ten years, 
 depose the King, and expel the Lords from their House. Sir, if 
 my hon. friend could prove this, he would have succeeded in 
 bringing an argument for democracy, infinitely stronger than any 
 that is to be found in the works of Paine. His proposition is in 
 fact this that our monarchical and aristocratical institutions have 
 no hold on the public mind of England ; that these institutions are 
 regarded with aversion by a decided majority of the middle class. 
 This, Sir, I say, is plainly deducible from his proposition ; for he 
 tells us, that the Representatives of the middle class will inevitably 
 abolish royalty and nobility within ten years : and there is surely 
 no reason to think that the Representatives of the middle class 
 will be more inclined to a democratic revolution than their con 
 stituents. Now, Sir, if I were convinced that the great body of 
 the middle class in England look wih aversion on monarchy and 
 aristocracy, I should be forced, much against my will, to come to 
 
86 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 this conclusion, that monarchical and aristocratical institutions are 
 unsuited to this country. Monarchy and aristocracy, valuable and 
 useful as I think them, are still valuable and useful as means, and 
 not as ends. The end of government is the happiness of the 
 people : and I do not conceive that, in a country like this, the 
 happiness of the people can be promoted by a form of government, 
 in which the middle classes place no confidence, and which exists 
 only because the middle classes have no organ by which to make 
 their sentiments known. But, Sir, I am fully convinced that the 
 middle classes sincerely wish to uphold the Royal prerogatives, 
 and the constitutional rights of the Peers. What facts does my 
 hon. friend produce in support of his opinion ? One fact only 
 and that a fact which has absolutely nothing to do with the 
 question. The effect of this Reform, he tells us, would be, to 
 make the House of Commons all-powerful. It was all-powerful 
 once before, in the beginning of 1649. Then it cut off the head 
 of the King, and abolished the House of Peers. Therefore, if this 
 Reform should take place, it will act in the same manner. Now, 
 Sir, it was not the House of Commons that cut off the head of 
 Charles I. ; nor was the House of Commons then all-powerful. 
 It had been greatly reduced in numbers by successive expulsions. 
 It was under the absolute dominion of the army. A majority of 
 the House was willing to take the terms offered by the King. 
 The soldiers turned out the majority ; and the minority not a 
 sixth part of the whole House passed those votes of which my 
 hon. friend speaks votes of which the middle classes disapproved 
 then, and of which they disapprove still. . My hon. friend, and 
 almost all the Gentlemen who have taken the same side with him 
 in this Debate, have dwelt much on the utility of close and rotten 
 boroughs. It is by means of such boroughs, they tell us, that 
 the ablest men have been introduced into Parliament. It is true 
 that many distinguished persons have represented places of this 
 description. But, Sir, we must judge of a form of government by 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 87 
 
 its general tendency, not by happy accidents. Every form of 
 government has its happy accidents. Despotism has its happy 
 accidents. Yet we are not disposed to abolish all constitutional 
 checks, to place an absolute master over us, and to take our chance 
 whether he may be a Caligula or a Marcus Aurelius. In what 
 ever way the House of Commons may be chosen, some able men 
 will be chosen in that way who would not be chosen in any other 
 way. If there were a law that the hundred tallest men in 
 England should be Members of Parliament, there would probably 
 be some able men among those who would come into the House 
 by virtue of this law. If the hundred persons whose names stand 
 first in the alphabetical list of the Court Guide were made Mem 
 bers of Parliament, there would probably be able men among 
 them. We read in ancient history, that a very able king was 
 elected by the neighing of his horse. But we shall scarcely, I 
 think, adopt this mode of election. In one of the most celebrated 
 republics of antiquity Athens the Senators and Magistrates were 
 chosen by lot ; and sometimes the lot fell fortunately. Once, for 
 example, Socrates was in office. A cruel and unjust measure was 
 brought forward. Socrates resisted it at the hazard of his own 
 life. There is no event in Grecian history more interesting than 
 that memorable resistance. Yet who would have officers assigned 
 by lot, because the accident of the lot may have given to a great 
 and good man a power which he would probably never have 
 attained in any other way ? We must judge, as I said, by the 
 general tendency of a system. No person can doubt that a House 
 of Commons chosen freely by the middle classes will contain many 
 very able men. I do not say, that precisely the same able men 
 who would find their way into the present House of Commons, 
 will find their way into the reformed House but that is not the 
 question. No particular man is necessary to the State. We may 
 depend on it, that if we provide the country with free institutions, 
 those institutions will provide it with great men. There is another 
 
88 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 objection, which, I think, was first raised by the hon. and learned 
 member for Newport (Mr. H. Twiss). He tells us that the elective 
 franchise is property that to take it away from a man who has 
 not been judicially convicted of any malpractices is robbery that 
 no crime is proved against the voters in the close boroughs that 
 no crime is even imputed to them in the preamble of the Bill and 
 that to disfranchise them without compensation, would therefore 
 be an act of revolutionary tyranny. The hon. and learned Gentle 
 man has compared the conduct of the present Ministers to that of 
 those odious tools of power, who, towards the close of the reign 
 of Charles II. seized the charters of the Whig Corporations. 
 Now there was another precedent, which I wonder that he did not 
 recollect, both because it was much more nearly in point than that 
 to which he referred, and because my noble friend, the Paymaster 
 of the Forces, had previously alluded to it. If the elective 
 franchise is property if to disfranchise voters without a crime 
 proved, or a compensation given, be robbery was there ever such 
 an act of robbery as the disfranchising of the Irish forty-shilling 
 freeholders ? Was any pecuniary compensation given to them ? 
 Is it declared in the preamble of the bill which took away their 
 votes, that they had been convicted of any offence ? Was any 
 judicial inquiry instituted into their conduct? Were they even 
 accused of any crime ? Or say, that it was a crime in the electors 
 of Clare to vote for the hon. and learned Gentleman who now 
 represents the county of Waterford was a Protestant forty- 
 shilling freeholder in Louth, to be punished for the crime of a 
 Catholic forty-shilling freeholder in Clare ? If the principle of the 
 hon. and learned member for Newport be sound, the franchise of 
 the Irish peasant was property. That franchise, the Ministry under 
 which the hon. and learned Member held office, did not scruple to 
 take away. Will he accuse the late Ministers of robbery ? If not, 
 how can he bring such an accusation against their successors? 
 Every Gentleman, I think, who has spoken from the other side of 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 89 
 
 the House, has alluded to the opinions which some of his Majesty s 
 Ministers formerly entertained on the subject of Reform. It would 
 be officious in me, Sir, to undertake the defence of Gentlemen who 
 are so well able to defend themselves. I will only say, that, in my 
 opinion, the country will not think worse either of their talents or 
 of their patriotism, because they have shown that they can profit 
 by experience, because they have learned to see the folly of delay 
 ing inevitable changes. There are others who ought to have 
 learned the same lesson. I say, Sir, that there are those who, I 
 should have thought, must have had enough to last them all their 
 lives of that humiliation which follows obstinate and boastful 
 resistance to measures rendered necessary by the progress of 
 society, and by the development of the human mind. Is it possible 
 that those persons can wish again to occupy a position, which can 
 neither be defended, nor surrendered with honour ? I well remem 
 ber, Sir, a certain evening in the month of May, 1827. I had not 
 then the honour of a seat in this House ; but I was an attentive 
 observer of its proceedings. The right hon. Baronet opposite, 
 (Sir R. Peel) of whom personally I desire to speak with that high 
 respect which I feel for his talents and his character, but of whose 
 public conduct I must speak with the sincerity required by my 
 public duty, was then, as he is now, out of office. He had just 
 resigned the Seals of the Home Department, because he conceived 
 that the Administration of Mr. Canning was favourable to the 
 Catholic claims. He rose to ask whether it was the intention of 
 the new Cabinet to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, and to 
 Reform the Parliament. He bound up, I well remember, those 
 two questions together; and he declared, that if the Ministers 
 should either attempt to repeal the Test and Corporation Acts, or 
 bring forward a measure of Parliamentary Reform, he should 
 think it his duty to oppose them to the utmost. Since that 
 declaration was made nearly four years have elapsed ; and what is 
 uow the state of the three questions which then chiefly agitated 
 
90 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 the minds of men ? What is become of the Test and Corporation 
 Acts ? They are repealed. By whom ? By the late Administra 
 tion. What has become of the Catholic disabilities ? They are 
 removed. By whom ? By the late Administration. The question 
 of Parliamentary Reform is still behind. But signs, of which it is 
 impossible to misconceive the import, do most clearly indicate, 
 that, unless that question also be speedily settled, property and 
 order, and all the institutions of this great monarchy, will be 
 exposed to fearful peril. Is it possible, that Gentlemen long versed 
 in high political affairs cannot read these signs? Is it possible 
 that they can really believe that the Representative system of 
 England, O uch as it now is, will last till the year 1860 ? If -not, 
 for what would they have us wait? Would they have us wait 
 merely that we may show to all the world how little we have 
 profited by our own recent experience ? Would they have us 
 w r ait, that we may once again hit the exact point where we can 
 neither refuse with authority, nor concede with grace ? Would 
 they have us wait, that the numbers of the discontented party may 
 become larger, its demands higher, its feelings more acrimonious, 
 its organization more complete ? Would they have us wait till 
 the whole tragi-comedy of 1827 has been acted over again; till 
 they have been brought into office by a cry of " No Reform !" to 
 be reformers, as they were once before brought into office by a cry 
 of " No Popery !" to be emancipators ? Have they obliterated 
 from their minds gladly perhaps would s ome among them 
 obliterate from their minds the transactions of that year ? And 
 have they forgotten all the transactions of the succeeding year ? 
 Have they forgotten how the spirit of liberty in Ireland, debarred 
 from its natural outlet, found a vent by forbidden passages ? Have 
 they forgotten how we were forced to indulge the Catholics in all 
 the license of rebels, merely because we chose to withhold from 
 them the liberties of subjects ? Do they wait for associations 
 more formidable than that of the Corn Exchange, for contribu- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 91 
 
 tions larger than the Rent, for agitators more violent than those 
 who, three years ago, divided with the King and the Parliament, 
 the sovereignty of Ireland ? Do they wait for that last and most 
 dreadful paroxysm of popular rage, for that last and most cruel 
 test of military fidelity ? Let them wait, if their past experience 
 shall induce them to think that any high honour or any exquisite 
 pleasure is to be obtained by a policy like this. Let them wait, 
 if this strange and fearful infatuation be indeed upon them, that 
 they should not see with their eyes, or hear with their ears, or 
 understand with their heart. But let us know our interest and 
 our duty better. Turn where we may, within, around, the 
 voice of great events is proclaiming to us, Reform, that you may 
 preserve. Now, therefore, while every thing at home and abroad 
 forebodes ruin to those who persist in a hopeless struggle against 
 the spirit of the age, now, while the crash of the proudest throne 
 of the continent is still resounding in our ears, now, while the 
 roof of a British palace affords an ignominious shelter to the exiled 
 heir of forty kings, now, while we see on every side ancient 
 institutions subverted, and great societies dissolved, now, while 
 the heart of England is still sound, now, while the old feelings 
 and the old associations retain a power and a charm which may 
 too soon pass away, now, in this your accepted time, now, in 
 this your day of salvation, take counsel, not of prejudice, not 
 of party spirit, not of the ignominious pride of a fatal con 
 sistency, but of history, of reason, of the ages which are 
 past, of the signs of this most portentous time. Pronounce in a 
 manner worthy of the expectation with which this great Debate 
 has been anticipated, and of the long remembrance which it will 
 leave behind. Renew the youth of the State. Save property 
 divided against itself. Save the multitude, endangered by their 
 own ungovernable passions. Save the aristocracy, endangered by 
 its own unpopular power. Save the greatest, and fairest, and 
 most highly civilized community that ever existed, from calamities 
 
92 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 which may in a few days sweep away all the rich heritage of so 
 many ages of wisdom and glory. The danger is terrible. The 
 time is short. If this Bill should be rejected, I pray to God that 
 none of those who concur in rejecting it may ever remember their 
 votes with unavailing regret, amidst the wreck of laws, the 
 confusion of ranks, the spoliation of property, and the dissolution 
 of social order. 
 
93 
 
 ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.* 
 JULY 5, 1831. 
 
 On the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of Lord John 
 RusseWs Parliamentary Reform Bill for Ireland. 
 
 BEFORE I proceed to examine what may be termed the political 
 arguments applicable to the question, I wish to notice one position, 
 which, if it were a sound one, I admit would be decisive against 
 Reform. That position is that the elective franchise is property 
 as much property as the dividends of the fundholder, or the rents 
 of the landowner. It must either be property or not property ; 
 and if it be property, to seize what belongs to the rich man, in 
 order to give it to the poor man, would be to break up the very 
 foundation of social order. I support this measure because I am 
 convinced that the elective franchise is not property, and that the 
 Bill ought not, therefore, to give compensation. Looking back to 
 the earliest times, we shall find, that if the elective franchise be 
 property, the present system is founded upon the most monstrous 
 system of injustice and robbery. The great disfranchisement of 
 the reign of Henry VI., was an act of unheard-of plunder, and the 
 same remark will apply to the Reform introduced by Oliver Crom 
 well. I will not argue on the merit or demerit of his system, but 
 this I will say, that the best and wisest men of that, and subsequent 
 times, never treated the elective franchise as property. I speak of 
 all the debates in which Maynard and Hale partook under the 
 vigorous Oliver, and his feeble successor. Sir Henry Vane said, 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. iv. 1831, p. 773-783. 
 
94 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 that it was a Reform which the Long Parliament would hav r e made 
 had it lasted ; and Lord Clarendon declared, that it was a Reform 
 which the King ought to have made had he then come to the 
 Crown. Lord Clarendon, the most distinguished of royalists, who 
 leaned too much to legal refinements on political questions, 
 describes it as a Reform which was fit to be made by a more war 
 rantable method, and in better times. This, then, I say, is that 
 more warrantable method; this that better time. What Cromwell 
 attempted in a country lately convulsed by civil war, and still 
 agitated by religious factions, we are now called upon to accom 
 plish in a state of perfect peace, and under a Prince whose title is 
 as undisputed, as his person is beloved. The only circumstances 
 which, in the opinion of Lord Clarendon, were wanting in the 
 Reform of Cromwell, we find in the Reform of William the Fourth. 
 If the elective franchise were property, these, I contend, were most 
 extensive and sweeping confiscations^; but, for the sake of the great 
 institution of property, for which all other institutions exist, which 
 is the source of all knowledge and of all industry, I do most 
 deeply lament to hear the sanctity that belongs to property claimed 
 by that which is not property. If you mix political abuses with 
 the institution of property, you must expect, that property will 
 contract the odium of political abuses ; and people will imagine 
 that there is no more immorality in taking away a man s estate, 
 than in disfranchising Old Sarum. If you bind them up that .they 
 may stand together, take care that they do not fall together. 
 Many have before used the argument which we heard repeated last 
 night, and which, if I mistake not, was originally employed by the 
 right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel). It is true, say they, that the Act 
 of 1829 was a confiscation of the property of the 40s. freeholders 
 of Ireland, and show us a case of necessity equally urgent, and we 
 will vote for Reform. Let them, however, beware how they set a 
 precedent for the invasion of property on the ground of political 
 convenience. Considering the elective franchise as not property, 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 95 
 
 we have only to discuss and decide this question whether it is 
 expedient at the present moment to touch it. The only argument 
 I have heard on this subject was that used by a noble Lord (Por- 
 chester) who spoke for the first time last night, and whom it gave 
 me great pleasure to hear. The noble Lord referred to the history 
 of France, and particularly to recent events in that country ; but I 
 must question the noble Lord s arguments, as well as his facts. I 
 must deny, that there was a fluctuation from a desire for a violent 
 change from monarchical to a republican form of government, or 
 that it was the fluctuation of the same party. Different opinions 
 did, no doubt, prevail under different administrations under de 
 Gazes, Villele, and other administrations ; but then these different 
 opinions were expressed by Chambers differently constituted. The 
 Chamber of Deputies of 1815 was differently constituted from that 
 of 1819, and that of 1824 differed from both. The Chamber of 
 1827, indeed, though chosen in the same manner as the Chamber 
 of 1824, took a very different course. But this difference of politi 
 cal feeling in the Representative body, chosen under different cir 
 cumstances, was an every-day case. When Queen Anne dis 
 charged her Whig Ministry, she succeeded also in getting a House 
 of Commons, the majority of which were Tories. On the acces 
 sion of George 1st, another change took place, and a House of 
 Commons, chiefly Whigs, were returned. In the same way a total, 
 change took place in the political character of the Commons in the 
 election of 1784. I protest against the analogy drawn by the 
 noble Lord, and I deny that the cases of England and France are 
 alike. I deny, that we have had any parties here even remotely 
 resembling the revolutionary and counter-revolutionary parties of 
 France. T deny that there is any analogy between the two Houses 
 of Peers. I regard the Chamber of Peers of France as an unfor 
 tunate experiment as a kind of forced production an exotic : 
 there was nothing in the property or in the state of society in 
 France, which required such an institution ; it had no root in the 
 
93 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 soil, and its decline and fall need not give the aristocracy of Eng 
 land the slightest alarm. The principal, and most plausible argu 
 ment against the Reform Bill is this mark how rich, how great, 
 how happy, this country is, and has been ; the admired of all men, 
 and the envied of foreign nations ; will you, then, change a system 
 which has produced so many, and such lasting benefits ? I am 
 far from denying that England is a great and prosperous country. 
 I am as far from denying, that she owes much of her greatness and 
 prosperity to the form of her government ; but government and 
 society are cause and effect they re-act on each other. No doubt 
 the government of the Czar Peter did much for Russia ; but would 
 it be an argument against giving her free institutions, that despot 
 ism had procured her civilization ? The whole of history shews, 
 that all great revolutions have been produced by a disproportion 
 between society and its institutions ; for while society has grown, 
 its institutions have not kept pace and accommodated themselves 
 to its improvements. When we are told of the admiration of dis 
 tinguished foreigners of all ages for the Constitution of England, it 
 seems to be thought, that their applause has been bestowed upon 
 the same institutions which, in the lapse of centuries, have under 
 gone no change. Philip de Comines said, that the English were 
 the best-governed people in the world, and when Montesquieu gave 
 jthem the same praise, were both writers speaking of the same insti 
 tutions ? Certainly not. The history of England is the history of 
 a succession of Reforms ; and the very reason that the people of 
 England are great and happy is, that their history is the history of 
 Reform. The great Charter, the first assembling of Parliament, 
 the Petition of Right, the Revolution, and lastly, this great mea 
 sure are all proofs of my position are all progressive stages in 
 the progress of society and I am fully convinced that every argu 
 ment urged against the step we are now called upon to take might 
 have been advanced with equal justice against any of the other 
 changes I have enumerated. Jit is the principle of " Hume s His- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 97 
 
 tory," as every body knows, that the Stuarts governed better than 
 the Tudors ; but, suppose any man had risen in the Convention 
 Parliament, and said, " how great and happy we are we have ten 
 times as many inhabitants, and merchants ten times as wealthy as 
 under the Tudors ; we have been most admirably governed we 
 are not slaves under the Dey of Tripoli, but free subjects of a gene 
 rous Monarch, and why should we change ?" The answer is plain. 
 If we had been the slaves of the Dey of Tripoli, we should not 
 have known better, but the change in our situations has educated 
 us for improvements in our institutions. At the present moment 
 we everywhere see society outgrowing our institutions. Wher 
 ever we turn our eyes, we behold a nation great and civilized 
 with a soil cultivated to a degree of fertility unknown to other 
 countries with the perfection of all discoveries in physical science, 
 to promote the conveniences of life standing pre-eminent among 
 the civilized world in everything that depends upon the skill and 
 intelligence of individuals, or combinations of individuals and yet, 
 with laws and institutions that little command the respect and 
 admiration of mankind. Our roads, our bridges, our steam- 
 engines, our manufactures, our modes of conveyance, our demand 
 for labor, and our rewards of ingenuity, surpass those of any nation 
 in the ancient or modern world, and extort the admiration of rival 
 States ; but, let me ask, are foreigners equally struck with the 
 excellence of our legislative enactments with the modes of con 
 veying land, or of conducting actions and with a Penal Code that 
 seems purposely contrived to puzzle and ensnare ? These are mat 
 ters in which the Legislature has shown its skill, as our manufac 
 turers have shown theirs, but with a far different result. Let us 
 contrast our commerce, wealth, and perfect civilization, with our 
 Penal Laws at once barbarous and inefficient the preposterous 
 fictions of pleading the mummery of fines and recoveries the 
 chaos of precedents, and the bottomless pit of Chancery. Here we 
 see the barbarism of the thirteenth century coupled with the civi- 
 
 VOL. I. 5 
 
98 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 lization of the nineteenth, and we see too, that the barbarism 
 belongs to the Government, and the civilization to the people. 
 Then I say, that this incongruous state of things cannot continue ; 
 and if we do not terminate it with wisdom, ere long we shall find 
 it ended by violence. Because I think we have arrived at the 
 point, when a change is both wise and necessary, I support this 
 Bill with heart and soul ; and I shall be proud to the last hour of 
 my life, of the part I have been able to take in this great act of 
 reconciliation between the state of society and the condition of its 
 institutions. We were told in the last Parliament, that this is not 
 the Reform for which the people petitioned ; and if it be not, look 
 ing at the manner in which it has been received, nothing can prove 
 more decisively the blessed effect of seasonable concession. Never 
 was there so signal an example of that wise policy which conducts 
 the great revolutions of public opinion to a happy and peaceful 
 conclusion, and renders the very act of extending liberty the secu 
 rity for social order. It is not strange, that the people, denied their 
 reasonable claims, should become unreasonable ; and, when 
 repulsed by those who ought to hear them, should fly to dema 
 gogues. We have seen how excitement was created, and we have 
 seen, too, how it may be allayed. The true secret of the power of 
 agitators is, the obstinacy of rulers ; and liberal governments make 
 a moderate people. Did v . not hear in the beginning of the last 
 Session the Prime Minister declare, that there should be no Reform, 
 and what was the consequence ? The people were excited to such 
 a state, that it seemed as if a dissolution of social order was at 
 hand. So near at hand was it thought, that the Minister of the 
 Crown did not dare to show his Sovereign in his capital. I will 
 venture to say, that now there is not a nation in the world more 
 sincerely or more justly attached to the person and government of 
 their King than the English, or more disposed to strengthen the 
 hands of the public authorities in the enforcement of the law. I 
 do not, however, wonder that a measure which removes discontent 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 99 
 
 should excite the hatred of two classes the friends of corruption, 
 and the agents of sedition. All who love abuses because they pro 
 fit by them, and all who take advantage of disaffection which 
 abuses occasion, are naturally leagued against " a Bill, which, by 
 making the Government pure, renders the people attached. Those 
 who stand at the two extremities of political opinions play into 
 each other s hands on an occasion like the present ; the friends of 
 despotism, on the one hand, are furnished by Jacobin agitators 
 with pretexts for oppression ; and Jacobin agitators, on the other 
 hand, are provided by the friends of despotism with arguments 
 against Government. I am rejoiced to see, that the people of Eng 
 land know how to appreciate the monstrous coalition between the 
 enemies of all order and the opponents of all liberty. England 
 has spoken, and spoken out, from every part of the kingdom where 
 the voice of the people was allowed to be heard ; it has been heard 
 from our mightiest sea-ports from our manufacturing towns 
 from the capital from our populous counties. As far as my cal 
 culations have gone on the late returns, from almost all those 
 situations a suitable answer has been returned to that truly royal 
 voice which demands the opinion of the nation. Here we are now, 
 nearly all Reformers all Reformers in some sense or other in 
 some degree or other for not one Member has declared himself 
 opposed to the principle of Reform ; at least some hint has been 
 thrown out that he is not adverse to all change and I most 
 thoroughly and cordially agree with the noble Paymaster of 
 the Forces, that, like the Scotch army at Dunbar, the enemies 
 of Reform have placed themselves at the mercy of their adver 
 saries. Their arguments and their abuse might be equally 
 directed against all Reforms, for all might be asserted to be revo 
 lutionary, anarchical, and demoralizing. It has been said, that 
 the Reform Bill introduced for England is not the Reform for 
 which the people petitioned. Will that Reform Bill which is to 
 be proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, be that Reform for which 
 
100 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 the people have petitioned ? If this Bill, now brought forward by 
 the ancient friends and advocates of the people, be not the Reform 
 which is consonant with popular feeling, what will it be if brought 
 forward by those who have been always opposed to popular feel 
 ing, and who can adduce no reason for presenting it except intimi 
 dation ? The hon. member for Aldborough, and other hon. Mem 
 bers, have complained of certain anomalies in the Bill. They 
 object to the measure, that it gives one county twelve Members, 
 while a larger has got only ten that such a town as Brighton is 
 to have only one Member, while another less considerable is to 
 have two. This may be an excellent argument against the details 
 of the measure ; but it cannot in the slightest degree affect the 
 principle. Will they bring forward an Amendment to remove 
 these anomalies ? Or do they mean to assert that a new Rule of 
 Three sum must be worked upon the occasion of every census ? 
 If not, why do they censure the Bill because it contains anomalies ? 
 But, after all, it contains fewer anomalies than exist in the present 
 system [cries of " No, wo"]. I speak with arithmetical precision. 
 In the proposed system there is no disproportion so great none 
 which can make up the difference between Old Sarum and Man 
 chester. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would, in my mind, do better 
 to answer arguments than to interrupt speeches. If there be ano 
 malies, it is you, and not we, who are bound to propose the remedy 
 so that 
 
 " Each fair burgh, numerically free, 
 Shall choose its Members by the Rule of Three." 
 
 It is asked by the hon. Gentlemen on the other side, will this 
 Reform be final ? In return, I ask you, will your Reform be final I 
 The same, and stronger reasons against a Reform being final, apply 
 themselves to any you would make. Last year, when there was a 
 question of giving Representatives to the greatest manufacturing 
 towns in the world, the same argument was brought forward. It 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 101 
 
 was said, it would only be the prelude to greater changes. Such 
 a Reform could not be final ; how, then, could you pretend to say, 
 that any Reform you propose would be final ? Now, Sir, if I am 
 asked my opinion, I do declare that this Reform of ours is final ; 
 but that any which fell short of it would not be. When I say 
 final, I mean that it will be final for that space of time to which we 
 can look forward, and for which alone we can attempt to legislate. 
 In the course of one hundred years, we may change to have docks 
 as extensive as those of Liverpool in the Hebrides ; and a manu 
 facturing town as large as Manchester, in the county of Galway. 
 The same causes are still in action, which, in many places, have 
 converted hamlets into great towns, and barren heaths into corn 
 fields and meadows. For a country so altered and improved in its 
 condition, we cannot pretend to legislate ; all that we can do is to 
 set those who shall then exist the signal example of the mode and 
 spirit in which such a reform as their circumstances require should 
 take place. In the only way, therefore, in which a public man 
 ought to use the word final, I use it ; and thus I declare this 
 Reform Bill will be final. But as to the other Bill, if the hon. 
 Gentlemen opposite should succeed in any branch of the Legisla 
 ture in throwing out this measure of ours if they should succeed 
 in displacing the present Administration an,d if they should suc 
 ceed in obtaining a House of Commons which would support a 
 new ministry I ask them what they would do ? Sir, there can 
 be no difficulty in foreseeing and describing the progress down 
 wards. First, there would be a mock Reform a Bassetlaw 
 Reform, worthy of those who, when a delinquent borough was to 
 be punished, refused to transfer the franchise to a populous manu 
 facturing town, but threw it into neighboring hundreds worthy 
 of those who refused to give Representatives to the three greatest 
 manufacturing towns in the world a Reform fraught with all the 
 evils of change, and not a single benefit a Reform depriving the 
 Government of the foundation of prescription, without substituting 
 
102 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 the foundation of reason and the public good a Reform which 
 would unsettle establishments, without appeasing discontent a, 
 Reform by which the people would be at once encouraged and 
 exasperated encouraged by the sense of their own importance, 
 and the evident effect of their power, and exasperated because what 
 they obtained was not what they had demanded. Then would 
 come agitation libels would abound the Press would be excited 
 and demagogues would harangue in every street. Coercion 
 would only aggravate the evil. This is no age, this is no country 
 for the war of power against the war of opinions. Those enemies 
 to the public quiet agitators and demagogues, who would be 
 driven back by this Reform Bill to their proper insignificance 
 would become truly powerful, till, at the last, the law would be 
 evaded and opposed till it became a mockery, and England would 
 be reduced to the same condition in which Ireland was placed at 
 the end of the year 1828. Then amidst the cheers of the Whigs, 
 who would be occupying their old places on that side of the House, 
 and the grief and dismay of the Tories, who are now again trust 
 ing, to be again betrayed, some right hon. Gentleman would rise 
 from these benches as did, on the 1st of March, the Paymaster 
 of the Forces, to propose that Bill on which the hearts of the 
 people are fixed. Then should we flatter ourselves that all had 
 been clone ; but not so. The gratitude and delight with which the 
 measure would be now received, could no longer exist when the 
 materials of agitation were ready. They would find themselves in 
 the condition of those in the old stories, who evoked the fiends. 
 When once the evil spirit is called up, you must find him work, or 
 he will tear you in pieces. The noble Lord opposite spoke of the 
 Day of Sacrifices. Let him remember it was afterwards named the 
 Day of Dupes, not because it was a Day of Sacrifices, but of sacri 
 fices delayed too long. It was because the French aristocracy 
 refused Reform in 1*783, that there was Revolution in 1789. But 
 we need not go far to see the danger of delaying inevitable conces- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 103 
 
 sions. Let us look to Ireland. la not one such instance, when 
 made practically, enough to convince one generation ? I feel, that 
 some apology is due for the tone I have assumed ; I fear, that it 
 may be deemed unbecoming in me to make any application to the 
 fears of Members of this House. But surely I may, without 
 reproach, address myself to their honest fears. It is well to talk 
 of opposing a firm front to sedition, and of using vigorous means 
 to put down agitation. Those phrases are used very properly, 
 when they refer to some temporary excitement to some partial 
 disturbances, as in 1780 to stifle which, the show of force and 
 determination on the part of a Government is alone needed then 
 it is well to show a bold front ; but woe to the Government that 
 cannot distinguish between a nation and a mob woe to the 
 Government that thinks a great and steady movement of mind is 
 to be put down like a riot. This error has been twice fatal to the 
 Bourbons it may be fatal to the Legislature of this country if they 
 should venture to foster it. I do believe, that the irrevocable 
 moment has arrived. Nothing can prevent the passing of this 
 noble law this second Bill of Rights. I do call it the second Bill 
 of Rights ; and so will the country call it ; and so will our children. 
 I call it a greater Charter of the liberties of England. Eighteen 
 hundred and thirty-one is destined to exhibit the first example of 
 an established, of a deep-rooted system removed without blood 
 shed, or violence, or rapine all points being debated every punc 
 tilio observed the peaceful industry of the country never for a 
 moment checked or compromised and the authority of the law 
 not for one instant suspended. These are things of which we may 
 well be proud. These are things which make us look with confi 
 dence and good hope to the future destinies of the human race. 
 These are things that enable us to look forward to a long series of 
 tranquil and happy years, in which we shall have a popular 
 Government and a loyal people ; and in which war, if war be 
 inevitable, shall find us a united nation of years pre-eminently 
 
104 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 distinguished by the progress of art and science, and of know 
 ledge generally ; by the diminution of the public burthens, and by 
 all those victories of peace in which, more than in the most splen 
 did military successes, consist the true prosperity of States and the 
 glory of Statesmen. Sir, it is with these feelings, and with these 
 hopes, that I give my most cordial assent to the measure, consider 
 ing it desirable in itself, and at the present moment, and in the 
 present temper of the people, indispensably necessary to the repose 
 of the empire and the stability of the Throne. 
 
10/5 
 
 ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM * 
 
 SEPTEMBER 20, 1831. 
 On the third reading of the Reform Bill for England. 
 
 IT is not without great diffidence, Sir, that I rise to address you 
 on a subject which has been nearly exhausted. Indeed, I should not 
 have risen had I not thought that though the arguments on this 
 question are for the most part old, our situation at present is in 
 a great measure new. At length the Reform Bill, having passed 
 without vital injury through all the dangers which threatened it 
 during a long and minute discussion, from the attacks of its ene 
 mies and from the dissensions of its friends, comes before us for our 
 final ratification, altered, indeed, in some of its details for the 
 better, and in some for the worse, but in its great principles still 
 the same Bill which, on the 1st of March, was proposed to the late 
 Parliament the same Bill which was received with joy and grati 
 tude by the whole nation the same Bill which, in an instant, took 
 away the power of interested agitators, and united in one firm 
 body sects of sincere Reformers the same Bill which, at the late 
 election, received the approbation of almost every great constituent 
 body in the empire. With a confidence which discussion has only 
 strengthened with an assured hope of great public blessings . if 
 the wish of the nation shall be gratified with a deep and solemn 
 apprehension of great public calamities if that wish shall be disap 
 pointed I for the last time give my most hearty assent to this, 
 noble law, destined, I trust, to be the parent of many good laws, 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. vii. 1831, p. 297-311. 
 5* 
 
106 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 and, through a long series of years, to secure the repose and 
 promote the prosperity of my country. When I say that I expect 
 this Bill to promote the prosperity of the country, I by no means 
 intend to encourage those chimerical hopes which the hon. and 
 learned member for Rye, who has so much distinguished himself 
 in this debate, has imputed to the Reformers. The people, he 
 says, are for the Bill, because they expect that it will immediately 
 relieve all their distresses. Sir, I believe that very few of that 
 large and respectable class which we are now about to admit to a 
 share of political power, entertain any such absurd expectation. 
 They expect relief, I doubt not, and I doubt not also that they 
 will find it. But sudden relief they are far too wise to expect. 
 The Bill, says the hon. and learned Gentleman, is good for nothing 
 it is merely theoretical it removes no real and sensible evil 
 it will not give the people more work, or higher wages, or cheaper 
 bread. Undoubtedly, Sir, the Bill will not immediately give all 
 those things to the people. But will any institutions give them all 
 those things ? Do the present institutions of the country secure to 
 them these advantages ? If we are to pronounce the Reform Bill 
 good for nothing, because it will not at once raise the nation from 
 distress to prosperity, what are we to say of that system under 
 which the nation has been of late sinking from prosperity into 
 distress ? The defect is not in the Reform Bill, but in the very 
 nature of government. On the physical condition of the great 
 body of the people, government acts not as a specific, but as an 
 alterative. Its operation is powerful, indeed, and certain, but 
 gradual and indirect. The end of government is not directly to 
 make the people rich, but to protect them in making themselves 
 rich and a Government which attempts more than this is 
 precisely the Government which is likely to perform less. Govern 
 ments do not and cannot support the people. We have no mira 
 culous powers we have not the rod of the Hebrew lawgiver we 
 cannot rain down bread on the multitude from Heaven we 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 107 
 
 cannot smite the rock and give them to drink. We can give 
 them only freedom to employ their industry to the best advantage, 
 and security in the enjoyment of what their industry has acquired. 
 These advantages it is our duty to give at the smallest possible 
 cost. The diligence and forethought of individuals will thus have 
 fair play ; and it is only by the diligence and forethought of indi 
 viduals that the community can become prosperous. I am not 
 aware that his Majesty s Ministers, or any of the supporters of 
 the Bill, have encouraged the people to hope, that Reform will 
 remove their distresses, in any other way than by this indirect 
 process. By this indirect process the Bill will, I feel assured, con 
 duce to the national prosperity. If it had been passed fifteen years 
 ago, it would have saved us from our present embarrassments. If 
 we pass it now, it will gradually extricate us from them. It will 
 secure to us a House of Commons, which, by preserving peace, by 
 destroying monopolies, by taking away unnecessary public 
 burthens, by judiciously distributing necessary public burthens, 
 will, in the progress of time, greatly improve our condition. This 
 it will do ; and those who blame it for not doing more, blame it for 
 not doing what no Constitution, no code of laws, ever did or ever 
 will do ; what no legislator, who was not an ignorant and unprin 
 cipled quack, ever ventured to promise. But chimerical as are the 
 hopes which the hon. and learned member for Rye imputes to the 
 people, they are not, I think, more chimerical than the fears which 
 he has himself avowed. Indeed, those very Gentlemen who are 
 constantly telling us that we are taking a leap in the dark that 
 we pay no attention to the lessons of experience that we are mere 
 theorists are themselves the despisers of experience are them 
 selves the mere theorists. They are terrified at the thought of 
 admitting into Parliament Members elected by 10 householders. 
 They have formed in their own imaginations a most frightful idea 
 of these Members. My hon. and learned friend, the member for 
 Cockermouth, is certain that these Members will take every oppor- 
 
103 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 tunity of promoting the interests of the journeyman in opposition 
 to those of the capitalist. The hon. and learned member for Rye 
 is convinced that none but persons who have strong local con 
 nexions, will ever be returned for such constituent bodies. My 
 hon. friend, the member for Thetford, tells us, that none but mob- 
 orators, men who are willing to pay the basest court to the multi 
 tude, will have any chance. Other speakers have gone still 
 further, and have described to us the future borough Members as 
 so many Marats and Santerres low, fierce, desperate men who 
 will turn the House into a bear-garden, and who will try to turn 
 the monarchy into a republic mere agitators, without honour, 
 without sense, without education, without the feelings or the 
 manners of gentlemen. Whenever, during the course of the 
 fatiguing discussions by which we have been so long occupied, 
 there has been a cry of " question," or a noise at the bar, the 
 orator who has been interrupted has remarked, that such proceed 
 ings will be quite in place in the Reformed Parliament, but that 
 we ought to remember that the House of Commons is still an 
 assembly of Gentlemen. This, I say, is to set up mere theory, or 
 rather mere prejudice, in opposition to long and ample experience. 
 Are the Gentlemen who talk thus, ignorant that we have already 
 the means of judging what kind of men the 10 householders 
 will send up to Parliament ? Are they ignorant that there are 
 even now large towns with very popular rights of election with 
 rights of election even more democratic than those which will be 
 bestowed by the present Bill? Ought they not, on their own 
 principles, to look at the results of the experiments which have 
 already been made, instead of predicting frightful calamities at 
 random ? How do the facts which are before us agree with their 
 theories? Nottingham is a city with a franchise even more demo 
 cratic than that which this Bill establishes. Does Nottingham 
 send hither men of local connexions ? It returns two distinguished 
 men the one an advocate, the other a soldier both unconnected 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 109 
 
 with the town. Every man paying scot-and-lot has a vote at 
 Leicester. This is a lower franchise than the 10 franchise. Do 
 we find that the members for Leicester are the mere tools of the 
 journeymen? I was at Leicester during the contest in 1826, and 
 I recollect that the suffrages of the scot-and-lot voters were pretty 
 equally divided between two candidates neither of them connect 
 ed with the place neither of them a slave of the mob the one 
 a Tory Baronet from Derbyshire the other a most respectable 
 and excellent friend of mine, connected with the manufacturing 
 interest, and also an inhabitant of Derbyshire. Look at Norwich 
 Look at Northampton, with a franchise more democratic than 
 even the scot-and-lot franchise. Northampton formerly returned 
 Mr. Perceval, and now returns Gentlemen of high respectability 
 Gentlemen who have a great stake in the prosperity and tranquillity 
 of the country. Look at the metropolitan districts. This is an a 
 fortiori case. Nay it is the expression, I fear, is awkward an a 
 fortiori case at two removes. The 10 householders of the 
 metropolis are persons in a lower station of life than the 10 
 householders of other towns. The scot-and-lot franchise in the 
 metropolis is again lower than the 10 franchise yet have West 
 minster and Southwark been in the habit of sending us Members 
 of whom we have had reason to be ashamed of whom we have 
 not had reason to be proud ? I do not say that the inhabitants of 
 Westminster and Southwark have always expressed their political 
 sentiments with proper moderation. That is not the question 
 the question is this what kind of men have they elected ? The 
 very principle of all Representative government is, that men who 
 do not judge rightly of public affairs may be quite competent to 
 choose others who will judge better. Whom, then, have West 
 minster and Southwark sent us during the last fifty years years 
 full of great events years of intense popular excitement? Take 
 any one of those nomination-boroughs, the patrons of which have 
 conscientiously endeavoured to send fit men into this House. 
 
110 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, 
 
 Compare the Members for that borough with the members for 
 Westminster and Southwark, and you will have no doubt to which 
 the preference is due. It is needless to mention Mr. Fox, Mr. 
 Sheridan, Mr. Tierney, Sir Samuel Romilly. Yet I must pause at 
 the name of Sir Samuel Romilly. Was he a mob-orator ? Was 
 he a servile flatterer of the multitude 2 Sir, if he had any fault 
 if there was any blemish on that most serene and spotless charac 
 ter that character which every public man, and especially every 
 professional man engaged in politics, ought to propose to himself 
 as a model it was this, that he despised popularity too much and 
 too visibly. The hon. Member for Thetford told us that the hon. 
 and learned member for Rye, with all his talents, would have no 
 chance of a seat in the Reformed Parliament, for want of the quali 
 fications which succeed on the hustings. Did Sir Samuel Romilly 
 ever appear on the hustings ? He never solicited one vote he 
 never shewed himself to the electors till he had been returned at 
 the head of the poll. Even then as I have heard from one of 
 his nearest relatives it was with reluctance that he submitted to 
 be chaired. He shrank from being made a shew. He loved the 
 people, and he served them; but Coriolanus himself was not less 
 fit to canvass them. I will mention one other name that of a 
 man of whom I have only a childish recollection, but who must 
 have been intimately known to many of those who hear me Mr. 
 Henry Thornton. He was a man eminently upright, honourable, 
 and religious a man of strong understanding a man of great 
 political science but, in all respects, the very reverse of a mob- 
 orator. He was a man who would not have yielded to what he 
 considered as unreasonable clamour I will not say to save his 
 seat but to save his life. Yet he continued to represent South 
 wark, Parliament after Parliament, for many years. Such has 
 been the conduct of the scot-and-lot voters of the metropolis, and 
 there is clearly less reason to expect democratic violence from 10 
 householders than from scot-and-lot householders; and from 10 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Ill 
 
 householders in the country-towns than from 10 householders in 
 London. The experience, I say, therefore, is on our side ; and on 
 the side of our opponents nothing but mere conjecture, and mere 
 - assertion. Sir, when this Bill was first brought forward, I sup 
 ported it not only on the ground of its intrinsic merits, but, also, 
 because 1 I was convinced that to reject it would be a course full of 
 danger. I believe that the danger of that course is in no respect 
 diminished. I believe, on the contrary, that it is increased. We 
 are told that there is a reaction. The warmth of the public feeling, 
 it seems, has abated. In this story both the sections of the party 
 opposed to Reform are agreed those who hate Reform, because 
 it will remove abuses, and those who hate it, because it will avert 
 anarchy those who wish to see the electing body controlled by 
 ejectments, and those who wish to see it controlled by constitu 
 tional squeezes. They must now, I think, be undeceived. They 
 must have already discovered that the surest way to prevent a 
 reaction is, to talk about it, and that the enthusiasm of the people 
 is at once rekindled by any indiscreet mention of their seeming 
 coolness. This, Sir, is not the first reaction which the sagacity of 
 the Opposition has discovered since the Reform Bill was brought 
 in. Every Gentleman who sat in the late Parliament every 
 Gentleman who, during the sitting of the late Parliament, paid 
 attention to political speeches and publications, must remember 
 how, for some time before the debate on General Gascoyne s 
 motion, and during the debate on that motion, and down to the 
 very day of the dissolution, we were told that public feeling had 
 cooled. The right hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, told 
 us so. All the literary organs of the Opposition, from the 
 Quarterly Review down to the Morning Post, told us so. All tho 
 members of the Opposition with whom we conversed in privato 
 told us so. I have in my eye a noble friend of mine, who assured 
 me, on the very night which preceded the dissolution, that the 
 people had ceased to be zealous for thy Ministerial plan, and that 
 
112 ^PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 we were more likely to lose than to gain by the elections. The 
 appeal was made to the people; and what was the result? What 
 sign of a reaction appeared among the Livery of London ? What 
 sign of a reaction did the hon. Baronet who now represents Oke- 
 hampton find among the free-holders of Cornwall ? How was it 
 with the large represented towns ? Had Liverpool cooled ? or 
 Bristol ? or Leicester ? or Coventry ? or Nottingham ? or Norwich ? 
 How was it with the great seats of manufacturing industry York 
 shire, and Lancashire, and Staffordshire, and Warwickshire, and 
 Cheshire? How was it with the agricultural districts Northum 
 berland and Cumberland, Leicestershire and Lincolnshire, Kent 
 and Essex, Oxfordshire, Hampshire, Somersetshire, Dorsetshire, 
 Devonshire? How was it with the strong-holds of aristocratical 
 influence, Newark, and Stamford, and Hertford, and St. Alban s ? 
 Never did any people display, within the limits prescribed by law, 
 so generous a fervour, or so steadfast a determination, as that very 
 people whose apparent languor had just before inspired the 
 enemies of Reform with a delusive hope. Such was the end of the 
 reaction of April ; and, if that lesson shall not profit those to whom 
 it was given, such and yet more signal will be the end of the 
 reaction of September. The two cases are strictly analogous. In 
 both cases the people were eager when they believed the Bill to be 
 in danger, and quiet when they believed it to be in security. 
 During the three or four weeks which followed the promulgation 
 of the Ministerial plan, all was joy, and gratitude, and vigorous 
 exertion. Everywhere meetings were held everywhere resolu 
 tions were passed from every quarter were sent up petitions 
 to this House, and addresses to the Throne and then the nation, 
 having given vent to its first feelings of delight having clearly 
 and strongly expressed its opinions having seen the principle of 
 the Bill adopted by the House of Commons on the second reading 
 became composed, and awaited the result with a tranquillity 
 which the Opposition mistook for indifference. All at once the 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 113 
 
 aspect of affairs changed. General Gascoyne s amendment was 
 carried the Bill was again in danger exertions were again 
 necessary. Then was it well seen whether the calmness of the 
 public mind was any indication of slackness ! The depth and 
 sincerity of the prevailing sentiments were proved, not by mere 
 talking, but by actions, by votes, by sacrifices. Intimidation was 
 defied expenses were rejected old ties were broken the people 
 struggled manfully they triumphed gloriously they placed the 
 Bill in perfect security, as far as this House was concerned, and 
 they returned to their repose. They are now, as they were on the 
 eve of General Gascoyne s motion, awaiting the issue of the delibe 
 rations of Parliament, without any indecent shew of violence, but 
 with anxious interest and immovable resolution. And because 
 they are not exhibiting that noisy and rapturous enthusiasm, 
 which is in its own nature transient because they are not as 
 much excited as on the day when the plan of the Govern 
 ment was first made known to them, or on the day when the 
 late Parliament was dissolved because they do not go on week 
 after week, hallooing, and holding meetings, and marching 
 about with flags, and making bonfires, and illuminating their 
 houses we are again told that there is a reaction. To such a de 
 gree can men be deceived by their wishes, in spite of their own 
 recent experience ! Sir, there is no reaction ; and there will be no 
 reaction. All that has been said on this subject convinces me 
 only that those who are now, for the second time, raising this cry, 
 know nothing of the crisis in which they are called on to act, or of 
 the nation which they aspire to govern all their opinions respect 
 ing this Bill are founded on one great error. They imagine that 
 the public feeling concerning Reform is a mere whim which sprang 
 up suddenly out of nothing, and which will as suddenly vanish 
 into nothing. They, therefore, confidently expect a reaction. 
 They are always looking out for a reaction. Everything that they 
 see, or that they hear, they construe into a sign of the approach of 
 
114 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 tliis reaction. They resemble the man in Horace, who lies on the 
 bank of the river, expecting that it will every moment pass by" and 
 leave him a clear passage not knowing the depth and abundance 
 of the fountain which feeds it not knowing that it flows, and will 
 flow on for ever. They have found out a hundred ingenious 
 devices by which they deceive themselves. Sometimes they tell us 
 that the public feeling about Reform was caused by the events 
 which took place at Paris about fourteen months ago ; though 
 every observant and impartial man knows, that the excitement 
 which the late French revolution produced in England, was not 
 the cause but the effect of that progress which liberal opinions had 
 made amongst us. Sometimes they tell us, that we should not 
 have been troubled with any complaints on the subject of the 
 Representation, if the House of Commons had agreed to a certain 
 motion, made in the Session of 1830, for inquiry into the causes of 
 the public distress. I remember nothing about that motion, 
 except that it gave rise to the dullest debate ever known ; and the 
 country, I am firmly convinced, cared not one straw about it. But 
 is it not strange that men of real talents can deceive themselves so 
 grossly, as to think that any change in the Government of a 
 foreign nation, or the rejection of any single motion, however 
 popular, could all at once raise up a great, rich, enlightened nation, 
 against its representative institutions? Could suc*h small drops 
 have produced an overflowing, if the vessel had not already been 
 filled to the very brim ? These explanations are incredible, and if 
 they were credible, would be anything but consolatory. If it 
 were really true that the English people had taken a sudden aver 
 sion to a representative system which they had always loved and 
 admired, because a single division in Parliament had gone against 
 their wishes, or because, in a foreign country, under circumstances 
 bearing not the faintest analogy to those in which we are placed, a 
 change of dynasty had happened, what hope could we have for 
 such a nation of madmen ? How could we expect that the present 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 115 
 
 form of government, or any form of government, would be durable 
 amongst them ? Sir, the public feeling concerning Reform is of no 
 such recent origin, and springs from no such frivolous causes. Its 
 first faint commencement may be traced far very far back in 
 our history. During seventy years it has had a great influence on 
 the public mind. Through the first thirty years of the reign of 
 George III., it was gradually increasing. The great leaders of the 
 two parties in the State were favourable to Reform. It was sup 
 ported by large and most respectable minorities in the House of 
 Commons. The French Revolution, filling the higher and middle 
 classes with an extreme dread of change, and the war calling away 
 the public attention from internal to external politics, threw the 
 question back ; but the people never lost sight of it. Peace came, 
 and they were at leisure to think of domestic improvements. 
 Distress came, and they suspected, as was natural, that ,their 
 distress was the effect of unfaithful stewardship and unskilful legis 
 lation. An opinion favourable to Parliamentary Reform grew up 
 rapidly, and became strong among the middle classes. But one 
 tie one strong tie still bound those classes to the Tory party, I 
 mean the Catholic Question. It is impossible to deny, that on 
 that subject a large proportion a majority, I fear of the middle 
 class of Englishmen, conscientiously held opinions opposed to 
 those which I have always entertained, and were disposed to 
 sacrifice every other consideration to what they considered as 
 a religious duty. Thus the Catholic Question hid, so to speak, 
 the question of Parliamentary Reform : the feeling in favour of 
 Parliamentary Reform grew, but it grew in the shade. Every 
 man, I think, must have observed the progress of that feeling in 
 his own social circle. But few Reform meetings were held, and 
 few petitions in favour of Reform presented. At length the 
 Catholics were emancipated ; the solitary link of sympathy which 
 attached the people to the Tories was broken ; the cry of " No 
 Popery" could no longer be opposed to the cry of " Reform." 
 
116 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 That which, in the opinion of the two great parties in Parliament, 
 and of a vast portion of the community, had been the first 
 question, suddenly disappeared ; and the question of Parliamen 
 tary Reform took the first place ; then was put forth all the 
 strength which that question had gathered in secret ; then it 
 appeared that Reform had on its side a coalition of interests and 
 opinions unprecedented in our history all the liberality and 
 intelligence which had supported the Catholic claims, and all the 
 clamour which had opposed them. This, I believe, is the true 
 history of that public feeling on the subject of Reform, which has 
 been ascribed to causes quite inadequate to the production of such 
 an effect. If ever there was in the history of mankind a national 
 sentiment which was the very opposite of a caprice with which 
 accident had nothing to do which was produced by the slow, 
 steady, certain progress of the human mind, it is the feeling of the 
 English people on the subject of Reform. Accidental circumstan 
 ces may have brought that feeling to maturity in a particular year, 
 or a particular month. That point I will not dispute, for it is not 
 worth disputing ; but those accidental circumstances have brought 
 on Reform, only as the circumstance that, at a particular time, 
 indulgences were offered to sale in a particular town in Saxony, 
 brought on the great separation from the Church of Rome. In 
 both cases the public mind was prepared to move on the slightest 
 impulse. Thinking thus of the public opinion concerning Reform 
 being convinced that this opinion is the mature product of time 
 ad of discussion I expect no reaction. I no more expect to see 
 my countrymen again content with the mere semblance of a Repre 
 sentation, than to see them again drowning witches or burning 
 heretics trying causes by red-hot plough-shares, or offering up 
 human sacrifices to wicker idols. I no more expect a reaction in 
 favour of Gatton and Old Sarum, than a reaction in favour of 
 Thor and Odin. I should think such a reaction almost as much a 
 miracle, as that the shadow should go back upon the dial. Revo- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 11 7 
 
 lutions produced by violence are often followed by reactions ; the 
 victories of reason once gained, are gained for eternity. In fact, if 
 there be in the present aspect of public affairs, any sign peculiarly 
 full of evil omen to the opponents of Reform, it is that very calm 
 ness of the public mind on which they found their expectations of 
 success. They think that it is the calmness of indifference. It is 
 the calmness of confident hope ; and in proportion to the con 
 fidence of hope will be the bitterness of disappointment. Disap 
 pointment, indeed, I do not anticipate. That we are certain of 
 success in this House is now acknowledged ; and our opponents 
 have, in consequence, during the whole of our Session, and parti 
 cularly during the present debate, addressed their arguments and 
 exhortations rather to the Lords than to the assembly of which 
 they are themselves Members. Their principal argument has 
 always been, that the Bill will destroy the peerage. The hon. and 
 learned member for Rye has, in plain terms, called on the Barons 
 of England to save their order from democratic encroachments, by 
 rejecting this measure. All these arguments all these appeals 
 being interpreted, mean this : " Proclaim to your countrymen that 
 you have no common interests with them, no common sympathies 
 with them ; that you can be powerful only by their weakness, and 
 exalted only by their degradation ; that the corruptions which 
 disgust them, and the oppression against which their spirit rises 
 up, are indispensable to your authority ; that the freedom and 
 purity of election are incompatible with the very existence of your 
 House. Give them clearly to understand that your power rests, 
 not as .they have hitherto imagined, on their rational conviction, 
 or their habitual veneration, or your own great property, but on a 
 system fertile of political evils, fertile also of low iniquities of which 
 ordinary justice takes cognizance. Bind up, in inseparable union, 
 the privileges of your estate with the grievances of ours ; resolve 
 to stand or fall with abuses visibly marked out for destruction ; 
 tell the people that they are attacking you in attacking the 
 
118 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 three holes in the wall, and that they shall never get rid of the 
 three holes in the wall till they have got rid of you that a 
 hereditary peerage, and a representative assembly, can co-exist 
 only in name that, if they will have a House of Peers, they must 
 be content with a mock House of Commons." This, I say, is the 
 advice, bestowed on the Lords, by those who call themselves the 
 friends of aristocracy. That advice so pernicious will not be fol 
 lowed, I am well assured ; yet I cannot but listen to it with 
 uneasiness. I cannot but wonder that it should proceed from the 
 lips of men who are constantly lecturing us on the duty of consult 
 ing history and experience. Have they ever heard what effects 
 counsels like their own, when too faithfully followed, have pro 
 duced ? Have they ever visited that neighbouring country, which 
 still presents to the eye, even of a passing stranger, the signs of a 
 great dissolution and renovation of society ? Have they ever 
 walked by those stately mansions, now sinking into decay, and 
 portioned out into lodging-rooms, which line the silent streets of 
 the Fauxbourg St. Germain ? Have they ever seen the ruins of 
 those castles whose terraces and gardens overhang the Loire? 
 Have they ever heard that from those magnificent hotels, from 
 those ancient castles, an aristocracy as splendid, as brave, as proud, 
 as accomplished as ever Europe saw, was driven forth to exile and 
 beggary to implore the charity of hostile Governments and 
 hostile creeds to cut wood in the back settlements of America 
 or to teach French in the school-rooms of London ? And why 
 were those haughty nobles destroyed with that utter destruction ? 
 Why were they scattered over the face of the earth, their titles 
 abolished, their escutcheons defaced, their parks wasted, their 
 palaces dismantled, their heritage given to strangers ? Because 
 they had no sympathy with the people no discernment of the 
 signs of their time because, in the pride and narrowness of theii* 
 hearts, they called those whose warnings might have saved them, 
 theorists and speculators, because they refused all concession till 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 119 
 
 the time had arrived when no concession would avail. I have no 
 apprehension 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 incompa 
 tible 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 them 
 selves 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 constitu 
 tional 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 
 
120 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 together, breaking away from each other leaving the fund- 
 holders 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 question 
 united 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 
 evils, 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. 
 
121 
 
 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 ob 
 jects 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 Con 
 stitution has assigned to us if we employ, with becoming firm 
 ness 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- 
 
 * Hansard, 8d Series, vol. viii. p. 390-899. 
 VOL. I. 6 
 
122 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 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, Uni 
 versity 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. Did 
 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, 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 123 
 
 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 0111 
 opinion. The justice of the case is unaltered. The public enthu 
 siasm is undiminished. Old Sarum has grown no larger, Manches 
 ter 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 inde 
 pendent of their Lordships, as their Lordships are of us ; we have 
 precisely as gcM 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 Com 
 mons 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 impor 
 tant 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 com 
 posed ; I cannot forget that the majority contained almost all those 
 Gentlemen who are returned bv large bodies of electors. It is, I 
 believe, no exaggeration to say, that there were single Members of 
 
124 STATE OF THE KATION. 
 
 the majority who had more constituents than the whole minority 
 put together. I speak advisedly and seriously ; I believe that the 
 number of freeholders of Yorkshire exceeds that of all the electors 
 who return the Opposition. I cannot with propriety comment 
 here on any reports which may have been circulated concerning 
 the majority and minority in the House of Lords. I may, how 
 ever, mention these notoriously historical facts that during the 
 last forty years the powers of the executive Government have been, 
 almost without intermission, exercised by a party opposed to 
 Reform ; and that a very great number of Peers have been created, 
 and all the present Bishops raised to the bench during those years. 
 On this Question, therefore, while I feel more than usual respect 
 for the judgment of the House of Commons, I feel less than usual 
 respect for the judgment of the House of Lords. Our decision is 
 the decision of the nation ; the decision of their Lordships can 
 scarcely be considered as the decision even of that class from which 
 the Peers are generally selected, and of which they may be con 
 sidered as virtual Representatives the great landed gentlemen of 
 England. I think, therefore, that we ought to adhere to our 
 opinion concerning the Reform Bill. The next question is this 
 ought we to make a formal declaration that we adhere to our 
 opinion ? I think that we ought to make such a declaration ; and 
 I am sure that we cannot make it in more temperate or more con 
 stitutional terms than those which my noble friend asks us to 
 adopt. I support the Resolution which he has proposed with all 
 my heart and soul ; I support it as a friend to Reform ; but I sup 
 port it still more as a friend to law, to property, to social order. 
 No observant and unprejudiced man can look forward without 
 great alarm to the effects which the recent decision of the Lords 
 may possibly produce. I do not predict I do not expect open, 
 armed insurrection. What I apprehend is this that the people 
 may engage in a silent, but extensive and persevering war against 
 the law. What I apprehend is, that England may exhibit the 
 
STATE OF TflB NATION. 125 
 
 same spectacle which Ireland exhibited three years ago agitators 
 stronger than the Magistrate, associations stronger than the law, a 
 Government powerful enough to be hated, and not powerful enough 
 to be feared, a people bent on indemnifying themselves by illegal 
 excesses for the want of legal privileges. I fear, that we may before 
 long see the tribunals defied, the tax-gatherer resisted, public credit 
 shaken, property insecure, the whole frame of society hastening to 
 dissolution. It is easy to say "Be bold be firm defy intimi 
 dation let the law have its course the law is strong enough to 
 put down the seditious." Sir, we have heard this blustering before ; 
 and we know in what it ended. It is the blustering of little men 
 whose lot has fallen on a great crisis. Xerxes scourging the winds, 
 Canute commanding the waves to recede from his footstool, were 
 but types of the folly of those who apply the maxims of the Quar 
 ter Sessions to the great convulsions of society. The law has no 
 eyes ; the law has no hands ; the law is nothing nothing but a 
 piece of paper printed by the King s printer, with the King s arms 
 at the top till public opinion breathes the breath of life into the 
 dead letter. We found this in Ireland. The Catholic Association 
 bearded the Government. The Government resolved to put down 
 the Association. An indictment was brought against my hon. and 
 learned friend, the member for Kerry. The Grand Jury threw it 
 out. Parliament met. The Lords Commissioners came down with a 
 speech recommending the suppression of the self-constituted legis 
 lature of Dublin. A bill was brought in ; it passed both Houses 
 by large majorities ; it received the Royal assent. And what effect 
 did it produce ? Exactly as much as that old Act of Queen Eliza 
 beth, still unrepealed, by which it is provided that every man who, 
 without a special exemption, shall eat meat on Fridays and Satur 
 days, shall pay a fine of 20s. or go to prison for a month. Not 
 only was the Association not destroyed ; its power was not for one 
 day suspended ; it flourished and waxed strong under the law which 
 had been made for the purpose of annihilating it. The elections 
 
126 STATE OP THE NATION. 
 
 of 182G the Clare election two years later proved the folly of 
 those who think that nations are governed by wax and parchment 
 and, at length, in the close of 1828, the Government had only 
 one plain alternative before it concession or civil war. Sir, I 
 firmly believe, that if the people of England shall lose all hope 
 of carrying the Reform Bill by constitutional means, they will 
 forthwith begin to offer to the Government the same kind of resist 
 ance which was offered to the late Government, three years ago, 
 by the people of Ireland a resistance by no means amounting to 
 rebellion a resistance rarely amounting to any crime defined by 
 the law but a resistance nevertheless which is quite sufficient to 
 obstruct the course of justice, to disturb the pursuits of industry, 
 and to prevent the accumulation of wealth. And is not this a dan 
 ger which we ought to fear ? And is not this a danger which we are 
 bound, by all means in our power, to avert ? And who are those 
 who taunt us for yielding to intimidation ? Who are those who 
 affect to speak with contempt of associations, and agitators, and 
 public meetings ? Even the very persons who, scarce two years 
 ago, gave up to associations, and agitators, and public meetings, 
 their boasted Protestant Constitution, proclaiming all the time that 
 they saw the evils of Catholic Emancipation as strongly as ever. 
 Surely surely the note of defiance which is now so loudly 
 sounded in our ears, proceeds with a peculiarly bad grace from 
 men whose highest glory it is that they abased themselves to the 
 dust before a people whom their policy had driven to madness 
 from men the proudest moment of whose lives was that in which 
 they appeared in the character of persecutors scared into toleration. 
 Do they mean to indemnify themselves for the humiliation of quail 
 ing before the people of Ireland by trampling on the people of 
 England ? If so, they deceive themselves. The case of Ireland, 
 though a strong one, was by no means so strong a case as that 
 with which we have now to deal. The Government, in its strug 
 gle with the Catholics of Ireland, had Great Britain at its back. 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 127 
 
 Whom will it have at its back in the struggle with the Reformers 
 of Great Britain ? I know only two ways in which societies can 
 permanently be governed by public opinion, and by the sword. 
 A Government having at its command the armies, the fleets, and 
 the revenues of Great Britain, might possibly hold Ireland by the 
 sword. So Oliver Cromwell held Ireland ; so William III. held 
 it ; so Mr. Pitt held it ; so the Duke of Wellington might perhaps 
 have held it. But to govern Great Britain by the sword so wild 
 a thought has never, I will venture to say, occurred to any public 
 man of any party ; and, if any man were frantic enough to make 
 the attempt, he would find, before three days had expired, that 
 there is no better sword than that which is fashioned out of a 
 ploughshare. But, if not by the sword, how is the country to be 
 governed ? I understand how the peace is kept at New York. It 
 is by the assent and support of the people. I understand also how 
 the peace is kept at Milan. It is by the bayonets of the Austrian 
 soldiers. But how the peace is to be kept when you have neither 
 the popular assent nor the military force how the peace is to be 
 kept in England by a Government acting on the principles of the 
 present Opposition, I do not understand. There is in truth a great 
 anomaly in the relation between the English people and their 
 Government. Our institutions are either too popular or not popu 
 lar enough. The people have not sufficient power in making the 
 laws ; but they have quite sufficient power to impede the execution 
 of the laws once made. The Legislature is almost entirely aristo- 
 cratical ; the machinery by which the decrees of the Legislature 
 are carried into effect is almost entirely popular ; and, therefore, we 
 constantly see all the power which ought to execute the law, em 
 ployed to counteract the law. Thus, for example, with a criminal 
 code which carries its rigour to the length of atrocity, we have a 
 criminal judicature which often carries its lenity to the length of per 
 jury. Our law of libel is the most absurdly severe that ever existed 
 so absurdly severe that, if it were carried into full effect, it would 
 
128 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 be much more oppressive than a censorship. And" yet, with this 
 severe law of libel, we have a Press which practically is as free as 
 the air. In 1819 the Ministers complained of the alarming increase 
 of seditious and blasphemous publications. They proposed a law 
 of great rigour to stop the growth of the evil ; and they obtained 
 their law. It was enacted, that the publisher of a seditious libel 
 might, on a second conviction, be banished, and that if he should 
 return from banishment, he might be transported. How often was 
 this law put in force ? Not once. . Last year we repealed it ; but 
 it was already dead, or rather it was dead born. It was obsolete 
 before le Roi le veut had been pronounced over it. For any effect 
 which it produced it might as well have been in the Code Napo 
 leon as in the English Statute-book. And why did the Govern 
 ment, having solicited and produced so sharp and weighty a wea 
 pon, straightway hang it up to rust ? Was there less sedition, 
 were there fewer libels, after the passing of the Act than before it ? 
 Sir, the very next year was the year 1820 the year of the Bill of 
 Pains and Penalties the very year when the public mind was 
 most excited the very year when the public Press was most scur 
 rilous. "Why then did not the Ministers use their new law ? Be 
 cause they durst not ; because they could not. They had obtained 
 it with ease ; for in obtaining it they had to deal with a subservi 
 ent Parliament. They could not execute it ; for in executing it they 
 would have to deal with a refractory people. These are instances 
 of the difficulty of carrying the law into effect when the people are 
 inclined to thwart their rulers. The great anomaly, or, to speak 
 more properly, the great evil which I have described, would, I 
 believe, be removed by the Reform Bill. That Bill would esta 
 blish perfect harmony between the people and the Legislature. It 
 would give a fair share in the making of laws to those without 
 whose co-operation laws are mere waste paper. Under a reformed 
 system we should not see, as we now often see, the nation repeal 
 ing Acts of Parliament as fast as we and the Lords can pass them. 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 129 
 
 As I believe that the Reform Bill would produce this blessed and 
 salutary concord, so I fear that the rejection of the Reform Bill, if 
 that rejection should be considered as final, will aggravate the evil 
 which I have been describing to an unprecedented, to a terrible 
 extent. To all the laws which might be passed for the collection 
 of the revenue, or for the prevention of sedition, the people would 
 oppose the same kind of resistance by means of which they have 
 succeeded in mitigating I might say in abrogating the law of 
 libel. There would be so many offenders, that the Government 
 would scarcely know at whom to aim its blow. Every offender 
 would have so many accomplices and protectors, that the blow 
 would almost always miss the aim. The veto of the people a 
 veto not pronounced in set form, like that of the Roman Tribunes, 
 but quite as effectual as that of the Roman Tribunes for the pur 
 pose of impeding public measures, would meet the Government at 
 every turn. The Administration would be unable to preserve 
 order at home, or to uphold the national honour abroad : and at 
 length men who are now moderate, who now think of revolution 
 with horror, would begin to wish that the lingering agony of the 
 State might be terminated by one fierce, sharp, decisive crisis ? Is 
 there a way of escape from these calamities ? I believe that there 
 is. I believe that if we do our duty if we give the people reason 
 to believe that the accomplishment of their wishes is only deferred 
 if we declare our undiminished attachment to the Reform Bill, 
 and our resolution to support no Minister who will not support 
 that Bill, we shall avert the fearful disasters which impend over 
 the country. There is danger that, at this conjuncture, men of 
 more zeal than wisdom may obtain a fatal influence over the pub 
 lic mind. With these men will be joined others, who have neither 
 zeal nor wisdom common barrators in politics dregs of society 
 which, in times of violent agitation, are tossed up from the bottom 
 to the top, and which, in quiet times, sink again from the top to 
 
 their natural place at the bottom. To these men nothing is so hate- 
 
 6* 
 
130 STATE OF THE NATION. 
 
 ful as the prospect of a reconciliation between the orders of the 
 State. A crisis like that, which now makes every honest citizen 
 sad and anxious, fills these men with joy, and with a detestable 
 hope. And how is it that such men, formed by nature and educa 
 tion to be objects of mere contempt, can ever inspire terror? 
 How is it that such men, without talents or acquirements sufficient 
 for the management of a vestry, sometimes become dangerous to 
 great empires ? The secret of their power lies in the indolence or 
 faithlessness of those who ought to take the lead in the redress of 
 public grievances. The whole history of low traders in sedition is 
 contained in that fine old Hebrew fable which we have all read in 
 the Book of Judges. The trees meet to choose a king. The vine, 
 and the fig-tree, and the olive tree, decline the office. Then it is 
 that the sovereignty of the forest devolves upon the bramble : then 
 it is that from a base and noxious shrub goes forth the fire which 
 devours the cedars of Lebanon. Let us be instructed. If we are 
 afraid of Political Unions, and Reform Associations, let the House 
 of Commons become the chief point of political union ; let the 
 House of Commons be the great Reform association. If we are 
 afraid that the people may attempt to accomplish their wishes by 
 unlawful means, let us give them a solemn pledge that we will use 
 in their cause all our high and ancient privileges so often \ ; cto- 
 rious in old conflicts with tyranny those privileges which our 
 ancestors invoked, not in vain, on the day when a faithless King 
 filled our house with his guards, took his seat, Sir, on your chair, 
 and saw your predecessor kneeling on the floor before him. The 
 Constitution of England, thank God, is not one of those Constitu 
 tions which are past all repair, and which must, for the public wel 
 fare, be utterly destroyed. It has a decayed part ; but it has also 
 a sound and precious part. It requires purification ; but it con 
 tains within itself the means by which that purification may be 
 effected. We read that in old times, when the villeins were 
 driven to revolt by oppression, when the castles of the nobility 
 
STATE OF THE NATION. 131 
 
 were burned to the ground when the warehouses of London were 
 pillaged when a hundred thousand insurgents appeared in arms 
 on Blackheath when a foul murder perpetrated in their presence 
 had raised their passions to madness when they were looking 
 round for some captain to succeed and avenge him whom they had 
 lost just then, before Hob Miller, or Tom Carter, or Jack Straw, 
 could place himself at their head, the King rode up to them j,nd 
 exclaimed, " I will be your leader" and at once the infuriated 
 multitude laid down their arms, submitted to his guidance dis 
 persed at his command. Herein let us imitate him. Our coun 
 trymen are, I fear, at this moment, but too much disposed to lend 
 a credulous ear to selfish impostors. Let us say to them, " We are 
 your leaders we, your own House of Commons we, the consti 
 tutional interpreters of your wishes the knights of forty English 
 shires, the citizens and burgesses of all your largest towns. Our 
 lawful power shall be firmly exerted to the utmost in your cause ; 
 and our lawful power is such, that when firmly exerted in your cause 
 it must finally prevail." This tone it is our interest and our duty 
 to take. The circumstances admit of no delay. Is there one 
 among us who is not looking with breathless anxiety for the next 
 tidings which may arrive from the remote parts of the kingdom 3 
 Even while I speak the moments are passing away the irrevocable 
 moments pregnant with the destiny of a great people. The coun 
 try is in danger ; it may be saved ; we can save it. This is the 
 way this is the time. In our hands are the issues of great good 
 and great evil the issues of the life and death of the State. May 
 the result of our deliberations be the repose and prosperity of that 
 noble country which is entitled to all our love ; and for the safety 
 of which we are answerable to our consciences, to the memory of 
 future ages, to the Judge of all hearts ! 
 
132 
 
 ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.* 
 
 DECEMBER 16, 1831. 
 
 I CAN assure my noble friend, for whom I entertain sentiments of 
 respect and kindness, which no political difference will, I trust, ever 
 disturb, that his remarks have given me no pain, except, indeed, 
 the pain which I feel at being compelled to say a few words about 
 myself. Those words shall be very few. I know how unpopular 
 egotism is in this House. My noble friend says, that, in the debates 
 of last March, I declared myself opposed to the ballot, and that I 
 have since recanted, for the purpose of making myself popular with 
 the inhabitants of Leeds. My noble friend is altogether mistaken. 
 I never said in any debate, that I was opposed to the ballot. The 
 word ballot never passed my lips within this House. I observed 
 strict silence respecting it on two accounts : in the first place, 
 because my own opinions were, till very lately, undecided ; in the 
 second place, because I knew that the agitation of that question, a 
 question of which the importance appears to me to be greatly over 
 rated, would divide those on whose firm and cordial union the 
 safety of the empire depends. My noble friend has taken this 
 opportunity of replying to a speech which I made last October. 
 The doctrines which I then laid down were, according to him, most 
 intemperate and dangerous. Now, Sir, it happens curiously 
 enough, that my noble friend has himself asserted, in his speech of 
 this night, those very doctrines, in language so nearly resembling 
 mine, that I might fairly accuse him of plagiarism. I said, that 
 laws have no force in themselves, and that unless supported by 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. ix. p. 878-392. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 133 
 
 public opinion, they are a mere dead letter. The noble Lord has 
 said exactly the same thing to-night. " Keep your old Constitu 
 tion," is his argument ; " for whatever may be its defects in theory, 
 it has more of the public veneration than your new constitution 
 will have ; and no laws can be efficient, unless they have the public 
 veneration." I said, that statutes are in themselves only wax and 
 parchment, and I was called an incendiary by the Opposition. The 
 noble Lord has said to-night, that statutes in themselves are only 
 ink and parchment ; and those very persons who reviled me, have 
 enthusiastically cheered him. It is, evidently, not from the prin 
 ciple which I laid down, but from the application of the principle 
 that they dissent. But, Sir, it is time that I should address myself 
 to the momentous question before us. I shall certainly give my 
 best support to this Bill through all its stages ; and in so doing, I 
 conceive that I shall act in strict conformity with the resolution by 
 which this House, towards the close of the late Session, declared 
 its unabated attachment to the principles and to the leading provi 
 sions of the first Reform Bill. All those principles, all those lead 
 ing provisions, I find in the present measure. In the details there 
 are, undoubtedly, considerable alterations. Most of the alterations 
 appear to me to be improvements ; and even those alterations 
 which I cannot consider as being in themselves improvements, will 
 yet be most useful, if their effect shall be to conciliate opponents, 
 and to facilitate the adjustment of a question which, for the sake 
 of order, for the sake of peace, for the sake of trade, ought to be not 
 only satisfactorily, but speedily settled. We have been told, Sir, 
 that, if we pronounce this Bill to be a better Bill than the last, we 
 recant all the doctrines which we maintained during the last Ses 
 sion ; we sing our palinode ; we allow that we have had a great 
 escape ; we allow that our own conduct was deserving of censure ; 
 we allow that the party which was the minority in this House, and, 
 most unhappily for the country, the majority in the other 
 House, has saved the country from a great calamity. Sir, even if 
 
134 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 tliis charge were well-founded, there are those who should have 
 been prevented by prudence, if not by magnanimity, from bringing 
 it forward. I remember an Opposition which took a very different 
 course. I remember an Opposition which, while excluded from 
 power, taught all its doctrines to the Government ; which, after 
 labouring long, and sacrificing much, in order to effect improve 
 ments in various parts of our system, saw the honuor of those 
 improvements appropriated by others. But the members of that 
 Opposition had, I believe, a sincere Hesire to promote the public 
 good. They, therefore, raised no shout of triumph over the recan 
 tations of their neophytes. They rejoiced, but with no ungenerous 
 joy, when their principles of trade, of jurisprudence, of foreign 
 policy, of religious liberty, became the principles of the Adminis 
 tration. They were content that he who came into fellowship with 
 them at the eleventh hour should have a far larger share of the 
 reward than those who had borne the burthen and heat of the day. 
 In the year 1828, a single division in this House changed the 
 whole policy of the Government with respect to the Test and Cor 
 poration Acts. My noble friend, the Paymaster of the Forces, then 
 sat where the right Hon. Baronet, the member for Tamworth, now 
 sits. I do not remember that when the right hon. Baronet an 
 nounced his change of "purpose, my noble friend sprang up to talk 
 about palinodes, to magnify the wisdom and virtue of the Whigs, 
 and to sneer at his new coadjutors. Indeed, I am not sure that 
 the members of the late Opposition did not carry their indulgence 
 too far that they did not too easily suffer the fame of Grattan and 
 Romilly to be transferred to less deserving claimants that they 
 were not too ready, in the joy with which they welcomed the tardy 
 and convenient repentance of their converts, to grant a general 
 amnesty for the errors or the insincerity of years. If it were true 
 that we had recanted, this ought not to be made matter of charge 
 against us by men whom posterity will remember by nothing but 
 recantations. But, in truth, we recant nothing we have nothing 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 135 
 
 to recant. We support this Bill we may possibly think it a better 
 Bill than that which preceded it. But are we therefore bound to 
 admit that we were in the wrong that the Opposition was in the 
 right that the House of Lords has conferred a great benefit on the 
 nation ? We saw who did not see great defects in the first Bill ? 
 But did we see nothing else ? Is delay no evil ? Is prolonged 
 excitement no evil ? Is it no evil that the heart of a great people 
 should be made sick by deferred hope ? We allow that many of the 
 changes which have been made are improvements. But we think 
 that it would have been far better for the country to have had the last 
 Bill, with all its defects, than the present Bill, with all its improve 
 ments. Second thoughts are proverbially the best, but there are 
 emergencies which do not admit of second thoughts. There proba 
 bly never was a law which might not have been amended by delay. 
 But there have been many cases in which there would have been 
 more mischief in the delay, than benefit in the amendments. The first 
 Bill, however inferior it may have been in its details to the present 
 Bill, was yet herein far superior to the present Bill that it was the 
 first. If the first Bill had passed, it would, I firmly believe, have 
 produced a complete reconciliation between the aristocracy and the 
 people. It is my earnest wish and prayer that the present Bill 
 may produce this blessed effect ; but I cannot say that my hopes are 
 so sanguine as they were at the beginning of the last Session. The 
 decision of the House of Lords has, I fear, excited in the public 
 mind feelings of resentment which will not soon be allayed. What 
 then, it is said, would you legislate in haste ? Would you legislate 
 in times of great excitement concerning matters of such deep con 
 cern ? Yes, Sir, I would : and if any bad consequences should 
 follow from the haste and the excitement, let those be held answer 
 able who, when there was no need of haste, when there existed no 
 excitement, refused to listen to any project of Reform nay, who 
 made it an argument against Reform, that the public mind was not 
 excited. When few meetings were held, when few petitions were 
 
136 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 sent up to us, these politicians said, " Would you alter a Constitu 
 tion with which the people are perfectly satisfied ?" And now, 
 when the kingdom from one end to the other is convulsed by the 
 question of Reform, we hear it said by the very same persons, 
 " Would you altr the Representative system in such agitated 
 times as these ?" Half the logic of misgovernment lies in this one 
 sophistical dilemma : If the people are turbulent, they are unfit for 
 liberty : if they are quiet, they do not want liberty. I allow, that 
 hasty legislation is an evil. I allow that there are great objections 
 to legislating in troubled times. But Reformers are compelled to 
 legislate fast, because bigots will not legislate early. Reformers are 
 compelled to legislate in times of excitement, because bigots will 
 not legislate in times of tranquillity. If, ten years ago nay, if 
 only two years ago, there had been at the head of affairs, men who 
 understood the signs of the times and the temper of the nation, we 
 should not have been forced to hurry now. If we cannot take our 
 time, it is because we have to make up their lost time. If they had 
 reformed gradually, we might have reformed gradually ; but we 
 are compelled to move fast, because they would not move at all. 
 Though I admit, Sir, that this Bill is in its details superior to the 
 former Bill, I must say, that the best parts of this Bill those parts 
 for the sake of which principally I support it those parts for the 
 sake of which I would support it, however imperfect its details 
 might be, are parts which it has in common with the former Bill. 
 It destroys nomination ; it admits the great body of the middle 
 orders to a share in the government ; and it contains provisions 
 which will, as I conceive, greatly diminish the expense of elections. 
 Touching the expense of elections, I will say a few words, because 
 that part of the subject has not, I think, received so much atten 
 tion as it deserves. Whenever the nomination boroughs are 
 attacked, the opponents of Reform produce a long list of eminent 
 men who have sat for those boroughs, and who, they tell us, would 
 never have taken any part in public affairs but for those boroughs. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 137 
 
 Now, Sir, I suppose no person will maintain that a large constitu 
 ent body is likely to prefer ignorant and incapable men, to men of 
 information and ability? Whatever objections there may be to 
 democratic institutions, it was never, I believe, doubted that those 
 institutions are favourable to the development of talents. We may 
 prefer the constitution of Sparta to that of Athens, or the constitu 
 tion of Venice to that of Florence, but no person will deny that 
 Athens produced more great men than Sparta, or that Florence 
 produced more great men than Venice. But to come nearer home : 
 the five largest English towns which now have the right of return 
 ing two Members each by popular election, are Westminster, South- 
 wark, Liverpool, Bristol, and Norwich. Now let us see what 
 Members those places have sent to Parliament. I will not speak 
 of the living, though among the living are some of the most dis 
 tinguished ornaments of the House. I will confine myself to the 
 dead. Among many respectable and useful members of Parlia 
 ment, whom these towns have returned, during the last half cen 
 tury, I find Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, Mr. Sheridan, Mr. Windham, Mr. 
 Tierney, Sir Samuel Romilly, Mr. Canning, Mr. Huskisson. These 
 were eight of the most illustrious parliamentary leaders of the 
 generation which is passing away from the world. Mr. Pitt was, 
 perhaps, the only person worthy to make a ninth with them. It 
 is, surely, a remarkable circumstance that, of the nine most dis 
 tinguished Members of the House of Commons who have died 
 within the last forty years, eight should have been returned to Par 
 liament by the five largest represented towns. I am, therefore, 
 warranted in saying, that great constituent bodies are quite as 
 competent to discern merit, and quite as much disposed to reward 
 merit, as the proprietors of boroughs. It is true that some of the 
 distinguished statesmen whom I have mentioned would never have 
 been known to large constituent bodies if they had not first sate for 
 nomination boroughs. But, why is this? Simply, because the 
 expense of contesting popular places, under the present system, is 
 
138 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 ruinously great. A poor man cannot defray it ; an untried man 
 cannot expect his constituents to defray it for him. And this is 
 the way in which our Representative system is defended. Cor 
 ruption vouches corruption. Every abuse is made the plea for 
 another abuse. We must have nomination at Gatton, because we 
 have profusion at Liverpool. Sir, these arguments convince me, 
 not that no Reform is required, but that a very deep and searching 
 Reform is required. If two evils serve in some respects to coun 
 terbalance each other, this is a reason, not for keeping both, but 
 for getting rid of both together. At present you close against men 
 of talents that broad, that noble entrance which belongs to them, 
 and which ought to stand wide open to them ; and in exchange 
 you open to them a bye-entrance low and narrow always 
 obscure often filthy through which, too often, they can pass 
 only by crawling on their hands and knees, and from which they 
 too often emerge sullied with stains never to be washed away. 
 But take the most favourable case. Suppose that the Member 
 who sits for a nomination borough, owes his seat to a man of virtue 
 and honour, to a man whose service is perfect freedom, to a man 
 who would think himself degraded by any proof of gratitude which 
 might degrade his nominee. Yet, is it nothing that he comes into 
 this House wearing the badge, though not feeling the chain of ser 
 vitude ? Is it nothing that he cannot speak of his independence 
 without exciting a smile ? Is it nothing that he is considered, not 
 as a Representative, but as an adventurer? This is what your 
 system does for men of genius. It admits them to political power, 
 not as, under better institutions, they would be admitted to power, 
 erect independent unsullied but by means which corrupt the 
 virtue of many, and in some degree diminish the authority of all. 
 Could any system be devised, better fitted to pervert the principles 
 and break the spirit of men formed to be the glory of their country ? 
 And, can we mention no instance in which this system has made 
 such men useless, or worse than useless, to the country of which 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 130 
 
 their talents were the ornament, and might, under happier circum 
 stances, have been the salvation ? Ariel the beautiful and kindly 
 Ariel, doing the bidding of the loathsome and malignant Sycorax, 
 is but a faint type of genius enslaved by the spells, and employed 
 in the drudgery, of corruption 
 
 " A spirit too delicate 
 " To act those earthy and abhorred commands." 
 
 We cannot do a greater service to men of real merit, than by 
 destroying that system which has been called their refuge which 
 is their house of bondage ; by taking from them the patronage of 
 the great, and giving to them in its stead the respect and confi 
 dence of the people. The Bill now before us will, I believe, pro 
 duce that happy effect. It facilitates the canvass ; it reduces the 
 expense of legal agency ; it shortens the poll ; above all, it dis 
 franchises the out-voters. It is not easy to calculate the precise 
 extent to which these changes will diminish the cost of elections. 
 I have attempted, however, to obtain some information on this 
 subject. I have applied to a gentleman of great experience in 
 affairs of this kind a gentleman who, at the three last general 
 elections, managed the finances of the popular party in one of the 
 largest boroughs in the kingdom. He tells me, that at the general 
 election of 1826, when the borough was contested, the expenses of 
 the popular candidate amounted to 18,000^. ; and that by the best 
 estimate which can now be made, the borough may, under the 
 reformed system, be as effectually contested for one-tenth part of 
 that sum. In the new constituent bodies there are no ancient 
 rights reserved. In those bodies, therefore, the expense of an elec 
 tion will be still smaller. I firmly believe, that it will be possible 
 to poll out Manchester for less than the market price of Old Sarum. 
 Sir, I have, from the beginning of these discussions, supported 
 reform on two grounds, first, because I believe it to be in itself a 
 good thing and secondly, because I think the dangers of with- 
 
140 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 holding it to be so great, that even if it were an evil, it would be 
 the less of two evils. The dangers of the country have in no wise 
 diminished. I believe that they have greatly increased. It is, I 
 fear, impossible to deny, that what has happened with respect to 
 almost every great question that ever divided mankind has hap 
 pened also with respect to the Reform Bill. Wherever great inte 
 rests are at stake there will be much excitement, and wherever 
 there is much excitement there will be some extravagance. 
 The same great stirring of the human mind which produced 
 the Reformation produced also the follies and crimes of the 
 Anabaptists. The same spirit which resisted the Ship-money, 
 and abolished the Star-chamber, produced the Levellers and the 
 Fifth-monarchy men. And so, it cannot be denied that bad men, 
 availing themselves of the agitation produced by the question of 
 Reform, have promulgated, and promulgated with some success, 
 doctrines incompatible with the existence I do not say of mo 
 narchy, or of aristocracy but of all law, of all order, of all pro 
 perty, of all civilization, of all that makes us to differ from 
 Mohawks or Hottentots. I bring no accusation against that por 
 tion of the working classes which has been imposed upon by these 
 doctrines. Those persons are what their situation has made them 
 ignorant from want of leisure irritable from the sense of dis 
 tress. That they should be deluded by impudent assertions, and 
 gross sophisms that, suffering cruel privations, they should give 
 ready credence to promises of relief that, never having inves 
 tigated the nature and operation of government, they should expect 
 impossibilities from it, and should reproach it for not performing 
 impossibilities all this is perfectly natural. No errors which they 
 may commit, ought ever to make us forget that it is in all proba 
 bility owing solely to the accident of our situation that we have 
 not fallen into errors precisely similar. There are few of us who 
 do not know from experience, that, even with all our advantages of 
 education, pain and sorrow can make us very querulous and very 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 141 
 
 unreasonable. We ought not, therefore, to be surprised that, as the 
 Scotch proverb says, " it should be ill talking between a full man 
 and a fasting ;" that the logic of the rich man who vindicates the 
 rights of property, should seem very inconclusive to the poor man 
 who hears his children cry for bread. I bring, I say, no accusation 
 against the working classes. I would withhold from them nothing 
 which it might be for their good to possess. I see with pleasure that, 
 by the provisions of the Reform Bill, the most industrious and res 
 pectable of our labourers will be admitted to a share in the govern 
 ment of the State. If I would refuse to the working people that 
 larger share of power which some of them have demanded, I would 
 refuse it, because I am convinced that, by giving it, I should only 
 increase their distress. I admit that the end of government is their 
 happiness. But, that they may be governed for their happiness, they 
 must not be governed according to the doctrines which they have 
 learned from their illiterate, incapable, low-minded flatterers. But, 
 Sir, the fact that such doctrines have been promulgated among the 
 multitude is a strong argument for a speedy and effectual Reform. 
 That government is attacked is a reason for making the founda 
 tions of government broader, and deeper, and more solid. That 
 property is attacked, is a reason for binding together all proprietors 
 in the firmest union. That the agitation of the question of Reform 
 has enabled worthless demagogues to propagate their notions with 
 some success, is a reason for speedily settling the question in the 
 only way in which it can be settled. It is difficult, Sir, to conceive 
 any spectacle more alarming than that which presents itself to us, 
 when we look at the two extreme parties in this country a nar 
 row oligarchy above an infuriated multitude below, on the one 
 side the vices engendered by power ; on the other side the vices 
 engendered by distress ; the one party blindly averse to improve 
 ment, the other party blindly clamouring for destruction the one 
 party ascribing to political abuses the sanctity of property, the 
 other party crying out against property as a political abuse. Both 
 
142 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 these parties are alike ignorant of their true interest. God forbid 
 that the State should ever be at the mercy of either, or should ever 
 experience the calamities which must result from a collision between 
 them ! I anticipate no such horrible- event. For, between those 
 two parties stands a third party, infinitely more powerful than both 
 the others put together, attacked by both, vilified by both, but des 
 tined, I trust, to save both from the fatal effects of their own folly. 
 To that party I have never ceased, through all the vicissitudes of 
 public affairs, to look with confidence, and with a good hope. I 
 speak " that great party which zealously and steadily supported 
 the first Reform Bill, and which will, I have no doubt, support the 
 second Reform Bill with equal steadiness, and equal zeal. That 
 party is the middle class of England, with the flower of the aristo 
 cracy at its head, and the flower of the working classes bringing up 
 its rear. That great party has taken its immovable stand between 
 the enemies of all order, and the enemies of all liberty. It will 
 have Reform : it will not have Revolution : it will destroy political 
 abuses it will not suffer the rights of property to be assailed it 
 will preserve, in spite of themselves, those who are assailing it, from 
 the right and from the left, with contradictory accusations it will 
 be a daysman between them it will lay its hand upon them both 
 it will not suffer them to tear each other in pieces. While that 
 great party continues unbroken, as it now is unbroken, I shall not 
 relinquish the hope that this great contest may be conducted, by 
 lawful means, to a happy termination. But, of this I am assured, 
 that, by means, lawful or unlawful, to a termination, happy or 
 unhappy, this contest must speedily come. All that I know of the 
 history of past times all the observations that I have been able to 
 make on the present state of the country have convinced me, that 
 the time has arrived, when a great concession must be made to the 
 democracy of England that the question, whether the change be 
 in itself good or bad, has become a question of secondary import 
 ance that, good or bad, the thing must be done that a law as 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 143 
 
 strong as the laws of attraction and motion has decreed it. I well 
 know that history, when we look at it in small portions, may be 
 so construed as to mean any thing that it may be interpreted in 
 as many ways as a Delphic oracle. " The French Revolution," 
 says one expositor, "was the effect of concession." "Not so," 
 cries another, " the French Revolution was produced by the obsti 
 nacy of an arbitrary government." " If the French nobles," says 
 the first, " had refused to sit with the tiers etat, they would never 
 have been driven from their country." " They would never have 
 been driven from their country," answers the other, " if they had 
 agreed to the reforms proposed by M. Turgot." These controver 
 sies can never be brought to any decisive test, or to any satisfactory 
 conclusion. But, as I believe that history, when we look at it in 
 small fragments, proves any thing, or nothing, so I believe that it 
 is full of useful and precious instruction when we contemplate it in 
 large portions when we take in, at one view, the whole life-time 
 of great societies. I believe that it is possible to obtain some 
 insight into the law which regulates the growth of communities, 
 and some knowledge of the effects which that growth produces. 
 The history of England, in particular, is the history of a govern 
 ment constantly giving way sometimes peaceably, sometimes 
 after a violent struggle but constantly giving way before a nation 
 which has been constantly advancing. The forest-laws the law 
 of villenage the oppressive power of the Roman Catholic Church 
 the power, scarcely less oppressive, which, for some time after 
 the Reformation, was exercised by the Protestant Establishment 
 the prerogatives of the Crown the censorship of the Press suc 
 cessively yielded. The abuses of the Representative system are 
 now yielding to the same irresistible force. It was impossible for 
 the Stuarts and it would have been impossible for them if they 
 had possessed all the energy of Richelieu, and all the craft of 
 Mazarin, to govern England as it had been governed by the 
 Tudors. It was impossible for the princes of die House of Hanover 
 
144 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 to govern England as it had been governed by the Stuarts. And so 
 it is impossible that England should be any longer governed as it 
 was governed under the four first princes of the House of Hanover. 
 I say impossible. I believe that over the great changes of the moral 
 world we possess as little power as over the great changes of the 
 physical world. We can no more prevent time from changing the 
 distribution of property and of intelligence we can no more pre 
 vent property and intelligence from aspiring to political power 
 than we can change the courses of the seasons and of the tides. 
 In peace or in tumult by means of old institutions, where those 
 institutions are flexible over the ruins of old institutions, where 
 those institutions oppose an unbending resistance, the great march 
 of society proceeds, and must proceed. The feeble efforts of indi 
 viduals to bear back are lost and swept away in the mighty rush 
 with which the species goes onward. Those who appear to lead 
 the movement are, in fact, only whirled along before it ; those who 
 attempt to resist it, are beaten down and crushed beneath it. It is 
 because rulers do not pay sufficient attention to the stages of this 
 great movement because they underrate its force because they 
 are ignorant of its law, that so many violent and fearful revolu 
 tions have changed the face of society. We have heard it said a 
 hundred times during these discussions we have heard it said 
 repeatedly, in the course of this very debate, that the people of 
 England are more free than ever they were that the Government 
 is more democratic than ever it was ; and this is urged as an argu 
 ment against Reform. I admit the fact ; but I deny the inference. 
 It is a principle never to be forgotten, in discussions like this, that 
 it is not by absolute, but by relative misgovernment that nations 
 are roused to madness. It is not sufficient to look merely at the 
 form of government. We must look also to the state of the public 
 mind. The worst tyrant that ever had his neck wrung in modern 
 Europe might have passed for a paragon of clemency in Persia or 
 Morocco. Our Indian subjects submit patiently to a monopoly of 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 145 
 
 salt. We tried a stamp duty a duty so light as to be scarcely 
 perceptible on the fierce breed of the old Puritans ; and we lost 
 an empire. The Government of Louis 16th was certainly a much 
 better and milder government than that of Louis 14th ; yet Louis 
 14th was admired, and even loved, by his people. Louis 16th 
 died on the scaffold. Why ? Because, though the government 
 had made many steps in the career of improvement, it had not 
 advanced so rapidly as the nation. Look at our own history. The 
 liberties of the people were at least as much respected by Charles 
 1st, as by Henry 8th by James 2nd, as by Edward 6th. But did 
 this save the crown of James 2nd ? Did this save the head of 
 Charles 1st? Every person who knows the history of our civil 
 dissensions, knows that all those arguments which are now em 
 ployed by the opponents of the Reform Bill, might have been 
 employed, and were actually employed, by the unfortunate Stuarts. 
 The reasoning of Charles, and of all his apologists, runs thus : 
 " What new grievance does the nation suffer ? What has the 
 King done more than what Henry did more than what Elizabeth 
 did ? Did the people ever enjoy more freedom that at present 
 did they ever enjoy so much freedom ?" But what would a wise 
 and honest counsellor if Charles had been so happy as to possess 
 such a counsellor have replied to arguments like these? He 
 would have said, " Sir, I acknowledge that the people were never 
 more free than under your government. I acknowledge that those 
 who talk of restoring the old Constitution of England use an im 
 proper expression. I acknowledge that there has been a constant 
 improvement during those very years, in which many persons ima 
 gine that there has been a constant deterioration. But though 
 there has been no change in the government for the worse, there 
 has been a change in the public mind, which produces exactly the 
 same effect which would be produced by a change in the govern 
 ment for the worse. Perhaps this change in the public mind is to 
 
 be regretted. But no matter ; you cannot reverse it. You cannot 
 VOL. i. 7 
 
146 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 undo all that eighty eventful years have done. You cannot trans 
 form the Englishmen of 1640 into the Englishmen of 1560. ft 
 may be that the submissive loyalty of our fathers was preferable to 
 that inquiring, censuring, resisting spirit which is now abroad. It 
 may be, that the times when men paid their benevolences cheer 
 fully were better times than these, when a gentleman goes before 
 the Exchequer Chamber to resist an assessment of 20s. And so it 
 may be, that infancy is a happier time than manhood, and man 
 hood than old age. But God has decreed that old age shall suc 
 ceed to manhood, and manhood to infancy. Even so have socie 
 ties their law of growth. As their strength becomes greater as 
 their experience becomes more extensive, you can no longer con 
 fine them within the swaddling-bands, or lull them in the cradles, 
 or amuse them with the rattles, or terrify them with the bugbears 
 of their infancy. I do not say, that they are better or happier than 
 they were ; but this I say *, they are different from what they 
 were : you cannot again make them what they were, and you 
 cannot safely treat them as if they continued to be what they 
 were." This was the advice which a wise and honest Minister 
 would have given to Charles 1st. These were the principles on 
 which that unhappy prince should have acted. But no. He 
 would govern I do not say ill I do not say tyrannically ; I say 
 only this, he would govern the men of the seventeenth century as 
 if they had been the men of the sixteenth century ; and therefore 
 it was, that all his talents and all his virtues did not save him from 
 unpopularity from civil war from a prison from a bar from a 
 scaffold. These things are written for our instruction. Another great 
 intellectual revolution has taken place ; our lot has been cast on a 
 time analogous, in many respects, to the time which immediately 
 - preceded the meeting of the Long Parliament. There is a change 
 in society. There must be a corresponding change in the govern 
 ment. We are not we cannot, in the nature of things, be what 
 our fathers were. We are no more like the men of the American 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 147 
 
 war, or the men of the gagging bill ; than the men who cried 
 " privilege" round the coach of Charles 1st were like the men who 
 changed their religion once a year, at the bidding of Henry 8th. 
 That there is such a change, I can no more doubt than I can doubt 
 that we have more power-looms, more steam-engines, more gas 
 lights, than our ancestors. That there is such a change, the 
 Minister will surely find if ever such a Minister should arise 
 who shall attempt to fit the yoke of Mr. Pitt to the necks of the 
 Englishmen of the nineteenth century. What then can you do to 
 bring back those times when the constitution of this House was an 
 object of veneration to the people ? Even as much as Strafford and 
 Laud could do to bring back the days of the Tudors as much as 
 Bonner and Gardiner could do to bring back the days of Hilde- 
 brand as much as Villele and Polignac could do to bring back 
 the days of Louis 14th. You may make the change tedious ; yqu 
 may make it violent ; you may God in his mercy forbid ! you 
 may make it bloody ; but avert it you cannot. Agitations of the 
 public mind, so deep and so long continued as those which we have 
 witnessed, do not end in nothing. In peace or in convulsion ; by 
 the law, or in spite of the law ; through the Parliament, or over 
 the Parliament, reform must be carried. Therefore, be content to 
 guide that movement which you cannot stop. Fling wide the 
 gates to that force which else will enter through the breach. Then 
 will it still be, as it has hitherto been, the peculiar glory of our 
 Constitution that, though not exempt from the decay which is 
 wrought by the vicissitudes of fortune, and the lapse of time, in all 
 the proudest works of human power and wisdom, it yet contains 
 within it the means of self-reparation. Then will England add to 
 her manifold titles of glory this the noblest and the purest of all 
 that every blessing which other nations have been forced to seek, 
 and have too often sought in vain, by means of violent and bloody 
 revolutions, she will have attained by a peaceful and a lawful 
 Reform. 
 
143 
 
 ON THE ANATOMY BILL.* 
 
 FEBRUARY 27, 1832. 
 
 SIR, I cannot, even at this late hour of the night, refrain from 
 saying two or three words. Most of the observations of the hon. 
 member for Prestoii I pass by, as undeserving of any answer, 
 before an audience like this. But on one part of his speech, I 
 must make a few remarks. We are, says he, making a law to 
 benefit the rich, at the expense of the poor. Sir, the fact is the 
 direct reverse of this. This is a bill which tends especially to the 
 benefit of the poor. What are the evils against which we are 
 attempting to make provision ? Two especially ; that is to say, 
 the practice of Burking and bad surgery. Now to both these the 
 poor alone are exposed. What man, in our rank of life, runs the 
 smallest risk of being Burked ? That a man has property, that 
 he has connexions, that he is likely to be missed and sought for, 
 are circumstances which secure him against the Burker. It is 
 curious to observe the difference between murders of this kind and 
 other murders. An ordinary murderer hides the body, and dis 
 poses of the property. Bishop and Williams dig holes and bury 
 the property, and expose the body to sale. The more wretched, 
 the more lonely, any human being may be, the more desirable 
 prey is he to these wretches. It is the man, the mere naked man 
 that they pursue. Again, as to bad surgery ; this is, of all evils, 
 the evil by which the rich suffer least, and the poor most. If we 
 could do all that in the opinion of the member for Preston ought 
 to be done, if we could prevent disinterment, if we could 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. x. 1832, p. 842-3. 
 
ANATOMY BILL. 149 
 
 prevent dissection, if we could destroy the English school of 
 anatomy, if we could force every student of the medical science 
 to go to the expense of a foreign education, on whom would the 
 bad consequences fall 2 On the rich ? Not at all. As long as 
 there is in France, in Italy, in Germany, a single surgeon of eminent 
 skill, a single surgeon who is, to use the phrase of the member for 
 Preston, addicted to dissection, that surgeon will be in attendance 
 whenever an English nobleman is about to undergo a critical 
 operation. The higher orders in England will always be able to 
 procure the best medical assistance. Who suffers by the bad state 
 of the Russian school of surgery ? The Emperor Nicholas ? By 
 no means. But the poor dispersed over the country. If the edu 
 cation of a surgeon should become very expensive, if the fees of 
 surgeons should rise, if the supply of regular surgeons should 
 diminish, the sufferers would be, not the rich, but the poor in our 
 country villages, who would again be left to mountebanks, and 
 barbers, and old women ; to charms and quack medicines. The 
 hon. Gentleman talks of sacrificing the interests of humanity to 
 the interests of science, as if this were a question about the 
 squaring of the circle, or the transit of Venus. This is not a mere 
 question of science it is not the unprofitable exercise of an inge 
 nious mind it is a question of care and pain. It is a question of 
 life and death. Does the hon. Gentleman know from what cruel 
 sufferings the improvement of surgical science has rescued our 
 species ? I will tell him one story, the first that comes into my 
 head. He may have heard of Leopold, Duke of Austria, the 
 same who imprisoned our Richard Coeur-de-Lion. Leopold s horse 
 fell under him, and crushed his leg. The surgeons said that the 
 limb must be amputated ; but none of them knew how to ampu 
 tate it. Leopold, in his agony, laid a hatchet on his thigh, and 
 ordered his servant to strike with a mallet. The leg was cut off, 
 and he died of the gush of blood. Such was the end of that 
 powerful prince. Why. there is not now a bricklayer who falls 
 
150 ANATOMY BILL. 
 
 from a ladder in England, who cannot obtain surgical assistance, 
 infinitely superior to that which the sovereign of Austria could 
 command in the twelfth century. I think this a bill which tends to 
 the good of the people, and which tends especially to the good of 
 the poor. Therefore I support it. If it is unpopular, I am sorry 
 for it. But I shall cheerfully take my share of its unpopularity. 
 For such, I am convinced, ought to be the conduct of one whose 
 object it is, not to flatter the people, but to serve them. 
 
151 
 
 ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.* 
 
 FEBRUARY 28, 1832. 
 
 The Bill for England, Committee, 17th Day. 
 
 HE felt unwilling to occupy the time of the House upon this sub 
 ject, after the observations which he had thought it his duty to 
 make in the course of the last Session. But the extreme solicitude 
 he felt on account of the importance of the question, and of the 
 peculiar circumstances under which they were called on to discuss 
 it, compelled him to make a few observations on the subject. In 
 that, as in every other place, the first grand object in the discus 
 sion of these questions was, to clear the ground, and settle upon 
 whom lay the burthen of proof. It was his opinion, that the 
 burden of proof in this instance lay upon the Opposition. He 
 considered that he was speaking to a House of Reformers there 
 might be one or two exceptions ; but the great body on that and 
 on the other side of the House had, he believed, agreed that some 
 change in the Representation must take place. He did not assert 
 that every individual in that House entertained that opinion ; but 
 he could not avoid taking it for granted, that the great majority 
 of the Opposition did ; for he was warranted in saying, that, in a 
 great majority of the speeches they had delivered, they had 
 admitted the necessity of some change. If he did not entertain 
 the opinion he now expressed as to their sentiments, he must put 
 aside all the addresses sent up from the country by the noblemen 
 and gentlemen who, in their different counties, had opposed this 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. x. 1832, p. 926-933. 
 
152 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 measure of Reform, but all of whom had said, that some change 
 was necessary that some Reform must take place and that 
 some large bodies of people must have representatives given to 
 them. If the fact was as he had stated, they on the side of the 
 House on which he sat proposed that, as part of the large commu 
 nities entitled to Representation, the metropolitan districts should 
 be represented. If enfranchisement ought to be part of the Re 
 form that the times required, and that Gentlemen opposite admit 
 ted to be necessary, it was for those Gentlemen to shew why the 
 places now proposed should not partake of the advantages of 
 
 JT A .L A O 
 
 enfranchisement. He was aware that they had no precise standard 
 by which to determine what were the towns that should receive 
 Representatives. He should use the word importance, to con 
 stitute that standard ; for though it was possible to raise quibbles 
 upon it, none could possibly deny, that, if they were compelled to 
 bestow representation on one of two places, they would rather 
 bestow it upon a town like Manchester than upon a petty village, 
 and their choice would be guided by the greater importance of the 
 place selected. If they took the amount of population as the 
 standard of importance if they adopted that of the number of 
 IOL houses if they took the amount of the assessed taxes if 
 they took the wealth if they adopted intelligence as their crite 
 rion indeed, estimate it as they might, let them take any combi 
 nation of arithmetical figures that they pleased let them multiply 
 or divide let them subtract or add let them adopt the course 
 pointed out by Lieutenant Drummond, or that of the hon. Member 
 who proposed to decide the question by the square root of popula 
 tion and taxes in short, let them take whatever course of arith 
 metic they pleased, there was none from which these metropolitan 
 districts would not come marked with the proofs of a most un 
 doubted importance. If they took population, wealth, and intel 
 ligence, as the standard by which to measure their decision, fifty 
 would be a more proper number of Representatives than eight to 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 153 
 
 give to these districts. That was a fact recognised by the hon. 
 and learned Gentleman himself. It was admitted by all hon. 
 Members that, in all these elements of fitness for the formation of 
 a constituency, the metropolitan districts stood higher than any 
 other. If so, it was for those who wished to withhold the enfran 
 chisement to give the reason why it should be withheld. The 
 noble Lord had offered some reasons for refusing the Members 
 to these districts, which reasons the hon. and learned Gentleman 
 had most elaborately exerted himself to upset. What, said the 
 hon. and learned Gentleman, will you let loose 150,000 voters 
 will you give the rights of franchise to such an immense body ? 
 Yes, said the noble Lord, I will add Marylebone to Westminster 
 I will give the Tower Hamlets and Finsbury to the City, and 
 Lambeth to South wark. Yes, they who had talked so much of 
 swamping constituencies who had exclaimed so loudly against 
 such a course who affected so much dread of a large consti 
 tuency actually proposed to swamp Westminster with Maryle 
 bone ; to swamp the City with Finsbury and the Tower Hamlets ; 
 and to swamp Southwark with Lambeth ; and that, too, although 
 at the same time they described the present constituencies of each 
 of these places as sufficiently numerous. What, were they not 
 afraid of the unhealthful state of the metropolis of the agitation 
 excited by elections among such very large constituencies ? No, 
 they seemed to be afraid of none of these things when they made 
 the proposal. Of what, then, were they afraid ? Of eight Mem 
 bers. Simply of eight Members that must be the cause of their 
 fear. But the fear was still more remarkable, for the noble Lord 
 proposed to add two Members to Middlesex ; so that it might be 
 said, that the noble Lord feared six members a number not so 
 great as was returned by some individual Peers under the present 
 system to that House. The only argument against giving Repre 
 sentatives to the metropolitan districts was, that the Members 
 
 would be called to a very strict account by their constituents ; that 
 
 7* 
 
154 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 they would not speak their own sense, but merely the fluctuating 
 sense of those who sent them as their Representatives. But that 
 argument a-pplied as strongly to the instances of Members returned 
 by individuals. He did not understand the grounds on which 
 those who represented the submission of Members to be called to 
 account by a numerous constituency as a disgrace, while they 
 thought it a point of honour to submit to the same strictness of 
 account to an individual. He did not understand that spirit of 
 honour that could lick the heels of an oligarchy, while it spurned 
 at the wishes of the people. He did not understand that point of 
 honour which made a man boast that he had gone out of his seat 
 because he had voted in a particular manner against the wish of 
 one man, his patron, while he taunted another Member for quitting 
 his seat solely because he had offended 12,000 persons. But sup 
 posing this strictness of calling to account to be an evil, was that 
 evil confined to the metropolitan districts ? Certainly not. During 
 the discussion on the Catholic Claims there were many Gentlemen 
 who disguised their opinion who compromised their real wishes 
 and feelings for fear of offending their constituents. He did not 
 understand on what ground they were more afraid on the subject 
 of the influence to be exercised by the constituency in the metro 
 politan districts than in other large towns. He knew an instance 
 of an individual who declared that there were many Gentlemen 
 who said on that occasion, that they could not vote for the Catholic 
 Question, if they wished to retain their seats. That, however, was 
 not the evil of popular Representation alone. It was the fault of 
 all Representations, individual and numerous. To suppose other 
 wise would be to manifest an ignorance of human nature. But 
 the great argument really w^ , in plain words, a dread of the pre 
 ponderance of the people. There might be some evil in that ; but 
 if it was an evil, it was one which this Bill would not increase. 
 It had always been found that a great city exercised an influence 
 over the empire of which it formed a part, but that influence was 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 155 
 
 not connected with the number of Representatives it possessed. It 
 might, indeed, exist without the city having any Representative at 
 all, and was nowhere so great as under arbitrary and despotic 
 Governments. It was unnecessary to remind the House that at 
 Rome the despotic emperors, while they exercised the most un 
 bounded, and the most brutal tyranny over the people, yet thought 
 it necessary to conciliate the populace with expensive shows. At 
 Madrid, under their tyrannical government, the mob often com 
 pelled their despot king to promise the dismissal of an obnoxious 
 Minister ; they had done so in the reign of Charles II. and 
 again in that of Charles III. They had risen in the streets ; sur 
 rounded the palace of the king ; compelled him to appear on the 
 balcony, and to promise them all they demanded. That had 
 nothing to do with the share which the people of Madrid had in 
 the Cortes. If there was any country in which the people exer 
 cised a morbid influence over the government, it was in Turkey, 
 in despotic Turkey even there, where reigned the most abso 
 lute, the most unmitigated despotism, the most iron-handed 
 tyranny, the Sultan was often forced to sacrifice his ministers, and 
 obey the will of the people living in the neighbourhood of the 
 Seraglio. That was an influence which nothing could take away 
 but an earthquake like that of Lisbon. That species of influence 
 would always be possessed by London, and nothing would remove 
 it but such a fierce and dreadful calamity, as that which in a great 
 degree overwhelmed this great city in 1666. But did the noble 
 Lord propose to take away that influence ? The noble Lord knew 
 it was impossible. From all time the City of London had been 
 of great importance in the struggles of party and of the people ; 
 and it had generally, by the force of its power, decided those 
 struggles ; but it would be absurd to think of making a law to 
 regulate a power which was only to be dreaded when all law was 
 at an end. As long as the rule of law continued, the power of 
 London would only consist of the number of votes it had in that 
 
156 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 House. When law was at an end, the power of London would 
 consist of 1,500,000 persons, and of that power there was nothing 
 to deprive it. As long as regular Government existed, the metro 
 polis was, in fact, weak ; but when the course of regular Govern 
 ment was disturbed, the metropolis possessed, and could employ, a 
 vast and overwhelming force. But the noble Lord proposed that 
 which would, in fact, increase the danger, for he would refuse to 
 the metropolis all votes whatever. Without recurring to the 
 speeches of any democratic orator, he could show the danger of 
 this refusal, by proving the advantage of the concession. He 
 would refer to the speech which Mr. Burke delivered on the ques 
 tion of conciliation with America. In that speech it was said by 
 Mr. Burke, after referring to the dissensions that had existed in 
 Wales, " A complete and not ill-proportioned Representation by 
 counties and boroughs was bestowed upon Wales by Act of 
 Parliament. From that moment, as by a charm, the tumults sub 
 sided, obedience was restored, peace, order, and civilization fol 
 lowed in the train of liberty when the day-star of the English 
 Constitution had arisen in their hearts, all was harmony within 
 and without 
 
 " Simul alba nautis 
 Stella refulsit, 
 
 Defluit saxis agitatus humor : 
 Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes : 
 Et minax (qu6d sic voluere) pontd 
 Und a recumbit." 
 
 He had mentioned Madrid and Constantinople ; but London dif 
 fered from those cities in this respect, that the population of London 
 had never assembled round the palace of the Sovereign, demanding 
 the punishment of an obnoxious Minister. He repeated it the 
 population of London had never done this, at least in his memory. 
 He had, indeed, seen the people assemble round their Sovereign, 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 157 
 
 with the warmest expressions of a sincere attachment. The people 
 of London were orderly ; but exactly as he believed them to be 
 more orderly than the people of Madrid or Constantinople, because 
 they had better modes of expressing their opinions, so did he 
 believe, that the people of represented London would be more 
 quiet than the people of unrepresented London. The cause of all 
 commotions in States had been, that the natural and artificial 
 powers did not correspond with each other. That had been the 
 case with the governments of Greece and Italy. It was no new 
 principle it had been laid down by Aristotle it had been main 
 tained and exemplified by Machiavel. Its effects in the earlier 
 ages were well known. In the last century it had produced the 
 French Revolution ; in this the cry for Reform. The danger was 
 in struggling to resist that alteration which had been rendered 
 necessary by the altered circumstances of the times. That danger 
 this Bill was intended to rectify. It gave to the people a place in 
 the government like that which they must have in society; and 
 was it not a most monstrous argument to say, that, because a 
 great natural power existed, it should have no political power 
 associated with it ? Was it for them to create dissension where 
 none had yet appeared ? This Bill was meant to be a great deed 
 of reconciliation ; would they deprive it of that character ; would 
 they make it produce heart-burnings instead of peace, dissensions 
 instead of reconciliation and harmony of feeling? It was the 
 object of the Government to frame this measure so as to be final 
 as final as any human measure could be. Would they be the first to 
 deprive it of that character would they make it short-lived ? 
 Was it to be the first business of the Reformed House of Com 
 mons to discuss a new measure of Reform ? The hon. Gentlemen 
 opposite had frequently predicted that this settlement of the 
 Reform Question would not be permanent ; and they were taking 
 the greatest pains to accomplish their prediction. He agreed with 
 them in their dislike and dread of change, as change, and he was 
 
158 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 prepared to bear with many anomalies, many practical grievances, 
 rather than venture heedlessly on political alterations ; but when a 
 change had become absolutely necessary, as undoubtedly it had at 
 present, then his opinion was that it should be full and effectual. 
 It was dangerous to change often. The Constitution was more 
 injured by being frequently tampered with than by a great revolu 
 tion. If no Members were now given to the metropolitan districts, 
 they would be demanded with clamour, and by that very people 
 of whom the noble Marquis was so much afraid, in the first 
 Session of the next Parliament. If Gentlemen believed, as they 
 professed to believe, that the new Parliament would be more 
 democratically inclined than the present, they must expect that it 
 would not resist the demand, and that the alteration would be 
 larger. The question, then, was, whether they should pass the 
 Keform Bill, not without anomalies, for no measure could be 
 without them, but in such a state as was sure to engender dislike 
 and discontent in a large and influential body of voters. Ought 
 they to frame it so as to outrage the feelings of those it professed 
 to conciliate, and continue the abuses it proposed to destroy ? He 
 would support the proposition to give Members to the metropolitan 
 districts, not only because Members ought to be given, but because 
 the majority of that House were now on their trial before the 
 country, and it was for them now to prove whether they were 
 sincere or not ; whether the pledge they had given in last 
 October to support the principle and the leading details of the 
 Bill wa s now to be redeemed. The question was not only 
 whether the metropolitan districts should have eight Members or 
 none, but whether they would carry the Bill or compromise it ; 
 compromise that to which they had pledged themselves, in order 
 to gratify those, who, finding it impossible to throw out the Bill, 
 resolved to fritter it away. He called on them, for God s sake, to 
 be firm. The hon. Gentlemen who sat in that House for Ireland, 
 would not suffer those who, in the last Parliament, had deprived 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 169 
 
 them of five Members, to flatter them into the belief that, by 
 voting against this proposition, they would secure even a single 
 additional Member for their country. But all the hon. Gentlemen 
 who heard him, whatever district of the United Kingdom they 
 were connected with, on this occasion owed a solemn duty to their 
 country ; as they performed that duty, the confidence which they 
 had justly earned would be confirmed or lost ; and, on this occa 
 sion, it was perfectly and completely true, that he who was not 
 with them, was against them. 
 
160 
 
 ON PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.* 
 
 MARCH 19, 1832. 
 
 On the Bill for England third Reading. 
 
 MB. MACAULAY said, it was unnecessary for him to declare that he 
 fully concurred in the feeling which the House had expressed at 
 the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman [Mr. Pemberton] 
 who had just sat down, and if that hon. and learned Gentleman 
 thought it necessary to apologize to the House, on account of hav 
 ing once before delivered a speech which, like that just concluded, 
 met with the most enthusiastic reception, how much more neces 
 sary was it for him to offer some apology for again trespassing on 
 the time of the House. He could not, however, suffer this occasion 
 the third reading of the Reform Bill to pass over without 
 coming forward once more to vindicate the principles he professed. 
 The noble Lord who opened the debate, in a speech distinguished, 
 like everything which fell from him, by the greatest ingenuity and 
 ability, told the house that the first great evil of this bill was, that 
 it pronounced an absolute condemnation upon our ancestors ; and 
 he asked whether we were prepared utterly to condemn all which 
 they had done. He certainly was not prepared to take any such 
 course ; but, at the same time, he must say, that the men of the 
 present day were better enabled to decide political questions than 
 their ancestors. Government was not a matter of d priori reason 
 ing, and must always be determined by experiment, and it was the 
 essence of every experimental science that it should be progressive. 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xi. 1832, p. 450-463. 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 161 
 
 Moreover, it was essential that every experiment concerning 
 Government should be founded on the special and peculiar circum 
 stances which called for it. Arguments, therefore, that were unan 
 swerable a thousand years ago, would be very defective if applied to 
 the present day ; and he would venture to say, that there was no 
 Gentleman in this House who would not be ashamed to be guided 
 by the wisdom of our ancestors, if he were about to make an ex 
 periment on any other subject than that of Government. Take 
 chemistry, botany, surgery, or any science, for example, in which 
 ingenuity and invention were necessary, and there was no man in 
 that House who would reject improvements in those sciences 
 because they did not comport with the wisdom of our forefathers, 
 or who would say that the present age, instead of being vastly 
 superior to those times, was, in fact, very inferior. And why was 
 that ? Because these sciences depended on observation and experi 
 ment. Every age had grelter opportunity for experiment than 
 that which preceded it ; and every age must, therefore, be con 
 sidered as wiser than its predecessor. Like the other sciences he 
 had mentioned, the science of Government was essentially an 
 experimental science that is, its conclusions were so wholly the 
 creatures of experience, and its application so dependent upon ever- 
 changing circumstances, that nought could be predicated of them 
 of universal applicability. Political doctrines were not like the 
 axioms and definitions of the geometer of intrinsic truth, wholly 
 uninfluenced by time and place ; their worth and force depended 
 on experience, and were necessarily as changing as the circum 
 stances on which all experience was founded. This truth had 
 been happily expressed by Lord Plunkett, with that noble per 
 son s characteristic force and stern precision of language. It 
 was observed by him, that history not read in a philosophical 
 manner was merely an old almanack. Another extraordinary doc 
 trine had been advanced with respect to the payment of debts by 
 nations, and their manner of discharging the duties which devolve 
 
162 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 upon them. But he appealed to experience was it not a fact, 
 that, among all the democratic revolutions which had been wit 
 nessed, payment of no national debt had been refused on the 
 ground assigned in this argument. There had been instances, 
 both in monarchies and democracies, of the payment of debts 
 being refused on account of the difficulty or impossibility of paying 
 them ; but no such course had been pursued as that which was 
 stated by the noble Lord. Look to France look to the different 
 changes which had taken place in the representative system of 
 that country look to the changes of 1815, of 1817, of 1821, and 
 of 1831, which were all constituted on entirely different principles, 
 and yet, at this moment, the national credit was preserved. The 
 only instance that he knew of a government refusing to discharge 
 a debt on the ground that it was contracted by an illegitimate 
 authority, was not the case of a democracy, but of a monarchy, 
 where the government refused to pay a debt contracted under that 
 very constitution which the king had sworn to maintain. The 
 noble Lord also said, that the classes of men who ought not to be 
 admitted into this House would be admitted by the Bill, and that 
 those whom it would be desirable to admit would never be returned 
 under this measure. He would again only refer to experience, and 
 ask, whether that was the case in large towns which now possess 
 the franchise ? The noble Lord said, that the eldest sons of Peers 
 would find great difficulty in obtaining seats in that House. Let 
 him look over the lists of the sons of Peers returned for counties at 
 the present time. Let the noble Lord look to Bedfordshire, Buck 
 inghamshire, Dorsetshire, Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Lin 
 colnshire, Westmoreland, Devonshire, Oxfordshire, and Cheshire ; 
 and he would find that there were at present but few sons of Peers 
 returned as the Representatives of the people. The noble Lord 
 was decidedly inaccurate in one of his statements ; the noble Lord 
 said, that, in the county of Northumberland this prejudice existed 
 to a very great extent, and to that cause he attributed the circum- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 163 
 
 stance of his noble friend, the under Secretary for the Colonies, 
 being unsuccessful in the election of 1826. The noble Lord forgot 
 that it was the eldest son of a Peer who contested the election 
 with him, and was returned in opposition to him. The noble Lord 
 had not proved his statement, which appeared to proceed entirely 
 upon assumption. There was, however, another class of men, who, 
 according to the noble Lord, would be excluded by the operation 
 of this Bill those Members who had been returned by the oligar 
 chy of this House. The noble Lord thought it a hard case that 
 they should be excluded, but the reason for their exclusion was 
 a proper one, for they were not sent there by the people. The 
 noble Lord also stated, that we had long enjoyed the blessings and 
 protection of good Government, repeating that the system had 
 practically worked well, and that the nation was, in fact, in a state 
 of the greatest happiness and prosperity. Indeed, the hon. mem 
 ber for Oxford said, that we had attained such a state of prosperity, 
 that we ought not to hazard it by making an experiment. If this 
 argument proceeded on facts, he would admit that it was unan 
 swerable. The happiness of nations might be influenced by causes 
 unconnected with their political institutions ; but, on the whole, 
 there could be no doubt that the happiness of a people was the 
 best test of the form of Government under which they lived. If 
 it were proved that the House was about to destroy that constitu 
 tion under which the people of England had long enjoyed so great 
 a measure of happiness as that which the hon. Gentleman described, 
 it would be acting the part of madmen. But he denied that the 
 condition of the people of England was one of unmixed prosperity ; 
 and he denied that the Bill was a measure of unmixed destruction. 
 When he heard it said, over and over again, that the English were 
 the happiest people under the sun when he heard this laid down 
 as an undeniable proposition, which it would be unnecessary to 
 prove, and absurd to deny he could not but feel astonished at 
 such an argument. From the first acquaintance he had had with 
 
164 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 political affairs, he had heard, from all sides and from all parties, 
 statements of the distressed situation of the people. Speech after 
 speech from the Throne, parliamentary address after parliamen 
 tary address, had admitted the existence of great distress, express 
 ing a vain hope that it would be but temporary. He scarcely 
 remembered the time in which some great interest had not been 
 complaining. It was certain that the people of this country were 
 by no means in a prosperous condition. The hon. Baronet, the 
 member for Oakhampton, himself, has distinctly told us, that all 
 the cry for Reform originated in the severe distress of the people, 
 and the indifference of the House to their complaints. The hon. 
 member for Aldborough, too, frequently, in glowing and energetic 
 terms, set forth the miserable state of our commercial and manu 
 facturing classes, and distinctly attributed their distress to the legis 
 lative measures pursued by successive Parliaments. When the 
 question of the currency, the renewal of the corn-laws, or the state 
 of trade came before the House, then the country was described in 
 a condition of the deepest distress, plunged into a state of absolute 
 misery, a cloud was over us, our present condition was bad, but 
 our future prospects were alarming. When the Reform Bill was 
 under discussion, all our miseries vanished at once, the sun broke 
 out, the clouds cleared away, the sky was bright, and we were the 
 happiest people on the face of the earth ! If hon. Gentlemen 
 wanted a large issue of small notes, our condition was again 
 gloomy, but when the case of Gatton or Old Sarum was noticed, 
 then we laboured under no other imperfections than the unfaithful 
 ness of our own hearts. Was it fair for hon. Gentlemen to de 
 scribe the country as in a state of the greatest misery, when they 
 complained of the political economists, and to speak of our people 
 as the happiest under Heaven when they wished to attack the 
 Reformers ? For different opponents they had different weapons. 
 The Reformers of our commercial code, they slew with the national 
 distress, and with the national prosperity they sought to annihilate 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 165 
 
 the Reformers of the Constitution. The real situation of the coun 
 try was midway between their extremes. There was much truth 
 in both descriptions, but, at the same time, there was much fiction. 
 He would, however, give his opponents their choice. If they 
 ascribed to the institutions of the country the national greatness, 
 let them also ascribe to those institutions all the evils the nation 
 endured. If it was the Constitution which had improved the pub 
 lic credit, which had extended our trade if it was the Constitution 
 which had converted the barbarous hordes who once infested the 
 Scottish borders into the finest peasantry in the world if the Con 
 stitution had improved our machinery if we owe to the Constitu 
 tion the important factories of Manchester, and the gigantic docks 
 of Liverpool we were bound, by strict reason and justice, to 
 ascribe to the Constitution, on the other hand, the heavy burthen 
 of taxation under which the people labour, and against which they 
 had to struggle, the frequent stagnation of trade, commerce, and 
 manufactures, and the dreadful and deplorable situation of those 
 parts of the country in which the rate of wages was scarcely suffi 
 cient for the support of animal life, in which the labourer, starved 
 and wretched as he is, considers the parochial rates as a fund, not for 
 his occasional relief, but for his daily maintenance ; in which men 
 may be met harnessed to cars like beasts of burthen, and in which 
 the far-spreading light of midnight fires, and the outrages of incen 
 diaries, have but too often indicated wretchedness and despair, 
 starvation and daring recklessness. Hon. Gentlemen opposite 
 generally content themselves with pursuing the very convenient 
 course of contemplating only one side of the picture ; they dwelt 
 very fully on all the outward signs of our national prosperity, and 
 they concluded, therefore, that the existing system must work most 
 beneficially. There were also violent Reformers who had adopted 
 a course directly the reverse, and who could see nothing in the 
 present state of the country, but causes for apprehension and dis 
 may. He could not agree in either of those extreme opinions. 
 
166 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 He saw great cause for rejoicing, but also great cause for appre 
 hension and dread. We had vast resources, but we had to bear 
 great burthens. We had magnificent institutions, but they were sur 
 rounded by the most appalling misery, and heart-breaking famine 
 and wretchedness. If he was to adopt the lesson of hon. Gentle 
 men opposite if he was to judge of the system by its practical 
 working if he was to look at the condition of society, and pro 
 nounce upon the merits of our Constitution, he should be irresistibly 
 led to this conclusion, as he saw great good alloyed by great evil, 
 so in the Constitution there must be sound and just principles 
 defaced by great corruptions. It was not difficult to ascertain 
 which parts of the Constitution were the source of prosperity ; nor 
 would it be difficult to get rid of those corruptions to which we 
 must attribute our distresses. The protection which the laws give 
 to the liberty and property of the subject is a great advantage 
 undoubtedly, and the mere existence of a House of Commons in 
 which, however defective its -Constitution, there have always been 
 some Members chosen by the people, and zealous for their service, 
 in which the smallest minority has some weight, and grievances, if 
 not redressed, can at least be exposed, is, undoubtedly, some secu 
 rity for every other advantage. To these circumstances we owe 
 our prosperity and it was proposed, by the measure then under 
 discussion, to give additional protection to the subject and make 
 the House of Commons more useful to the people. The distress 
 which the country had suffered, and of which it had so bitterly 
 complained, he must attribute to an unthrifty squandering of the 
 public money to the injudicious measures of Government to the 
 negligence of that House to defects in the Representative system, 
 which had made the House more the council of the Government 
 than the defender of the people to laws deservedly unpopular, 
 more easily adopted than they could have been under the eye of 
 a reformed Parliament to laws made for the benefit of particular 
 classes at the expense of the people generally in short, he attri- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 167 
 
 bated the distress to Ministers who had not yet been controlled by 
 Parliament, and to Parliament who had not before its eyes the 
 fear of the people. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment, 
 had argued that in no instance had that House been reluctant to 
 " back " Ministers in measures of public economy. What ! the 
 House of Commons merely backing Government who might be 
 disposed to cut down useless expenditure of the public money 
 the House of Commons whose duty it was to force every Govern 
 ment to effect every reduction of the public expenditure compatible 
 with the public service. Was that a description or justification of 
 the House of Commons 1 The Commons ought to go before the 
 Government in measures of economy, and force it to be wise. A 
 reformed House of Commons would do it. But the utmost praise 
 bestowed on it by the noble Lord the negative praise of not 
 being a greater spendthrift than the Government was upon the 
 House of Commons the bitterest satire. Those who supported the 
 Bill were charged with loving democracy ; for his part he had no 
 idea that any species of Government was universally applicable. 
 There was no universal form which could be assured of good 
 Government. He would not make institutions for all ages and all 
 nations. He gave his assent to the Bill because he thought it was 
 adapted to this country at present, but he should think it unsuit 
 able, because too democratic, for Hindostan, and because not demo 
 cratic enough for New York. He had no more idea that a 
 Government could be called good, which was not in unison with 
 the feelings, habits, and opinions of the people governed, than that a 
 coat could be called good which was not suited to the size or shape 
 of the person for whom it was intended. A coat that does not fit 
 is a bad coat, though it has been cut to suit the Apollo Belvidere. 
 He did not support the present Bill because he thought that 
 democratic institutions were best for all ages and for all countries, 
 but because he thought that a more democratic constitution than 
 that which now existed in this country, and in our age, would 
 
168 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 produce good Government ; and because he believed that, under 
 the present system of Representation, we would soon have no 
 Government at all. He had never declared war with anomalies 
 he had never, to quote the words of the noble Lord opposite, con 
 founded anomalies with abuses he had never lifted up his hand 
 against any anomaly, unless he saw in it a cause of misgovernment. 
 He did not, therefore, support the Bill because it removed ano 
 malies, but because it eradicated real abuses, and averted dangers, 
 not imaginary or remote, but palpable and near. That, he con 
 ceived, would be the practical result of the Reform Bill. Some 
 men sacrificed practical law to general doctrines ; they spoke with 
 rapture of the beautiful machinery of the Constitution, but would 
 not look to its practical working, nor take into consideration exist 
 ing circumstances. The Representative system, as it at present 
 existed, was said to be good. Be it so ; but it was good in vain, 
 unless it suited the state of society for which it was intended. No 
 Members of this House had advocated such arguments more 
 strongly than the present opponents of this measure, when the 
 propriety of giving liberal institutions to other countries had been 
 under discussion. Whenever an attempt had been made to intro 
 duce into other countries our best institutions whenever it had 
 been proposed to give Spain or Naples the freedom of the Press, 
 or the security of the Habeas Corpus Act, how often had it been 
 said, that it was folly to legislate for tHose countries as if they were 
 England that what we considered tyrannical the Spaniards and 
 the Neapolitans cherished as a privilege. How often has it been 
 said, that it was absurd to force upon a people institutions which, 
 however good in themselves, that people despise ! Was this argu 
 ment to be used only on one side, and to be invalid when applied 
 to the other ? When Spain or Naples was a question, hon. Gen 
 tlemen opposite reminded the House that governments should be 
 accommodated to the wishes of the people that popular institu 
 tions could not be useful nor stable, unless they harmonized with 
 
PARLJAMKXTAia REFORM. 1G9 
 
 public feeling and public opinion. But if this argument be good 
 when applied to one description of institutions, was it not equally 
 good when applied to another? Can lion. Gentlemen mention a 
 greater blessing than the Habeas Corpus Act, or the trial by jury ? 
 No man would deny that it would have been absurd to apply these 
 institutions to nations which did not value them. Would Gentle 
 men, however, say, that the existence of Old Saruin and Gatton 
 was consistent with the feelings and wishes of the people ? That 
 was the true answer to those arguments which had been urged on 
 former occasions, and which had been so eloquently advanced to 
 night by the noble Lord who opened this debate on the subject 
 of prescription. Prescription was certainly advantageous to a 
 Government, because it was very probable that a Government 
 founded on prescription would possess a greater share of public 
 respect than one which was born yesterday ; but if a Government 
 did not possess the public respect, it was in no way the better for 
 prescription. A man would rather have the measles than the 
 cholera (to make use of a homely illustration), because he would 
 be less likely to die of the one than of the other ; but if he must 
 die of the measles, why he might as well have the cholera. If a 
 government did not possess the public respect, it might as \vell be 
 a Representative system of yesterday as of centuries back. In fact, 
 there never was a great change which took away so little of what 
 was really valuable as this did which took away so little of what 
 we love and respect, or which took away so little of what was con 
 nected with our feelings and entwined around our affections. The 
 Reformation and the Revolution of 1688, and the first revolution 
 in France, shocked the prejudices of great masses of people. Glo 
 rious as they were, and calculated to promote the public good, 
 they were certainly effected at the expense of long-cherished feel 
 ings, deep-rooted affections, and close-entwined associations; but 
 what was there of all that in the present Bill 1 Did it propose to 
 
 touch any one thing which the people esteemed, respected, or 
 VOL. i. 8 
 
170 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 revered ? Did it take from the Constitution anything but those 
 which Mr. Burke called its shameful parts ? Did it endanger the 
 Government of the country ? It was high time that some such 
 measure as this should be introduced to preserve it, that the 
 unpopular and worse parts of the Constitution should be separated 
 from the good, or they would all perish together. But, however 
 forcible the claims of prescription might be, the argument could 
 not be justly used by the noble Lord, who had distinctly declared 
 himself to be a Reformer. It was an argument which no Gentle 
 man had a right to advance, who was disposed to agree to even 
 the most moderate Reform, because the smallest possible change 
 equally destroyed the claim of prescription as the most extensive 
 and important alteration. Prescription might, like honour, be 
 compared to Prince Rupert s drops, " one part cracked, the whole 
 does fly." He appealed to the hon. Gentlemen opposite, whether 
 they had not, in the debate on the question respecting the pro 
 priety of giving Members to Manchester, Leeds, and Sheffield, 
 asserted, that if they once began to change, there would be no end 
 to it. But they had now departed from their own principle ; they 
 admitted the necessity of some change, and all the arguments on 
 the score of prescription must be at an end. The arguments urged 
 against this Bill would apply with equal force against any plan of 
 Reform whatever. A large majority of the Opposition called 
 themselves Moderate Reformers ; but the objections which they 
 offered to the present Bill could be applied to any measure of 
 practical reform. They talked of anomalies : could any plan of 
 reform be devised in which anomalies would not exist ? All reform 
 must consist of disfranchisement and enfranchisement. To effect 
 these objects lines must be drawn somewhere, and distinctions 
 made, which would inevitably create anomalies, unless some uni 
 form system were established, and at variance with, and sweeping 
 away, the whole of our present institutions. They might take 
 population, or assessed taxes, or whatever test they pleased, but 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 17 1 
 
 tliere would always, as they had already seen, be mathematicians 
 ready to prove that their mode of- computation would produce ano 
 malies. The most symmetrical system of Representation was that 
 of the United States yet, even in that, it would be easy to point 
 out anomalies. It, therefore, became moderate Reformers, who 
 objected to the Bill on the ground of anomalies, to consider 
 .whether any plan of moderate Reform could be produced in which 
 there would not be anomalies. Those who support any plan of 
 Reform must admit one of two things ; either that the present 
 system did not work well or that, working well, it ought to be 
 changed, in deference to what must be considered unreasonable 
 clamour, to which they were prepared to bend. Any plan would 
 also be open to the objection of not being final ; and none more so 
 than a very niggardly one. Of every plan of Reform, it might be 
 said, that it was the first step to revolution. It would always afford 
 an opportunity of making allusions to the scenes of the French 
 revolution ; to the guillotine to heads carried upon pikes, and all 
 the horrors of that eventful period. All these topics, however, it 
 would be recollected, were brought into requisition when the only 
 question before the House was, whether Manchester, Leeds, and 
 Birmingham should have representatives. Most of the hon. Mem 
 bers opposite called themselves Reformers ; and he was entitled to 
 demand their plan of Reform, in order that the House and country 
 might see whether the objections which they had raised be appli 
 cable to the Ministerial plan alone, or be objections to which any 
 plan of Reform must be liable, and such, therefore, as no person 
 who called himself a Reformer was entitled to employ. That 
 something must be done was admitted on all hands ; While the 
 Ministerial Bill was the only plan of Reform which had been 
 proposed* The hon. Member who had just sat down said that, 
 at the last election, people were compelled to vote in favour of 
 candidates who supported the Reform Bill, because there was 
 no other plan left before the country. They had no choice it 
 
172 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 was this plan or none. He had a right, under these circumstances, 
 to call on the leaders of the hon. Members opposite to let the 
 country know what their plan was ; and he was entitled, in parti 
 cular, to make this appeal to the right hon. member for Tamworth; 
 The hon. Baronet stood at the head of a great party ; he had filled 
 a high situation in the state, and might possibly fill a still higher, 
 and these were circumstances which not only gave him (Mr. Ma- 
 caulay) a right, but made it his duty, to make observations freely, 
 but respectfully, on the public conduct of the right hon. Baronet. 
 After thirteen months of discussion on the question of Reform, all 
 that the House knew of the opinion of one of its most distinguished 
 Members was, that he was opposed to the Ministerial plan of Re 
 form. He had, indeed, declared, that, though he would not him 
 self have brought forward, yet he would have assented to, a mea 
 sure of moderate Reform. What the plan of Reform was to which 
 the right hon. Baronet would have assented on what grounds he 
 would have given his support to a measure which he thought un 
 necessary and what were the reasons which made him to hesitate 
 to bring forward such a plan himself, he had not yet explained to 
 the House. The question of Reform might be a question which 
 divided men s opinions, but with respect to the importance of the 
 question all were agreed ; and he could not understand, on looking 
 to the high character and station of the right hon. Gentleman, how 
 he could shrink from the responsibility of proposing such a mea 
 sure as, in his opinion, would satisfy the country, and be less inju 
 rious in its effects than the Ministerial proposition. Yet all that 
 the right hon. Gentleman had as yet said was, that he disliked the 
 plan proposed by Government, and that there was a something 
 which would have met with his assent, but that Ministers had not 
 hit upon that something. But let the right hon. baronet observe 
 the state of the public mind, the excitement which prevailed on 
 the subject, and the delight with which the Ministerial plan of Re 
 form had been received by the people ; and then let him ask him- 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 173 
 
 self whether he was prepared to bear the responsibility of the con 
 sequences which would follow its rejection. But the right hon. 
 Baronet would doubtless say, " that is no affair of mine : the 
 excitement is your own." [Cheers .] He supposed, from that 
 cheer, that the answer was considered satisfactory by the hon. 
 Gentlemen- opposite. The next generation would judge them. 
 When the dearest interests of the empire were at stake, the world 
 would hold them responsible, not only for the evil which they had 
 done, but for the good which they had omitted to do. History 
 would not hold such men guiltless if they did not take enlarged 
 views of the state of society ; if they did not rise to great occasions ; 
 and if, when the public good required them to speak out, for fear 
 of compromising themselves, they held their tongues, or spoke in 
 such a way as not to be understood. If any persons were to be hold 
 responsible for the public excitement, the late Ministers had more 
 to answer for than the present. But the great question was, not 
 " what person is to blame," but " what is now to be done ?" That 
 was the question before the House and the country ; and that was 
 the question which he thought he had a right to ask the right hon. 
 Baronet opposite. The right hon. Baronet possessed pre-eminent 
 talent for debate ; but the country had a right to expect from him 
 something of a higher character. The country had a right to call 
 on him for his opinion of the principles upon which Reform ought 
 to be founded, and of the extent to which concession should bo 
 made to the public wish at such a crisis as the present. He asked 
 the right lion. Baronet whether he should wish it to go down to 
 posterity that he, in the most eventful period of British history, 
 when the dearest interests of the empire were at stake that he, 
 being one of the most distinguished members of the House of 
 Commons, brought some sound, and many specious objections 
 against everything proposed by others hinted in general terms 
 that something might be done, but never could be induced to 
 explain what that something was ? Did the right hon. Baronet 
 
174 PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 
 
 suppose that lie could ever again conduct the affairs of the Govern 
 ment on Anti-reform principles ? It would be madness for any 
 Government, pledged to no Reform, to attempt to go on with the 
 present House of Commons. They must dissolve the Parliament, 
 and appeal to the people in a moment of fearful excitement ; and 
 they would then find that they had committed Jthe same error 
 which Charles committed when he dissolved the Short Parliament, 
 and exchanged it for the Long Parliament. But supposing that 
 such a Government gained more by the elections than could pos 
 sibly be expected, and supposing that they should obtain a majority 
 in the House of Commons, still, he asked, what would be the case 
 out of doors? The agitation which prevailed in the year 1817 
 and in 1819, at the time of Queen Caroline s return to England, 
 and during the latter period of the Duke of Wellington s adminis 
 tration, would seem peace and tranquillity in comparison with the 
 disorder and excitement which would immediately spread through 
 out the country. Tumults, seditions, agitators without end, would 
 arise. Agitators they had at present ; but were they disposed to 
 try what would be their power under a Government hostile to 
 Reform ? It was impossible to keep them down by a strong hand, 
 and, if they would not have liberty, they must have licentiousness. 
 Measures of coercion and security would be of no avail. Charles 
 tried them against Hampden, and failed : James employed them 
 against the Bishops, and failed. It was the same with Mr. Pitt, 
 when he prosecuted Hardy and Home Tooke; and the same with 
 Lord Castlereagh, when he passed the Six Acts in 1819 ; and the 
 same would be found by any Government which attempted to 
 smother the complaints of the people of England without redress 
 ing their grievances. There was only this simple alternative 
 Reform, or anarchy. About the result he had no fear, for he 
 placed the fullest reliance in his Majesty s Ministers. If he required 
 any other pledges from them than those which he found in their 
 character, he found them in their position. To abandon their 
 
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. 175 
 
 country would be to abandon themselves. They had done that 
 which changed the character of our institutions. They had taken 
 no slight step no step that could be easily retraced, on the 1st 
 of March, 1831. Before them was glory behind them was dis 
 grace. For himself, he believed that their virtues, abilities, and 
 firmness would be found equal to the momentous occasion, and 
 that their names would to the latest period be inseparably asso 
 ciated with the noblest measure that ever restored to health a cor 
 rupt Government, and bound together the hearts of a divided 
 people. 
 
176 
 
 ON THE RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS * 
 MAY 10, 1832. 
 
 IN the course of the last eighteen months, they had often been on 
 the verge of anarchy ; but, until this crisis, he had never known 
 what it was to be once anxious on the subject of political affairs. 
 If ever there was a time which called for the firmness, honesty, 
 wisdom, or energy, of a political assembly if ever there was a 
 question in which the interest of the community was involved, that 
 time was the present that question was the question of his noble 
 friend. Amidst all his anxiety, however, there was ample cause 
 for joy. He remembered with delight the noble conduct which 
 that House had pursued from the day they first met in that place 
 up to the present moment ; and he anticipated with confidence 
 that the majority would adhere to that noble line of conduct which 
 was indispensable to their own honour, and the safety of the com 
 monweal. It was pleasing to reflect that they had still leaders to 
 whom they could look up with confidence and pride, that those 
 leaders were deserving of the support which they had given them, 
 and who had fallen, indeed, but it was with unblemished honour. 
 Amidst the dark events by which they were surrounded, there was 
 this consolation their sincerity as Statesmen had been put to the 
 test, and it was not found wanting. By the voice of the people 
 they were brought into power by that voice they were supported 
 in power and they retired from power rather than betray the 
 people who trusted them. They would thus carry with them to 
 their retirement and very brief he trusted it would be the proud 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xii. p. 849-857. 
 
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 177 
 
 satisfaction that their conduct was fully appreciated by the people. 
 He did not feel bound, on the present occasion, to enter into any 
 discussion on the subject of Reform, but he should address himself 
 at once to the particular Motion before the House. He was sure 
 that the right hon. Baronet opposite must, on a little reflection, see 
 that he was wrong in asserting that that House had no right to 
 interfere with the prerogative of the King in the choice of his 
 Ministers. It appeared to him that there was nothing more in 
 accordance with the principles of the Constitution nothing for 
 which there could not be found more numerous examples in the 
 best times of our history than the course which was now pro 
 posed to be adopted by the House, namely, the respectfully offer 
 ing its suggestions to the Sovereign as to the choice of his Ministers. 
 The appointment of his Ministers undoubtedly belonged to the 
 Sovereign, but it was a clear constitutional doctrine, to which he 
 did not know a single exception, that, with respect to every pre 
 rogative of the King, that House had the right respectfully to offer 
 its advice and its suggestions to the Sovereign. That was a posi 
 tion, he was sure, which a person of the constitutional knowledge 
 of the right hon. Baronet would not feel disposed to dispute, and 
 he was equally sure that it would not be denied that, under certain 
 circumstances, that House had a right to offer its advice to the 
 Sovereign as to the persons whom it judged fit to fill the offices of 
 his Ministers, as it had often suggested to the King the names of 
 persons fit to fill offices in the Church, or fit, on account of their 
 services in the army or navy, to fill any public offices under the 
 Crown. He, therefore, laid down this as a position that would not 
 be controverted, that the House had a right, with respect to the 
 prerogative of the Sovereign in the choice of his Ministers, as with 
 regard to all the other prerogatives of the Crown, to offer its 
 respectful advice. He undoubtedly did understand the present 
 Resolution as a recommendation to his Majesty to retain his pre 
 sent Ministers. He could not see how it could be otherwise under- 
 
 8* 
 
178 RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 
 
 stood, for he could not discover any other materials from which 
 such a Ministry as that which they recommended to his Majesty 
 could be formed. " But," said the hon. member for Thetford, " the 
 Ministers had voluntarily retired from office, and the House, in 
 adopting such a Resolution as this, would be advising his Majesty 
 to force office on men who would not undertake it." Surely such 
 a sophism was unworthy of the acute mind of that hon. Member. 
 When we advise the King to take back his Ministers, we also 
 advise him to take back their advice with them. That was what 
 he (Mr. Macaulay) meant by the vote which he would give on this 
 Motion, and he was sure it was on such an understanding that it 
 would be supported by a majority of that House. Now, as to the 
 objection raised to the creation of Peers, it amounted, if he under 
 stood it right, to this that a creation of Peers, for the purpose of 
 carrying a measure, even of the most vital importance, went to 
 destroy the authority and weight of the House of Lords, and was, 
 therefore, indefensible upon any principle of the Constitution. He 
 conceived that the prerogative vested in the Crown, of creating 
 Peers, for the purpose of carrying any public question, was a 
 valuable and useful power, the existence of which was absolutely 
 necessary, in order, on important occasions, to obviate great and 
 pressing inconveniences. He believed it would be found that the 
 exercise of such a power was in accordance with the principles of 
 the Constitution, as laid down by the greatest constitutional 
 writers on all sides and of all parties. A reference to Swift, on the 
 one side, to Walpole and Steele on the other, and to De Lolme as 
 a middle and impartial authority, would satisfactorily bear out that 
 assertion, and would prove that the Constitution did not recognize 
 any branch of the Legislature existing as the House of Lords would 
 exist if this prerogative were not vested in the Crown, with uncon 
 trolled and irresponsible power. They knew that kings had fallen 
 upon erroneous courses, and what had happened in the case of an 
 hereditary monarchy might happen in the case of an hereditary 
 
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 179 
 
 nobility. We had had a James II., and it was not beyond the 
 range of possibility that we might have a House of Lords full of 
 high spirit, imbued with prejudices that could not be overcome ; 
 and, unfortunately, opposed to the wishes and feelings of the 
 people, and was there to be no means of remedying such a state 
 of things ? The Constitution afforded the means of dealing with a 
 factious and perverse opposition on the part of the House of Com 
 mons, for the King could dissolve the Parliament, and appeal to 
 the people, at a time when he might think that appeal would stand 
 the best chance of success. Again, that House had a check upon 
 the King, for it could refuse the supplies ; and was there to be no 
 check at all upon the House of Lords ? Was there anything in 
 the Constitution of that illustrious assembly the House of Lords 
 which exempted it from the necessity of some similar controlling 
 check ? If that power, which was subject to abuse from Kings and 
 Commons, could never be abused by Dukes or Earls, the best 
 course was, to leave the whole Government in the hands of so pure, 
 wise, and virtuous an assembly, to abolish the Monarchy, and to 
 dissolve themselves. But, if this were not the case, was it not mon 
 strous to imagine that the House of Lords should be exempt from 
 some check like that to which both King and Commons are sub 
 ject ? Were there no check, the only appeal of the people could 
 be to physical force ; but, fortunately, the Constitution affords the 
 means required, by conferring on the King the prerogative of mak 
 ing Peers. He admitted that there was some danger that the 
 power might be abused ; but of two dangers, he thought it proper 
 to choose the least ; and when they remembered that the Ministers 
 who advised the creation of Peers would be responsible for that 
 advice, he thought it a power not, much likely to be abused. 
 Unless some one could bring in a Peerage Bill much less liable to 
 objection than the Peerage Bill of Lord Sunderland, he thought 
 the King s prerogative a useful one, and one which, at this period, 
 he was called upon to exert. As to impeachment, which had been 
 
180 RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 
 
 spoken of, who would venture to impeach the Ministers for a step 
 absolutely essential to the welfare of the kingdom ? This exercise 
 of the Royal prerogative might be necessary, too, for the preserva 
 tion of the very existence of the other estates of the realm, and 
 justified on grounds of the purest public policy. Let them suppose 
 a case in which the two Houses were placed in direct and imme 
 diate collision by an uniform and continued difference of opinion 
 on every question. Suppose the House of Lords was to be for 
 Avar, and the House of Commons for peace suppose the House 
 of Commons to be for one Ministry, and the House of Lords for 
 another suppose, too, the struggles consequent on these differ 
 ences of opinion to be continued suppose that they lasted through 
 out an entire Session of Parliament suppose that they were 
 found so inveterate as to be incurable even by a dissolution of 
 the House of Commons -why, what, he would ask, must be the 
 consequence of such a state of things ? That the whole machinery 
 of Government must be stopped unless his Majesty exercised his 
 prerogative by giving one of the parties a predominance. The 
 Government must in such a case stand still, or new Peers must be 
 created. But, then, it is urged against this creation, the monstrous 
 anomaly of which you would be guilty by concurring in the crea 
 tion of Peers merely to give one party an ascendancy over the 
 other on a particular question. He would ask them to look a little 
 more narrowly into that question. He thought he should be able 
 to show that it was a course just, reasonable, and perfectly defen 
 sible on all principles of law and of equity. If the objections were 
 so strong to the creation of a large number of Peers in one day, 
 were there none to the creation of more than two hundred in less 
 than half of a century ? Suppose that one party holding power for 
 nearly fifty years ennobled, fvom time to time, nearly two hundred 
 of its own supporters, while all others were passed by ; suppose all 
 the Peers for that period to be chosen from one faction, while all 
 rank was denied to the other ; was there anything so monstrously 
 
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 181 
 
 unconstitutional in that other party setting themselves right in the 
 political balance, and resuming that station in the House of Lords 
 to which they were entitled when they obtained the ascendancy ? 
 If it was unconstitutional for the Whigs, when they obtained 
 power, to resume that balance of influence in the House of Lords, 
 of which the long tenure of office by their adversaries had deprived 
 them, then the inevitable result must be, that the possession of 
 political ascendancy for thirty or forty years would be a possession 
 for ever. It was no longer a question of public opinion or political 
 rectitude, but it must be a question of whether one party or the 
 other had been longest in office ; of whether Mr. Pitt or Mr. Fox 
 held the Premiership in 1800 ; or Lord Grey or Lord Liverpool 
 presided over the Cabinet in 1820. The upholding of such doc 
 trines was not to be tolerated even for an instant. It would make 
 the present generation the mere slaves of the past, and be utterly 
 inconsistent with the first principles of politics. But the matter 
 might be placed on still stronger grounds than that. Suppose this 
 party, holding power so long, to have adhered to principles tending 
 one way, while public opinion was constantly and rapidly verging 
 towards the other ; suppose the party which possessed a majority 
 in the House of Lords to be devoted to a course of policy directly 
 contrary to the feelings and wishes of the nation ; suppose, in fact, 
 the House of Lords and the nation to have been during the wliole 
 of that period moving in diverging directions ; supposing, as the 
 result, an overwhelming majority in favour of the one course in the 
 House of Commons, and an equally overwhelming majority in 
 favour of a different course in the House of Lords ; he did not 
 mean to say that this state of things was decidedly injurious to the 
 Crown or to the country, or that it might not arise out of the 
 working of the Constitution ; but, then, he would ask them in such 
 a case to look at the situation of the Lords. The House of Lords 
 was not strictly a representative body, nor did he contend that it 
 should be so; but it must, nevertheless, be mixed up a little with 
 
182 RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 
 
 the other classes of the country, and have some connection and 
 affinity with the general interests of that people from whom they 
 derived their wealth and importance. Under such circumstances 
 as he had attempted to describe, to add to the number of the House 
 of Lords out of the great mass of the intelligence and respectability 
 of the country would not impair, but, on the contrary, extend their 
 influence would not swamp, but, on the contrary, support their 
 power and independence. This was his view of the condition in 
 which they were placed, and he saw no other course left for them 
 to adopt than by a large addition to the numbers of the House of 
 Lords from the supporters of that party so long excluded from 
 power, to place the Aristocracy in harmony with the other institu 
 tions of the State. It appeared to him that everything was in 
 favour of this creation the letter of the law and the strongest 
 reasons of public policy. The power, of the King to exercise his 
 prerogative for the purpose was undoubted ; and the letter of the 
 law was in harmony with the letter of the highest law of all the 
 safety of the State. He, therefore, for once concurred most cor 
 dially in the Motion of the noble Lord, and concurred with him 
 also in the expressions of regret for the retirement of those who 
 had supported the Reform Bill, and in his desire that none should 
 be looked for as their successors who were not prepared to give that 
 Bill their unqualified concurrence. If that Government, which had 
 supported the Reform Bill with so much zeal and so much sincerity, 
 did not return to office, then he would say the Bill was lost to the 
 country. Lost, he would say, because he could not conjecture how 
 those who would then have the management of it, could, even in 
 a mutilated form (for mutilated it would be), consent that it should 
 be carried. That the hon. Members who sat on the benches oppo 
 site should attempt to carry such a Bill seemed to him utterly 
 impossible ; and, although one or two expressions which fell from 
 them might bear the interpretation of such an intention, he could 
 not believe they were spoken in earnest. He would not go bacfc 
 
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 183 
 
 to the history of East Retford in 1829 and 1830. He would take 
 a much later period. He would speak of those who abandoned 
 office not eighteen months ago who resigned their places because 
 they were hostile to all Reform whatever. He would speak of 
 those who, from the 1st of March, when the first Bill was intro 
 duced, down to the final dismissal of the second Bill to the House 
 of Lords, attacked all its provisions with the most inveterate hos 
 tility ; who stigmatized all disfranchisement as robbery, and all 
 enfranchisement as usurpation ; and who bellowed Universal Suf 
 frage as a means of terror into the ears of the rich, and declaimed 
 about 101. Aristocracy to the poor. It was of these hon. Members 
 and their party he spoke ; and he could not think it possible that 
 they would so descend as to give their support and countenance to 
 the Reform Bill. He believed they had too much honesty ; he 
 believed they had too strong a sense of shame. The inconsistency 
 of the act would be too glaring the time was too short the 
 memory of their former professions was too recent the motive 
 would be too obvious. He could not trust himself to believe that 
 the party of which he spoke could entertain an idea of supporting 
 the Reform Bill. The party, then, that if they accepted office 
 could carry the Reform Bill, would not carry it ; and there 
 remained only that other party which might be disposed to attempt 
 it, but who were much too powerless and insignificant to form an 
 Administration. He did not mean to designate those attached to 
 that party offensively, but the House probably understood that he 
 alluded to those who were commonly known by the name of the 
 " waverers." From that party, he apprehended, it was utterly 
 impossible to select a number of men who could conduct the public 
 business of the House of Commons. The case, then, stood thus : 
 those who might support the Bill could not form a Government ; 
 and those who could form a Government could not support the 
 Bill with any regard to their public character, or with any respect 
 to political consistency, unless with the introduction of most exten- 
 
184 RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 
 
 sive amendments. The Bill he regarded, therefore, as lost ; and, 
 on the whole, he thought it better it should be lost than suffer 
 mutilation in the hands of its enemies, and be drained of that which 
 they called its venom, but which he considered its life-blood. The 
 Members of his side of the House had been accused of making pro 
 phecies which they accomplished themselves, and no one had been 
 more subjected to these accusations than he had. They had been 
 accused of prophesying the agitation which they endeavoured to 
 excite. The fault of that argument was, that it might be used at 
 all times, with the same success, whenever a deliberative assembly 
 was warned of the dangers which awaited its decisions. It was the 
 duty, however, of those who believed such dangers existed to speak 
 out, and to speak boldly. If they spoke for the purpose of exciting 
 discontent, they were guilty of a great crime ; but his conscience 
 acquitted him of any such intention. He knew that he was as 
 anxious as any man for the preservation of order and the security 
 of property. He knew that he was prepared to contend as strongly 
 against the errors of the people as to argue for their rights ; and 
 he would, at all times, rather be the victim of their injustice than 
 its instrument. The time, however, might come when those who 
 derided the warning would be sensible of its value when those 
 who laughed at the danger might witness the evils they could no 
 longer avert when those who despised all advice might feel them 
 selves bereft of all relief. The time might come when the candid 
 but unpretending counsel of a Cordelia would be found preferable 
 to the bold but crafty recommendations of a Goneril. Let the 
 Legislature depend on those who boldly declared their opinions as 
 to the danger of rejecting Reform, rather than upon the smooth 
 tongued Conservatives ; the former, he contended, were the only 
 true Conservatives. He would not cry " peace, peace," when 
 " there was no peace." As to those who might attempt to play 
 the part of a Polignac Ministry in England, and endeavour to carry 
 on the affairs of the State without public confidence, nay, in direct 
 
RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 185 
 
 opposition to the sentiments of the people, he told those individuals 
 that they had to do with a people more firm and determined than 
 the French, and he warned them to take care how they ventured 
 on the attempt. Why, the ink was scarcely yet dry of the protests 
 which noble Lords had entered against the Reform Bill. Their 
 speeches were yet ringing in the people s ears, in which they 
 denounced the measure, and would they attempt to take office ? 
 In attempting to administer the Government they were so eager to 
 grasp, they must either shamelessly desert the whole of their 
 former protestations, or go in direct opposition to the wishes of the 
 majority of that House. And, even if they could succeed in 
 overcoming the majority of that House, they would still have 
 dangers before them from which Mr. Pitt would have shrunk, 
 and even an Earl of Stratford have hesitated to encounter. They 
 would go forth to the contest with public opinion without arms 
 either offensive or defensive. If they had recourse to force they 
 would find it vain if they attempted gagging Bills they would 
 be derided ; in short, they would, in taking office, present a most 
 miserable exhibition of impotent ambition, and appear as if they 
 wished to show to the world a melancholy example of little men 
 bringing a great empire to destruction. In this perilous hour he 
 would call on the House of Commons to remember the high mis 
 sion with which they stood charged to remember the important 
 privileges with which they were invested. Now, at the hour when 
 a paltry faction, elated by a momentary triumph, were, on the one 
 hand, preparing to destroy all the hopes of the people, and the 
 enemies of social order, on the other hand, were rejoicing in the 
 prospect of anarchy and confusion now, at this eventful hour, he 
 implored them to rise in the grandeur of their hearts, and save a 
 Sovereign misled by evil counsel save a nobility insensible to their 
 own welfare or true interests save the country, of which they were 
 the guardians, from a disastrous convulsion, and save, he would 
 say, the hive of industry, the mart of the whole world, the centre 
 
186 RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. 
 
 of civilization from confusion and anarchy. Their vote of that 
 night would, he trusted, revive industry, and restore confidence. 
 It would place out of all possibility of danger the public peace; it 
 would stay political dissensions, and, by averting the calamities with 
 which they were threatened, preserve the authority of the law, and 
 uphold the Majesty of the Crown. 
 
187 
 
 ON SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES * 
 MAY 24, 1832. 
 
 AFTER the very extensive view of this subject which has been 
 taken by my hon. friend, I shall not attempt to take a general 
 survey of the subjects of Negro Slavery, but merely confine myself 
 to the question of the decrease of the negro population, the only 
 point of all my hon. friend s argument that the member for 
 Dumfries has ventured to dispute. The hon. Member has not 
 contented himself with charging my hon. friend with a mis-state 
 ment, but has^actually gone the length of accusing him of having 
 knowingly and wilfully brought forward a system which he was, 
 in his own mind, convinced was incorrect. I beg, however, to say, 
 that I am, in my own mind, most entirely convinced, that the 
 argument of my hon. friend is impregnable. I first say, that this 
 decrease, which the hon. Gentleman attributes to the inequality of 
 the sexes, is to be found in many islands where the females 
 exceeded the males in number in the year 1817. I next say, that 
 in St. Christopher s, which is the island selected by the hon. 
 Member himself, the women, in 1817, exceeded the men in 
 numbers. To be sure, the hon. Gentleman has talked about the 
 sexes approximating in 1825 and 1826 ; but if this means anything 
 it means that the women diminished in number, for it cannot be 
 otherwise explained. It is true that, in Barbadoes, the black 
 population has increased, which circumstance the hon. Gentleman 
 may attribute to what he calls the approximation of the sexes, if 
 he pleases, but which I attribute to the cultivation of sugar being 
 little practised in that island. But, Sir, there are some colonies in 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xiii. p. 52-53. 
 
188 SLAVEKY IN THE COLONIES. 
 
 which the number of the men exceeds that of the women, such, 
 for instance, are Berbice, Demerara, and Trinidad ; and there we 
 find, not only that there is a total decrease, but even a decrease in 
 the number of the females. I say, that this fact reduces the 
 whole matter to irresistible demonstration ; for if he be correct, 
 and if the men exceed the women, the worst that could happen 
 would be, that the islands would be in as bad a situation as if the 
 men were reduced to the number of the women, and the two 
 sexes made equal. But if we look to those colonies, we shall find 
 that there is a decrease in the women as well as in the men ; and, 
 therefore, again I say, that it is clear to demonstration, that the 
 decrease in the slave-population cannot arise from this ill-assort 
 ment of the sexes, as argued by the lion. Gentleman. But the 
 hon. Gentleman seems to think that he has done enough when he 
 has made out, as he supposes, that no decrease hft taken place ; 
 but I contend that, not only should there" be no decrease, but that 
 there should be a most rapid and striking increase. The negro 
 population in the West Indies are placed in a situation admirably 
 suited to their nature and disposition ; the produce of the land is 
 all-prolific the bright and vivid sky is favourable to their African 
 constitutions they have a great extent of rich virgin soil ready to 
 pour forth its gifts, with but little labour, into their hands. This, 
 therefore, ought, to them, to be the golden age of existence ; 
 it ought to be their age of easy life, smiling children, and happy 
 \tfives ; it ought to be their age of high wages, full meals, light 
 work, early marriages, and numerous families. But is it so ? 
 Alas, Sir, no ; a blight is on them, and they drag on a weary, 
 burthensome existence, darkened by despair, and uncheered by a 
 single ray of hope. Let us look at the result of the same advan 
 tages in other countries. How is it in New South Wales ? There 
 
 O 
 
 the population is made up of convicts and prostitutes ; and yet, in 
 spite of that deterioration in spite of the inequality of the sexes 
 we see that colony daily increasing, with every probability of these 
 
SLAVERY IN THE COLOMES. 189 
 
 convicts becoming tlie patriarchs of a mighty empire. We all 
 know the origin of the United States ; we all know that they 
 were originally peopled by the refuse of European society. And 
 how is it with them ? The population there has gone on swelling 
 and swelling, like an irresistible torrent ; the people have multi 
 plied, till at length, in whole tribes, they have poured themselves 
 across the mountains of Alleghany, the streams of Ohio, and the 
 plains of the Arkansas. Year after year the woods and the forests, 
 the fortresses of nature, have been receding before the advancing 
 tide of human beings : and, year after year, mankind has shown, 
 by its multiplication, that, under favourable circumstances, its 
 tendency is to fulfil the immutable law of nature. Why, then, 
 does not the same rule apply to those colonies? Why is all 
 America teeming with life, and why are the West Indies becom 
 ing desolate ? Sir, that our colonies should decrease in so rapid a 
 manner is to me one of the most appalling facts in the history of 
 the world. In the worst governed state of Europe in the worst 
 managed condition of society the people still increase. Look, 
 for instance, at the miserable population of Ireland at the 
 oppressed serfs of Russia look even at the slave-population of 
 America, or that of our own colonies where sugar is not cultivated. 
 In the Bermudas and the Bahamas, where no sugar is manufac 
 tured, the population goes on increasing ; but when we come to 
 the sugar islands, the ordinary law of nature is inverted, and, in 
 proportion to the exuberance of the soil, is the curse of suffering 
 and of death. In these islands, which are subject to one eternal 
 reign of terror, human life flickers and goes out like a candle in a 
 mephitic atmosphere. What the Spaniards did on the continent 
 for gold, we are doing in the islands for sugar. Let me remind 
 the House of what Mr. Fox said on this subject. No one will 
 deny that, perhaps, of all our statesmen, Mr. Fox was the most 
 ardent for political liberty, and yet his observation on this ques 
 tion was, that all political liberty was but as a mere nothing com- 
 
100 SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES. . 
 
 pared with personal liberty. I shall give ray best support to the 
 Motion of my hon. friend. I shall do so, because I feel that this 
 continued waste of life, without example and without parallel, is 
 a foul blot to this country, and because I hope that the adoption 
 of this Resolution may remove it. 
 
191 
 
 ON THE RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.* 
 JULY 12, 1832. 
 
 HE could have wished that the conduct to be pursued by the gal 
 lant Officer who had last addressed the House, were to be the 
 direct reverse to that he had announced himself it would be, and 
 that, on the vote of censure upon the Government, he should vote 
 against them ; and in that respecting the violation of national 
 faith, he should be with them. It was of little importance by 
 whom the affairs of the country were administered, but it was of 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xiv. p. 293-300. 
 
 NOTE. Lord Althorp, in moving for a Committee of the House, thus 
 stated this question: The House was aware, that in 1815 a treaty had 
 been entered into between the king of the Netherlands, England, and Rus- 
 sia, and that, previously, a treaty had been concluded between Great Bri 
 tain and the king of the Netherlands, to take upon themselves the payment 
 of a certain portion of a loan due from the emperor of Russia. It was not 
 now necessary to enter into that question to inquire whether this arrange 
 ment was right or wrong; it was sufficient to consider if the treaty was 
 binding in equity and honour upon this country. The agreement con 
 cluded was, that the Netherlands and Great Britain should undertake to 
 pay the interest of a loan due from the emperor of Russia, at five per cent., 
 together with a Sinking Fund of one per cent., until the whole loan was 
 extinguished. In case of the separation between Belgium and Holland, it 
 was provided that the obligation of the king of the Netherlands and Great 
 Britain ceased. This was. the letter of the treaty. The separation had 
 taken place. The question was, if it were such as was contemplated by the 
 treaty, and if this country was absolved, in justice and honour, from paying 
 its portion of the debt. He thought not. The separation was not such a 
 separation as was contemplated by the Treaty, which was exclusively ono 
 effected by foreign force. 
 
192 RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 
 
 the deepest moment that the national honour should be preserved 
 inviolate. Considering, that upon this subject hung the national 
 faith and honour of England, he confessed it did in the highest 
 degree astonish him, that hon. Members should think of introducing 
 topics which had not the slightest relation to such a subject. If 
 we were bound by the solemn obligations of a mutual compact, of 
 what importance to us was the general conduct of the Monarch 
 with whom that compact might have been contracted ? Were we 
 at full liberty to enter into as many treaties as we please with all 
 the Monarch s of the world, and yet keep faith only with those who 
 proved to be merciful, liberal, and constitutional rulers ? We 
 entered into treaties with the Burmese and Siamese governments, 
 and w r ere we to require of them that they should conform their 
 respective principles of government to that which we conceived 
 might be suitable and becoming as between them and their subjects ? 
 The only argument on that side of the House was the necessity of 
 keeping faith ; and how had the hon. and gallant Member met that 
 argument ? Why, the hon. and gallant Member talked as if we 
 paid tribute to Russia, at the moment it was attacking Poland. 
 On what ground else did he speak of economy ? To exercise 
 economy in a case of this description, the payment must be op 
 tional, for he had not yet heard anybody rise in the House and say, 
 that economy was to be preserved at the expense of national 
 honour. If the common-sense interpretation of the treaty called 
 upon this country for its execution, the hon. and gallant Member 
 might as well call upon them to economize by a reduction of the 
 Three per Cents, or a non-pa} men t of Exchequer Bills. The question 
 which they were then engaged in debating, naturally divided itself 
 into two parts. The first was, whether or not the country was 
 bound, by the most obvious principles of public faith, to continue 
 these payments ; secondly, did Government act illegally in continu 
 ing them without obtaining a new Act of Parliament for the pur 
 pose ? All the hon. Members who spoke upon the other side, pro 
 
RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 193 
 
 fessed to pursue the object of keeping these questions perfectly 
 distinct ; and yet it strangely enough happened, that there was not 
 one amongst them who did not mix both these topics ; and that 
 confusion of those questions ^as strikingly conspicuous where 
 Vattel was referred to. Referring to the Treaty of 1815, he must 
 admit, that if they examined the letter of that treaty, they would 
 find, that the proviso had arisen, and that we were absolved from 
 the payment of the debt. Yes, according to the letter of the treaty 
 we were absolved. According to the letter we might be absolved ; 
 but were they now to be told for the first time, that the foreign 
 policy of this great and renowned country was to be governed by 
 such pettifogging rules of construction as were enunciated from the 
 other side? Principles such as those were never meant, in any 
 age or country, to be applied to the construction of compacts 
 affecting the peace or the fate of nations. Reference, for the pur 
 poses of present argument, had been made to the opinions of 
 jurists ; but he knew enough of jurists to know, that they were 
 the most convenient authorities that could in any case be referred 
 to for the purposes of such a debate as the present. In the early 
 ages of the Church the Fathers were frequently quoted, and many 
 of them so frequently to serve opposite ends, that it became a pro 
 verb, that you might apply to the Fathers and obtain their author 
 ity in support of either side of almost any question. If they 
 adopted the rule of literal construction, there must be an end of all 
 that had heretofore been considered the faith of treaties. Hon. 
 Members on the other side had spoken much* and emphatically of 
 the authorities which they had quoted in support of their respect 
 ive opinions ; but he would call their attention to one authority 
 which few amongst them would be disposed to dispute he meant 
 the authority of the Duke of Wellington. One of the great con 
 ventions to which he was a party bore date in the same year with 
 that which they were then discussing. It related to the entrance 
 of the Allied Armies into Paris in the year 1815. By that Con- 
 VOL. i. i) 
 
194 RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 
 
 vention it was strictly stipulated, that all public property, other 
 than military stores, should be respected ; and it was further 
 agreed, that if any doubt should arise respecting the construction 
 of any part of that Convention, it should be construed favourably 
 to the city of Paris, yet all the pictures of the Louvre were removed. 
 The people of France held up the letter of the treaty, and insisted 
 that the works of art, of which Napoleon had despoiled the nations 
 of Europe, should still remain within the French capital ; but they 
 were restored to their original possessors, and the British nation and 
 all Europe approved the act, for it was understood at the time of 
 signing the Convention, that the pictures at the Louvre were to be 
 restored. There was an understanding that an exception had been 
 made in respect of them particularly. He was aware it might be 
 alleged that the rules of construction required, that when any 
 exception whatever was specified, none other could be introduced 
 or added ; but let the House only look to the circumstances of 1815 
 look to that very Convention in which the Duke of Wellington 
 himself was concerned. The treaties entered into at the period 
 when what was called the Settlement of Europe had been effected, 
 were directed to objects which could not, from their very nature, be 
 long maintained ; but was the pecuniary part of those treaties to 
 be therefore set at nought by a people calling themselves free, 
 liberal, and enlightened ? The treaties of that period could cer 
 tainly accomplish no object of a permanent kind, for these Govern 
 ments thought but of other Governments, and nothing of the 
 nations. In all their partitions they looked to making up compact 
 states they looked to nothing beyond the convenient frontiers 
 which an acquaintance with the state supplied they attended not 
 to the national characters, habits, feelings, religion, morals of the 
 several nations whose fates they presumed to decide ; and what 
 better proof could be supplied of that than that very plausible but 
 hollow union of Holland and Belgium? But though, in those 
 various points of policy, England had failed, that failure, so far 
 
RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 195 
 
 from furnishing an argument in support of breach of pecuniary 
 faith, had quite an opposite tendency. He said nothing of the 
 policy of that union, but it was a great and primary object of the 
 then Ministry of this country to form it, and it would be an eternal 
 disgrace to the present Ministers, who differed as to that measure, 
 if they refused to fulfil the stipulations of their predecessors. It 
 was well known, that Russia was averse from the union between 
 Holland and Belgium ; and as a means of reconciling the Court 
 of St. Petersburg, the payment of the Russian debt due in Holland 
 was guaranteed by England [cries of " wo"]. He certainly under 
 stood, and believed he could show from good authority, that Russia 
 was opposed to that union it was stated at the time he could 
 show it had been recorded it had been stated in that House, that, 
 in 1815, Russia was averse from the union ; the Treaty was con 
 cluded under that view, and with the express object and intention 
 of inducing Russia to accede to it ; and, in order to prevent Russia 
 having an interest in disturbing that union, the payments were made 
 to depend upon its continuance. The period fixed for the deter 
 mination of those payments was the dissolution of the union, not 
 because there was any natural connexion between the two, but 
 because it was from Russia that danger was chiefly apprehended. 
 If looked at in that view, the treaty was intelligible : in any other 
 it had no meaning. The hon. member for Thetford said, that these 
 payments were due, not to Russia but to Holland, and that Eng 
 land could only contemplate paying them as long as Holland had 
 the ability to pay her share to Russia. But, if that were the con 
 tingency of our payments, it might have been as well made to 
 depend on the fall of the next meteoric stone, or the drying up of 
 the Mediterranean. If the principle were that Russia should not 
 receive the money in consequence of a separation which she could 
 not prevent, or that England should be exonerated from the pay 
 ment in consequence of a separation which she had promoted, the 
 treaty in which such a principle was embodied would be the most 
 
196 RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 
 
 extraordinary that ever was made. If he understood the spirit of 
 those treaties rightly, it was, that if there were the slightest reason 
 to believe that Russia, by direct or indirect means, had produced a 
 separation between Holland and Belgium if she had been inclined 
 to lag behind, and to make no exertion to prevent it if she had 
 favoured that separation if she had thrown any obstruction in the 
 way of any efforts we might have been inclined to make for the 
 purpose of preventing that separation then the circumstances con 
 templated by the proviso had arisen, and we were relieved from 
 the payment of the money. But was that the present state of 
 affairs ? Was it not notorious, that since 1815 the two countries 
 had, so to speak, interchanged their parts with reference to this 
 question. In 1815 we were for the union and Russia was against 
 it ; in 1831 Russia was decidedly opposed to the separation. He 
 would not say that England either caused, or was desirous of, that 
 separation. He did not mean to say, that England desired that 
 the people of Belgium should be discontented with the government 
 of Holland, nor that the Belgians should have risen against the 
 king of Holland. He did say, however, that while the king of 
 Holland continued to be, virtually, the king of that country, hosti 
 lities took place ; the resistance of the Belgians was successful ; and 
 Belgium was separated, to be again united, in all probability, by 
 the European powers only. England was desirous that the sepa 
 ration should be recognized, and it became necessary that the new 
 independent state of Belgium should be invited to enter into the 
 great European family. In the mean time, the circumstances of 
 Russia had changed in a directly opposite direction. In the first 
 place, as every Gentleman knew, a matrimonial alliance had, since 
 1815, very closely united the Courts of Petersburg and the House 
 of Orange ; but, above all, they could not help feeling, that the 
 circumstances under which the Belgian revolution took place, were 
 such as could not be contemplated with pleasure by a government, 
 distinguished by its jealousy of all popular institutions arising out 
 
RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 197 
 
 of the people. The forcible expulsion of the troops of the govern 
 ment and the Sovereign, and a democratic council being called to 
 the government of the country, the question between a republic and 
 a hereditary monarchy put to the vote, and a Sovereign invited and 
 elected by the people themselves, on certain constitutional terms 
 these were the characteristics of the Belgian revolution ; and these 
 were things which it could not be supposed the Russian govern 
 ment would contemplate with pleasure. It appeared to him, there 
 fore, that the two countries had entirely changed their former 
 parts ; that this recognition was now effected by the great Powers 
 of Europe, and that the independence of the state of Belgium had 
 not been effected in that way which would absolve us from our 
 obligations. It had been effected, not by the interference of Russia, 
 but in conformity with the wishes of England, and in spite of a 
 strong reluctance on the part of Russia. He could not but think, 
 then, that we were still bound to fulfil our obligations. There was 
 a case he would mention to the House, which appeared nearly 
 parallel to the present. He remembered to have read, long ago, in 
 one of the old jurists he could not recollect where, but it was not 
 necessary to mention the authority, for its great similarity to the 
 present case would carry its own argument along with it the 
 writer, according to a common practice, as many hon. Gentlemen 
 knew, with the jurists, put a supposed case. There were two States 
 before the invention of fire-arms. Certain circumstances induced 
 one State to agree to pay the other an annual subsidy of 1000 
 ducats ; the other state stipulating in return, that whenever the 
 state paying this money was invaded, they would sAid to their 
 assistance 1,000 pikemen ; and the treaty contained a stipulation 
 that, if this number and the force were not sent within three days 
 after such an invasion, then the payment of the annual subsidy 
 should cease and be discontinued. Fire-arms were subsequently 
 invented, and came into general use ; an invasion took place, the 
 party invaded sent to the other state, not for pikemen, but for mus- 
 
198 RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 
 
 queteers "For the love of heaven send us some musqueteers ; 
 pikemen are of no use noTi " A battalion of musqueteers imme 
 diately marched to the assistance of the distressed state, and the 
 invasion was repelled. Afterwards, when the subsidy was de 
 manded, the answer was, " Look to the terms of the treaty ; it 
 declares that you shall send 1,000 pikemen, and that, if you do not 
 send such a force, in number and arms, as herein stipulated, pay 
 ment of our annual subsidy shall thereupon cease." Why, what 
 would be the language of the Power cheated in this way ? Would 
 it not say, " You are taking advantage of your own wrong ; cir 
 cumstances have changed ; military tactics have altered ; we have 
 conformed to that alteration ; by doing so we have saved you, and 
 this is the return you give us for what we have done?" These 
 cases were analogous. In 1815 we were desirous of the union ; in 
 1832 we were desirous to promote a separation; and with what 
 face could the British Ministers stand up and say to the Russians, 
 " You did not frustrate my wishes with respect to Belgium, you 
 did not plunge all Europe into war to support your own views, and 
 I will now take advantage of the separation which I promoted, and 
 which you might have prevented, but did not, in order to evade 
 payments which literally, though not according to the spirit of the 
 treaty, were made to depend upon the continuance of the union." 
 He had no difficulty, then, upon grounds such as these, broadly 
 and roundly to assert, that his .Majesty s Government had deserved 
 well of the country, and, therefore, he paid but little attention to 
 the taunts, coming from the other side, about the difficulty that 
 Members might have in facing their constituents, after voting in 
 favour of a continuance of those payments. For his part, he should 
 have no difficulty in defending such a vote before any constituent 
 body in the empire ; for the people of England had long shown 
 that they knew and felt there was a fixed identity in the state 
 that public and private morals were the same that honesty was 
 the best policy and they believed that to pay what they owed 
 
RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN. 199 
 
 was the truest economy that the state could not be guilty of a 
 breach of faith in one instance without bringing suspicion on all its 
 engagements, and thus reducing itself to a situation at once dis 
 graceful and perilous, putting to hazard that peace throughout 
 Europe now happily so long preserved a peace, in the continuance 
 of which every artisan, every ploughman, every shopkeeper, in the 
 land knew that he was deeply interested ; and he need not say, 
 that to preserve peace, public faith must be maintained inviolably. 
 Upon these principles, Members of Parliament might go before the 
 people of England upon these principles, Members of Parliament 
 might be willing to act, and content to suffer. 
 
200 
 
 ON THE AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY * 
 
 FEBRUARY 6, 1833. 
 
 On the Address in Answer to the King s Speech The Irish 
 Question. 
 
 LAST night he had formed the intention of not taking part in the 
 present debate ; but circumstances which had this evening arisen 
 determined him to adopt an opposite course, and to say a few 
 words in reply to the attack which had been made upon him by 
 his hou. friend, the member for Lincoln [Sir E. L. Bulwer] ; at 
 the same time that he felt that he should quite as well discharge 
 the duty which he owed to himself, and much better consult what 
 was due to the House, by postponing the defence of his own per 
 sonal consistency until after he had more directly addressed him 
 self to the question which mainly occupied the attention of the 
 House. His hon. friend, so ingenious in the construction of an 
 argument, and so successful in making a point, was sometimes not 
 always aware of the effect of the words which he used. His hon. 
 friend told the House that the Government proposed coercion, 
 while the hon. and learned member for Dublin [O Connell] recom 
 mended redress. When called upon to choose between both, the 
 hon. member for Lincoln declared that he could not hesitate ; but 
 he was sure that, upon reflection, his hon. friend would see that he 
 and the hon. and learned member for Dublin did not attach the 
 same meaning to the words which the one was the first to use, 
 and that the other had but too readily adopted. The hon. and 
 learned member for Dublin meant Repeal of the Union to that 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xv. p. 250-264. 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 201 
 
 his hon. friend was averse. When they were told that the ques 
 tion of the Union of Ireland was not to be sneered down till after 
 the most complete investigation, till after the fullest inquiry, and 
 after the gravest debate, he could not help putting the question, 
 whose fault was it that they had no full and formal debate upon 
 the subject ? Why was it that the question had not been fully 
 agitated ? Had not his Majesty s Government given the challenge, 
 and was it not fully in the recollection of the House, that the hon. 
 and learned member for Dublin had addressed them for two or 
 three hours he forgot how long, for no one could consider the 
 time long while that Gentleman continued speaking ; but had he 
 not spoken for two or three hours, without opening the question 
 of the Union in a manner that could be grappled with, or indeed 
 fairly encountered at all ? This was the more remarkable, as that 
 hon. and learned Member had last night placed fourteen notices 
 on the book, and not one of them related to the subject of the 
 Legislative Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The hon. 
 and learned Member had permitted judgment to go against him 
 by default. Hon. Members at that side of the House (the Minis 
 terial) had called upon the hon. and learned Member to proceed, 
 but he had declined the invitation he shrunk back he skulked 
 away from the opportunity of giving effect in that House to the 
 doctrines which he had promulgated elsewhere with so much vehe 
 mence, and accompanied with so much of personal invective and 
 objurgation. If ever there was an occasion which naturally led to 
 a discussion of the question of Repeal, it was tho Amendment 
 moved by the hon. and learned Member ; but he had not only 
 then neglected to take advantage of the opportunity offered to 
 him, but instead of making any approach towards joining issue 
 upon it, he had delivered one of the most evasive speeches that 
 had ever been uttered within the walls of Parliament. From the 
 beginning to the end he had most carefully and studiously avoided 
 meeting the question of Repeal. He should be the last man in 
 
 9* 
 
202 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 the world to deny that that speech was very able and eloquent, 
 but though the most ample opportunity had been afforded the 
 hon. and learned Member by the occasion which then presented 
 itself, to press upon the attention of the House the question of 
 Repeal ; yet he had cautiously abstained from improving that 
 opportunity, and had not accepted the challenge of those who 
 stood strong in their defence of the Legislative Union, the Repeal 
 of which was supposed by the hon. and learned member for Dub 
 lin to be the panacea for all the evils with which Ireland was 
 afflicted. It was not for lack of argument that Ministers did not 
 discuss the Question. They were strong in irresistible arguments, 
 and feared not on any occasion to meet the advocates of Repeal. 
 They were told, indeed, to wait till they had examined the petitions 
 of the Irish people ; but no Gentleman who took an interest in 
 the affairs of the country had neglected already to make himself 
 master of it in all its bearings. He was prepared to discuss the 
 question of Repeal inch by inch, and to show, that so far from 
 being likely to remedy the social and political grievances of Ireland, 
 it would have the effect of aggravating every one of the causes of 
 discontent at present in operation. If the advocates of Repeal 
 wished to separate the Crowns of England and Ireland if they 
 desired to establish an Hibernian Republic, their arguments might 
 be considered rational and consistent ; but the hon. and learned 
 Gentleman required a separation of the Legislatures of the two 
 countries, and the identity of their Crowns. The hon. and learned 
 Member required two independent Legislatures (for if the Legisla 
 tures were not independent, the separation was a mockery), and 
 one Executive. Could it be then that a mind so acute and 
 informed as his, could be unconscious that such conclusions were 
 opposed to the first principles of the science of Government ? 
 When a Union of the Crowns was spoken of, he took it for granted 
 that ho such Union was meant as that which subsisted between 
 Great Britain and Hanover, in which the Crown appertained to 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 203 
 
 the same Royal Personage, but in which the Ministers by whom 
 the Executive authority was actually exercised were perfectly dis 
 tinct : a Union of that sort, so far as he knew, had never been 
 advocated ; and he entertained not the slightest doubt, that could 
 such a Union ever be called into existence, the first question asked 
 would be, what was the use of continuing it what purpose could 
 it serve to either country ? Let the House only contemplate for a 
 moment what was the nature of the Union subsisting between this 
 country and Hanover. Hanover was a member of the Germanic 
 Diet, and might send its contingency to the aid of a war carried 
 on against the Allies of England, or against England herself. 
 Did they contemplate any Union of that sort for Ireland with this 
 country ? If they did, let them say so at once let them declare 
 candidly, did they, or did they not, desire two Legislatures and 
 one Executive, connected as England and Hanover were, -for he 
 professed himself unable to understand, and he felt assured, from 
 the nature of the proposition, that no man in his senses could 
 imagine that he understood any other scheme by which the busi 
 ness of Government in both countries could be carried on with 
 the Legislatures separated and the Crown united. But the hon. 
 and learned Member said, that he thought it would be a great 
 calamity if the two countries were to be separated, and were not to 
 have the same King, meaning obviously, the same Executive Govern 
 ment. The hon. and learned Gentleman then meant simply by 
 the Repeal of the Union, two independent Legislatures under one 
 Executive. Was such a state of things possible ? If the Execu 
 tive Power were really quite distinct from the Legislative Power, 
 they might easily have two Legislatures under one Executive just 
 as they had two Chancellors, and two Courts of King s Bench. 
 But be the theory of the Constitution what it might, no man 
 acquainted with the working of that Constitution, could for a 
 moment imagine a total separation of the Legislative from the 
 Executive ? It would be a political anomaly, or rather a political 
 
204 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 impossibility. For himself he was disposed to rest the question 
 upon this issue Had or had not the Legislature a most powerful 
 influence upon the Executive ? Could the Crown pursue war, or 
 conclude peace, without the consent, and sanction, and support of 
 the Legislature ? War, peace, and all the functions of the Execu 
 tive, were, in some degree, dependent upon the Legislature, and 
 the Legislature exerted a considerable share of power in every 
 part of the duties assigned to the Executive. The King might 
 choose his own Ministers; but he could not maintain them in 
 office after Parliament had become hostile to them. The conduct 
 of negotiations was intrusted to the Monarch, he appointed Ambas 
 sadors ; but the King could not pursue any line of foreign policy 
 in opposition to the views and feelings of the Parliament. The 
 Repealers might, therefore, be refuted out of their own mouths. 
 They -said, that the Executive Power ought to be one : but the 
 Legislature had a share of Executive Power. Therefore, by the 
 confession of the Repealers themselves, the Legislature ought to be 
 one. Now the futility of such an opinion could be at once 
 exposed by a most simple, obvious, and familiar illustration. Sup 
 pose the one Legislature voted an Address in favour of peace, and 
 the other declared for war, what would ensue ? Did they suppose 
 that there were to be at all foreign states with which we main 
 tained diplomatic relations two Ambassadors one for England 
 and the other for Ireland ? And yet it was impossible to avoid 
 arriving at that conclusion if a distinction were established between 
 the Legislative, and therefore, of necessity, between the Executive 
 powers of the two countries. And what would be the next step ? 
 Negotiations might be carried on with foreign states, and the Legis 
 lature of this country express the highest approbation of the man 
 ner in which they might have been conducted might declare its 
 confidence in, and offer its thanks to the diplomatic agent employed ; 
 while the Legislature of the other State might resolve upon his 
 impeachment. Not ten not five years would elapse before occa- 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 205 
 
 sions must present themselves, out of which causes of irreconcile- 
 able dispute must arise. Not one year could the two countries 
 exist under the same Imperial Executive. The supposition was 
 monstrous and absurd, and all history showed that the plan would 
 be utterly impracticable. It had been supposed that parallel cases 
 should be referred to ; but when those came to be examined, it 
 would, in every instance, be seen, that a similarity of circumstances 
 did not prevail ; and that where they did, the case but strength 
 ened the position for which he was contending. Take the case of 
 Ireland herself during the short period in which she possessed an 
 independent Parliament. It was only during eighteen years that 
 there did exist in the British empire two independent and co-equal 
 Legislatures ; and though the circumstances under which they so 
 existed rendered collision exceedingly difficult for during the 
 whole of that period, as was well known to all who heard him, 
 the Irish Houses were managed by that Parliamentary corruption 
 which no one could desire to see renewed, and the Irish people 
 were overawed by a large military force yet, for all that, so filled 
 was the system with the seeds of disunion, that six years did not 
 elapse from the declaration of independence till occasion for a dif 
 ference of opinion arose. In the year 1788, George 3rd was 
 incapacitated by illness from the exercise of the powers appertain 
 ing to the Kingly office, and according to the Constitution, the 
 privilege devolved upon Parliament of making provision for the 
 discharge of those high and important functions. What occurred ? 
 The Parliament of England offered the Regency to the Prince of 
 Wales with extensive restrictions the Parliament of Ireland offered 
 him the same powers without any restrictions whatever. Surely 
 if they possessed the right and the power to make such offer 
 respecting the conditions upon which the Royal functions were to 
 be exercised, they possessed as fully and could as freely exercise 
 the privilege of selecting the individual to whom the appointment 
 might be offered, and with quite as strong a claim of right consti- 
 
206 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 tute the Duke of York Regent, as extend the powers of the office 
 when vested in the Prince of Wales. They might have chosen 
 their own Regent, and might have invested him with such powers 
 as they thought proper ; and had George 3rd continued for the 
 remainder of his life incapable of the duties of Monarch, England 
 and Ireland would have been for thirty-two years with a divided 
 Executive, without departing one iota from the principles of the 
 Constitution. This would have been the unavoidable consequence ; 
 yet it was loudly deprecated in the very same breath which sent 
 forth a warm recommendation to call into life and activity the 
 causes from which that consequence must necessarily flow. Were 
 he to pursue the argument further, he could occupy the attention 
 of the House with nothing more than reciting such a series of 
 monstrous results, as certainly never before ensued, and which 
 were probably never yet contemplated in reference to any public 
 measure. Not only was all argument opposed to it a priori, but 
 all history would show the scheme to be founded upon a gross 
 and pernicious fallacy. They might have again a legislature in 
 Dublin and in London as they had before 1782, but all that tho 
 former would have to do, would be to obey the decrees of tho 
 latter under a mock form of independence. He admitted that some 
 cases bore the appearances of divided legislatures and united 
 Crowns, but those appearances were to the utmost degree decep 
 tive, and the more closely they were examined the more clearly 
 did that character develope itself. Such was the case, for example, 
 in the co-existent parliaments of France, Burgundy, and Brittany ; 
 and, equally so, in those mockeries of the names of Parliament 
 with which the House of Austria still amused the people of Hun 
 gary and the Tyrol. In all these cases there was no such thing as 
 an independent legislature ; all the power lay in the hands of the 
 Crown ; the Parliament was a mere pageant a mockery or 
 means of riveting the fetters of the conquered. In fact, if history 
 had one lesson which stood out more emphatically than another, 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 207 
 
 it was that which, indeed, reason would strike out for itself, the 
 impossibility of two independent legislatures co-existing under the 
 same executive head. It was not easy to get at the precise plan 
 of Repeal contemplated by the learned Member for Dublin. He 
 had not himself developed it, and it was only to be guessed at by 
 some partial revelations. Among a number of statements of the 
 learned Gentleman on this head, which he had read in the public 
 Journals, the most precise plan was one proposing a kind of federal 
 union of a local legislature sitting in Dublin, with an imperial 
 legislature in London. But did the learned Gentleman deceive 
 himself so much as to suppose, that by this plan he evaded the 
 difficulties of two independent legislatures ? Supposing, as in the 
 latter case, that there should spring up some difference of opinion 
 or conduct between the two legislatures the domestic and the 
 imperial who was to decide between them ? Where was the 
 paramount authority to declare, " you are right," and " you arc 
 wrong ; you therefore must yield, &c. ;" for on the supposition of 
 the learned Gentleman, they were both to be independent and 
 supreme. A dispute between the House of Commons and the 
 House of Lords was bad enough ; yet in that case the Crown pos 
 sessed a constitutional power, which in practice had prevented 
 collisions between the hereditary and the representative branches 
 of the Legislature ; it could dissolve the one, it could add to the 
 numbers of the other. They all knew that both expedients were 
 had recourse to in the reign of Anne, in 17 04 and 1712 ; in the one 
 instance (the Aylesbury affair) the Queen dissolved the House of - 
 Commons ; in the other (the question of the peace of Utrecht) she 
 created a number of Peers. But who was to arbitrate between 
 two independent Legislatures elected by two different nations ? The 
 federal union of a domestic and an imperial legislature, did not 
 meet the difficulty which, indeed, the greatest federal republic in 
 the world was at this moment exhibiting on a large scale. That 
 republic the most famed in the world agreed to its present 
 
208 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 constitution in a great convention, over which the genius of 
 "Washington presided, and in which the most able statesmen of 
 the day assisted. At that memorable convention, the different 
 states of which the republic was composed agreed to a form of 
 union, similar to that contemplated by the hon. and learned Gen 
 tleman ; and yet, after more than half a century s trial, the consti 
 tution of the United States had found no other arbiter between a 
 local and an imperial legislature, but physical force. The hon. 
 and learned gentleman s plan for separating the legislatures of the 
 two countries, and at the same time continuing the union of the 
 Crowns, was, therefore, worse than a complete and total separa 
 tion that complete and total separation which the hon. and 
 learned Gentleman said he should regard as a calamity ; but which 
 would be no calamity compared with that which he proposed to 
 put upon us. If, on a fair trial, it were found that the two coun 
 tries could not be made to co-exist in the same empire could not 
 be made harmoniously to combine in one course of mutual support 
 and prosperity in God s name let them -be wholly separated. He 
 did not wish to see them, like those strange twin beings lately 
 exhibited in this city, connected by an unnatural tie, which made 
 each the plague of the existence of the other each in the other s 
 way ; more slow of motion, because they had more legs ; more 
 helpless, because they had more hands ; partaking of no common 
 aliment, sympathizing only in disease and helplessness, and each 
 being perpetually subject to perish by the dissolution of the other. 
 And, now, in what character was it that the hon. and learned Gen 
 tleman came forward? He said that he appeared as the last 
 advocate of his own country as the man who stood between the 
 empire and civil war. Bt,t if they admitted that the Repeal of 
 the Union was to save us fiom this calamity, what argument had 
 the hon. and learned Member advanced in favour of that proposi 
 tion ? He had recounted many grievances ; and he was not the 
 man to apeak lightly of those grievances they were, undoubtedly, 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 209 
 
 numerous, .extensive, and of long standing; but when he heard 
 the hon. and learned Gentleman go through that melancholy list 
 of evils, many of which, unquestionably, required a speedy remedy 
 a remedy which he trusted soon to see applied (at least so far 
 as any remedy might be within the gift of the Legislature), when 
 he heard the hon. and learned gentleman go through that melan 
 choly list, he detected one alone which, as it seemed to him, the 
 Repeal of the Union could, even in the hon. and learned Gentle 
 man s own opinion, tend to remove. What was the nature of the 
 evils to which the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded were they 
 such as did not exist previous to the Union ? Certainly not ; and 
 he had yet to learn that the Repeal of the Union would be a 
 remedy for grievances which existed long before that Union took 
 place, and which grievances, he would confidently venture to add, 
 a Repeal of that Union would but aggravate. The learned Gen 
 tleman, in his post hoc and propter hoc distinctions, seemed to 
 reverse the well-known logic of the Goodwin Sands versus Tenter- 
 den Steeple. The steeple was the cause of the sands, said the rustic 
 logicians, because it existed before they encroached upon the coast ; 
 but the learned Gentleman reversed the reasoning, and said, 
 because the Union took place long after the existence of certain 
 grievances, therefore it must be the cause of them. Some of the 
 grievances which he thus ascribed to the Act of Union were not 
 peculiar to Ireland, or to any form of government. For what did 
 they reform the House of Commons ? Was it not on the same 
 grounds upon which the hon. and learned Member now came for 
 ward and asked for a Repeal of the Union ? Was not the removal 
 of many of them undeserving sinecurists, political judges, cor 
 rupt magistrates, for example one of the great objects of the 
 Reform Bill ? Surely, the removal of the remaining Irish griev 
 ances did not in all fairness require a domestic legislature in Ireland. 
 Besides, see to what me argument tended ; if local abuses in 
 Ireland required a local legislature to remedy them, why should 
 
210 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 not every other part of the empire, also complaining of grievances, 
 be allowed its domestic legislature ? They all remembered what 
 complaints were made a few years since with respect to the Welsh 
 Judges ; but did anybody, therefore, dream that Wales should be 
 separated from England, and that it should have a domestic legis 
 lature of its own ? In the same way he never heard it said that a 
 domestic legislature should be established in Cornwall because 
 there were several local grievances in that county which required 
 a remedy. Nay, to come nearer his political home Leeds he 
 could assure the House, that a large majority of his constituents 
 complained loudly of the grievances imposed upon them by its 
 corporation ; but not a hint had been thrown out that the best 
 remedy would be the establishing a nice federal independent 
 domestic legislature in the West Riding of Yorkshire. And yet, 
 if the learned Gentleman s project were good for anything, it must 
 be capable of being applied to Wales, and Cornwall, and York 
 shire, and every county in England, as well as to Ireland. He 
 would go further (perhaps the learned Gentleman would say much 
 further), and maintain that the clearest ground which could be 
 guessed at, as the basis of his repeal scheme, would apply a for 
 tiori to a separation of the legislatures of the north and the south 
 of Ireland. If a rooted difference of religion, and the existence of 
 the worst consequences of that difference, would justify the separa 
 tion of the English and Irish legislatures, the same difference, and, 
 still more, the same baleful consequences, would warrant the sepa 
 ration of Protestant Ulster from Catholic Munster. If, as the 
 learned gentleman had often declared, it was impossible for a 
 Catholic prosecutor or prosecuted to obtain even the semblance of 
 justice from an Orange juryman, and that such a state of things 
 would be a justification of a Repeal of the Legislative Union 
 between England and Ireland (though the fact was notorious that 
 no such conduct would, under any circumstances, be manifested 
 towards any British subject in England), why then the same rea- 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 211 
 
 soning, that only a domestic legislature could remedy a domestic 
 grievance, would in a tenfold degree apply in favour of one 
 domestic legislature in Dublin, and another in Deny, or some 
 other large town in the north of Ireland. All the arguments 
 which the hon. and learned Gentleman had advanced in favour of 
 his favourite scheme of Repeal seemed invalid. In making these 
 observations, he had, in a great measure, vindicated himself from 
 the charge of inconsistency brought against him by his hon. 
 friend, the member for Lincoln. It was very easy for hon. Gentle 
 men to come forward with a speech made by another, upon the 
 Reform Bill, to read a few sentences from it, and to say : " this 
 binds you to support a Repeal of the Union." It was hardly fair 
 to take such a course, because every expression uttered in the 
 House ought to be construed only in reference to the occasion upon 
 which it had been used. No man knew better than a practised 
 writer like the hon. member for Lincoln, that the whole force or 
 wisdom of words depended on their application ; that nothing was 
 easier than to write a theory on either side of a subject, either all 
 panegyric or all vituperation ; and that the wisdom or folly of the 
 theory depended solely on its application. For example, were he 
 to defend Thistlewood in the tone and language which he should, 
 or at least ought to employ, if he were the advocate of a Lord 
 William Russell, or an Algernon Sydney, it would be plain that 
 he should be employing words, to say the least, inappositely. The 
 whole test of the propriety is the application the appositeness of 
 the expressions at the time ; and by these considerations he ought, 
 in fairness, to have been judged by his hon. friend, the member 
 for Lincoln. He believed the Reform Bill to be a remedy which 
 might be easily applied for the removal of the greater portion of 
 the evils complained of by the hon. and learned member for 
 Dublin. He believed that the project for the Repeal of the Union 
 was a mere delusion ; nay more, he believed that, in the manner 
 in which it was proposed, it was an impossibility. He believed 
 
212 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 also that if it were practicable, tliere was no part of the empire to 
 which it would be so fatally ruinous as to Ireland itself. The 
 expressions which he used on the occasion alluded to by the hon. 
 member for Lincoln, and which he did not shrink from, imputed 
 much, perhaps nine-tenths, of the grievances and ills which 
 afflicted the country previous to the passing of the Reform Bill, 
 to the misgovernment consequent upon a withholding of that 
 beneficial measure. But it should be recollected, in applying his 
 language to the case of Ireland, that he did not, therefore, argue 
 that the breaches of the law to which these consequences of mis- 
 government led, should go unpunished. When he said that in 
 his mind the burnings and destruction of agricultural produce, 
 which disgraced so many portions of England, were mainly owing 
 to the then Ministers turning a deaf ear to the people s cry for 
 Reform, he did not at the same time contend, that the incendiaries 
 and the lawless disturbers of social order should not be hanged or 
 otherwise punished. Then, though he earnestly deplored the 
 probable results of rejecting the Reform Bill, he did not assert 
 that the outrages and excesses committed under the name of that 
 rejection should pass with impunity that for the Bristol rioters, 
 for example, the sword of justice should not be unsheathed but 
 he would defend the consistency of his language, on that and the 
 present occasion, out of the mouth of the learned member for 
 Dublin himself. That learned Gentleman told the House yester 
 day, that the coercers might goad by their harsh policy, some of 
 the least prudent, least thinking multitude, into a general war 
 against property and order, but that then he should be found in the 
 ranks of the Executive in resisting the outrages, and punishing 
 the guilty. The learned Gentleman, it was true, said that he 
 would thus join the ranks of the Government as the lesser of two 
 great evils that while he aided it, he would abuse and execrate it 
 as the parent source of all the mischief but still he would be found 
 in it* ranks. If, therefore, the learned Gentleman did not deem 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 213 
 
 himself inconsistent, when aiding in the case he put to check the 
 lawless consequences of grievances which he called upon the 
 Houes to remedy, he was at least as little obnoxious to a similar 
 charge by his hon. friend, the member for Lincoln. The hon. 
 Gentleman and he agreed in ascribing to misgoverninent the real 
 parentage of the grievances which had led, or might lead, to acts 
 inconsistent with social order ; and both of them agreed, that 
 while the grievances should be remedied, the violation of the law 
 should be punished. The only difference between them was one 
 of time that was, when the law should be enforced against its 
 transgressors. He agreed with the learned Gentleman, that Ireland 
 presented many grievances which demanded a remedy from the 
 Legislature. He, for one, would do his best to redress those 
 grievances. He would go further, and declare he would not belong, 
 for a moment, to any Government to which that redress should be 
 a matter of unnecessary delay. But because he was thus ready 
 to redress the grievances of Ireland, was he, in the mean time, to 
 see the law outraged nay, despised by a furious and misguided 
 multitude? Talk of the distribution of Church property in a 
 country in which no property was respected, and were they to be 
 told that, to enforce the law against the robber, and the murderer, 
 and the incendiary, was to drive an injured people into civil war? 
 Did they who talked thus wildly recollect the present deplorable 
 state of Ireland ? Did they recollect that, in one county alone, 
 according to the authority of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, 
 not less than sixty murders, or attempts at murder, had been per 
 petrated in comparatively a few weeks, and not less than 600 
 burglaries, or attempts at burglary ? Why this was far worse 
 than civil war. A loss of life and property equal to the sacking 
 of three or four towns. Civil war, indeed ! he declared solemnly 
 that he would rather live in the midst of any civil wars he had 
 ever read of, than live in some parts of Ireland at this time. Much 
 rather would he have lived on the line of the Pretender s march 
 
214 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 at Carlisle or at Preston, than now live in some of the districts of 
 Ireland in which burglary and murder were the nightly occupa 
 tions. In point of fact, to threaten civil war was only to threaten 
 that which was now suffered, for Ireland was in a state of civil 
 war. And yet, to endeavour to put an end to such a disgraceful 
 scene of anarchy and strife was, forsooth, " brutally" to coerce 
 Ireland. He repeated that the civil war had long since begun, 
 and, if not checked, must end in the ruin of the empire. In the 
 course of the remarks with which he had thus troubled the House, 
 he had avoided all allusion to those irritating topics connected with 
 the vituperations which the hon. and learned member for Dublin 
 had, more than once, thought it fitting to pour out against the 
 party now in office. That party would spare itself the task of 
 reproaching him with conduct, to say the least, savouring of ingra 
 titude. The hon. and learned Gentleman might be assured that 
 his abuse was not a bit more stinging to those against whom it 
 was directed, than that which was so lavishly bestowed upon them 
 by those who so long withheld from him and his Catholic 
 brethren their political rights, and who were now allied with him 
 in hostility against those very persons who were ever the earnest 
 and uncompromising advocates of those rights. He might be 
 assured that the high-minded men who braved the " no Popery" 
 cry in all its fury, were not likely to be scared by a cry for the 
 Repeal of the Union. As attached to that party known by the 
 name of "the Whigs," it was not for him to speak of their claims 
 upon the favour of an enlightened public. The time would come, 
 when history would do them justice, and would show, among 
 other things not unworthy of commendation, how much they had 
 done and suffered for Ireland ; it would show that, in 1807, they 
 left office because they could not knock off the political fetters of 
 their Catholic fellow-subjects; and that, for the same sacred cause, 
 they remained upwards of twenty years out of office, though more 
 than once it was within their grasp, braving at the same time the 
 
AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 215 
 
 frowns of the court and the hisses of the multitude. Yes, for the 
 Catholics they renounced power and place, without obtaining in 
 return the poor reward of a fleeting popularity. These were men, 
 in those days of " no Popery" triumph, who might, by uttering 
 one little word against the Catholics nay, in some places, by 
 merely not saying a little word in favour of them, have been 
 returned by numerous constituencies to a seat in the Legislature ; 
 but who, sooner than utter that little word, contrary to their well- 
 founded convictions of right and justice, were not only excluded 
 from Parliament, but from all those places of honour and trust 
 which are coveted by every high-minded English gentleman ! 
 The Whigs retired from public life, but their honour was unsullied. 
 The clamour, therefore, which the hon. and learned member for 
 Dublin was endeavouring to excite against Earl Grey s Government 
 could not be of much moment, compared with that which Earl 
 Grey had already withstood in order to place the learned Gentle 
 man where he sat. Though a comparatively young member of 
 the Whig party, he could take it upon him to speak their senti 
 ments on this head. He therefore could tell the hon. and learned 
 Gentleman that the same spirit and moral courage which sustained 
 the Whigs when out of office, in their conflict with bad laws, 
 would sustain them in office in their conflict with the enemies of 
 good laws. They were not deterred by clamour from making the 
 learned Gentleman not less than a British subject ; he might be 
 assured they would never suffer him to be more. In saying this, 
 he believed that he was speaking the sentiments of many thousands. 
 He was proud to say that he stood there, for the first time, the 
 Representative of a new, a great, and a flourishing community, 
 who conceived that, at the present time, the service of the people 
 was not incompatible with that of the Crown ; and who had sent 
 him there, charged (as the words of his Majesty s writ expressed 
 it), " to do and consent to such things as should be proposed in 
 the great council of the kingdom." In their name, therefore, he 
 
216 AFFAIRS OF THE COUNTRY. 
 
 hereby gave his full assent to that part of the Address wherein the 
 House declared its resolution to maintain, by the help of God, the 
 connexion between England and Ireland inviolate, and to intrust 
 to the Sovereign such powers as might be necessary for the security 
 of property, for the maintenance of order, and for preserving, 
 entire, the integrity of the empire. 
 
217 
 
 THE DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL.* 
 FEB. 28, 1833. 
 
 HE confessed, that the apprehensions entertained by the lion, and 
 learned Gentleman who had just sat down [Mr. Sheil] did not 
 appear to him to be in any degree well-grounded, nor did he think 
 that the speech of that lion, and learned Gentleman, however much 
 it had been cheered at that side of the House, would at all weaken 
 the lasting impression made by the admirable address delivered 
 by his right hon. friend (Mr. Stanley) yesterday evening. That 
 speech had produced an impression which he was convinced would 
 not easily be removed from the minds of those who heard it. 
 The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them, that that speech, 
 great as he admitted it to be, owed much of its force to the pre 
 possessions of the majority in that House. According to the hon. 
 and learned Gentleman, it would appear that English members 
 were eager to find an excuse for exposing Ireland to the operation 
 of this measure. For himself and for those who concurred with 
 him in opinion as to the necessity of the measure, he begged most 
 distinctly and positively to repudiate the charge. That English 
 men were anxious for some excuse to put their fellow-subjects of 
 Ireland out of the pale of the Constitution was, he must, in jus 
 tice to himself and other English members, say, altogether un 
 founded. For his own part, he had never risen in that House 
 under more painful feelings than those which now oppressed him. 
 He had never thought, that it would have become necessary for 
 him to stand up and defend the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, 
 
 * Hansard, 3d series, Vol. xv. p. 1326-1337. 
 VOL. I. 10 
 
218 DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 
 
 and the suspension of the trial by jury. But on what grounds 
 did he defend that course ? Before he went to those grounds, he 
 would begin by saying, that he entertained no feelings with respect 
 to the rights and liberties, and prosperity of England, which he 
 did not hold as fully and as strongly in regard to those of Ireland. 
 He thought there was no situation in the life of a public man 
 more painful than that in which he found himself, under the 
 necessity of supporting the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, 
 and even the temporary abolition of the trial by jury. These 
 were sacred portions of our Constitution, older than Parliament 
 itself their origin was lost in the darkness of ancient times, they 
 were beyond the Heptarchy ; they formed parts of the great 
 charter of British liberties ; they were those great bulwarks of 
 freedom for which our ancestors had bravely and successfully 
 struggled to preserve which kings had been deposed, dynas 
 ties had been changed for which a noble army of martyrs had 
 bled. He touched those sacred bulwarks with trembling and awe. 
 Never ought they to be touched or disturbed but in case of the 
 greatest necessity ; but that necessity once made out, he would not 
 stop to inquire, how far or how short he was to go beyond them. 
 He would not having once admitted the principle enter into 
 the details, for they must be granted, in order that the application 
 of the principle might not be in vain. He could imagine nothing 
 worse than the enactment of a measure which, being unconstitu 
 tional, should, at the same time, be ineffectual, which, while it 
 went beyond the law, did not afford any security for the briefness 
 of its own duration. In departing from the law, he would rather 
 err on the side of vigour than of lenity. He would therefore 
 adopt a strong measure, that its duration might be short, and that 
 it might be less liable to be drawn into a precedent. When once, 
 therefore, he had made up his mind that a suspension of the 
 Habeas Corpus and of the trial by jury had become necessary, it 
 was to him of little importance to go into discussion as to details, 
 
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 219 
 
 and in that feeling he would not inquire which would, be the best 
 substitute for the trial by jury the trial by one judge, or by three 
 barristers, or by courts-martial for though he was not without an 
 opinion as to which was the best, he would not stop to choose 
 between them, but as he had mentioned them, he must say that, in 
 his opinion, any of them would be preferable to that substitute 
 suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just addressed 
 the House. That the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, 
 that the trials under the Bill before them ought to be by a jury, 
 but a jury chosen from the aristocracy. Now, it seemed to be 
 generally admitted, at least he had not yet heard any hon. member 
 who controverted the opinion, that the very worst hands to which 
 the administration of strong measures like the present could be 
 confided, were the local gentry or magistracy. Yet, to something 
 like this, to a sort of special jury of the aristocracy, would the 
 hon. and learned member confide the administration of these 
 strong measures. He would have a jury of the Protestant gentry 
 to try the Catholic peasantry. Could anything be more likely to 
 create irritation, when the passions and prejudices and supersti 
 tions of the great mass of the people would be opposed to it ? 
 "Was that the course which the hon. and learned member would 
 adopt ? But how, then, could a jury of the aristocracy be 
 formed, without incurring the objection that seemed so generally 
 to prevail as to the unfitness of the local gentry to administer strong 
 measures ? Let him, without going further into details, which, he 
 repeated, he looked upon as of minor importance, if the necessity 
 for the principle was made out let him ask, was that necessity 
 proved to exist ? He thought it was. The question of that neces 
 sity was divided into two great parts. There was predial agitation 
 and political agitation. Was any doubt entertained of the exist 
 ence of the former ? Could anything be more appalling than the 
 details which were received, and some of which the House had 
 heard, as to the meetings and outrages of the peasantry ? Well, 
 
220 DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 
 
 but it was said, " put a stop to that," and he thought he had 
 heard it said, let it be enacted that any man in the disturbed dis 
 tricts who was found from his home after eight o clock at night, 
 should be liable to the punishment, not only of a misdemeanour, 
 but a felony. [" No, no," from Mr. ConnelL] If his ears had 
 riot deceived him, that was said, and there were many near him 
 who were under the same impression. But, perhaps, there had 
 been some words said very like them in sound, though differing in 
 sense, as in another case, which must still be fresh in the recollec 
 tion of the House. He thought that something of the kind was 
 said at the time when a threat was intimated of vengeance to be 
 taken for Ireland by the mob of St. Giles s. To him it appeared 
 to be incontrovertibly proved, that predial agitation existed, and it 
 was closely connected with political agitation. He did not rest on 
 the anecdotes which he had heard on the subject, though some 
 of them were of great importance as showing the opinions of the 
 great mass of the people. He did not take this proof from the 
 ballads on which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Sheil) had 
 commented ; yet, from circumstances such as these, trifling as they 
 might at first appear, the signs of the times might often be col 
 lected. Such things were, as Lord Bacon said, like straws which, 
 thrown up, showed which way the wind blew. Taking the whole 
 of what he had heard, he could not refuse his belief to the facts, 
 nor could he avoid coming to the conclusion, that there was a 
 close connexion between predial and political agitation. A like 
 ness existed both in feature and in principle, and the principle of 
 each was evidently one and the same that of preventing peaceable 
 inhabitants from being loyal to their King, and obeying the laws 
 of their country. Both were founded on intimidation. The 
 Whitefeet threatened, and put their own threat into execution ; the 
 political agitators also held out their threats, and in doing so 
 usurped a power which no subject had a right to. There was an 
 active and a passive resistance to the law. That the active was 
 
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 221 
 
 unlawful no man would pretend to deny ; that the passive resist 
 ance that which directed or recommended men not to deal with 
 other men of certain political opinions not to buy from or sell to 
 them, was also unlawful ; he would assert ; and he was satisfied 
 that the hon. and learned member for Dublin would not stake his 
 legal reputation on the assertion that it was otherwise. But there 
 were other modes of intimidation. What were those district courts 
 which were recommended, and to which men were told to refer 
 their differences ? What were those but so many sources of inti 
 midation, by which those who should refuse to conform to them 
 were to be held up to public odium ? What was that organization 
 of an unarmed body, which might be armed ? Were not all these 
 so many means of intimidation ? They had heard in that House 
 of declarations against the Whitefeet, of disavowals of their acts ; 
 no doubt, most, if not all, of their acts were such as no m#n had 
 yet the hardihood to defend. But was there no use in keeping up 
 excitement just below crime, and amongst those who were just 
 above the vilest criminals? Was such agitation not of some benefit 
 to those who made a profit of it, and could they be otherwise than 
 desirous that it should be kept up just below that point where it 
 excited the disgust and the horror of all reasonable men ? Some 
 men turned agitation into a lucrative trade, and it was of use to 
 those who could turn it to a profitable account. But why, he would 
 ask, declaim so strongly against the predial agitation by the White- 
 feet and others, when they who so declaimed, kept up an agitation, 
 of a different kind as to the means it was true, but much alike in 
 the tendency ? Suppose one of those Whitefeet brought before an 
 association of agitators of a different kind, and asked to account 
 for his conduct, what would be his natural answer ? " You, 1 he 
 would say, " agitate, so do I ; you pursue one course, I another ; 
 you intimidate, so do I ; but though the execution of my threats 
 is more immediate, it is not more certain than that of yours in the 
 result. You speak of your unarmed volunteers, so have I mine ; 
 
222 DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 
 
 mostly unarmed, but I have iny arms under lock and key, to be 
 delivered for use as occasion may require. I have as much right 
 to act against the law in my way as you have in yours." What 
 was the difference between this active and passive resistance ? 
 Why, the active resister of the law was exposed to great personal 
 risk, from which the cunning of the passive resister might screen 
 him. In this respect the difference between them was, he admitted, 
 great, but in a moral point of view, were they not both the same ? 
 The active resister might well ask, " Who gave you the right to 
 draw the line, and to say where passive resistance should end, and 
 where the active should begin ? Who made you Judges over 
 your fellow-countrymen ? What right have you to determine on 
 taking up arms, and forming yourselves into what you call a 
 national guard ? You say you have grievances to redress. So 
 have we. W"e have woods to cut down, cultivated grounds to 
 uncultify, houses and farm-yards to burn down, stewards and land 
 lords to dismiss ; and we do this with the same right that you 
 have to take upon you to cure your own wrongs." The Whitefeet 
 might be disavowed by the agitators and pacificators, but that the 
 acts of the one had a connexion with the agitation of the other 
 he thought no man who paid any attention to what was passing 
 in Ireland could for a moment entertain a doubt. But suppose, 
 for a moment, that no such connexion existed, still he would con 
 tend, that political agitation was a proper subject for legislative 
 interference. It was, as it had been seen, a usurpation of the 
 power of law, a self-appointed association, sitting to try causes 
 not merely a civil, but also a criminal tribunal, where men 
 were denounced for holding certain political opinions, and the 
 terror of those denunciations obliged those who gave an honest 
 vote to move about with pistols in their pockets for the protection 
 of their lives. What did such an association want ? A story was 
 told of a king of Scotland, who, meeting a border robber, was so 
 struck by the number of his followers and the splendor of their 
 
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 223 
 
 appearance, that he exclaimed, "What wants that knave which 
 beseems a king ?" So he said, what wanted the Volunteers ? 
 Not power not terror they wanted nothing but responsibility to 
 make them a government. He would as soon trust to .them, as 
 soon be under their domination, as of those ancient secret societies 
 of Germany, who sent their spies abroad, and despatched their 
 assassins to the right hand and to the left. History scarcely 
 supplied a parallel of a similar association. The present Volun 
 teers compared themselves to the Volunteers of 1782, and to the 
 Unions of England. Nothing could be more grossly incorrect 
 than the comparison nothing more unlike than the two things. 
 He knew of no body to which they could be compared at least 
 no existing society. The only one that he could recollect was one 
 which, by its applications, had usurped all the powers of Govern 
 ment, and which, through the medium of its dictators, spread 
 tyranny over the unhappy country in which it existed. He meant, 
 as might be easily seen, the Jacobin Club of the first French revo 
 lution. That club was long under the control of a man who was 
 the idol of the people, but who, after plunging his country into the 
 abyss of ruin, miserably perished. It was to that club, and to that 
 only, that the present political associations in Ireland could be 
 assimilated. In their organization, in their conduct, there was a 
 resemblance between the Jacobin Club and the Irish Volunteers. 
 Let anybody read the debates and speeches of both societies, and 
 the closest application would be found in his comparison. A mem 
 ber of this Irish association declares that he will stand upon a 
 mine, to the train of which the match is about to be applied, if 
 the great leader of that association commands it. So, among the 
 Jacobins, were found those who would drink poison rather than 
 disobey the wishes of their chiefs, or separate themselves from 
 their political fortunes. Since those associations followed the 
 career chalked out to them by the Jacobins since they imitated 
 them in even minute details should the present Government 
 
224 DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 
 
 imitate that weak administration of France, which shut its eyes 
 upon the designs of those Jacobins allowed them to wax power 
 ful, and at last to dictate to all without control ? He hoped 
 not, and that it would be taught by experience, and destroy the 
 evil in its bud. He would ask a Reformed Parliament, freely 
 chosen by the electors of the greatest nation of the world, 
 whether it was to see such power assumed by any body of men 
 he would ask them as freemen, whether they could sanction the 
 existence of such associations ? In former times there were brave 
 men who had resisted the tyranny of the Stuarts ; but when they 
 saw a fresh tyranny springing up, they naturally enough asked ; 
 " Have we slain the lion in order to be devoured by the wolf ?" 
 So he asked, " Had they beaten down parliamentary corruption, 
 only to make way for the rule of clubs ?" He belonged to that 
 party which had carried Reform, in order to avoid revolution. 
 But that party had not fought the battle against the proudest 
 aristocracy in the world, in order that an oligarchy which had 
 since sprung up should rule in its stead, an oligarchy which had no 
 title to power but the lenity of the Government and its own 
 audacity. Were they prepared to surrender Ireland to the domi 
 nation of such a party ? It was said that this measure would 
 destroy liberty in Ireland. Where was that liberty ? He remem 
 bered in Mr. Matthews s very amusing description of American 
 peculiarities, the exclamation of the Kentucky man, who cried out, 
 " Pretty liberty, when a man cannot wallop his own nigger." He 
 might say of the sort of liberty enjoyed in Ireland, " Pretty liberty, 
 where a man cannot enjoy or express his own opinion pretty 
 liberty, where a man is not secure of his property or life where 
 he is constantly obliged to go about armed, to protect himself from 
 the violence of those who will not allow him to think and judge for 
 himself where he is called upon to resort to those self-constituted 
 courts of arbitration rather than to the ordinary tribunals of the land 
 a liberty that prevents buying or selling a liberty that 
 
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 225 
 
 flourishes in the midst of conspiracies a liberty whose insignia 
 are plunder and assassination." That was the liberty Ireland was 
 to be bereft of! Never was that word more profaned never was 
 that sacred word of liberty more foully abused, than it was at pre 
 sent in Ireland. The history of Europe gave but one example of 
 such profanation of the word Liberty that was, when over the 
 doors of the execrable Jacobin Club were emblazoned the words, 
 " Liberty or Death." The Government were defending real liberty, 
 when they asked for those coercive measures so much decried. 
 What were the Habeas Corpus and Trial by Jury intended for ? 
 Why, to be the means, not the ends, of protecting life and pro 
 perty ; they were valuable, because they secured life because 
 they secured property because they protected order and they 
 became worthless the instant they afforded protection to villains 
 and depredators. Allusion had been made to former measures of 
 this kind. He would say, that there never was a measure which 
 stood on such grounds as this, and for which such a necessity 
 existed. ISTo Ministry had ever yet applied for such measures who 
 stood upon the same grounds as the present Ministers. The pre 
 sent Ministers had the confidence of the nation, and would not 
 abuse it. They asked for great powers to be granted them ; but, 
 at the same time, they felt that they were responsible to a Reformed 
 Parliament for the use they made of those powers. Besides, they 
 asked for those powers, in order to be able to apply to Ireland 
 those measures of redress which they knew she was entitled to. 
 It had been argued, last night, by the hon. member for Lincoln 
 (Mr. E. L. Bulwer), that, with them, it was " to-day, concession 
 to-morrow, coercion. A quick alternation of kicks and kindness 
 coaxing with the hand, and spurring with the heel." Such an 
 accusation did not come well and consistently from that hon. 
 Member, as he would confess, if he recollected his words on the 
 Address to the Throne ; he said then, " If you ask for coercive 
 
 powers, whv do you not, at the same time, hold out measures of 
 
 10* 
 
226 DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 
 
 redress ?" That was the very thing Government did ; it agreed 
 with the hon. Member s first thoughts, which, in his humble 
 opinion, were better than his second thoughts. The Government, 
 in asking for those measures, gave a strong proof of consistency 
 a strong proof that it acted upon the principles of Reform. It was 
 a proof that it still advocated the same principles as when it 
 recommended Reform. It was determined to provide a remedy in 
 time, so that it might not be compelled to legislate in the midst of 
 such scenes as were acted at Nottingham and Bristol. They had 
 recommended Reform as a remedy, and they were determined it 
 should not be abused. Two different diseases existed in Ireland, 
 and they had different remedies for the grievances complained of, 
 and for the system of outrage. To the latter, which was a tempo 
 rary paroxysm, would be applied temporary remedies to the 
 former, which were founded upon deeply-rooted discontent, would 
 be applied an efficacious, speedy, and yet permanent cure. At 
 all events, the present Government, in asking for coercive powers, 
 were only following the example of the Administrations that 
 went before them. He considered, that the present state of 
 Ireland might be aptly compared to the state of the Highlands 
 of Scotland eighty years ago. At that period there existed in 
 the Highlands two species of agitation predial and political 
 agitation. The one carried on under the influence of Lord Lovat, 
 resembled the political associations of Ireland at the present day. 
 The other, the principle of which was burnings, robbery, and 
 murder, was conducted by the noted Rob Roy. The means of 
 the two were different, yet they were closely connected. The 
 Government of that day broke up the connexion, which was more 
 honest than the present, for that was kept up by family ties, 
 the present by intimidation ; but the Government broke it up 
 by the enactment of salutary laws, and at the same time it 
 improved the condition of the Highlanders by making roads 
 and bridges, and otherwise facilitating intercourse to every part 
 
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 227 
 
 of the country. And what is now the consequence, he would 
 ask, of having then had recourse -to means of coercion ? Let 
 the Highlanders be asked : there would not be found one among 
 them who did not bless the severity used towards them at the 
 period mentioned, and the salutary wisdom that dictated that 
 severity. He had no desire whatsoever to disguise the appalling 
 features of the present measure. Though it were nothing but a 
 mere experiment (if an experiment, it was at least experimentum 
 in corpore vili), though its features were still more hideous, yet 
 it was less appalling than the state of things in Ireland. It 
 asked for courts-martial ; but could any thing that would result 
 from them, by any possibility, be half so despotic and arbitrary 
 as what might be expected from the New National Guards 
 already organized and prepared to extend their sway ? Look 
 ing at the courts-martial in their worst light, were they so bad 
 as the courts which were now opened to try men for their 
 political opinions ; and having passed sentence of denunciation 
 against them, to hand them over to the peasantry, with the 
 request that they might be dealt with as leniently as possible? 
 See how the two systems would operate that of the proposed 
 measure, and the one which at present prevailed. This would tend 
 to prevent illegal assemblages at night ; that which now prevailed 
 tended only to encourage the midnight assassin. This would 
 authorize domiciliary visits, in order to find out who were engaged 
 in these outrages ; the other made those visits only to punish the 
 innocent. He knew which species of visits he should prefer ; and 
 he emphatically declared, that let the measure be stigmatized as it 
 might ; let it be branded as an Algerine Act, he preferred it to a 
 Kilkenny Act. He would far rather live in Algiers, in its most 
 despotic day, than he would live in the county of Kilkenny at the 
 present time. There was last year as ample a suspension of the 
 laws in some parts of Ireland as was now demanded ; and yet the 
 powers it gave were not abused. The cause of that suspension 
 
228 DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 
 
 was, to prevent an evil at which even agitation trembled the 
 further propagation of cholera. Now, if it were given him to 
 choose, and to say which he should prefer that dreadful pestilence, 
 such as it prevailed in Russia or India, or this moral pestilence, 
 under which there was no security for property or life, under which 
 men were exposed to the visits of the midnight assassin, and to the 
 noonday murderer, to having their houses burned by night, and to 
 be shot as they fled from the fearful conflagration if, he repeated, 
 it were given him to make a choice between those two evils, ho 
 would choose the former ; for he would say with the Hebrew king, 
 " Let me fall into the hands of God, not into those of men." He 
 had thus stated his opinion freely and candidly of this measure ; 
 but he could assure the House that, in wha* he said, he was in no 
 degree influenced by his official connexion with the Government. 
 He did not expect any credit on this score from the hon. and 
 learned Gentleman opposite. He would admit, that there were 
 many cases in which a man might give up his own opinion out of 
 respect or attachment to political friends, or from connexions with 
 Government ; but the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was 
 not one of those cases in which such a sacrifice of opinion could 
 be honestly made. He could appeal to many of his hon. friends 
 near him, who would bear testimony to the fact that he had come 
 down on an early night of the Session, when the measure of 
 Church Reform was to be introduced, prepared, in spite of his 
 .attachment to those who formed the Administration, and in spite of 
 his own connexion with Government, to separate himself from that 
 Government, if he should not find that the measure to be pro 
 posed was of a nature which the country had a right to expect. 
 But as he was then ready to part from Ministers if he could not 
 concur with them, so now he was ready to lend them all the feeble 
 aid in his power, being firmly convinced that the course which 
 they proposed was the right one. He should . have no fear of 
 meeting his constituents in consequence of his vote on this occa- 
 
DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) BILL. 229 
 
 sion. He knew their zeal for liberty ; but he also knew that it 
 was zeal with knowledge. While they would oppose any unne 
 cessary inroad on the rights of any portion of their fellow-subjects, 
 they would, though they regretted its necessity, not object to a 
 measure which, while it temporarily suspended the Constitution, 
 did so only that it might not be wholly endangered by anarchy. 
 He would willingly render them an account of his conduct, 
 satisfied that they were too sincerely attached to true liberty, and 
 too enlightened, not to distinguish between it and that unbridled 
 license which could end only in the worst of slavery. Whatever 
 might be the result of the opinions he had expressed, he would 
 abide by them. He had made up his mind on the subject. He 
 might become the victim of popular injustice, but he would never 
 condescend to be its flatterer. 
 
230 
 
 CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND.* 
 
 APRIL 1, 1833. 
 
 In Committee on the plan for regulating the temporalities of the 
 Church of Ireland. 
 
 HE had two species of opposition to contend against that of 
 those hon. Gentlemen who did not conceive the Bill went far 
 enough, and that of those who either considered that it went too 
 far, or of those who believed that such a measure never should 
 have been entered upon at all. Now, with respect to the first, he 
 was glad, at least, to learn from the hon. and learned Member 
 opposite, that the Bill was satisfactory so far as it went, and that 
 it would not have, in fact, been equally judicious, if at present it 
 did go further. On this opinion of the hon. and learned Gen 
 tleman he was willing to rest his defence of the Ministers for 
 having gone no further. He was heartily glad that the hon. and 
 learned member for Tipperary had withdrawn his notice of Motion, 
 which stood upon the books ; and he wished sincerely that that 
 hon. and learned Gentleman s example might prevail with others, 
 and induce them in like manner to withdraw the Motions they 
 had announced. He conceived that it was a matter of extreme 
 importance that this measure should be carried ; and he felt that 
 the difficulty of carrying it would be most considerably increased 
 if it were made stronger. He consequently should, if it were 
 necessary, feel no difficulty in moving the previous question, 
 should the hon. Member not consent to withdraw his Amendment. 
 
 * Hanscard, 3d Series, vol. xvi. p. 1383-1393. 
 
CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 231 
 
 He had now, however, to approach the other species of opposition 
 against which he had to contend, and which was much the more 
 formidable of the two namely, that the Bill went too far, or 
 rather, that it proceeded on an erroneous principle. Among those 
 who had supported this view of the subject, the hon. and learned 
 member for Dover had contended, that if his Majesty should give 
 his sanction to this measure, it would be given in direct violation 
 of his Coronation Oath. The hon. and learned Member also said, 
 that this measure was a violation of the rights of the Church, and 
 of the rights of property. The argument respecting the Corona 
 tion Oath was urged when the questions of the Catholic Eman 
 cipation and the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts were 
 before the House, and he had thought that that argument had 
 been so completely refuted on those occasions, that it would not 
 have been brought forward again. He was, however, prepared to 
 show that the objection had no force. It was perfectly clear, from 
 the words of the oath, that they could not bear the construction 
 the hon. and learned Member had put upon them. What was 
 the oath ? that the King would maintain for the Church " all 
 such rights as do, or by law shall appertain to the Church." The 
 whole force of the passage rested on the word " shall." In 
 another part of the oath his Majesty says, " We declare to govern 
 all our people according to the Statutes agreed to in Parliament ;" 
 but surely that did not mean that his Majesty swore to govern by 
 the Statutes actually in existence at the moment he came to the 
 Throne. Certainly not ; for if that were the sense of the passage, 
 every Act of Parliament to which the Sovereign gave his consent, 
 in the course of his reign, would be an act of perjury upon his 
 part. How much less, then, was there any doubt of the wording 
 with respect to the rights and privileges of the Church ! The 
 fact was, the passage was introduced into the oath for the purpose 
 of guarding the -Church against such acts as those which James 
 2nd exercised as head of the Church. The present measure con- 
 
232 CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 
 
 templated no interference of that kind with the Church, and it 
 was perfectly clear to him, that the oath had not the smallest 
 reference to the conduct of the King in his legislative capacity, 
 and did not bar him from giving his assent to any measure agreed 
 to by both Houses of Parliament. Allusion had been made to 
 the articles of the Union as if they prevented any change in the 
 established Church of Ireland. The words of the 5th article of 
 the Union were, that " the doctrine, discipline, worship and 
 government of the Church are to be maintained in both countries 
 unchanged." If this measure were passed, all those things would 
 be unchanged. No alteration was to be made in the Articles, 
 the Book of Common Prayer was untouched, and the discipline 
 would still be episcopal, the Archbishops and Bishops would 
 retain all their authority, and the doctrine and discipline would be 
 unaltered. Would it be said, that the union of certain sees in 
 Ireland made any difference in the doctrine, discipline, worship, or 
 government of the Church ? He should suppose not. If so, all 
 the fundamental principles of the government of the Church of 
 England were compromised by the junction between the sees of 
 Lich field and Coventry. Nor were they destroying the Church 
 of Ireland by arrangements contained in the Bill for a different 
 distribution of church property. Such arrangements had been 
 frequently made by the Legislature. The present case was a 
 parallel to the case of London after the fire. The number of 
 parishes then destroyed was eighty-seven, and soon afterwards an 
 Act passed by which they were consolidated, and reduced to fifty- 
 one, and a commutation of tithes for a fixed money-payment was 
 also ordained. Indeed local Acts of a similar description were 
 continually passed, and every one of them was as much the 
 destruction of the Church of England as this Bill would be, were 
 it to become a law to-morrow. It had next been asserted that the 
 rights of property had been attacked by this Bill ; this, he main 
 tained, was an assertion ; if it could be proved, he would give up 
 
CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 233 
 
 the Bill. The right of property was of immense importance. To 
 preserve that, Kings, and Parliaments, and Coronation Oaths, all 
 existed. For that alone, law was made. Admitting the momen 
 tous nature of this consideration, he denied, that the rights of 
 property had been attacked by the framers of the Bill. No neces 
 sity existed which should induce Ministers to infringe on those 
 sacred rights. On the contrary, Ministers felt bound to defend to 
 the utmost the institution of property, believing, as they did, that 
 it was to that institution mankind were indebted for the origin and 
 the progress of civilization believing .that it was in consequence 
 of that institution that we were not now, like our rude ancestors, 
 naked and painted bodies, savages feeding upon acorns and shel 
 tering ourselves in caves. They felt, however, at the same time, 
 that in the institution of property there were many anomalies and 
 evils ; and yet these anomalies and evils were not only willingly, 
 but cheerfully borne by the many, in consideration of the manifold 
 blessings which the institution of property conferred upon society 
 at large. He would admit, too, that the anomalies in the distribu 
 tion of the property of the Church of Ireland were not greater 
 than in the distribution of lay property in other countries. It was 
 an anomaly, that a young man who had never served the com 
 monwealth either with head or hand should hold possession of 
 half a county, while other men who had deserved well of the 
 State in arts and arms, were left without an acre ; and yet this 
 was cheerfully endured by all, rather than derange the settled 
 order of things. This was as great an anomaly as existed between 
 the Revenues of the Archbishop of Armagh and the poorest 
 working curate. But, as mankind found no argument in the 
 former for attacking all property, so the latter could apply no 
 inducement to attack the property of the Irish Church. But, the 
 more sacred he regarded the right of property, the more care did 
 it require that the right should not be enfeebled and contaminated 
 by abuses. It was by protecting the abuses with which it was 
 
234 CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 
 
 mingled that the institution itself was brought into disrepute. 
 The House had heard from an eloquent voice, which, alas ! they 
 would never hear again, some opinions upon the subject of the 
 institution of property, to which he entirely subscribed. He 
 alluded to his excellent and accomplished friend, the late Sir James 
 Mackintosh, who in one of the discussions on the Reform Bill, 
 while he supported in the strongest way the institution of property, 
 denied it was fortified by the abuses which had accumulated 
 around it. He said : " Of all doctrines which threaten the prin 
 ciple of property, none more dangerous was ever promulgated, 
 than that which confounds it with political privilege. None of 
 the disciples of St. Simon, or of the followers of the ingenious 
 and benevolent Owen, have struck so deadly a blow at property, 
 as those who would reduce it to the level of the elective rights of 
 Gatton and Old Sarum. Property, the nourisher of mankind, the 
 incentive of industry, the cement of human society, will be in a 
 perilous condition, if the people be taught to identify it with 
 political abuses, and to deal with it as being involved in their 
 impending fate." He entirely concurred in those observations, 
 and objected strongly to those who cried out that the institution 
 of property was endangered by removing any of the abuses that 
 had gathered about it. He believed the Government were most 
 anxious to preserve the institution of property ; but he thought 
 that the best and truest friends of the institution of property had 
 little reason to be obliged to those who talked of Old Sarum as 
 being property, and vested rights existing in it ; and of the ano 
 malies and abuses of the Irish Church being sacred property. He 
 wished to have it understood, at the same time, that he allowed 
 an incumbent had a right of property in his benefice, but not of 
 the same species with the right to landed property. The incum 
 bent was a proprietor, but he was also a public functionary ; and 
 his rights in the former capacity were controlled by his duties in 
 the latter. He held this property, as subject not only to the 
 
CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 235 
 
 existing regulations, but also to such as the Legislature might 
 choose hereafter to impose. The hon. Gentlemen opposite must 
 allow that, unless they were prepared to charge a number of 
 former Parliaments with spoliation, and many of the noblest 
 characters whose names graced our history with having encouraged 
 schemes of robbery, there was nothing in this Bill which could 
 authorise the allegations which had .been thrown out against it. 
 It was not a spoliation of individuals ; it was not a confiscation of 
 property. It did not legalize rapine and plunder. If that were 
 its character, what must the Act of Supremacy have been ? That 
 Act deprived Clergymen who took orders under previous circum 
 stances, of their benefices. It was true they were not married, for 
 that was not permitted ; but they might have incurred debts, and 
 involved themselves in pecuniary obligations. Yet, without any 
 regard to their possible situation, the Parliament passed an Act of 
 expulsion against any clergyman who refused to acknowledge the 
 supremacy of Queen Elizabeth. He was aware that few clergymen 
 were affected by that Act, because the great majority took the 
 oath ; but one instance of a clergyman expelled was as complete 
 an illustration of the principle as a hundred. That Act was passed 
 when the opinions of men were loose and unsettled, but never 
 theless that House would not condemn an Act by which the Refor 
 mation was firmly established in England. Again, at the time of 
 the Restoration, when the Act of Uniformity was passed, the 
 Prayer Book was altered. It was changed from that which it 
 had been in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. ; and those cler 
 gymen who might conscientiously object to the new Prayer Book, 
 were liable to be turned out of their benefices. The Clergymen 
 were all told, that if they did not before a fixed day and that 
 day was St. Bartholomew notify their assent to the new Prayer 
 Books, they would be ejected from the Church. The consequence 
 was, that several thousands of the clergy were obliged to abandon 
 their livings, and the Church lost several distinguished men. He 
 
236 CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 
 
 admitted, that the authority of many exemplary and excellent 
 individuals was given, to add weight to the principles of this 
 Act ; and that it received the sanction of Sheldon, of Juxon, and 
 of other equally celebrated men. That Act was either one of 
 direct spoliation, or else them was an absolute distinction between 
 Church property and other property; since the proprietors of 
 benefices were deprived of their property, for refusing to conform 
 to certain prescribed regulations which were not enforced until 
 long after they were in possession of their benefices. He would 
 not dwell on the changes at the Revolution, but he would come to 
 an Act passed in our own time, introduced by one who could not 
 be accused of any wish to lessen the right to church property 
 the late Mr. Perceval and followed up and perfected by Lord 
 Harrowby. According to the principles laid down to-night, this 
 must have been as complete a spoliation of property as ever was 
 committed. It provided, that all non-resident clergymen should 
 under certain circumstances, pay a salary to a curate, proceeding 
 upon a graduated scale, almost similar to that recommended in the 
 measure now before the House. That was as much a violation of 
 the incumbent s right of property as was contemplated by the 
 present Bill. The right hon. member for Tamworth said, on a 
 former debate, that if the Legislature imposed a tax on absentees, 
 it would be neither more nor less than an act of confiscation. Ho 
 said, that such a proceeding would be utterly inconsistent with 
 the preservation of the rights of property. But, in the Bill he 
 had just alluded to, and which was introduced by one who was a 
 leader of the high Church party, within the last thirty years, there 
 was either a recognition of the difference between Church property 
 and other property ; or else it was a positive confiscation of 
 property. His own opinion of church property was, that it was a 
 sort of mixed property that it was something more than salary, 
 and something less than an estate ; and no man could deny, after 
 the cases he had quoted, that the Legislature had a right to deal 
 
CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 237 
 
 with it. In one sense it might be compared to the half-pay of our 
 army and navy. No man would say, that the total abolition of 
 that half-pay would not be a grievous spoliation. Yet, though it 
 was admitted to be the property of the individual, no man would 
 deny the right of the State to regulate it in any manner it pleased. 
 Such power had repeatedly been exercised, in changes and regula 
 tions respecting it, both in respect of the amount, and of the 
 administration of the fund from whence it was paid, when the 
 benefit of the service had seemed to require it. If the good of 
 the Church, and the well-being of the community, could be pro 
 moted by a new distribution of Church property, was there any 
 reason why the Legislature should not make it provided that 
 existing interests were honestly and liberally considered ? He 
 admitted that this measure would take something from the clergy ; 
 but in no case would it take such an amount as to reduce any of 
 them to distress. The money to be taken from them was to be 
 applied to purposes beneficial to the clergy themselves, and to the 
 security of the Church in Ireland, by removing some portion of 
 that odium, which was entertained to an alarming extent against 
 the Establishment in that country. He did not expect to hear any 
 hon. member of that House contend, that not filling up a vacant 
 bishopric was a spoliation, or a violation of property. How could 
 it ? There could be no robbery where there was no person to be 
 robbed, and there could be no injury where there was no one to 
 be injured. The bishopric of Waterford, for instance, was vacant, 
 and it was not the intention of Government to fill up the vacancy. 
 To whom was the injury done here ? Not to the bishop for 
 there was none ; not to his predecessor, for he was dead ; nor to 
 any of the 10,000 persons from whom a selection might be made, 
 not one of whom would probably consider his chance of the 
 appointment worth a sovereign. There was, then, no injury to 
 any, unless it could be shown that those who had been under the 
 spiritual care of the preceding bishop were to be left without 
 
238 CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 
 
 future spiritual instruction ; but if adequate provision were to be 
 made on that head, there could be no injury to any party, but 
 there would be a direct and positive good in the application of the 
 revenues of that see to other Church purposes which required 
 them. He had heard with astonishment the argument of the hon. 
 and learned member for the University of Dublin, who main 
 tained, " that the whole property of the Church, even for the 
 purpose of distribution, was beyond the control of Parliament, and 
 that no Parliament could sanction any measure of this kind 
 without being guilty of sacrilege." He denied the truth of the 
 proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Parliament had 
 the same power to alter and remodel, as to frame ; and the Church 
 of England had no rights, except under the Act of the Legislature. 
 Did the hon. and learned Member say, that the unity of the 
 Church would be destroyed by the diminution of ten Bishops in 
 Ireland, when the whole doctrine, and discipline, and worship, 
 continued the same ? Or did he mean to say, that that unity was 
 to be kept up only by its temporalities remaining in the same 
 hands ? Did he mean to renew the doctrine of those who once 
 held, that the gold was to be preferred to the temple which sanc 
 tified it ? Had the clergy of England been as inflexible in doctrine 
 as some of their Bishops at the period of some of the changes of 
 doctrine and worship to which he had already alluded, would not 
 the whole of the Church property of the country have changed 
 hands ? What would then have been said of the identity of the 
 Church ? What would the hon. Baronet, the member for the 
 University of Oxford, say to a revision of the wills of those pious 
 men by which the colleges which he represented had been so 
 liberally founded, and so munificently endowed ? If he contended 
 that any interference with Church property was spoliation, as no 
 doubt he would contend, what would he say, on referring back to 
 the wills and donations of some of the pious founders of the 
 colleges of Oxford ? William of Wyckham ; Chicheley, the oppo- 
 
CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 239 
 
 ncnt of the Lollards , Flemming, the enemy of Wickliffe ; Cardinal 
 Wolsey, a candidate for the Papal Throne; Sir Thomas Pope, 
 the follower of Mary and the teacher of Elizabeth would have 
 burned off their hands before they left bequests which they con 
 ceived were likely to be used against the religion they professed. 
 If any one had told any of those pious founders, that mass would 
 soon cease to be celebrated in the chapels which they had built, 
 and that the refectories and chambers of the halls and colleges 
 which they had endowed, would no longer be occupied by those 
 who acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome in 
 England, they would much rather have left their money for the 
 education of laymen without religion than have it used for the 
 dissemination of doctrines which they considered as atrocious 
 heresy. He would support the measure because he thought it 
 would tend to the peace of Ireland to the preservation of property 
 there to the real benefit of the clergy. It was the beginning of 
 a series of judicious measures of reform, which would greatly 
 promote the interests of religion and of the Established Church. 
 He looked upon it also, as one which would be for the interest of 
 the-people of England. But, before he concluded, he was anxious 
 to remark that one of the objections urged against the Bill, w r as 
 that by reducing the number of Bishops they left no room for the 
 expansive force of Protestantism no machinery by which the 
 affairs of an Enlarged Church might be administered. Ireland 
 was about half the size of England, and she was to have half the 
 number of Bishops which England had. If Protestantism should 
 expand, it would have the machinery necessary for such expansion ; 
 but he owned that he did not anticipate any such expansion, with 
 all its wealth, and power, and learning. It had not been deficient 
 in these aids it had not lacked the aid of whatever they could 
 give of penal laws in its favour ; and yet the Protestants of Ire 
 land at the present day were not a fourth of the population, and 
 of that small number more than the half did not belong to the 
 
240 CHURCH KEF011M, IRELAND. 
 
 Established Church. Compare the expansive power of Protes 
 tantism in Ireland for the last century and a half with that which 
 existed in the 16th century. The spirit the restless and over 
 mastering spirit of Protestantism was much changed. That 
 spirit which displayed itself in so eminent a degree in the 16th 
 century, which bore it along triumphantly against Popes and 
 Ca3sars, and General Councils, and Princes, and Prelates which 
 enabled it to subdue conquerors and armies made it proof 
 against inquisitions, and dungeons, and racks, and slow fires had 
 fled. The heart and mind of man, supported by the enthusiasm 
 of a pure faith, had then triumphed over all opposition against all. 
 Within a brief period Protestantism had spread from the Vistula 
 to the Danube ; from the Pyrenees to the Frozen Ocean. The 
 same person who heard Luther preach his first sermon against 
 indulgences, might, without enjoying a life protracted to a great 
 number of years, have observed Protestantism expanding itself, 
 and established in England, Scotland, Ireland, Holland, Sweden, 
 Denmark, Norway, the North of Germany, a part of Switzerland, 
 and struggling in France, not for toleration, but for supremacy. 
 But, as a Protestant, he regretted to say, that Protestantism had 
 made comparatively little progress during the three last centuries. 
 It remained, on the Continent, where it had reached in the days 
 of Philip and Mary, or rather it had receded within the marks to 
 which it had then extended. And what had already arrested its 
 course in Ireland ? Was it that the doctrines were less pure, or 
 was it, that from the constitution of the .human mind, as men 
 became more and more enlightened, they were less and less 
 capable of perceiving the pure truth ? Was it that the Protestant 
 Church in Ireland had not been supported by wealth, and dignity, 
 and power, and by the aid of favouring and penal laws ? Certainly 
 not. How then was it ? If he were a Roman Catholic, he might 
 say, because the Catholic faith was strong in its strength, and 
 founded on the immortality of truth ; but, being a Protestant, he 
 
CHURCH REFORM, IRELAND. 241 
 
 must look for some other reason, and inquire if they had not 
 incumbered the Establishment by worse than superfluous helps, 
 and whether in succeeding to the wealth and pomp of the religion 
 of Rome, Protestantism had not become tainted with something 
 of the languor of the old religion ? Had the progress of vigorous 
 and sound thought been arrested by that fatal languor which 
 accounted for the want of success of a great general of antiquity, 
 who declared he had lost more at Capua than he gained at Cannas ? 
 How was it that the spirit of Protestantism had died out where it 
 had been raised to honour and wealth, when it had formerly 
 extended itself, in spite of opposition, over all the kingdoms of 
 Europe ? He would not however pursue that painful theme. For 
 himself, at least, he must say, that he did not conceive that there 
 could be any marvellous advantage to the cause of Protestantism, 
 by the retention of the sees which the Bill proposed to dispense 
 with hereafter. If Protestantism depended upon sees, there would 
 not be a Presbyterian in Ulster, nor a Catholic in Connaught. It 
 was time that they should try new councils, and that they should 
 remove the grievances of the Dissenters, and restore peace to 
 Ireland, and its just and proper powers to the Protestant Church. 
 
 VOL. I. 11 
 
242 
 
 THE EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL * 
 JULY 10, 1833. 
 
 HAVING, while this measure was hi preparation, enjoyed the 
 fullest and kindest confidence of my right hon. friend, agreeing 
 with him completely in all those views which on a former occasion 
 he so luminously and eloquently developed, having shared his 
 anxieties, and feeling that, in some degree, I share his respon 
 sibility, I am naturally desirous to obtain the attention of the 
 House while I attempt to defend the principles of this Bill. I 
 wish that I could promise to be very brief; but the subject is 
 so extensive that I will only promise to condense what I have to 
 say as much as I can. 
 
 I rejoice, Sir, that I am completely dispensed, by the turn which 
 our debates have taken, from the necessity of saying anything in 
 favour -of one part of our measure the opening of the China 
 trade. No voice, I believe, has yet been raised in Parliament to 
 support the monopoly. On that subject all public men of all 
 parties seem to be agreed. The resolution proposed by the 
 Ministers has received the unanimous assent of both Houses, and 
 the approbation of the whole kingdom. I will not, therefore, Sir, 
 detain the House by vindicating a measure which no gentleman 
 has yet ventured to attack, but will proceed to call your attention 
 to those effects which this great commercial revolution necessarily 
 produced on the system of Indian government and finance. 
 
 The China Trade is to be opened : reason requires this public 
 opinion requires it. The Government of the Duke of Wellington 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xix. p. 503-536. 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 243 
 
 felt the necessity as strongly as the Government of Lord Grey. No 
 Minister, Whig or Tory, could have been found to propose* a 
 renewal of the monopoly ; no parliament, reformed or unreformed, 
 would have listened to such a proposal. But though the opening 
 of the trade was a matter concerning which 1j^e public had long 
 made up its mind, the political consequences which necessarily 
 follow from the opening of the trade, seem to me to be even now 
 little understood. The language which I have heard in almost 
 every circle where the subject was discussed was this : " Take 
 away the monopoly, and leave the government of India to the 
 Company : " a very short and convenient way of settling one of 
 the most complicated questions that ever a Legislature had to 
 consider. The hon. member for Sheffield, though not disposed to 
 retain the Company as an organ of government, has repeatedly 
 used language which proves that he shares in the general miscon 
 ception. The fact is, that the abolition of the monopoly rendered 
 it absolutely necessary to make a fundamental change in the 
 constitution of that great Corporation. 
 
 The Company had united in itself two characters ; the character 
 of trader and the character of sovereign. Between the trader and 
 the sovereign there was a long and complicated account, almost 
 every item of which furnished matter for litigation. While the 
 monopoly continued, indeed, litigation was averted. .The effect of 
 the monopoly was, to satisfy the claims both of commerce and of 
 territory, at the expense of a third party the English people ; to 
 secure on the one hand funds for the dividend of the stock-holder, 
 and on the other hand, funds for the government of the Indian 
 Empire, by means of a heavy tax on the tea consumed in this 
 country. But when the third party would no longer bear this 
 charge, all the great financial questions which had, at the cost of 
 that third party, been kept in abeyance, were opened in an instant. 
 The connexion between the Company in its mercantile capacity, and 
 the same Company in its political capacity, was dissolved. The sove- 
 
244 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 reign and the trader, from partners, became litigants. Even if the 
 Company were permitted, as has been suggested, to govern India 
 and at the same time to trade with China, it would make no 
 advances from the profits of its Chinese trade for the support of its 
 Indian government It was in consideration of its exclusive 
 privilege, that it had hitherto been required to make those 
 advances ; it was by the exclusive privilege that it had been 
 enabled to make them. When that privilege was taken away 
 it would be unreasonable in the Legislature to impose such an 
 obligation, and impossible for the Company io fulfil it. The whole 
 system of loans from commerce to territory, and repayments from 
 territory to commerce, must cease. Each party must rest altogether 
 on its own resources. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary to 
 ascertain what resources each party possessed, to bring the long 
 and intricate account between them to a close, and to assign to 
 each a fair portion of assets and liabilities. There was vast 
 property. How much of that property was applicable to purposes 
 of state ? How much was applicable to a dividend ? There were 
 debts to the amount of many millions. Which of these were the 
 debts of the government that ruled at Calcutta? Which of the 
 great mercantile house that brought tea at Canton? Were the 
 creditors to look to the land revenues of India for their money ; or 
 were they entitled to put executions into the warehouses behind 
 Bishopsgate-street ? 
 
 There were two ways of settling these questions adjudication, 
 and compromise. The difficulties of adjudication were great I 
 think insuperable. Whatever acuteness and diligence could do, 
 has been done. One person in particular whose talents and 
 industry peculiarly fitted him for such investigations, and of whom 
 I can never think without regret, Mr. Villiers, devoted himself to 
 the examination with an ardour and a perseverance which, I 
 believe, shortened a life most valuable to his country and to 
 his friends. The assistance of the most skilful accountants has 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 245 
 
 \ 
 been called in. But the difficulties are such as no accountant, 
 
 however skilful, could possibly remove. The difficulties are not 
 arithmetical, but political. They arise from the constitution of the 
 Company, from the long and intimate union of the commercial and 
 imperial characters in one body. Suppose that a gentleman who is 
 the treasurer of a charity, were to mix up the money which he 
 receives on account of the charity with his own private rents and 
 dividends, to pay the whole into his bank to his own private 
 account, to draw it out again by checks in exactly the same form 
 when he wants it for his private expenses, and when he wants it 
 for the purposes of his public trust. Suppose that he were to 
 continue to act thus till he was himself ignorant whether he were 
 in advance or in arrear ; and suppose that many years after his 
 death a question were to arise whether his estate were in debt to 
 the charity or the charity in debt to his estate. Such is the question 
 which is now before us with this important difference: that the 
 accounts of an individual could not be in such a state unless he had 
 been guilty of fraud, or of that crasaa negligentia which is scarcely 
 less culpable than fraud, and that the accounts of the Company 
 were brought into this state by circumstances of a very peculiar 
 kind by circumstances unparalleled in the history of the world. 
 
 It is a mistake to suppose that the Company was a merely 
 commercial body till the middle of the last century. Commerce 
 was its object ; but in order to enable it to pursue that object, it 
 had been, like the other Indian Companies which were its rivals, 
 like the Dutch India Company, like the French India Company, 
 invested from a very early period with political functions. More 
 than 120 years ago, it was in miniature precisely what it now is. It 
 was intrusted with the very highest prerogatives of sovereignty. It 
 had its forts and its white captains, and its black sepoys it had its 
 civil and criminal tribunals it was authorised to proclaim Martial- 
 law it sent ambassadors to the native governments, and concluded 
 treaties with them it was Zemindar of several districts, and 
 
246 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 within those districts, like other Zemindars of the first class, it 
 exercised the powers of a sovereign, even to the infliction of capital 
 punishment on the Hindoos within its jurisdiction. It is incorrect, 
 therefore, to say, that the Company was at first a mere trader, and 
 has since become a sovereign. It was first a great trader and 
 a petty prince. Its political functions at first attracted little 
 notice, because they were merely auxiliary to its commercial 
 functions. Soon, however, they became more and more important. 
 The Zemindar became a great nabob, became sovereign of all India 
 the 200 sepoys became 200,000. This change was gradually 
 wrought, and was not immediately comprehended. It was natural, 
 that while the political functions of the Company were merely 
 auxiliary to its commerce, its political accounts should be mixed up 
 with its commercial accounts. It was equally natural, that when 
 once this mode of keeping accounts had been commenced, it should 
 go on ; and the more so, as the change in the situation of the 
 Company, though rapid, was not sudden. It is impossible to fix 
 on any one day, or any one year, as the day or the year when the 
 Company became a great potentate. It has been the fashion 
 to fix on the year 1765, the year in which the Company received 
 from the Mogul a Commission authorising them to administer 
 the revenues of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, as the precise date of 
 their sovereignty. I am utterly at a loss to understand why this 
 period should be selected. Long before 1765 the Company had 
 the reality of political power. Long before that year, they made 
 a nabob of Arcot; they made and unmade nabobs of Bengal; 
 they humbled the vizier of Oude ; they braved the emperor of 
 Hindostan himself. More than half the revenues of Bengal, as 
 Lord Clive stated, were under one pretence or another administered 
 by them. And after the grant, the Company was not, in form 
 and name, an independent power. It was merely a minister of 
 the Court of Delhi. Its coinage bore the name of Shah Alum. 
 The inscription which, till the time of Lord Hastings, appeared on 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 247 
 
 the seal of the Governor General, declared that great functionary to 
 l>e the slave of the Mogul. Even to this day, we have never 
 formally deposed the king of Delhi. The Company contents itself 
 with being Mayor of the palace, while the roi faineant is suffered to 
 play at being a sovereign. In fact, it was considered, both by 
 Lord Olive and by Warren Hastings, as a point of policy to leave 
 the character of the Company thus undefined, in order that the 
 English might treat the princes in whose names they governed as 
 realities or nonentities, just as might be most convenient. 
 
 Thus the transformation of the Company from a trading body, 
 which possessed some sovereign prerogatives for the purposes of 
 trade, into a sovereign body, the trade of which was auxiliary to . 
 its sovereignty, was effected by degrees, and under disguise. It is 
 not strange, therefore, that its mercantile and political transactions 
 should be entangled together in inextricable complication. The 
 commercial investments had been purchased out of the revenues 
 of the empire. The expenses of war and government had been 
 defrayed out of the profits of the trade. Commerce and territory 
 had contributed to the improvement of the same spot of land, to 
 the repairs of the same building. Securities had been given in 
 precisely the same form, for money which had been borrowed for 
 purposes of State, and for money which had been borrowed for 
 purposes of traffic. It is easy, indeed, and this is a circumstance 
 which has, I think, misled some Gentlemen, it is easy to see 
 what part of the assets of the Company appears in a commercial 
 form, and what part appears in a political or territorial form. But 
 this is not the question. Assets which are commercial in form, 
 may be territorial as respects the right of property ; assets which 
 are territorial in form, may be commercial as respects the right of 
 property. A chest of tea is not necessarily commercial property ; 
 it may have been bought out of the territorial revenue. A fort is 
 not necessarily territorial property ; it may stand on ground which 
 the Company bought 100 years ago out of their commercial profits. 
 
248 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 Adjudication, if by adjudication be meant decision according to 
 some known rule of law, was out of the question. To leave 
 matters like these to be determined by the ordinary maxims of our 
 civil jurisprudence would have been the height of absurdity and 
 injustice. For example, the home-bond debt of the Company, it is 
 believed, was incurred partly for political, and partly for commercial 
 purposes. But there is no evidence which would enable us to 
 assign to each branch its proper share. The bonds all run in the 
 same form ; and a Court of Justice would, therefore, of course 
 either lay the whole burthen on the proprietors, or lay the whole 
 on the territory. We have legal opinions, very respectable legal 
 opinions, to the effect, that in strictness of law, the territory is not 
 responsible, and that the commercial assets are responsible for 
 every farthing of the debts which were incurred for the government 
 and defence of India, But, though this may be, and I believe, is 
 law, it is, I am sure, neither reason nor justice. On the other 
 hand, it is urged by the advocates of the Company, that some 
 valuable portions of the territory are the property of that body in 
 its commercial capacity ; that Calcutta, for example, is their private 
 estate, though they have, during many years, suffered its revenues 
 to merge in the general revenues of their empire, that they hold 
 the island of Bombay, in free and common socage, as of the Manor 
 of East Greenwich. I will not pronounce any opinion on these 
 points. I have considered them enough to see, that there is quite 
 difficulty enough in them to exercise all the ingenuity of all the 
 lawyers in the kingdom for twenty years. But the fact is, Sir, that 
 the municipal law was not made for controversies of this description. 
 The existence of such a body as this gigantic corporation this 
 political monster of two natures subject in one hemisphere, 
 sovereign in another had never been contemplated by the 
 Legislators or Judges of -former ages. Nothing but grotesque 
 absurdity and atrocious injustice could have been the effect, if the 
 claims and liabilities of such a body had been settled according to 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 249 
 
 the rules of Westminster Hall if the maxims of conveyancers had 
 been applied to the titles by which flourishing cities and provinces 
 are held, or the maxims of the law-merchant to those promissory 
 notes which are the securities for a great National Debt, raised for 
 the purpose of exterminating the Pindarrees, and humbling the 
 Burmese. 
 
 It was, as I have said, absolutely impossible to bring the question 
 between commerce and territory to a satisfactory adjudication ; 
 and, I must add, that, even if the difficulties which I have 
 mentioned could have been surmounted even if there had been 
 reason to hope that a satisfactory adjudication could have been 
 obtained I should still have wished to avoid that course. I think 
 it desirable that the Company should continue to have a share in 
 the government of India; and it would evidently have been 
 impossible, pending a litigation between commerce and territory, 
 to leave any political power to the Company. It would clearly 
 have been the duty of those who were charged with the super 
 intendence of India, to be the patrons of India throughout that 
 momentous litigation, to scrutinize with the utmost seventy, every 
 claim which might be made on the Indian revenues, and to oppose, 
 with energy and perseverance, every such claim, unless its justice 
 were manifest. If the Company was to be engaged in a suit for 
 many millions, in a suit which might last for many years, against 
 the Indian territory, could we intrust the Company with the 
 government of that territory ? Could we put the plaintiff in the 
 situation of prochain ami of the defendant ? Could we appoint 
 governors who would have had an interest opposed in the most 
 direct manner to the interest of the governed, whose stock would 
 have been raised in value by every decision which added to the 
 burthens of their subjects, and depressed by every decision which 
 diminished those burthens ? It would be absurd to suppose that 
 they would efficiently defend our Indian Empire against the claims 
 
 which they were themselves bringing against it ; and it would be 
 
 * 
 
250 EAST-INDIA 
 
 equally absurd to give the government of the Indian empire at such 
 a conjuncture to those who could not b e trusted to defend it. 
 
 Seeing, then, that it was most difficult, if not wholly impossible, 
 to resort to adjudication between commerce and territory seeing, 
 that if recourse were had to adjudication, it would be necessary to 
 make a complete revolution in the whole constitution of India the 
 Government proposed a compromise. That compromise, with 
 some modifications which did not, in the slightest degree, affect 
 its principle, and which, while they gave satisfaction to the 
 Company, will eventually lay no additional burthen on the 
 territory, has been accepted. It has, like all other compromises, 
 been loudly censured by violent partisans on both sides. It has 
 been represented by some as far too favourable to the Company, 
 and by others as most unjust to the Company. Sir, I own that 
 we cannot prove that either of these accusations is unfounded. 
 It is of the very essence of our case that we should not be able 
 to show, that we have assigned, either to commerce or to territory, 
 its precise due. For our principal reason for recommending a 
 compromise was our full conviction that it was absolutely impossible 
 to ascertain with precision what was due to commerce, and what 
 was due to territory. It is not strange that some people should 
 accuse us of robbing the Company, and others of conferring a vast 
 boon on the Company, at the expense of India : for we have 
 proposed a middle course, on the very ground that there was a 
 chance of a result much more favourable to the Company than our 
 arrangement, and a chance also of a result much less favourable. If 
 the questions pending between the Company and India had been 
 decided as the ardent supporters of the Company predicted, India 
 would, if I calculate rightly, have paid eleven millions more than 
 she will now have to pay. If those questions had been decided, as 
 some violent enemies of the Company predicted, that great body 
 would have been utterly ruined. The very meaning of compromise 
 is, that each party gives up his chance of complete success, in order 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 251 
 
 to be secured against the chance of utter failure. And as men of 
 sanguine ininds always overrate the chances in their own favour, 
 every fair compromise is sure to be severely censured on both 
 sides. I contend, that in a case so dark and complicated as this, 
 the compromise which we recommend is sufficiently vindicated, if 
 it cannot be proved to be unfair. We are not bound to prove it to 
 be fair. For it would have been unnecessary for us to resort to 
 compromise at all, if we had been in possession of evidence which 
 would have enabled us to pronounce, with certainty, what claims 
 were fair, and what were unfair. It seems to me that we have 
 acted with due consideration for every party. The dividend which 
 we give to the proprietors is precisely the same dividend which they 
 have been receiving for forty years, and which they have expected 
 to receive permanently. The price of their stock bears at present 
 the same proportion to the price of other stock which it bore four 
 or five years ago, before the anxiety and excitement which a 
 negotiation for a renewal of their Charter naturally produces, had 
 begun to operate. As to the territory on the other hand, it is true, 
 that if the assets which are now in a commercial form, should not 
 produce a fund sufficient to pay the debts and dividend of the 
 Company, the territory must stand to the loss, and pay the 
 difference. But in return- for taking this risk, the territory obtains 
 an immediate release from claims to the amount of many millions. 
 I certainly do not believe that all those claims could have been 
 substantiated ; but I know that very able men think differently. 
 And suppose that only one-fourth of the sum demanded had been 
 awarded to the Company, India would have lost more than the 
 largest sum which, as it seems to me, she can possibly lose under 
 the arrangement. 
 
 In a pecuniary point of view, therefore, I conceive that we can 
 defend the measure as it affects the territory. But to the territory, 
 the pecuniary question, is of secondary importance. If we have 
 made a good pecuniary bargain for India, but a bad political 
 
252 ^EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 bargain if we have saved three or four millions to the finances of 
 that country, and given to it, at the same time, pernicious institu 
 tions, we shall, indeed, have been practising a most ruinous 
 parsimony. If, on the other hand, it shall be found that we have 
 added fifty or a hundred thousand pounds a-year to the expenditure 
 of an empire which yields a revenue of twenty millions, but that 
 we have at the same time secured to that empire, as far as in us 
 lies, the blessings of good government, we shall have no reason to 
 be ashamed of our profusion. I hope and believe that India will 
 have to pay nothing. But on the most unfavourable supposition 
 that can be made, she will not have to pay so much to the 
 Company, as she now pays annually to a single state pageant to 
 the titular Nabob of Bengal, for example, or the titular King of 
 Delhi. What she pays to these nominal princes, who, while they 
 did anything, did mischief, and who now do nothing, she may 
 well submit to pay to her real rulers, if she receives from them, in 
 return, efficient protection, and good legislation. 
 
 We come then to the great question. Is it desirable to retain 
 the Company as an organ of government for India ? I think that 
 it is desirable. The question is, I acknowledge, beset with 
 difficulties. We have to solve one of the hardest problems in 
 politics. We are trying to make brick without straw to bring a 
 clean thing out of an unclean to give a good government to a 
 people to whom we cannot give a free government. In this 
 country in any neighbouring country it is easy to frame 
 securities against oppression. In Europe, you have the materials 
 of good government every where ready to your hands. The 
 people are every where perfectly competent to hold some share, 
 not in every country an equal share but some share of political 
 power. If the question were, what is the best mode of securing 
 good government in Europe, the merest smatterer in politics would 
 answer representative institutions. In India, you cannot have 
 representative institutions. Of all the innumerable speculators who 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 253 
 
 have offered their suggestions on Indian politics, not a single one, 
 as far as I know, however democratical his opinions may be, has 
 ever maintained the possibility of giving, at the present time, 
 such institutions to India. One gentleman, extremely well ac 
 quainted with the affairs of our Eastern Empire, a most valuable 
 servant of the Company, and the author of a History of India, 
 which, though certainly not free from faults, is, I think, on 
 the whole, the greatest historical work which has appeared in 
 our language since that of Gibbon I mean Mr. Mill was 
 examined on this point. That gentleman is well known to be 
 a very bold and uncompromising politician. He has written 
 strongly far too strongly, I think, in favour of pure democracy. 
 He has gone so far as to maintain, that no nation which has not a 
 representative legislature, chosen by universal suffrage, enjoys 
 security against oppression. But when he was asked before the 
 Committee of last year, whether lie thought representative govern 
 ment practicable in India, his answer was " utterly out of the 
 question." This, then, is the state in which we are. We have to 
 frame a good government for a country into which, by universal 
 acknowledgment, we cannot introduce those institutions which all 
 our habits which all the reasonings of European philosophers 
 which all the history of our own part of the world would lead us 
 to consider as the one great security for good government. We 
 have to engraft on despotism those blessings which are the natural 
 fruits of liberty. In these circumstances, Sir, it behoves us to be 
 cautious, even to the verge of timidity. The light of political 
 science and of history are withdrawn we are walking in darkness 
 we do not distinctly see whither we are going. It is the wisdom 
 of a man, so situated, to feel his way, and not to plant his foot till 
 he is well assured that the ground before him is firm. 
 
 Some things, however, in the midst of this obscurity, I can see 
 with clearness. I can see, for example, that it is desirable that the 
 authority exercised in this country over the Indian government 
 
254 
 
 should be divided between two bodies between a minister on a 
 board appointed by the Crown, and some other body independent 
 of the Crown. If India is to be a dependency of England to be 
 at war with our enemies to be at peace with our allies to be 
 protected by the English navy from maritime aggression to have 
 a portion of the English army mixed with its sepoys it plainly 
 follows, that the King, to whom the Constitution gives the 
 direction of foreign affairs, and the command of the military and 
 naval forces, ought to have a share in the direction of the Indian 
 government. Yet, on the other hand, that a revenue of twenty 
 millions a year an army of two hundred thousand men a civil 
 service abounding with lucrative situations should be left to the 
 disposal of the Crown without any check whatever, is what no mi 
 nister, I conceive, would venture to propose. This House is indeed 
 the check provided by the Constitution on the abuse of the Royal 
 prerogative. But that this House is, or is likely ever to be, an effi 
 cient check on abuses practised in India, I altogether deny. We 
 have, as I believe we all feel, quite business enough. If we were to 
 undertake the task of looking into Indian affairs as we look into 
 British affairs if we were to have Indian budgets and Indian 
 estimates if we were to go into the Indian currency question and 
 the Indian Bank Charter if to our disputes about Belgium and 
 Holland, Don Pedro and Don Miguel, were to be added disputes 
 about the debts of the Guicowar and the disorders of Mysore, the 
 ex-king of the Afghans and the Maha-rajah Runjeet Sing if we 
 were to have one night occupied by the embezzlements of the 
 Benares mint, and another by the panic in the Calcutta money- 
 market if the questions of Suttee or no Suttee, Pilgrim tax or no 
 Pilgrim tax, Ryotwary or Zemindary, half Batta or whole Batta, 
 were to be debated at the same length at which we have debated 
 Church reform and the assessed taxes, twenty-four hours a day 
 and three hundred and sixty-five days a year would be too short a 
 time for the discharge of our duties. The House, it is plain, has 
 
255 
 
 not the necessary time to settle these matters ; nor has it the 
 necessary knowledge, nor has it the motives to acquire that know 
 ledge. The late change in its constitution has made it, I believe, a 
 much more faithful representation of the English people. But it is 
 far as ever from being a representation of the Indian people. A 
 broken head in Cold Bath Fields produces a greater sensation 
 among us than three pitched battles in India. A few weeks ago 
 we had to decide on a claim brought by an individual against the 
 revenues of India. If it had been an English question the walls 
 would scarcely have held the Members who would have flocked to 
 the division. It was an Indian question ; and we could scarcely by 
 dint of supplication make a House. Even when my right hon. 
 friend, the President of the Board of Control, made his most able 
 and interesting statement of the measures which he intended 
 to propose for the government of a hundred millions of human 
 beings, the attendance was not so large as I have seen it on a 
 turnpike-bill or a railroad bill. 
 
 I then take these things as proved, that the Crown must have a 
 certain authority over India, that there must be an efficient check 
 on the authority of the Crown, and that the House of Commons is 
 not an efficient check. We must then find some other body to 
 perform that important office. We have such a body the 
 Company. Shall we discard it ? 
 
 It is true that the power of the Company is an anomaly in 
 politics. It is strange very strange that a Joint-stock society 
 of traders a society, the shares of which are daily passed from 
 hand to hand a society, the component parts of which are 
 perpetually changing a society, which, judging a priori from its 
 constitution, we should have said was as little fitted for imperial 
 functions as the Merchant Tailors Company or the New River 
 Company should be intrusted with the sovereignty of a larger 
 population, the disposal of a larger clear revenue, the command of 
 a larger army, than are under the direct management of the 
 
256 
 
 Executive Government of the United Kingdom. But what con 
 stitution can we give to our Indian Empire which shall not be 
 strange which shall not be anomalous ? That Empire is itself the 
 strangest of all political anomalies. That a handful of adventurers 
 from an island in the Atlantic should have subjugated a vast 
 country divided from the place of their birth by half the globe a 
 country which at no very distant period was merely the subject of 
 fable to the nations of Europe a country never before violated by 
 the most renowned of Western Conquerors a country which 
 Trajan never entered a country lying beyond the point where the 
 phalanx of Alexander refused to proceed ; that we should govern 
 a territory 10,000 miles from us a territory larger and more 
 populous than France, Spain, Italy, and Germany put together a 
 territory, the present clear revenue of which exceeds the present 
 clear revenue of any state in the world, France excepted a 
 territory, inhabited by men, differing from us in race, colour, 
 language, manners, morals, religion ; these are prodigies to 
 which the world has seen nothing similar. Reason is confounded. 
 We interrogate the past in vain. General rules are almost useless 
 where the whole is one vast exception. The Company is an 
 anomaly ; but it is part of a system where every thing is anomaly. 
 It is the strangest of all governments : but it is designed for the 
 strangest of all Empires. 
 
 If we discard the Company, we must find a substitute : and, 
 take what substitute we may, we shall find ourselves unable to 
 give any reason for believing that the body which we have put in 
 the room of the Company is likely to acquit itself of its duties 
 better than the Company. Commissioners appointed by the King 
 during pleasure would be no check on the Crown ; Commissioners 
 appointed by the King or by Parliament for life, would always be 
 appointed by the political party which might be uppermost, and if 
 a change of Administration took place, would harass the new 
 Government with the most vexatious opposition. The plan 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 257 
 
 suggested by the right honourable Gentleman the member for 
 Montgomeryshire, is I think the very worst that I have ever heard. 
 He would have Directors nominated every four years by the Crown. 
 Is it not plain that these Directors would always be appointed from 
 among the supporters of the Ministry for the time being that their 
 situations would depend on the permanence of that Ministry that 
 therefore all their power and patronage would be employed for the 
 purpose of propping that Ministry, and, in case of a change, for the 
 purpose of molesting those who might succeed to power that they 
 would be subservient while their friends* were in, and factious when 
 their friends were out ? How would Lord Grey s Ministry have 
 been situated if the whole body of Directors had been nominated 
 by the Duke of Wellington in 1830 ? I mean no imputation on 
 the Duke of Wellington. If the present Ministers had to nominate 
 Directors for four years, they would, I have no doubt, nominate 
 men who would give no small trouble to the Duke of Wellington 
 if he were to return to office. What we want is a body inde 
 pendent of the Government, and no more than independent not a 
 tool of the Treasury not a tool of the opposition. No new plan 
 which I have heard proposed would give us such a body. The 
 Company, strange as its constitution may be, is such a body. It 
 is, as a corporation, neither Whig nor Tory, neither high-church 
 nor low-church. It cannot be charged with having been for or 
 against the Catholic Bill, for or against the Reform Bill. It has 
 constantly acted with a view, not to English politics but to Indian 
 politics. We have seen the country convulsed by faction. We 
 have seen Ministers driven from office by this House Parliament 
 dissolved iu anger general elections of unprecedented turbulence 
 debates of unprecedented interest. We have seen the two branches 
 of the Legislature placed in direct opposition to each other. We 
 have seen the advisers of the Crown dismissed one day, and 
 brought back the next day on the shoulders of the people. And 
 amidst all these agitating events the Company has preserved strict 
 
258 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 and unsuspected neutrality. This is, I think, an inestimable advan 
 tage; and it is an advantage which we must altogether forego, if 
 we consent to adopt any of the schemes which I have heard 
 proposed on the other side of the House. 
 
 We must judge of the Indian government, as of all other 
 governments, by its practical effects. According to the lion, 
 member for Sheffield, India is ill governed ; and the whole fault 
 is with the Company. Innumerable accusations, great and small , 
 are brought by him against their administration. They are fond 
 of war. They are fond of dominion. The taxation is burthensome. 
 The laws are undigested. The roads are rough. The post goes on 
 foot. And for everything the Company js answerable. From the 
 dethronement of the Mogul princes to the mishaps of Sir Charles 
 Metcalfe s courier, every disaster that has taken place in the East 
 during sixty years is laid to the charge of this unfortunate 
 Corporation. And the inference is, that all the power which 
 they possess ought to be taken out of their hands, and transferred 
 at once to the Crown. 
 
 Now, Sir, it seems to me that for all the evils which the honour 
 able Gentleman has so pathetically recounted, the Ministers of the 
 Crown are as much to blame as the Company nay, much more so. 
 For the Board of Control could, without the consent of the 
 Directors, have redressed those evils; and the Directors most 
 certainly could not have redressed them without the consent of the 
 Board of Control. Take the case of that frightful grievance which 
 seems to have made the deepest impression on the mind of the 
 hon. Gentleman the slowness of the mail. Why, Sir, if my 
 right hon. friend, the President of our Board, thought fit, he might 
 direct me to write to the Court and require them to frame a 
 dispatch on that subject. If the Court disobeyed, he might 
 himself frame a dispatch ordering Lord William Bentinck to put 
 the dawks all over Bengal on horseback. If the Court refused to 
 send out this dispatch, the Board could apply to the King s Bench 
 
259 
 
 for a mandamus. If, on the other hand, the Directors wished to 
 accelerate the journeys of the mail, and the Board were adverse to 
 the project, the Directors could do nothing at all. For all measures 
 of internal policy the servants of the King are at least as deeply 
 responsible as the Company. For all measures of foreign policy 
 the servants of the King, and they alone, are responsible. I was 
 surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman accuse the Directors of 
 insatiable ambition and rapacity, when he must know that no act 
 of aggression on any native state can be committed by the 
 Company without the sanction of the Board, and that, in fact, the 
 Board has repeatedly approved of warlike measures, which were 
 strenuously opposed by the Company. He must know, in par 
 ticular, that, during the energetic and splendid Administration of 
 the Marquess "VVellesley, the Company was all for peace, and the 
 Board all for conquest. If a line of conduct which the hon. 
 Gentleman thinks unjustifiable, has been followed by the Ministers 
 of the Crown in spite of the remonstrances of the Directors, this is 
 surely a strange reason for turning off the Directors, and giving the 
 whole power unchecked to the Crown. 
 
 The hon. Member tells us that India, under the present system, 
 is not so rich and flourishing as she was 200 years ago. Eeally, 
 Sir, I doubt whether we are in possession of sufficient data to 
 enable us to form a judgment on that point. But the matter is of 
 little importance. We ought to compare India under our Govern 
 ment, not with India under Acbar and his immediate successors, 
 but with India as we found it. The calamities through which 
 that country passed during the interval between the fall of the 
 Mogul pow.er* and the establishment of the English supremacy 
 were sufficient to throw the people back whole centuries. It 
 would surely be unjust to say, that Alfred was a bad king because 
 Britain, under his government, was not so rich or so civilized as in 
 the time of the Romans. 
 
 In what state, then, did we find India ? And what have we 
 
260 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 made India ? We found society throughout that vast country in a 
 state to which history scarcely furnishes a parallel. The nearest 
 parallel would perhaps be the state of Europe during the fifth 
 century. The Mogul empire in the time of the successors of 
 Aurungzebe, like the Roman empire in the time of the successors 
 of Theodosius, was sinking under the vices of its internal adminis 
 tration, and under the assaults of barbarous invaders. At Delhi, 
 as at Ravenna, there was a mock sovereign, a mere pageant 
 immured in a gorgeous state prison. He was suffered to indulge 
 in every sensual pleasure. He was adored with servile prostrations. 
 He assumed and bestowed the most magnificent titles. But, in 
 fact, he was a mere puppet in the hands of some ambitious subject. 
 AYhile the Honorii and Augustuli of the East, surrounded by their 
 fawning eunuchs, revelled and dozed without knowing or caring 
 what might pass beyond the walls of their palace gardens, the 
 provinces had ceased to respect a government which could neither 
 punish nor protect them. Society was a chaos. Its restless and 
 shifting elements formed themselves every moment into some new 
 combination, which the next moment dissolved. In the course of 
 a single generation a hundred dynasties grew up, flourished, 
 decayed, were extinguished, were forgotten. Every adventurer 
 who could muster a troop of horse might aspire to a throne. 
 Every palace was every year the scene of conspiracies, treasons, 
 revolutions, parricides. Meanwhile a rapid succession of Alarics 
 and Attilas passed over the defenceless empire. A Persian invader 
 penetrated to Delhi, and carried back in triumph the most precious 
 treasures of the House of Tamerlane. The Afghan soon followed, 
 by the same track, to glean whatever the Persian had spared. The 
 Jauts established themselves on the Jumna. The Seiks devastated 
 Lahore. Every part of India, from Tanjore to the Himalayas, was 
 laid under contribution by the Mahrattas. The people were 
 ground down to the dust by the oppressor without and the 
 oppressor within ; by the robber from whom the Nabob was unable 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 261 
 
 to protect them, by the Nabob who took whatever the robber had 
 left to them. All the evils of despotism, and all the evils of 
 anarchy, pressed at once on that miserable race. They knew 
 nothing of government but its exactions. Desolation was in their 
 imperial cities, and famine all along the banks of their broad and 
 redundant rivers. It seemed that a few more years would suffice 
 to efface all traces of the opulence and civilization of an earlier 
 age. 
 
 Such was the state of India when the Company began to take 
 part in the disputes of its ephemeral sovereigns. About eighty 
 years have elapsed since we appeared as auxiliaries in a contest 
 between two rival families for the sovereignty of a small corner of 
 the Peninsula. From that moment commenced a great, a stupen 
 dous process the reconstruction of a decomposed society. Two 
 generations have passed away ; and the process is complete. The 
 scattered fragments of the empire of Aurungzebe have been 
 united in an empire stronger and more closely knit together than 
 that which Aurungzebe ruled. The power of the new sovereigns 
 penetrates their dominions more completely, and is far more 
 implicitly obeyed, than was that of the proudest princes of the 
 Mogul dynasty. 
 
 It is true, that the early history of this great revolution is 
 chequered with guilt and shame. It is true that the founders of 
 our Indian empire too often abused the strength which they derived 
 from superior energy and superior knowledge. It is true that 
 with some of the highest qualities of the race from which they 
 sprang, they combined some of the worst defects of the race over 
 which they ruled. How should it have been otherwise ? Born in 
 humble stations, accustomed to earn a slender maintenance by 
 obscure industry, they found themselves transformed in a few 
 months from clerks drudging over desks, or captains in marching 
 regiments, into statesmen and generals, with armies at their 
 command, with the revenues of kingdoms at their disposal, with 
 
262 
 
 power to make and depose sovereigns at their pleasure. They 
 were what it was natural that men should be who had been 
 raised by so rapid an ascent to so dizzy an eminence, profuse and 
 rapacious, imperious and corrupt. 
 
 It is true, then, that there was too much foundation for the 
 representations of those satirists and dramatists who held up the 
 character of the English Nabob to the derision and hatred of a 
 former generation. It is true that some disgraceful intrigues, some 
 unjust and cruel wars, some instances of odious perfidy and avarice 
 stain the annals of our Eastern empire. It is true that the duties 
 of government and legislation were long wholly neglected or 
 carelessly performed. It is true that when the new rulers at length 
 began to apply themselves in earnest to the discharge of their 
 high functions, they committed the errors natural to rulers who 
 were but imperfectly acquainted with the language and manners 
 of their subjects. It is true that some measures, which were 
 dictated by the purest and most benevolent feelings, have not 
 been attended by the desired success. It is true that India suffers 
 to this day from a heavy burthen of taxation, and from a defective 
 system of law. It is true, I fear, that in those states which are 
 connected with us by subsidiary alliance, all the evils of oriental 
 despotism have too frequently shown themselves in their most 
 loathsome and destructive form. 
 
 All this is true. Yet in the history and in the present state of 
 our Indian empire I see ample reason for exultation and for a good 
 hope. 
 
 I see that we have established order where we found confusion. 
 I see that the petty dynasties which were generated by the 
 corruption of the great Mahometan empire, and which, a century 
 ago, kept all India in constant agitation, have been quelled by one 
 overwhelming power. I see that the predatory tribes who, in the 
 middle of the last century, passed annually over the harvests of 
 India with the destructive rapidity of a hurricane, have quailed 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 263 
 
 before the valour of a braver and sterner race have been van 
 quished, scattered, hunted to their strongholds, and either 
 exterminated by the English sword, or compelled to exchange 
 the pursuits of rapine for those of industry. 
 
 I look back for, many years ; and I see scarcely a trace of the 
 vices which blemished the splendid fame of the first conquerors of 
 Bengal. I see peace studiously preserved. I see faith inviolably 
 maintained towards feeble and dependent states. I see confidence 
 gradually infused into the minds of suspicious neighbours. I see 
 the horrors of war mitigated by the chivalrous and Christian spirit 
 of Europe. I see examples of moderation and clemency, such as I 
 should seek in vain in the annals of any other victorious and 
 dominant nation. I see captive tyrants, whose treachery and 
 cruelty might have excused a severe retribution, living in security, 
 comfort, and dignity, under the protection of the government which 
 they laboured to destroy. 
 
 I see a large body of civil and military functionaries resembling 
 in nothing but capacity and valour those adventurers who seventy 
 years ago came hither, laden with wealth and infamy, to parade 
 before our fathers the plundered treasures of Bengal and Tanjore. 
 I reflect with pride that to the doubtful splendour which surrounds 
 the memory of Hastings and of Olive, we can oppose the spotless 
 glory of Elphinstone and Monro. I observe with reverence and 
 delight the honourable poverty which is the evidence of a rectitude 
 iirmly maintained amidst strong temptations. I rejoice to see my 
 countrymen, after ruling millions of subjects, after commanding 
 victorious armies, after dictating terms of peace at the gates of 
 hostile capitals, after administering the revenues of great provinces, 
 after judging the causes of wealthy Zemindars, after residing at the 
 Courts of tributary Kings, return to their native land with no more 
 than a decent competence. 
 
 I see a government anxiously bent on the public good. Even 
 in its errors I recognise a paternal feeling towards the great people < 
 
264 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 committed to its charge. I see toleration strictly maintained. 
 Yet I see bloody and degrading superstitions gradually losing their 
 power. I see the morality, the philosophy, the taste of Europe, 
 beginning to produce a salutary effect on the hearts and under 
 standings of our subjects. I see the public mind of India, that 
 public mind which we found debased and contracted by the worst 
 forms of political and religious tyranny, expanding itself to just and 
 noble views of the ends of government and of the social duties of 
 man. 
 
 I see evils : but I see the government actively employed in the 
 work of remedying those evils. The taxation is heavy ; but the 
 work of retrenchment is unsparingly pursued. The mischiefs 
 arising from the system of subsidiary alliance are great : but the 
 rulers of India are fully aware of those mischiefs, and are engaged 
 in guarding against them. Wherever they now interfere for the 
 purpose of supporting a native government, they interfere also for 
 the purpose of reforming it. 
 
 Seeing these things, then, am I prepared to discard the 
 Company as an organ of government ? I am not. Assuredly I 
 will never shrink from innovation where I see reason to believe 
 that innovation will be improvement. That the present Govern 
 ment does not shrink ftom innovations which it considers as 
 improvements, "the measure now before the House sufficiently 
 shows. But surely the burthen of the proof lies on the innovators. 
 They are bound to lay some ground ; to show that there is a fair 
 probability of obtaining some advantage before they call upon us to 
 take up the foundations of the Indian government. I have no 
 superstitious veneration for the Court of Directors or the Court of 
 Proprietors. Find me a better Council : find me a better con 
 stituent body : and I am ready for a change. But of all the 
 substitutes for the Company which have hitherto been suggested, 
 not one has been proved to be better than the Company ; and 
 most of them I could, I think, easily prove to be worse. Circum- 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. iG5 
 
 stances might force us to hazard a change. If the Company were 
 to refuse to accept of the government .unless we would grant 
 pecuniary terms which I thought extravagant, or unless wt gave 
 up the clauses in this Bill which .permit Europeans to hold landed 
 property, and natives to hold office, I would take them at their 
 word. But I will not discard them in the mere rage of experi 
 ment. 
 
 Do I call the government of India a perfect government ? Very 
 far from it. No nation can be perfectly well governed till it is 
 competent to govern itself. I compare the Indian government 
 with other governments of the same class, with despotisms, with 
 military despotisms, with foreign military despotisms ; and I find 
 none that approaches it in excellence. I compare it with the 
 government of the Roman provinces with the government of the 
 Spanish colonies and I am proud of my country and my age. 
 Here are a hundred millions of people under the absolute rule of a 
 few strangers, differing from them physically differing from them 
 morally mere Mamelukes, not born in the country which they 
 rule, not meaning to lay their bones in it. If you require me to 
 make this government as good as that of England, France, or the 
 United States of America, I own frankly that I can do no such 
 thing. Reasoning a priori, I should have come to the conclusion 
 that such a government must be a horrible tyranny. -It is a source 
 of constant amazement to me that it is so good as I find it to be. 
 I will not, therefore, in a case in which I have neither principles 
 nor precedents to guide me, pull down the existing system on 
 account of its theoretical defects. For I know that any system 
 which I could put in its place would be equally condemned by 
 theory, while it would not be equally sanctioned by experience. 
 
 Some change in the constitution of the Company was, as I have 
 
 shown, rendered inevitable by the opening of the China Trade; 
 
 and it was the duty of the Government to take care that the 
 
 change should not be prejudicial to India. There were many 
 
 vou i. 12 
 
288 
 
 ways in which the compromise between commerce and territory 
 might have been affected. We might have taken the assets, and 
 paid a sum down, leaving the Company to invest that sum as 
 they chose. We might have offered English security with a lower 
 interest. We might have taken the course which the late Govern 
 ment designed to take. We might have left the Company in 
 possession of the means of carrying on its trade in competition 
 with private merchants. My firm belief is, that, if this course had 
 been taken, the Company must, in a very few years, have aban 
 doned the trade or the trade woald have ruined the Company. It 
 was not, however, solely or principally by regard for the interest of 
 the Company, or of the English merchants generally, that the 
 Government was guided on this occasion. The course which 
 appeared to us the most likely to promote the interests of our 
 Eastern Empire was to make the proprietors of India stock 
 creditors of the Indian territory. Their interest will thus be in a 
 great measure the same with the interest of the people whom they 
 are to rule. Their income will depend on the revenues of their 
 empire. The revenues of their empire will depend on the manner 
 in which the affairs of that empire .are administered. We furnish 
 them with the strongest motives to watch over the interests of the 
 cultivator and the trader, to maintain peace, to carry on with 
 vigour the work of retrenchment, to detect and punish extortion 
 and corruption. Though they live at a distance from India 
 though few of them have ever seen or may ever see the people 
 whom they rule they will have a great stake in the happiness of 
 their -subjects. If their misgovernment should produce disorder in 
 the finances, they will themselves feel the effects of that disorder in 
 their own household expenses. I believe this to be, next to a 
 representative constitution, the constitution which is the best 
 security for good government. A representative constitution India 
 cannot at present have. And we have, therefore, I think, given her 
 the best constitution of which she is capable. 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 26 1 
 
 One word as to the new arrangement which we propose with 
 respect to the patronage. It is intended to introduce the principle 
 of competition in the disposal of writerships ; and from this change 
 I cannot but anticipate the happiest results. The civil servants of 
 the Company are undoubtedly a highly respectable body of men ; 
 and, in that body, as in every large body, there are some persons 
 of very eminent ability. I rejoice most cordially to see this. I 
 rejoice to see that the standard of morality is so high in England, 
 that intelligence is so generally diffused through England, that 
 young persons who are taken from the mass of society, by favour 
 and not by merit, and who are therefore only fair samples of the 
 mass, should, when placed in situations of high importance, be so 
 seldom found wanting. But it is not the less true, that India is 
 entitled to the service of the best talents which England can spare. 
 That the average pf intelligence and virtue is very high in this 
 country, is matter for honest exultation. But it is no reason for 
 employing average men where you can obtain superior men. 
 Consider too, Sir. how rapidly the public mind of India is 
 advancing, how much attention is already paid by the higher 
 classes of the natives to those intellectual pursuits on the culti 
 vation of which the superiority of the European race to the rest of 
 mankind principally depends. Surely, under such circumstances, 
 from motives of selfish policy, if from no higher motive, we ought 
 to fill the Magistracies of our Eastern Empire with men who may 
 do honour to their country with men who may represent the best 
 part of the English nation. This, Sir, is our object ; arid we 
 believe, that by the plan which is now proposed this object will be 
 attained. It is proposed that for every vacancy in the civil service 
 four candidates shall be named, and the best candidate elected by 
 examination. We conceive that, under this system, the persons 
 sent out will be young men above par young men superior either 
 in talents or in diligence to the mass. It is said, I know, that 
 examinations in Latin, in Greek, and in mathematics, are no tests 
 
208 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 of what men will prove to be in life. I am perfectly aware, that 
 they are not infallible tests ; but that they are tests I confidently 
 maintain. Look at every walk of life at this House at the other 
 House at the Bar at the Bench at the Church and see whether 
 it be not true, that those who attain high distinction in the world are 
 generally men who were distinguished in their academic career. 
 Indeed, Sir, this objection would prove far too much even for those 
 who use it. It would prove, that there is no use at all in 
 education. Why should we put boys out of their way ? Why 
 should we force a lad, who would much rather fly a kite or trundle 
 a hoop, to learn his Latin Grammar ? Why should we keep a 
 young man to his Thucydides or his Laplace, when he would 
 much rather be shooting? Education would be mere useless 
 torture, if, at two or three and twenty, a man who has neglected 
 his studies were exactly on a par with a man who has applied 
 himself to them exactly as likely to perform all the offices of 
 public life with credit to himself and with advantage to society. 
 Whether the English system of education be good or bad is not 
 now the question. Perhaps I may think that too much time is 
 given to the ancient languages and to the abstract sciences-. But 
 what then ? Whatever be the languages whatever be the sciences, 
 which it is, in any age or country, the fashion to teach, those who 
 become the greatest proficients in those languages and those 
 sciences, will generally be the flower of the youth the most acute 
 the most industrious the most ambitious of honourable dis 
 tinctions. If the Ptolemaic system were taught at Cambridge, 
 instead of the Newtonian, the senior wrangler would nevertheless 
 be in general a superior man to the wooden spoon. If, instead of 
 learning Greek, we learned the Cherokee, the man who understood 
 the Cherokee best, who made the most correct and melodious 
 Cherokee verses who comprehended most accurately the effect of 
 the Cherokee particles would generally be a superior man to him 
 who was destitute of these accomplishments. If astrology were 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 269 
 
 taught at our Universities, the young man who cast nativities best 
 would generally turn out a superior man. If alchymy were taught, 
 the young man who showed most activity in the pursuit of the 
 philosopher s stone, would generally turn out a superior man. 
 
 I will only add one other observation on this subject. Although 
 I am inclined to think that too much attention is paid in the 
 education of English gentlemen to the dead languages, I conceive, 
 that when you are choosing young men to fill situations for which 
 the very first and most indispensable qualification is familiarity 
 with foreign languages, it would be difficult to find a better test of 
 their fitness than their classical acquirements. 
 
 Some persons have expressed doubts as to the possibility of 
 procuring fair examinations. I am quite sure, that no person who 
 has been either at Cambridge or at Oxford can entertain such 
 doubts. I feel, indeed, that I ought to apologize for even noticing 
 an objection so frivolous. 
 
 Next to the opening of the China trade, the change most eagerly 
 demanded by the English people was, that the restrictions on the 
 admission of Europeans to India should be removed. In this 
 measure, there are undoubtedly very great advantages. The chief 
 advantage is, I think, the improvement which the minds of our 
 native subjects may be expected to derive from free intercourse 
 with a people far advanced beyond themselves in intellectual 
 cultivation. I cannot deny, however, that the advantages of this 
 great change are attended with some danger. 
 
 The danger is that the new comers, belonging to the ruling 
 nation, resembling in colour, in language, in manners, those who 
 hold supreme military and political power, and differing in all 
 these respects from the great mass of the population, may consider 
 themselves as a superior class, and may trample on the indigenous 
 race. Hitherto there have been strong restraints on Europeans 
 resident in India. Licences were not easily obtained. Those 
 residents who were in the service of the Company had obvious 
 
270 EAST-INDIA 
 
 motives for conducting themselves with propriety. If they incurred 
 the serious displeasure of the Government, their hopes of promotion 
 were blighted. Even those who were not in the public service, 
 were subject to the formidable power which the Government 
 possessed of banishing them at its pleasure. 
 
 The licence of the Government will now no longer be necessary 
 to persons who desire to reside in the settled provinces of India. 
 The power of arbitrary deportation is withdrawn. Unless, there 
 fore, we mean to leave the natives exposed to the tyranny and 
 insolence of every profligate adventurer who may visit the East, we 
 must place the European under the same power which legislates 
 for the Hindoo. No man loves political freedom more than I. 
 But a privilege enjoyed by a few individuals in the midst of a vast 
 population who do not enjoy it, ought not to be called freedom. 
 It is tyranny. In the West Indies I have not the least doubt that 
 the existence of the Trial by Jury and of Legislative Assemblies, 
 has tended to make the condition of the slaves worse than it would 
 otherwise have been. Or, to go to India itself for an instance, 
 though I fully believe that a mild penal code is better than a 
 severe penal code, the worst of all systems was surely that of 
 having a mild code for the Brahmins, who sprang from the head 
 of the Creator, while there was a severe code for the Sudras, who 
 sprang from his feet. India has suffered enough already from the 
 distinction of castes, and from the deeply rooted prejudices which 
 those distinctions have engendered. God forbid that we should 
 inflict on her the curse of a new caste, that we should send her a 
 new breed of Brahmins, authorized to treat all the native population 
 as Parihas. 
 
 With a view to the prevention of this evil, we propose to give 
 to the supreme government the power of legislating for Europeans 
 as well as for natives. We propose that the regulations of the 
 Government shall bind the King s Court as they bind all other 
 Courts, and that registration by the Judges of the King s Court 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 271 
 
 shall no longer be necessary to give validity to those regulations 
 within the towns of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay. 
 
 I could scarcely, Sir, believe my ears when I heard this part of 
 our plan condemned in another place. I should have thought, 
 that it would have been received with peculiar favour in that 
 quarter where it has met with the most severe condemnation. 
 What, at present, is the case ? If the Supreme Court and the 
 Government differ on a question of jurisdiction, or of legislation 
 within the towns which are the seats of Government, there is 
 absolutely no umpire but the Imperial Parliament. The device of 
 putting one wild elephant between two tame ones was ingenious ; 
 but it may not always be practicable. Suppose a tame elephant 
 between two wild ones, or "suppose, that the whole herd should 
 run wild together. The thing is not without example. And is it 
 not most unjust and ridiculous that on one side of a ditch the edict 
 of the Governor General should have the force of law, and that on 
 the other side it should be of no effect unless registered by the 
 Judges of the Supreme Court ? If the registration be a security for 
 good legislation, we are bound to give that security to all classes 
 of our subjects. If the registration be not a security for good 
 legislation, why require it ? Why give it to a million of them, and 
 withhold it from the other ninety-nine millions? Is the system 
 good ? Extend it. Is it bad ? Abolish it. But in the name of 
 common sense do not leave it as it is. It is as absurd as our old 
 law of sanctuary. The system of imprisonment for debt may be 
 good or bad. But no man in his senses can approve of the ancient 
 system under which a debtor who might be arrested in Fleet 
 Street was safe as soon as he had scampered into Whitefriars. 
 Just in the same way, doubts may fairly be entertained about the 
 expediency of allowing four or five persons to make laws for India; 
 but to allow them to make laws for all India without the Mahratta 
 ditch, and to except Calcutta, is the height of absurdity. 
 
 I say, therefore, either enlarge the power of the Supreme Court 
 
272 
 
 and give it a general veto on laws, or enlarge the power of the 
 Government, and make its regulations binding on all Courts 
 without distinction. The former course no person has ventured to 
 propose. To the latter course objections have been made, but 
 objections which to me, I must own, seem altogether frivolous. It 
 is acknowledged, that of late years inconvenience has arisen from 
 the relation in which the Supreme Court stands to the Government. 
 
 But, it is said, that Court was originally instituted for the pro 
 tection of natives against Europeans. The wise course would, 
 therefore, be to restore its original character. 
 
 Now, Sir, the fact is, that the Supreme Court has never been so 
 mischievous as during the first ten years of its power, or so 
 respectable as it has lately been. Every body who knows any 
 thing of its early history knows, that for a considerable time after 
 its institution, it was the terror of Bengal, the scourge of native 
 informants, the screen of European delinquents, a convenient tool 
 of the government for all purposes of evil, an insurmountable 
 obstacle to the Government in all undertakings for the public 
 good ; that its proceedings were made up of pedantry, cruelty, 
 and corruption ; that its disputes with the Government were at 
 one time on the point of breaking up the whole fabric of society ; 
 and that a convulsion was averted only by the dexterous policy of 
 Warren Hastings, who at last bought off the opposition of the 
 Chief Justice for 8,000 a-year. It is notorious, that while the 
 Supreme Court opposed Hastings in all his best measures, it was a 
 thorough-going accomplice in his worst that it took part in the 
 most scandalous of those proceedings which fifty years ago roused 
 the indignation of Parliament and of the country that it assisted 
 in the spoliation of the princesses of Oude that it passed 
 sentence of death on Nuncomar. And this is the Court which 
 we are to restore from its present state of degeneracy to its original 
 purity. This is the protection which we are to give to the natives 
 against the Europeans. Sir, so far is it from being true that the 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 273 
 
 character of the Supreme Court has deteriorated, that it has, 
 perhaps, improved more than any other institution in India. But 
 the evil lies deep in the nature of the institution itself. The Judges 
 have in our time deserved the greatest respect. Their judgment 
 and integrity have done much to mitigate the vices of the system. 
 The worst charge that can be brought against any of them is that 
 of pertinacity disinterested, conscientious, pertinacity in error. 
 The real evil is in the state of the law. You have two supreme 
 powers in India. There is no arbitrator except a Legislature ten 
 thousand miles off. Such a system is in the face of it an absurdity 
 in politics. My wonder is, not that this system has several times 
 been on the point of producing fatal consequences to the peace and 
 resources of India, these, I think, are the words in which Warren 
 Hastings describes the effect of the contest between his Govern 
 ment and the Judges but that it has not actually produced such 
 consequences. The most distinguished members of the Indian 
 Government the most distinguished Judges of the Supreme 
 Court call upon you to reform this system. Sir Charles Metcalfe, 
 Sir Charles Grey, represent with equal urgency the expediency of 
 having one single paramount council armed with legislative power. 
 The admission of Europeans to India renders it absolutely neces 
 sary not to delay our decision. The effect of that admission would 
 be to raise a hundred questions to produce a hundred contests 
 between the council and the judicature. The Government would 
 be paralysed at the precise moment at which all its energy was 
 required. While the two equal powers were acting in opposite 
 directions, the whole machine of the state would stand still. The 
 Europeans would be uncontrolled ; the natives would be unpro 
 tected. The consequences I will not pretend to foresee. Every 
 thing beyond is darkness and confusion. 
 
 Having given to the Government supreme legislative power, we 
 next propose to give to it for a time the assistance of a Commission 
 for the purpose of digesting and reforming the laws of India, so 
 
 12* 
 
274 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 that those laws may, as soon as possible, be formed into a code. 
 Gentlemen of whom I wish to speak with the highest respect, 
 have expressed a doubt whether India be at present in a fit state to 
 receive a benefit which is not yet enjoyed by this free and highly 
 civilized country. Sir, I can allow to this argument very little 
 weight beyond that which it derives from the personal authority 
 of those who use it.- For, in the first place, our freedom and our 
 high civilization render this improvement, desirable as it must 
 always be, less indispensably necessary to us than to our Indian 
 subjects : and in the next place our freedom and civilization, I 
 fear, render it far more difficult for us to obtain this benefit for 
 ourselves than to bestow it on them. 
 
 I believe that no country ever stood so much in need of a code 
 of laws as India, and I believe also that there never was a country 
 in which the want might so easily be supplied. I said, that there 
 were many points of analogy between the state of that country 
 after the fall of the Mogul power, and the state of Europe after the 
 fall of the Roman empire. In one respect the analogy is very 
 striking. As in Europe then, so in India now, there are several 
 systems of law widely differing from each other, but co-existing 
 and co-equal. The indigenous population has its own laws. Each 
 of the successive races of conquerors has brought with it its own 
 peculiar jurisprudence : the Mussulman his Koran and its innume 
 rable commentators the Englishman his Statute-Book, and his 
 Term Reports. As there were established in Italy, at one and the 
 same time, the Roman law, the Lombard lav/, the Ripuarian law, 
 the Bavarian law, and the Salic law, so we have now in our Eastern 
 empire Hindoo law, Mahometan law, Parsee law, English law perpe 
 tually mingling with each other, and disturbing each other ; varying 
 with the person, varying with the place. In one and the same cause 
 the process and pleadings are in the fashion of one nation, the 
 judgment is according to the laws of another. An issue is evolved 
 according to the rules of Westminster, and decided according to 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL, 275 
 
 those of Benares. The only Mahometan book in the nature of a 
 code is the Koran ; the only Hindoo book the Institutes. Every 
 body who knows those books, knows that they provide for a very 
 small part of the cases which must arise in every community. All 
 beyond them is comment and tradition. Our regulations in civil 
 matters do not define rights ; they merely establish remedies. If 
 a point of Hindoo law arises, the Judge calls on the Pundit for an 
 opinion. If a point of Mahometan law arises, the Judge applies to 
 the Cauzee. What the integrity of these functionaries is, we may 
 learn from Sir William Jones. That eminent men declared, that 
 he could riot answer it to his conscience to decide any point of law 
 on the faith of a Hindoo expositor. Sir Thomas Strange confirms 
 this declaration. Even if there were no suspicion of corruption on 
 the part of the interpreters of the law, the science which they 
 profess is in such a state of confusion that no reliance can be 
 placed on their answers. Sir Francis Macnaghten tells us, that it 
 is a delusion to fancy that there is any known and fixed law under 
 which the Hindoo people live; that texts may be produced on any 
 side of any question ; that expositors equal in authority perpetually 
 contradict each other ; that the obsolete law is perpetually con 
 founded with the law actually in force, and that the first lesson to 
 be impressed on a functionary who has to administer Hindoo law 
 is, that it is vain to think of extracting certainty from the books of 
 the jurists. The consequence is, that in practice the decisions of 
 the tribunals are" altogether arbitrary. What is administered is 
 not law, but a kind of rude and capricious equity. I asked an able 
 and excellent Judge lately returned from India how one of our 
 Zillah Courts would decide several legal questions of great 
 importance questions not involving considerations of religion or 
 of caste mere questions of commercial law. He told me, that it 
 was a mere lottery. He knew how he should himself decide 
 them. But he knew nothing more. I asked a most distinguished 
 civil servant of the Company, with reference to the clause in this 
 
276 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 Act abolishing slavery, whether at present, if a dancing girl ran 
 away from her master, the Judge would force her to go back. 
 " Some Judges," he said, " send a girl back ; others set her at 
 liberty. The whole is a mere matter of chance. Every thing 
 depends on the temper of the individual judge." 
 
 Even in this country, we have had complaints of judge-made 
 law ; even in this country, where the standard of morality is 
 higher than in almost any other part of the world where, during 
 several generations, not one depositary of our legal traditions has 
 incurred the suspicion of personal corruption where there are 
 popular institutions where every decision is watched by a shrewd 
 and learned audience where there is an intelligent and observant 
 public where every remarkable case is fully reported in a hundred 
 newspapers where, in short, there is everything which can 
 mitigate the evils of such a system. But judge-made law, where 
 there is an absolute government and a lax morality where there 
 is no bar and no public is a curse and a scandal not to be 
 endured. It is time that the Magistrate should know what law he 
 is to administer that the subject should know under what law he 
 is to live. We do not mean that all the people of India should 
 live under the same law : far from it : there is not a word in the 
 Bill there was not a word in my right hon. friend s speech 
 susceptible of such an interpretation. We know how desirable that 
 object is ; but we also know that it is unattainable. We know 
 that respect must be paid to feelings generated -by differences of 
 religion, of nation, and of caste. Much, I am persuaded, may be 
 done to assimilate the different systems of law without wounding 
 those feelings. But, whether we assimilate those systems or not, 
 let us ascertain them, let us digest them. We propose no rash 
 innovation ; we wish to give no shock to the prejudices of any 
 part of our subjects. Our principle is simply this uniformity 
 where you can have it diversity where you must have it but in 
 all cases certainty. 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 277 
 
 As I believe that India stands more in need of a code than any 
 other country in the world, I believe also that there is no country 
 on which that great benefit can more easily be conferred. A code is 
 almost the only blessing perhaps it is the only blessing which 
 absolute governments are better fitted to confer on a nation than 
 popular governments. The work of digesting a vast and artificial 
 system of unwritten jurisprudence, is far more easily performed, 
 and far better performed, by few minds than by many by a 
 Napoleon than by a Chamber of Deputies and a Chamber of 
 Peers by a government like that of Prussia or Denmark, than by 
 a government like that of England. A quiet knot of two or three 
 veteran jurists is an infinitely better machinery for such a purpose 
 than a large popular assembly divided, as such assemblies almost 
 always are, into adverse factions. This seems to me, therefore, to 
 be precisely that point of time at which the advantage of a 
 complete written code of laws may most easily be conferred on 
 India. It is a work which cannot be well performed in an age of 
 barbarism which cannot without great difficulty be performed in 
 an age of freedom. It is the work which especially belongs to a 
 government like that of India to an enlightened and paternal 
 despotism. 
 
 I have detained the House so long, Sir, that I will defer what I 
 had to say on some parts of this measure important parts, indeed, 
 but far less important, as I think, than those to which I have 
 adverted, till we are in Committee. There is, however, one part of 
 the Bill on which, after what has recently passed elsewhere, I feel 
 myself irresistibly impelled to say a few words. I allude to that 
 wise, that benevolent, that noble clause, which enacts that no 
 native of our Indian empire shall, by reason of his colour, 
 his descent, or his religion, be incapable of holding office. At 
 the risk of being called by that nickname which is regarded as 
 the most opprobrious of all nicknames, by men of selfish hearts 
 and contracted minds at the risk of being called a philosopher 
 
278 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 I must say that, to the last day of my life, I shall be proud of 
 having been one of those who assisted in the framing of the Bill 
 which contains that clause. We are told that the time can never 
 come when the natives of India can be admitted to high civil and 
 military office. We are told that this is the condition on which 
 we hold our power. We are told, that we are bound to confer on 
 our subjects every benefit which they are capable of enjoying ? 
 no which it is in our power to confer on them ? no but which 
 we can confer on them without hazard to our own domination. 
 Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike 
 with sound policy and sound morality. 
 
 I am far, very far, from wishing to proceed hastily in this most 
 delicate matter. I feel that, for the good of India itself, the 
 admission of natives to high office must be effected by slow 
 degrees. But that, when the fulness of time is come, when the 
 interest of India requires the change, we ought to refuse to make 
 that change lest we should endanger our own power; this is a 
 doctrine which I cannot think of without indignation. Govern 
 ments, like men, may buy existence too dear. " Propter vitam 
 vivendi perdere causas," is a despicable policy either in individuals 
 or in states. In the present case, such a policy would be not only 
 despicable, but absurd. The mere extent of empire is not neces 
 sarily an advantage. To many governments it has been cumber 
 some ; to some it has been fatal. It will be allowed by every 
 statesman of our time, that the prosperity of a community is mado 
 up of the prosperity of those who compose the community, and 
 that it is the most childish ambition to covet dominion which adds 
 to no man s comfort or security. To the great trading nation, to the 
 great manufacturing nation, no progress which any portion -of the 
 human race can make in knowledge, in taste for the conveniences 
 of life, or in the wealth by which those conveniences are produced, 
 can be matter of indifference. It is scarcely possible to calculate 
 the benefits which we might derive from the diffusion of European 
 
EAST-I^DIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 270 
 
 civilization among the vast population of the East. It would be, 
 on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the 
 people of India were well governed and independent of us. than ill 
 governed and subject to us that they were ruled by their own 
 kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, 
 than that they were performing their salams to English collectors 
 and English Magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too 
 poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilized men 
 is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages. That would, 
 indeed, be a doting wisdom, which, in order that India might 
 remain a dependency, would make it an useless and costly 
 dependency which would keep a hundred millions of men from 
 being our customers in order that they might continue to be our 
 slaves. 
 
 It was, as Bernier tells us, the practice of the miserable tyrants 
 whom he found in India, when they dreaded the capacity and 
 spirit of some distinguished subject, and yet could not venture to 
 murder him, to administer to him a daily dose of the pousta, a 
 preparation of opium, the effect of which was in a few months to 
 destroy all the bodily and mental powers of the wretch who was 
 drugged with it, and to turn turn into an helpless idiot. The 
 detestable artifice, more horrible than assassination itself, was 
 worthy of those who employed it. It is no model for the English 
 nation. We shall never consent to administer the pousta to a 
 whole community to stupify and paralyse a great people whom 
 God has committed to our charge for the wretched purpose of 
 rendering them more amenable to our control. What is that 
 power worth which is founded on vice, on ignorance, and on 
 misery which we can hold only by violating the most sacred 
 duties which as governors we owe to the governed which as a 
 people blessed with far more than an ordinary measure of political 
 liberty and of intellectual light, we owe to a race debased by 
 three thousand years of despotism and priestcraft ? We are free, 
 
280 EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 
 
 we are civilized, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion 
 of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civiliza 
 tion. 
 
 Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that 
 we may keep them submissive ? Or do we think that we can give 
 them knowledge without awakening ambition ? Or do we mean 
 to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent ? . 
 Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative ? Yet 
 one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person 
 who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives 
 from high office. I have no fears. The path of duty is plain 
 before us : and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, 
 of national honour. 
 
 The destinies of our Indian empire are covered with thick 
 darkness. It is difficult to form any conjecture as to the fate 
 reserved for a state which resembles no other in history, and which 
 forms by itself a separate class of political phenomena. The laws 
 which regulate its growth and its decay are still unknown to us. 
 It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our 
 system till it has outgrown that system ; that by good government 
 we may educate our subjects into* a capacity for better government, 
 that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, 
 in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such 
 a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to 
 avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest 
 day in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the 
 lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as 
 to have made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of 
 citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all our own. The sceptre 
 may pass away from us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our 
 most profound schemes of policy. Victory may be inconstant to 
 our arms. But there are triumphs which are followed by no 
 
EAST-INDIA COMPANY S CHARTER BILL. 281 
 
 reverses. There is an empire exempt from all natural causes of 
 decay. These triumphs are the pacific triumphs of reason over 
 barbarism ; that empire is the imperishable empire of our arts and 
 our morals, our literature and our laws. 
 
282 
 
 MINISTERIAL PLAN FOR THE ABOLITION OF 
 SLAVERY.* 
 
 JULY 24, 1833. 
 
 HE rose with feelings of regret upon the present occasion. Though 
 he had taken no part in the discussion upon this Bill, yet there 
 was no one who had with more patience watched, or with greater 
 anxiety attended to, the provisions of a measure, which he could 
 not but consider to contain a great mixture of good and evil. He 
 should now express his opinions upon this Bill in general, and 
 particularly on those parts in which Amendments had been 
 introduced, and to which the hon. Member (Mr. Fowell Buxton) 
 had referred. He should discharge his duty, he was afraid, very 
 imperfectly, and he would therefore entreat the House to extend 
 to him that indulgence on the present occasion which he had 
 experienced on former occasions when he had addressed it with 
 less harassed feelings, and more confidence than at present. He 
 had every disposition not only to do the amplest justice to his 
 Majesty s Ministers, but to give them the greatest credit them, 
 with whom he generally acted for having framed every part of 
 this measure with the purest and most benevolent intentions, even 
 those parts of which he could not approve. To those parts of 
 which .he disapproved, he was anxious to state his objection, but, 
 previous to doing that, he most solemnly disclaimed any unfriendly 
 feeling towards any class of persons whose interests might be 
 concerned in the proposed measure. He hoped that he should be 
 able to prove, that he was not, on the one hand, disposed to 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xix. p. 1202-1209. 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 2&3 
 
 sacrifice principle to party, nor on the other, disposed to sacrifice 
 the rights of the planters to popular clamour. Of the three objects 
 which the Bill was intended to effect, the first had his fullest and 
 most unqualified approbation the abolition of slavery. He 
 believed slavery to be the greatest of political evils ; and when he 
 thought of the horrid state of the slave, he sometimes felt ashamed 
 of himself for the enthusiasm he had manifested in removing 
 domestic grievances ; such, for example, as the Catholic disabilities. 
 They nad seen guilt in many ages and in many countries ; but 
 where had they seen guilt in. the hideous forms in which it had 
 for so many years been exhibited in the West-India islands? 
 Slavery there had l>een- made to do the work of famine, of 
 pestilence, and of war combined. It had accomplished more than 
 they could accomplish, in putting an end to that disposition to 
 increase and multiply which was manifested by the human race in 
 every other part of the world. There had been fierce and pro 
 longed wars in Europe, but population went on augmenting ; and 
 fresh life filled up the chasms caused by such fields as those of 
 Leipzic, Borodino, and Waterloo. Ambition had done all it could 
 to destroy ; but it had been assisted by famine and pestilence ; 
 but the void which they created was speedily and completely filled 
 up. The law of nature was not counteracted. As soon as the 
 population became thinned by any powerful physical cause, early 
 marriages increased, and the deficiency was soon supplied. In 
 the West-India colonies alone was found a society in which the 
 number of human beings was continually decreasing without the 
 surviving labourers obtaining any advantages. In the West-India 
 Colonies a state of society existed unparalleled in the history of 
 the world. Fully believing in the necessity of demolishing 
 slavery, lie nevertheless thought, that his Majesty s Government 
 had taken the right course in the Bill which his right lion, friend 
 had introduced. The only fault which he found with that Bill 
 was, that it had a leaning to mitigate an evil which ought to be 
 
284 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 demolished altogether. They had made attempts to mitigate 
 slavery on former occasions. They had sent out to the negro a 
 Church Establishment, while they left him to be bought and sold ; 
 but that mitigation was useless. The object of this Bill, he 
 thanked God ! was not a mitigation of that description ; it 
 attacked the foundation of the principle of slavery. Slavery was 
 not a system which could be improved ; it must be annihilated. 
 Slavery was in itself the abuse. The principle of slavery, as 
 Montesquieu had observed, was pure unmixed evil. Terror was 
 the only motive that could operate upon the slave. Terror was 
 the only mode by which the proprietor of the slave could hope to 
 guard his own life or to save his wife and daughters from violation, 
 If they abstracted terror from the system, the "whole fabric of 
 slavery was at once destroyed. The introduction of liberty was a 
 new principle, not a mitigation of slavery. To mitigate slavery by 
 introducing liberty, would be to take away the props without 
 supplying pillars. When he heard persons say, that it would be 
 madness immediately to put an end to slavery, and at the same 
 time declare that it was frightful to continue its cruelties, it 
 appeared to him as if they were the most inconsistent of men. 
 He could not comprehend the mitigation of slavery. Its abolition 
 would give the slave a motive for preserving the order by which 
 he was to benefit. In this country where there were no slaves, 
 where the lowest labourer was an intelligent being, we could 
 afford to connive at the violence of a mob ; we could laugh at 
 Political Unions and speeches ; even in cases of actual treason and 
 rebellion we could punish the leaders and pardon their followers ; 
 but in such a country as the West Indies, to tell the masters to be 
 merciful and moderate, was to tell them to submit to butchery. 
 How was it possible, that while they gave the negroes religious 
 instruction, in order to educate them as men, they could continue 
 to treat them as brutes? Of that part of the Bill, therefore, 
 which abolished slavery, he cordially approved. There was 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 285 
 
 another part of the Bill which he knew was most unpopular he 
 meant the Compensation Clause to which, however, he gave his 
 full consent. He regretted that, on this point, he felt it his duty 
 to oppose those with whom he had generally had the happiness to 
 act on this subject ; but he was prepared to take his full share of 
 whatever unpopularity might arise from this part of the Bill. He 
 well knew, that there were in this country many excellent persons 
 who detested the principle on which compensation to the planters 
 was founded. It was not with those persons a question of money. 
 They would be quite ready to give the twenty millions or thirty 
 millions, or more, as charity, but they were strongly opposed to 
 giving it as compensation. For his part, he held that the owners 
 of the slaves had a distinct right to this compensation. He did 
 not mean to say, that they had any right as against the slave ; 
 and if he had no alternative but to choose between the positions 
 that slavery should never be abolished, or that the planter should 
 never be compensated, he should have no hesitation in deciding 
 for the latter ; for highly as he valued the rights of property, he 
 could never put them in competition with the right of personal 
 liberty. It had been most justly declared, that the property of 
 man in his labour was the origin of all property, and ought to be 
 held most sacred. Therefore, if there must be robbery at all, he 
 would rather rob the planter of his property than the slave of his 
 freedom. But to that alternative he was not reduced. With the 
 question of compensation a slave had nothing to do. The State 
 had solemnly sanctioned the property of the planter. The public 
 faith had been pledged to its maintenance by proclamation, by 
 treaty, by prescription. Could that House consent to violate it I 
 He had heard that it was maintained that the planter ought to 
 receive no compensation, because there ought to be no indemnity 
 for the abandonment of crime. He protested against such a 
 doctrine, as establishing principles that would be most extensively 
 pernicious. He readily admitted, that no contract tending to 
 
286 ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 
 
 dime was binding, and that to condemn men to slavery was 
 criminal. If 100 Acts of Parliament had been passed to establish 
 slavery, and if all the Members of that House had sworn at the 
 Table to maintain slavery, slavery ought nevertheless to be 
 abolished. But that was not the question to be considered. 
 When crime entered into a contract between two parties equally 
 criminal, it could not prevent the execution of the contract as it 
 respected them. If the choice were solely between violating the 
 public faith, or putting an end to slavery, which was a violation of 
 the law of nature, it would be a very different matter ; but here 
 there was an alternative ; and where there was that alternative, 
 the violation of public faith would be subversive of all public and 
 private morality. He was sorry to detain the House ; but the 
 principle was of so much consequence, not only at the present 
 time, but with reference to the future, that he could not refrain 
 from making a few further observations upon it. If they were to 
 violate the public faith pledged to the West-India planter, they 
 would establish a precedent of a most monstrous and injurious 
 character. To illustrate this position, he would take an instance 
 from the commonest life : suppose a Catholic gentleman had 
 ordered an image for the decoration of his chapel to be sculptured 
 by a first-rate artist, and that when, after immense skill and 
 labour, the image was finished, he should say to the artist, " Take 
 it back, since I ordered it my mind has been enlightened ; I now 
 believe that the Protestant is the true religion. I therefore 
 consider the contract between you and me as sinful, and I cannot 
 consent to perform my part of it." Would not the argument that 
 would justly be used be : " If you are enlightened, so much the 
 better ; but you must pay for the contract into which you entered 
 when you were in a state of darkness ?" Or suppose a Mahome 
 tan, having three or four wives in his Harem, were to embrace 
 Christianity, would he be entitled to break his contract with them, 
 turn them all out into the world, and leave them to starve ? Or, 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 287 
 
 in the case of a lottery, which, as all gaming was vicious, ought 
 never to be resorted to by a Government, would it not be the 
 height of enormity, if, after all the tickets had been sold, Govern 
 ment were to declare that it had become sensible of its error, and 
 were to leave the purchasers to digest their loss ? Nay, if once 
 such a doctrine as that which he was contravening were established, 
 almost the whole of the public debt of this country ought to be 
 wiped away ; for he held that there was no national crime greater 
 than to engage in wanton and unjustifiable wars ; and the greater 
 part of that debt was incurred in the prosecution of such wars. 
 For instance, during the American war we had borrowed 100 
 millions. The prosecution of that war was as wicked an act as the 
 maintenance of slavery. What difference was there between 
 keeping one set of men in a state of severe and unmerited bon 
 dage, and carrying fire and sword among another set of men who 
 merely asserted their rights ? If it was unjust to compel the 
 slave to labour throughout life for his master, was it not unjust to 
 spend money in sending the sabre of the Hessian, or the tomahawk 
 of the Indian, into the fields of a people who were only struggling 
 for liberty ? If, therefore, the principle against which he was 
 contending were established, those who admitted it would be at a 
 loss to make out how the claims of almost any public creditor 
 could be considered as valid. He repeated, therefore, that he was 
 decidedly favourable to two of the principles of the Bill ; the 
 Abolition of Slavery, and the Compensation to the Planter. But 
 as to the third principle of this Bill, which related to the transition 
 state of the negro, before the total cessation of his slavery, he 
 confessed that he entertained great, and in some respects, he 
 feared, insurmountable doubts. There could be no question that 
 it was the solemn duty of Parliament to do all they could to 
 protect the planter ; but he had great doubts if the provision in 
 question would have that effect. If it could be proved, that what 
 they were about to do was calculated to improve the morality of 
 
288 ABOLITION 6*F SLAVERY. 
 
 the slave, and thereby enable him, when he became wholly free, 
 better to discharge the duties of a citizen, he should assent to it. 
 He should not refuse to assent to it because it was severe, 
 provided it could be shown that that severity was likely to be 
 efficacious. What he objected to was this, that the restraints laid 
 on the negro by the Bill were not so laid with the sole view of 
 improving his moral character. His right hon. friend had, with 
 perfect candour, admitted that. The ninth clause of the Bill 
 contained a provision that it should be lawful for the slave at any 
 time to purchase his freedom on the payment of a value legally 
 fixed. Now that clause admitted a principle in which he could 
 not acquiesce ; namely, that the planters had a right to compen 
 sation from their slaves. The planters and the State had been 
 accomplices in a crime, and it would be exceedingly hard and 
 unjust to throw the burden of retribution on one party; but it 
 would be still more hard and unjust to lay any portion of it on 
 the third and injured party. By this clause a negro who was fit 
 for all the duties of civil life, might still be kept in slavery. Why 
 was he to give this money to his master ? If the clause had 
 provided, that when the slave had laid up a certain sum in the 
 Savings Bank he should become free, that would have been a fair 
 proposition ; but when they compelled him to pay it to the 
 master, they compelled him to pay the price of a right a princi 
 ple the justice of which he (Mr. Macaulay) could never admit. 
 A man who had laid up 101. was not rendered more or less fit for 
 freedom by giving that money to his master,- or by keeping it in 
 his own chest. He denied the right of the State to demand any 
 sacrifice whatever from the injured party. He would now say a 
 few words with respect to the restraints which were imposed on 
 slaves who were artizans, artificers, coopers, &c., or who, in the 
 words of his right hon. friend, were non-predial. Even many of 
 those who denied that the slaves engaged in agriculture were fit 
 for freedom, admitted that the non-predial slaves were perfectly 
 fit for freedom ; and he was convinced that they mi srht be instantly 
 
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. 289 
 
 set free from all restraints, without any danger whatever to society. 
 If so, it was impossible to justify the infliction upon them of a 
 seven years apprenticeship. With respect to the other class of 
 slaves, who, it might be said, stood more in need of a transition 
 state, he was apprehensive that the twelve years apprenticeship 
 would be found a bad and inefficient mode of training them for 
 freedom. There had been no practical experience on this matter. 
 Indeed, they might as well talk of practical experience of a nation 
 of Amazons. There had been no example of such apprenticeships. 
 He must say, however, that he thought the argument on the 
 subject of his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, very 
 convincing ; and that he did not think that his right hon. friend 
 had met that argument in so direct a manner as was usual with 
 him. Agricultural labour in the West-Indies was a most painful 
 drudgery. The labourer, therefore, ought to have a strong motive 
 for exertion. He was at a loss, however, to understand what that 
 motive was to be. Even in this country, agricultural apprentices 
 were not taken without a premium, and he understood that the 
 great body of apprentices did not, for a considerable time, earn 
 their own living. But what was to be the motive of the West- 
 India apprentice to exert himself? The Magistrate. It was he 
 who was to superintend all the operations of society in the colonies. 
 Every day in the week, and every hour in the day, whenever the 
 master became harsh, or the slave became indolent, there was to 
 be no recourse but to the Magistrate. It must be recollected, that 
 in the colonies the negro and the master would always have 
 opposite interests, and that those interests could not be reconciled 
 by law. In this country it was quite different. Here a master 
 had the choice of labourers, and a labourer the choice of masters ; 
 but in slavery it had always been found necessary to give despotic 
 power to the master. By this Bill it was left to the Magistrate to 
 keep the peace between the master and the slave. Every time 
 that the slave took twenty minutes, to do that which the master 
 
 thought he might have done in fifteen, recourse must be had to 
 VOL. i. i 
 
290 ABOLITION Of SLAVERY. 
 
 the Magistrate. Society day and night would be in a constant 
 state of litigation, and all differences and difficulties were to be 
 met by judicial interference. He did not entertain the appre 
 hensions expressed by his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, 
 that such a state of things would lead to gross cruelty. It would, 
 in his opinion, be merely a state of dead slavery, a state destitute of 
 any vital principle. He did not see reason to apprehend any 
 cruelty ; for what motive could the stipendiary Magistrate have 
 for hostility towards the slaves ? The contrary would, he thought, 
 be the case. The Magistrates would be accountable to the 
 Colonial Office ; the Colonial Office to the House of Commons, in 
 which every whipping would, no doubt, be told. The object of 
 the Magistrate, therefore, would be to be as lenient as possible. 
 His apprehension was, that the result of continuing this state of 
 society for twelve years would be, that the whole negro population 
 would become inactive, would sink into weak and dawdling 
 inefficiency, and would be much less fit for liberty at the end of 
 the period than at its commencement. His hope was, that the 
 system would die a natural death ; that a few months experience 
 would establish its utter inefficiency, so as to induce the planters 
 to abandon it, ajid to substitute a state of freedom. In his 
 opinion, however, it would be much better, that that should be 
 done by parliamentary enactment, rather than it should be left 
 to the Colonial Authorities. He had voted for the second read 
 ing of the Bill, and he should vote for the third reading of it ; but 
 while it was in the Committee, he would join with other hon. 
 Members in doing all that was possible to amend those points of 
 the Bill to which he objected. He was aware how freely he had 
 stated his opinions on this important question ; but he was sure 
 that the House would do justice to his motives, which, amidst 
 conflicting feelings and opinions, prompted him honestly to 
 endeavour to perform his duty. 
 
291 
 
 ON THE BALLOT.* 
 
 JUXE 18, 1839. 
 
 HAVING been long absent from the House, he wished it had been 
 in his power to be, at least for some weeks, a silent listener to their 
 debates ; but the deep interest which he took in this question, and 
 his sense of what he owed to a large and respectable portion of his 
 constituents, whose views on this subject concurred with his own, 
 impelled him to trust to that indulgence which it was customary 
 in that House to bestow. But before he made any remarks upon 
 the question immediately before the House, he wished to advert, fc. 
 a short time, to one topic which had excited the greatest interest 
 throughout the country, and to which the hon. Gentleman who had 
 just sat down had made some very sarcastic, and not, he thought, 
 exceedingly well-judged allusions. It was generally understood 
 that her Majesty s Ministers had determined that the question of 
 the ballot should be an open question that all the members of the- 
 Government should be free to speak and vote on that question 
 according to their individual opinions. It was natural that this 
 determination should excite censure on the one side of the House and 
 applause on the other. For his own part, he must say, that, with 
 out any reference whatever to his opinion on this particular question, 
 he was inclined, on higher and more general grounds, to approve 
 of the determination of the Government. He rejoiced to see the 
 number of open questions increasing ; he rejoiced to see that the} 
 were returning to the wise, the honest, the moderate maxims which 
 prevailed in that House in the time of their fathers and grand- 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. xlviii. p. 462-476, 
 
392 THE BALLOT. 
 
 fathers. He said, that the practice of the House, in that respect, 
 had undergone, in very recent times, a great change; he believed 
 that another change was now taking place, and that they were 
 reverting to a more prudent and rational system. To what pre 
 cise extent it was desirable that the Ministers of the Crown should 
 act in strict concert together in Parliament on the various legisla 
 tive questions that came under consideration, was an exceedingly 
 nice question, a question to which, so far as he was aware, no rigid 
 and strictly drawn rule could be applied. Hon. Gentlemen on the 
 other side, no doubt, possessed a great advantage over him ; they 
 were probably aware of much that might have passed during the last 
 four or five years on this subject, with which he was unacquainted. 
 But he was not aware that any speculative or practical statesman 
 had ever been found, either in writing or speaking, to take any 
 distinct line on this subject, and to 5 trace out a definite line of 
 action, for the guide of political prudence, in all cases, was, he 
 believed, difficult, and perhaps impossible. It was perfectly plain, 
 however, that there were but three courses possible with respect 
 to the conduct of Ministers in dealing with legislative questions 
 either that they must agree on all questions whatever, or that they 
 w must pretend to agree where there was a real difference, or that 
 they must leave each individual member of their body to take the 
 course which his own opinion and inclination dictated. Now, that 
 there should be a perfect agreement between Ministers on all ques 
 tions, they knew to be impossible. That was not his expression, it 
 was the expression of one who had long been the brightest orna 
 ment of that House Lord Chatham. That great man said, 
 " Talk of divided houses ! Why, there never was an instance of 
 an united Cabinet ! When were the minds of twelve men ever cast 
 in one and the same mould ?" They knew that even if two men 
 were brought up together from their childhood if they followed 
 the same course of study, mixed in the same society, communi 
 cated their sentiments to each other on all topics with perfect free- 
 
THE BALLOT. 293 
 
 dom, and exercised a mutual influence in forming each other s 
 minds, a perfect agreement between them on political subjects 
 could never be expected. How then was it possible that this 
 agreement could subsist between a cabinet of several persons imper 
 fectly acquainted with each other ? Every Government he spoke 
 neither of the present Government, nor of the late Government, 
 nor of the Government which seemed about to be formed the 
 other day was constructed in such a manner that forty or fifty 
 gentlemen, some of whom had never seen each other s faces till they 
 were united officially, or had been in hot opposition to each other 
 all the rest of their lives, were brought into intimate connexion. 
 He meant to cast no reflection whatever on either side of the 
 House, but such was the general character of all Governments, and 
 complete unanimity in any was out of the question. It would, in 
 truth, be an absolute miracle. Only two courses, therefore, remained. 
 Either there might be a semblance of unanimity, where unanimity 
 really was not, or each person might be left to act on his own 
 opinions. He did not profess any extraordinary degree of prudery 
 on matters of political morality. He was perfectly aware that in 
 Parliament it was impossible any thing great could be done with 
 out co-operation, and he was aware that there could be no co 
 operation without mutual .compromise. He admitted, therefore, 
 that men were justified, when united into a party, either in office 
 or in opposition, in making mutual concessions, in opposing 
 measures, which they might, as individuals, think desirable, in 
 assenting to those which they might consider objectionable, and giv 
 ing their votes, not with reference to the mere terms of the question 
 put from the chair, but with reference to the general state of poli 
 tical parties. All this he admitted. If there were any person who 
 thought it wrong, he respected the tenderness of his conscience, 
 but that person s vocation was not for a public life. That person 
 should select a quieter path for his passage through life, one in 
 which he might play a useful and respectable part ; but he was as 
 
294 THE BALLOT. 
 
 completely unfitted for the turmoils of political strife as a Quaker, 
 by his religious principles, was prevented from undertaking the 
 command of a regiment of horse. Thus far he admitted the prin 
 ciple of party combinations, but he admitted that they might be 
 carried too far that they had been carried too far. That a Mem 
 ber of the House should say " No," to a proposition which he 
 believed to be essentially just and necessary that he should 
 steadily vote through all its stages in favour of a bill that he 
 believed would have pernicious consequences, was conduct which 
 he (Mr. Macaulay) should think was not to be defended. Such a 
 course of action was not reconcileable to a plain man, whose notions 
 of morality were not drawn from the casuists. He only defended 
 the principle of mutual action among political partisans as being a 
 peculiar exception from the great general rules of political morality, 
 and it was clear, that an exception from the great rules of political 
 morality should be most strictly construed, that it should not be 
 needlessly extended, and, above all, that it should not be converted 
 into the rule. Therefore, he said, that in the members of a Govern 
 ment, any concession of opinion which was not necessary to the 
 efficient conduct of affairs, to cordial co-operation, was to be looked 
 upon as unjustifiable. In saying this, he was not pleading for any 
 innovation, he was attacking a modern _basis of action, and recom 
 mending a return to the sounder and better maxims of the last 
 generation. Nothing was more common than to hear it said, that 
 the first time when a great question was left open, was when Lord 
 Liverpool s Administration left the Catholic question open. Now, 
 there could not be a grosser error. Within the memory of many 
 persons living, the general rule was this, that all questions what 
 ever were open questions in a cabinet, except those which came 
 under two classes namely, first, measures brought forward by the 
 Government as a Government, which all the members of it were, 
 of course, expected to support ; and, second, motions brought for 
 ward with the purpose of casting a censure, express or implied, on 
 
THE BALLOT. 295 
 
 the Government, or any department of. it, which all its members 
 were, of course, expected to oppose. He believed that he laid 
 down a rule to which it would be impossible to find an exception, 
 he was sure he laid down a general rule, when he said that "fifty 
 years ago all questions not falling under these heads were considered 
 open. Let gentlemen run their minds over the history of Mr. Pitt s 
 administration. Mr. Pitt, of course, expected that every Gentle 
 man connected with him by the ties of office should support him 
 on the leading questions of his Government the India Bill, the 
 resolutions respecting the commerce of Ireland, the French com*; 
 mercial treaty. Of course, also, he expected, that no Gentleman 
 should remain in thje Government who had voted for Mr. Bas 
 tard s motion, of censure on the naval administration of Lord 
 Howe, or for Mr. Whitbread s motion on the Spanish armament ; 
 but, excepting on such motions, brought forward as attacks 
 on Government, perfect liberty was allowed to his colleagues, 
 and that not merely on trifles, but on constitutional questions 
 of vital importance. The question of Parliamentary reform 
 was left open ; Mr. Pitt and Mr. Pundas were in favour of 
 it, Lord Mulgrave and Lord Grenville against it. On the im 
 peachment of Warren Hastings, likewise, the different Mem 
 bers of Government were left to pursue their own course ; that 
 governor was attacked by Mr. Pitt, and defended by Lord Mul 
 grave. In 1790 the question, whether the impeachment should be 
 considered as having dropped, in consequence of the termination 
 of the Parliament, in which the proceedings were commenced, was 
 left an open question ; Mr, Pitt took one side, and was answered 
 by his own Solicitor-general, Sir J. Scott, afterwards Lord Eldon. 
 The important question respecting the powers of juries in cases of 
 libel was left open ; Mr. Pitt took a view favourable to granting 
 them extensive powers, Lord Grenville and Lord Thurlow "opposed 
 him. The abolition of the slave trade was also an open question. 
 Mr. Pitt and Lord Grenville were favourable to it; Mr. Dundas 
 
296 THE BALLOT. 
 
 and Lord Thurlow were among the most conspicuous defenders of 
 the slave trade. All these instances had occurred in the space of 
 about five years. Were they not sufficient to prove how absurdly 
 and ignorantly those persons spoke who told us, that the practice 
 of open questions was a mere innovation of our own time ? There 
 were men now living great men, held in honour and reverence 
 Lord Grey, Lord Wellesley, Lord Holland, and others, who well 
 remembered, that at an early period of their public life, the law of 
 libel, the slave trade, Parliamentary reform, were all open ques 
 tions, supported by one section of the Cabinet, and opposed bj 
 another. Was this the effect of any extraordinary weakness or 
 timidity on the part of the statesman then Prime Minister ? No ; 
 Mr. Pitt was a man, whom even his enemies and detractors always 
 acknowledge, possessed of manly, brave, and commanding spirit. 
 And was the effect of this policy to enfeeble his Administration, to 
 daunt his adherents, to render them unable to withstand the 
 attacks of the Opposition 2 On the contrary, never did a ministry 
 present a firmer or more serried front to Opposition, nor had he 
 the slightest doubt but that their strength was increased in conse 
 quence of giving each Member more individual liberty. Where 
 there were no open questions, opinions might be restrained for a 
 time, but sooner or later they would show themselves, and when 
 they did, what would be the consequence ? Not, as in Mr. Pitt s 
 time, when one Minister would speak against a measure and 
 another for it when one would divide with the ayes, and another 
 with the noes, and as Mr. Pitt and Mr. Dundas did, all in perfect 
 good humour, lest the Government should be dissolved. Now, 
 as soon as one Cabinet Minister got up and declared that he could 
 not support the view taken by another upon any question, what 
 was the result ? The result had been seen. They all remembered 
 the manner in which the Government of the Duke of Wellington, 
 in 1828, dispensed with the services of some members of the cabinet, 
 in consequence of a difference of opinion upon a subject on which 
 
THE BALLOT. 297 
 
 not one of Mr. Pitt s colleagues would have asked permission to 
 vote against him. He did not pretend to draw the line precisely, 
 but he was satisfied that of late the line had been drawn in an 
 improper and inconsiderate manner. It was time they should 
 return to better maxims, maxims which had been shown by expe 
 rience to be sound and good. He was perfectly satisfied that the 
 present Government would find,- by taking this course on the pre 
 sent occasion, that they had increased their strength and raised their 
 character. Now, to come to the particular question before the 
 House, he should vote for the motion of the hon. Member for the 
 city of London. He wished to explain that, in doing this, he was 
 merely to be understood as giving a declaration in favour of the prin 
 ciple of secret voting. He desired to be understood as reserving to 
 himself the right of withholding his support from any bill which, 
 when he examined its details, did not appear to contain such provi 
 sions as would efi ect the object he had in view. He must reserve to 
 himself, also, the right of considering how far he could, with pro 
 priety, give his support to any bill which should not be accompanied 
 or preceded by some measure for improving the mode of revising the 
 registration. He should think it most disingenuous to give a popu 
 lar vote, saddling it with a condition which he thought either im 
 possible or exceedingly difficult of fulfilment. Such was not his 
 opinion. He had no doubt that it was possible to provide machi 
 nery which should give both to the voter and to the country all the 
 security which the transactions of human life admitted, and he had 
 as little doubt that it was possible to devise a tribunal, whose 
 decision on a vote before the election would command as much 
 public confidence as the decisions of committees of that House after 
 elections. Subject to these two conditions he would give his sup 
 port to the vote by ballot. He could not say that he did so upon 
 the grounds on which many of the supporters of the ballot rested 
 their case, because he by no means conceived, like many of them, 
 
 that this was a case on which all the arguments lay on one side. 
 
 13* 
 
298 THE BALLOT. 
 
 He admitted that, in his opinion, the advantages that would be 
 derived from this measure would be very great; but, admitting 
 and feeling this, still he was not surprised that very wise and very 
 virtuous men hesitated on this subject, and that such men came, 
 on this subject, to a conclusion different from his. They must in 
 this, as in almost every other question of human affairs, balance the 
 I good with the good, and the evil with the evil. He fully admitted 
 J that the ballot would withdraw the voter from the influence of 
 ( something that was good as well as from the influence of something 
 I that was bad. He admitted that it took away the salutary check of 
 public opinion, as well as the pernicious effect of intimidation. He 
 \ was compelled to strike a balance, and take refuge in the ballot, as 
 \ the lesser of two evils. He did not, he must say, altogether agree 
 with the Member for the city of London, if he perfectly understood 
 him, in thinking that the ballot would secure thai entire prevention 
 of the bribery of voters which, on this subject, the hon. Member 
 seemed inclined to hope. In small constituencies, he did think 
 that bribery would continue, although, at the same time, it might 
 not be so extensively entered into. He considered that the ballot 
 was a remed) r , a specific remedy, and the only remedy for the evils 
 of intimidation ; and upon this ground he gave it his support. 
 There was a time when he, like the noble Lord who seconded the 
 motion of the hon. Member for London, was inclined to hope that 
 those evils, like many other evils which had yielded to the force of 
 public opinion and the progress of intelligence, would die a natural 
 death. That hope he had been compelled to relinquish. He 
 believed the evil to be a growing evil, and he was satisfied that it 
 had made progress within the last seven years. He believed it 
 had made progress within the last three years. He could not 
 disguise from himself that the growth of this evil was, in some 
 measure, to be imputed to the Reform Act; and, in saying this, 
 he only said it in common of the Reform Act, and of almost 
 every great measure. The Reformation of the Church, they all 
 
THE BALLOT. 299 
 
 knew, produced classes of society and moral evils that were 
 unknown in the time of the Plantagenets. The Revolution pro 
 duced a description of abuses that were unknown in the time 
 of the Stuarts ; and the Reform Act. although he believed no 
 measure was more generally pleasing to the country, like the Re 
 formation of the Church and the Revolution, produced some new, 
 and aggravated some old, evils ; it swept away many abuses, but 
 it seemed to him to have given a deeper and more malignant 
 energy to the abuses which it spared. It swept away many of the 
 old channels of corrupt influence, but, in those channels which it 
 had not swept away, the corrupt current not only still ran on, but 
 it ran on deeper, and stronger, and fouler than ever. It destroyed, 
 or, if it did not destroy, it restricted within narrow limits, the old 
 practice of direct nomination ; but, in doing so, he believed it gave 
 a new impulse to the practice of intimidation, and this at the very 
 moment when it conferred the franchise on thousands of electors, 
 and thus placed them in a situation in which they were most open 
 to influence and intimidation. It was impossible to close then 
 eyes to the evidence that was offered to them on every side. If he 
 believed the outcry raised, not by one party, or from one corner of 
 the kingdom, but by Tories, Whigs, and Radicals, in England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland, he must believe that there were, sitting in 
 that House, Gentlemen who owed their seats to votes extorted by 
 fear. And he said, that if there was any Gentleman in that House 
 who owed his seat to such means, it were infinitely better that he 
 sat there for Old Sarum ; for, by. sitting there for Old Sarum, he 
 would be no Representative of the people, nor was he a Represen 
 tative of the people now. At Old Sarum there were no threats of 
 ejectments because a voter had more regard to his public duty 
 than to his private interest. At Old Sarum the voter was never 
 put to the alternative whether he would abandon his principles, or 
 reduce his family to distress. All tyranny was bad. ; but the worst 
 was that which worked with the machinery of freedom. Under 
 
300 THE BALLOT. 
 
 an undisguised oligarchy, the people suffered only the evil of being 
 governed by those whom they had not chosen ; but, to what 
 ever extent intimidation mixed itself up with the system of popu 
 lar election, to that extent the people suffered both the evil of 
 being governed by those whom they had not. chosen, and the evil 
 of being coerced into a professed choice. A great number of human 
 beings were thus mere machines through whom the great proprie 
 tors expressed their pleasure, and the greater their number, the 
 greater the extent of misery and degradation. The noble Lord 
 who had seconded the motion said, and most justly said, that he 
 did not wish, in supporting this motion, to deprive wealth of its 
 legitimate influence. Wealth, under any system, must always 
 retain its legitimate influence. Wealth was power, and power 
 justly and kindly used necessarily inspired affection. Wealth, or 
 that which was so, compared with what was possessed by the great 
 mass of electors, was closely connected with intellectual superiority. 
 It enabled its possessor to select and prosecute any study to which 
 he might be inclined ; to continue it when those who commenced 
 life with him, under less favourable circumstances, were forced to 
 drudge for their daily bread ; to enlarge his mind by foreign 
 travel : to acquire an intimacy with the history of nations, and 
 with the arts and sciences. These vfere advantages to which it 
 was impossible that constituencies could be blind ; nay, going 
 much below those who formed the present body of electors, and 
 descending to the very lowest of the populace, it never was found 
 that, even in their wildest aberrations, they chose a leader desti 
 tute of these recommendations. This was the natural, the inde 
 structible, the legitimate, the salutary influence of wealth. What 
 ever was more than this was corruption ; and if it were thought 
 necessary, as it appeared from the speech of the hon. Member who 
 had last spoken, that some persons in that House did think it 
 necessary to maintain the influence of bribery in our elective sys 
 tem, then he said, that incomparably the best and least objection- 
 
THE BALLOT. 301 
 
 able method was that of open bribery. But against bribery they 
 enacted laws ; against bribery they passed resolutions ; for bri 
 bery, boroughs were disfranchised ; for bribery, Members were 
 unseated ; for bribery indictments and informations were pre 
 ferred ; for bribery, the penalties extended both to the elector and the 
 elected ; one man was disqualified, another man fined. On what 
 principle did they inflict penalties on the elector on what prin 
 ciple but this, that, from having dealt in pecuniary corruption 
 the elector was no longer fit to exercise the right of voting ? But 
 what was the operation of intimidation ? It was this " Vote with 
 me, or give up my custom. Vote with me, or give up your farm." 
 Or it was thus "Vote with me, and I will give you 20/. for a 
 pair of boots." Why, surely it was notorious that this was one of 
 the constant forms of corruption. " Vote with me, and I will give 
 you 20. for a pair of boots," was a common and constant form of 
 corruption, though less so, perhaps, because less easy, than " Vote 
 for me, or I will carry my custom to the boot-maker s in the next 
 street." On what possible pretext could any man defend such an 
 exercise of the power of wealth as this \ And here he must say, that 
 he almost dissented from the form of expression used by the hon. 
 Member for London in his eloquent and excellent speech ; he 
 objected to the lion. Member making an antithesis between intimi 
 dation and corruption. He said, that intimidation was corruption 
 in its worst and most loathsome form, stripped of every seduction, 
 of every blandishment, of everything that had the appearance of 
 liberality and good humour ; a hard, strict, cruel corruption, seeking 
 by means most foul, a most loathsome end. It was corruption 
 working by barbarity ; and this sort of corruption, this general sort 
 of corruption, was, most unhappily, the easiest and cheapest of all. 
 Corruption by gifts costs something, but corruption by threats cost 
 nothing but the crime. It was only of a superfluity out of 
 what was left after expending all that was necessary for the sup 
 port of a family, that corruption by giving commenced: but how 
 
302 THE BALLOT. 
 
 much worse was the corruption of taking away ? The man who 
 practised intimidation was under no necessity of mortgaging his 
 estate to prepare for an election : nay, at the same time that he 
 improved perhaps his lands, by the very mode of administering the 
 economy of his family, he was able to effect by intimidation all 
 the purposes of corruption to a greater extent, and with more com 
 plete demoralization, than had ever been seen in Grampound or 
 East Retford. But not only was intimidation worked easily and 
 cheaply, but it was also most trying to the virtue of the persons 
 that were subjected to it, inasmuch as it was much more easy to 
 refuse that which a man never had, than to submit to be pillaged 
 of that which he was accustomed to have. Many men who would 
 not hesitate Co throw down a purse if it were offered to him to vote 
 for a particular candidate, would nevertheless vote against his con 
 science for fear of an ejectment. And he found, that this corrup 
 tion, which was the greatest, the easiest, the cheapest, and the most 
 trying to the party, was also the safest of all. It was also that 
 sort of- corruption which they allowed and must allow with perfect 
 impunity. They could punish to a certain extent that good- 
 humoured corruption which corrupted by making men happy, but 
 they could not punish that malignant corruption that corrupted by 
 making men miserable. They could not set up an inquisitorial 
 tribunal that would be entitled to ask these questions : "-Why did 
 you not continue such a lease what fault did you find did not 
 the tenant do justice to the land did he not pay his rent was 
 he disrespectful and if not for his vote, why did you turn him 
 out ?" Or, to take the instance of a tailor after the Westminster 
 election, could you put such questions as these : " Why have you 
 left him had he not suited you did he not fit you well were 
 his charges too high and if not for his vote, why did you leave 
 him ?" Such a remedy would be worse than the disease. Pro 
 perty ceased to be property, if they called upon the proprietor for 
 any reasons other than mere will and caprice, to state why he dis- 
 
THE BALLOT. 303 
 
 charged his tailor or other tradesman. In what position, then, did 
 they stand ? Here was, as it seemed to him, a great evil a grow 
 ing evil an evil much more fearful than many which had under 
 gone the direct censure of the law. But it was so intertwined with 
 the institution of property, that if they attempted to strike at it by 
 means of an enacting bill, they would inflict necessarily a wound 
 upon the institution of property. It seemed to him, then, con 
 sidering punishment out of the question, that they could only try 
 means of prevention. What were the means of prevention sug 
 gested ? Absolutely none, except the ballot. Here, then, or no 
 where we can find means of reconciling the rights of property with 
 the rights of suffrage. In this way, only, could they enable each 
 party really to do what he liked with his own. The estate was 
 the landlord s, the vote was the tenant s." "So use your own 
 rights," was the language of all civil as well as moral law, " as not 
 to interfere with the rights of others." But here, it should be 
 remarked, they could not give the one right without infringing or 
 rather destroying the other. Through a system of open voting, 
 they could not give the landlord that dominion over his estate 
 which he ought to have, without throwing in the dominion over his 
 tenants votes which he ought not to- have, and under the same 
 system of open voting they could not protect the tenant s vote with 
 out interfering with the landlord s property. Under a system of 
 open voting, with rights opposed to each other, it was impossible 
 to reconcile the differences between these two great principles on 
 which depended the whole national prosperity, liberty and pro 
 perty. If, then, there was any mode of reconciling these princi 
 ples, ought they not eagerly to embrace it, and most seriously to 
 consider whether they would not find in the ballot the mode of 
 reconciling them ? Whether the ballot would not give equal and 
 perfect protection to both ? Whether it would not give to each 
 just what they ought to have and nothing more than each ought 
 to have ? If this were, as he really believed it would be, the effect 
 
304 THE BALLOT, 
 
 of the ballot, if here, and here only, they could find a solution of 
 those difficulties, surely no slight objections ought to deter them 
 from adopting it. The objection to the ballot, though by no means 
 the only one raised in discussion, which appeared to throw any real 
 difficulty in the way of carrying it, was, as had been said by an elo 
 quent, ingenious, and lively speaker, that in the minds of the people 
 there was a moral objection to it, otherwise nothing could prevent 
 for a single session the carrying of the principle of vote by ballot. 
 He must own that this objection, highly respectable as many of 
 those who entertain it were, did not seem to him sound or well 
 considered, because he hardly thought that it could be entertained 
 by any respectable and sensible person, who considered for a mo 
 ment what was the amount of the evil effected by the present system. 
 Surely if it were immoral to tell an untruth, at least it was equally 
 immoral, having received a great public trust for the public good, 
 to employ that trust to an evil purpose. If it were un-English not 
 to dare to own the vote that was given, surely it was more un-Eng 
 lish not to dare to vote as he thought right. When the word 
 un-English was used, they were compelled to contrast their idea 
 of that bold and sturdy independence which had been their great 
 pride as a national characteristic, with the situation of a man, who, 
 holding his farm from year to year, is compelled by fear of pecu 
 niary loss and ruin to poll against him whom he wished to see 
 chaired, and to vote for the candidate whom, with all his heart, he 
 would see well ducked. At present they knew that many dis 
 honest votes were given, but let the system of secrecy in voting be 
 introduced and they would have honest votes, although the parties 
 might afterwards deny that they had given them. Which was 
 the greater evil of the two ? God forbid that he should say any 
 thing that should seem to extenuate the guilt of falsehood, but God 
 forbid, also, that he should not make some allowance for the poor as 
 well as for the rich. God forbid that he should see more distinctly 
 the -mote in the eye of the 10/. householder, than the beam in the 
 
THE BALLOT. 305 
 
 eye of a baron or a bishop. If morality were anything more than 
 capricious favour or mere pretext, they would have ample oppor 
 tunities of exercising it, without waiting till the ballot became the 
 law of the land, or without even descending below their own rank 
 in life. If it were criminal in a man to utter an untruth for the 
 purpose of guarding a secret against private curiosity, then he 
 would say, that they would find many criminals of a far higher 
 station, and of a far more cultivated intellect, than the bakers and 
 butchers about whose veracity they were so anxious. He would 
 take a single illustration from the case of anonymous writers. It 
 was perfectly notorious that men of high consideration, men of the 
 first distinction, had written books and- published them without 
 their names, and on being questioned, had denied that they were 
 the authors of the works they had written ; and yet this denial did 
 not prevent them from being generally considered with respect and 
 kindness in society. They had also seen casuists of great repute 
 defend those parties. One illustrious name he would instance, 
 which would no doubt suggest itself to all who heard him, the 
 name of a first-rate man of genius, of excellent principles, and a 
 noble spirit he need hardly add the name of Sir Walter Scott. 
 Sir Walter Scott published without his name that eminent and 
 popular series of novels which had endeared him to all his country 
 men, nay, almost all the world, and which he for one could not 
 think upon without feelings of the deepest admiration and grati 
 tude. Sir Walter Scott published this series of novels anony 
 mously, and to all questions put to him on the subject, persisted in 
 denying the authorship of them, till at length he consented to drop 
 the veil of concealment, and acknowledged them to be the produc 
 tions of his pen. Now he would ask and he appealed to many 
 who were personally acquainted with that great man he would 
 appeal to them and ask, did this concealment and subsequent 
 avowal of his name reflect any shame on the character of Sir W. 
 Scott ? did any one of the large circle of his friends and admirers 
 
306 THE BALLOT. 
 
 consider that Sir W. Scott had dishonoured himself by this pro 
 ceeding. All that he demanded was this, that we should, in the 
 purity of our own moral feelings, think of the moral feelings of 
 other classes, as well as of those belonging to that class to which 
 we ourselves belonged ; that we should have one weight and one 
 measure ; and that we should extend to those untruths by means 
 of which the poor man seeks to protect himself from the encroach 
 ments of the gentleman, that pardon which we extend to the 
 untruths by which one gentleman defends himself from the imper 
 tinent curiosity of another. He did not pretend to be a casuist, nor 
 to be accustomed to weigh questions- of this nature in a very nice 
 balance, but he should hesitate, he almost thought, to advise an 
 elector now-a-days to tell the truth and take the consequences. 
 They had no right to expect sacrifices of that kind from every 
 body, or count on the moral courage to make them. As for the 
 honest electors, that class of men village Hampdens, Grey would 
 have called them they would be honest still if this measure were 
 adopted. The man who would utter untruths when he had the 
 ballot, was the man who would now be ready to give a corrupt 
 vote. In fact, there was the same breach of faith in the one course 
 as in the other. He was for neither. Of the two alternatives 
 of the two chances of evil he thought the latter was to be pre 
 ferred. In short, if the voters could not at once keep faith with 
 their country, and with their corruptors, he was one who wished 
 that we should have a system by which their faith might be kept 
 to their country, and broken to their corruptors. If there were 
 one system under which, more than another, it were easy for the 
 elector to break his faith to the country, while he kept it with his 
 corruptor, that system was the present. Another objection, which 
 was sometimes put forward, was contained in this question, " Will 
 you disturb that settlement which was made by the Reform Bill, and 
 which we were then told was to be final ?" On this point he fully 
 agreed with the hon. Member for the city of London. He thought 
 
THE BALLOT. 307 
 
 that this question had been expressly reserved at the time of carry 
 ing the Reform Bill ; nor was he aware that a single person con 
 sidered himself, by supporting the Reform Bill, to be pledged to 
 do without the ballot. Now, with regard to the finality of the 
 Reform Bill ; he had always regarded that great measure with 
 reverence, but a rational, not a superstitious reverence ; and he 
 conceived that the question, whether it should be amended or not, 
 should be considered upon no other principles, but the ordinary 
 principles of public good. He saw many and strong arguments 
 against frequent and violent changes in our constitutional system. 
 He could not conceal from himself that the great revolution of 
 1832 for revolution it was, and a most fearful and sanguinary 
 revolution it would have been in any other nation than this that 
 revolution was effected here without civil disorder, and without 
 the effusion of blood ; but unquestionably the passing of the bill 
 was attended with much excitement and danger. That excitement 
 and that danger he was not desirous to renew. He would bear 
 with many inconveniences rather than open a similar scene ; nay, 
 lie would bear with many grievances rather than agree to re-open 
 the .whole representative, system which was established by the 
 Reform Act. But if any man argued that the Reform Act ought 
 to be final, he must, at the same time, admit, that it ought to be 
 effectual, otherwise they would have cut off one form of misrepresen 
 tation merely to have it replaced by another. They must not allow 
 that which they meant as a franchise, to be turnecl into a species of 
 villein service, more degrading by far than any that belonged to 
 the dark era of the 14th century. It was not that threats should 
 be substituted in the place of bribery it was not for that result that 
 the aristocracy had been conquered in their own strongholds ; but 
 it was for the establishment of a genuine suffrage, and of real, not 
 pernicious, rights, that the Church, the aristocracy, and the Court 
 together had been made to give way before the determined voice 
 of a united people. The object of that mighty movement was not 
 
308 THE BALLOT. 
 
 that old abuses should be brought back under new denominations, 
 that the place of Old Sarum, the rotten borough, should be sup 
 plied by other Old Saruras, under the respectable names of coun 
 ties and divisions of counties. No, nor was the time far remote, 
 when this nation, with a voice as imperative as that with which 
 she demanded the Reform Bill, would demand that the Reform 
 Bill be carried out in the truth of its noble principle, and when that 
 just and reasonable demand was conceded, as conceded it would 
 be, arid the franchise of every voter should be made a franchise 
 indeed, they would find, that instead pf having led the way, by 
 this step, to reckless spoliation and confusion, in truth they had 
 strengthened the law, secured to property its just rights, drawn 
 closer the ties which united the two great orders of society to each 
 other, and attached both of them all the more to the law, the Par 
 liament, and the Crown. 
 
309 
 
 ON CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY.* 
 
 JANUARY 29, 1840. 
 
 IT is possible, Sir, that the House may imagine I rise under some 
 little feeling of irritation, to reply to the personalities and accusa 
 tions of the right hon. Baronet [Sir J. Graham], I shall indulge 
 in neither. It would be easy to reply to them to recriminate 
 would be still easier. Were I alone personally considered, I should 
 think either course unworthy of me. I know that egotism in this 
 House is always unpopular ; on this occasion it would be singu 
 larly unseasonable. If ever I am under the necessity of addressing 
 this House on matters which concern myself, I hope it shall be on 
 some occasion when the dearest interests of the empire are not 
 staked on the event of our debate. I do rise, Sir, to" address you 
 under feelings of deep anxiety, but in that anxiety there is not, if I 
 know my own heart, any mixture of selfish feeling. I do feel, 
 indeed, with the most intense conviction, that in pleading for the 
 Government to which I belong, I am pleading for the deepest inter 
 ests of the Commonwealth for the reformation of abuses, and for 
 the preservation of august and venerable institutions. I trust, Mr. 
 Speaker, that the first Cabinet Minister who, when the question is, 
 whether the Government be or be not worthy of confidence, offers 
 himself in debate, will find some portion of that generosity and good 
 feeling which once distinguished English gentlemen. But be this 
 as it may, my voice shall be heard. I was saying that I am 
 pleading, not only for the preservation of our institutions, but for 
 liberty and order, for justice administered in mercy, for equal laws, 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. 15. p. 815-835 
 
310 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 for the rights of conscience, and for the real union of Great 
 Britain and Ireland. Sir, I wish first to address myself not 
 to any matter relating to myself alone, but to those parts 
 of the subject with which my name is bound up in some de 
 gree with the character of the Government to which I belong. 
 My opinions are favourable to secret voting. The opinions of my 
 noble Friend (Lord John Russell) are in favour of open voting. 
 Notwithstanding, we meet as Members of one Government. This 
 has been made a topic of charge against the Government by every 
 Gentleman who has addressed .the House, from the hon. Baronet 
 who opened the debate, down to the right hon. Baronet who spoke 
 last. Now, Sir, I say in the first place, that if on account of this 
 difference of opinion we shall be considered by the House unwor 
 thy of its confidence, then no Government for many years has been 
 worthy, is worthy, of the House of Commons : for the Government 
 of Mr. Pitt, the Government of Mr. Fox, the Government of Lord 
 Liverpool, the Government of Mr. Canning, the Government of the 
 Duke of Wellington, have all had open questions on subjects of 
 the greatest moment. I say that the question of Parliamentary 
 Reform was an open question with the Government of Mr. Pitt. 
 Mr. Pitt, holding opinions in favour of that question, brought into 
 the Cabinet Lord Grenville, who did not. Mr. Pitt was opposed to 
 the slave trade. Mr. Dundas, a defender of it, was a Member of 
 his Government. I say Mr. Fox, in the same manner, in his Cabi 
 nets of 1Y82 and 1806, had open questions of similar importance; 
 and I say that the Governments of Lord Liverpool, Mr. Canning, 
 and the Duke of Wellington, left, as an open question, Catholic 
 Emancipation ; which, closely connected as it was with the execu 
 tive Administration, was, perhaps, one of the last questions which 
 should ever have been left an open one by any Government. But 
 to take still more important ground, and to come to a question 
 which more nearly interests us suppose you dismiss the present 
 Government, on what principle do you mean to constitute an Ad- 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 311 
 
 ministration composed of hon. Gentlemen opposite ? Is it pro 
 posed by you to leave the privileges of this House an open ques 
 tion ? Is it intended that your proposed (government should con 
 sist of those amongst you who declare themselves favourable to our 
 privileges ? Will it be said, that the question of privilege is of less 
 importance than the question of the ballot ? It is from the ques 
 tion of privilege that the question of the ballot, and all similar 
 questions, derive their importance. And of what consequence is 
 the mode in which you are elected, if, when you meet, you do not 
 possess the privileges necessary for your efficiency as a branch of 
 the Legislature 1 Is anything more clear than that, if an address 
 (which is likely) were presented to the Crown on the subject of our 
 privileges, you could never agree as to the answer to be given to 
 it ? Why, can any question be more important than that which 
 should determine in what relation we stand to our constituents in 
 the Courts of Judicature, and to the other branches of the Legisla 
 ture ? And, on the other hand, what is more monstrous (if we 
 take the view of those opposed to our privileges) than that we 
 should assert our privileges by attacking the liberty of the subject, 
 by infringing on the functions of the courts where her Majesty dis 
 penses the law, and committing to prison persons guilty only of the 
 crime of appealing to the laws of their country ? Can y ou con 
 ceive anything more absurd than the Prime Minister, over night, 
 sending men to prison, to whom his law officers and supporters pay 
 complimentary visits in the morning ? I seriously believe that the 
 differences of opinion on the other side on the question of privilege 
 would, if a Ministry were formed from that quarter, produce, prac 
 tically, more inconvenience in a week, than leaving the ballot an 
 open question is likely to produce in ten years. The right hon. 
 Baronet asks in what does the present Government differ from the 
 Chartists ? One Member of the present Government has, it is true, 
 declared himself favourable to the ballot. I objected to the use of 
 the word pledged ; for I never gave any constituent body a pled go. 
 
312 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 It is alleged too, that because I maintained that a 101. house being 
 considered a sufficient proof of a man s stake in the country to fit 
 him to be a voter, it was not desirable his locality should decide upon 
 his right of voting for this reason, I stand exactly in the same 
 position as those who would abolish all pecuniary qualification. I 
 cannot see, however, in what way I admit, in the least, the doc 
 trine of those who would abolish all qualification whatever, by 
 expressing a desire to see the present 107. franchise extended. In 
 my opinion, a pecuniary qualification is indispensably necessary to 
 the safety of the empire. In my opinion the 107. qualification has 
 never proved too high ; and supposing society to continue in its 
 progress supposing education to continue, and the distribution of 
 property, and the value of money to remain as they are, if I can 
 foresee anything in my public conduct, I shall abide by the opinion 
 which I have just expressed as to the question of the franchise. 
 This is my answer to the right hon. Baronet, and if it does not 
 convey to him a proof that my opinions are different from those 
 of the Chartists on this subject, his conception of their doctrines 
 differs very widely from mine. I come to that which, through the 
 whole debate, has formed the principal subject of observation ; for 
 it must be clear, that it is not on the conduct of Commissioner Lin, 
 or of Captain Elliot, or on the hostilities on the river La Plata, or 
 on any circumstance of this kind, that the result of this debate must 
 turn. The main argument of the hon. Gentleman opposite, used 
 by the hon. Baronet who opened the debate, repeated by his 
 seconder, and constituting the substance of every speech which has 
 been delivered, amounts to this : " The country is in an unsatis 
 factory state there is great turbulence there is great disposition 
 to extensive political change and at the bottom of all lies the agi 
 tating policy of those Whigs. They raised themselves to power by 
 means of agitation they strengthened themselves in favour by 
 means of agitation they carried the Reform Bill by means of agi 
 tation and we are now paying the fruits of their acts. All this 
 
CONFIDENCE IX THE MINISTRY. 313 
 
 Chartism is but the effect of their conduct; and it is evident that 
 from those who have caused the evil you cannot expect the remedy. 
 We ought to dismiss them, and seek others who, never having 
 excited the people to turbulence, will command the confidence of 
 the country." I don t know whether I have stated it correctly, but 
 this, as nearly as I could collect, is the substance of what has been 
 urged by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now, I might fellow the 
 example set by my right hon. Friend (the Judge Advocate) in his 
 most noble and eloquent speech, and content myself with stating 
 that this agitation belonged principally to the Government of Lord 
 Grey. Of that Government, the noble Lord, the Member for Lan 
 cashire, and the right hon. Member for Pembroke were Members. 
 I might say "they were then distinguished Members of this 
 House. To them I leave the task of exculpation to them I leave 
 it to defend agitation to them I leave it to decide on what prin 
 ciple, and to what extent, they shared in such means of carrying 
 public questions." In spite of that challenge which my right hon. 
 Friend gave the right hon. Baronet, he gives no explanation, but 
 contents himself with the simple confession " I liked the Reform 
 Bill I agitated for iL I was carried I admit far beyond pru 
 dence, and just on the verge of the law." Is it possible that any 
 gentleman possessing only a very small part of the foresight of the 
 right hon. Gentleman should not perceive, that as soon as this 
 defence is admitted, this consequence must of necessity follow 
 that the only question is, whether the measures to be agitated for 
 are good in themselves, and not whether agitation itself be good or 
 bad. The right hon. Baronet admits, then, that agitation itself is 
 a proper and legitimate mode of carrying any measure that is good. 
 When the right hon. Baronet comes forward to charge the present 
 Government with agitation, and directs his reproaches against no 
 member of that Government more than myself, I confess I feel 
 some inclination to remonstrate with the right hon. Gentleman for 
 want of generosity : for my interest in this question is small indeed, 
 v<5i. r. 14 
 
314 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 compared with that of the right hon. Gentleman himself. I, Sir,- 
 was not a member of the Cabinet that brought in the Reform Bill 
 I was not one of those Ministers who told their Sovereign they 
 would serve him no longer unless he would create a sufficient 
 number of Peers to curry their measures. I, Sir, at that time was 
 merely one of those hundreds within these walls, and of millions 
 throughout the country, \\lio were firmly and deeply impressed 
 with the conviction that the Reform Bill was a great and salutary 
 measure who reposed the greatest confidence in the abilities, the 
 integrity, and the patriotism of the Ministers; and I must add, that 
 in no Member of that administration did I place greater confidence 
 for the possession of those high qualities than in the noble Lord 
 the Secretary for Ireland, and in the right hon. Gentleman the First 
 Lord of the Admiralty. In none did I place greater confidence 
 that they would take measures to guard against the evils insepara 
 ble from all great changes, and take heed that they did not pro 
 duce consequences injurious to the community. Is it not extra 
 ordinary that we should be reproached with what was, in fact, 
 confidence in the noble Lord and right hon. Gentleman, by the 
 very men who are seeking to raise that noble Lord and right hon. 
 Gentleman to power ? If the provisions of the Reform Bill point 
 to Chartism if the doctrines of Chartism are to be traced to the 
 spirit of that enactment, then, Sir, I am bound to say that none 
 more than the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman are 
 answerable for it. If men are to be deemed disqualified for places 
 in the councils of their Sovereign, because they exerted themselves 
 lo carry that bill, because they appealed to the people to support 
 that bill, because they employed means, certainly lying within the 
 verge of the law, but certainly also, as has been observed, just 
 within the confines of prudence, then, Sir, I do say that no men in 
 this empire lie under a disqualification for office more complete, 
 more entire, than the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. Sir, 
 I leave to them the task of defending themselves; well are they 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 315 
 
 qualified by their talents to do so ; but if the noble Lord does not 
 answer, then it will remain for the right hon. Baronet, who twice 
 offered both of them places in his Cabinet, to do so. If the noble 
 Lord and the right hon. Baronet (or, as I trust he will permit me, 
 in spite of some few asperities this evening, to call him my right 
 hon. Friend) will forgive me, I would offer some considerations in 
 extenuation of their conduct. I would say, "You condemn agita 
 tion. Do you mean to say that abuses shall never be removed ? 
 If they are to be removed, then I ask, is it possible that any great 
 abuse can, in a country like this, be removed till the public feeling 
 is against it, or that the public feeling can be raised and kept up 
 without arguments, without exertions, both by speech and writing, 
 the holding of public meetings, and other means of a like nature ?" 
 Sir, I altogether deny that assertion or insinuation, which IJieard 
 over and over again, both yesterday and this night, in this House, 
 that a Government which countenances, or does not discountenance, 
 agitation will not punish rebellion. There may be a sirnilftrity hi 
 the simple act between the man who bleeds and the man who 
 stabs ; but is there no difference in the nature of the action in its 
 intent and in its effects ? I do not believe there has been one 
 instance of justifiable insurrection in this country for a century and 
 a-half. On the other hand, I hold agitation to be essential, not 
 only to the obtaining of good and just measures, but to the exist 
 ence of a free Government itself. If you choose to adopt the prin 
 ciple of Bishop Horsley, that the people have nothing to do with 
 the laws but to obey them, then, indeed, you may deprecate agita 
 tion ; but, while we live in a free country, and under a free Govern 
 ment, your deprecation is vain and untenable. If a man lives in 
 Russia and can obtain an audience of the Emperor Nicholas or of 
 Count Nesselrode, and can produce proof that certain views he 
 entertains are sound, certain plans he proposes would be attended 
 with practical benefit, then, indeed, without agitation, without pub 
 lic discussion, with a single stroke of the pen, a great and important 
 
316 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 change is at once effected. Not so, Sir, in this country. Here the 
 people must be appealed to the public voice must be consulted. 
 In saying this have I defended one party alone have I not 
 defended alike both the great parties in this House ? Have we not 
 heard of agitation against the Catholic claims ? Has there been 
 no agitation against the Poor-law ? Has there been no agitation 
 against Education ? Has there been no agitation against the 
 Catholic Privy Councillors ? But to pass, Sir, from questions about 
 which there may fairly exist a difference of opinion, to measures 
 upon which we must all agree to pass to a measure of the proud 
 est, grandest nature that ever received the sanction of a legisla 
 ture ; I say that the Slave-trade would never have been abolished 
 without agitation. I say that slavery would never have been 
 abolished without agitation. Would your prison discipline, or the 
 severities of your penal code, have been ameliorated without agita 
 tion ? I am far, very far, Sir, from denying that agitation may be 
 much abused that it may be carried to a most unjustifiable 
 length. But, Sir, so also may freedom of speech in this House, so 
 also may the liberty of the press. What is agitation when it is 
 examined, but the mode in which the people in the great outer 
 assembly debate ? Is it not as necessary that they should have 
 their discussion without the walls of this House, as we who sit 
 within them ? There may, indeed, be occasional asperities in popu 
 lar meetings, as experience has shown that there frequently are in 
 debates in this House, but that is no reason why freedom of debate 
 should be abridged in either. I know well that agitation is fre 
 quently used to excite the people to resist the law, but that that is 
 a proper subject for animadversion upon the Magistrates, I deny 
 that the agitation of the present time is evidence of the agitation 
 of the Government of Lord Grey, I deny. It is perfectly true that 
 what is said in this House, or any other public assembly, though 
 it may be moderate, reasonable, and may point only to the legal 
 remedy for an abuse, may yet be taken up by the disingenuous 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 317 
 
 man, and be so twisted, distorted, and perverted, that it may excite 
 the populace to acts of crime. I have heard within the walls of 
 this House, the right hon. Gentleman opposite not, I am sure, 
 with any improper motive apply to secret meetings of men for 
 lawless purposes, expressions which the noble Lord used only with 
 respect to public and open meetings. The right hon. Gentleman 
 ought to remember, that his own words have been applied by bad 
 men for the delusion of the multitude. One of the speeches which 
 has been used by the Chartists as a handle for their excesses, was a 
 speech of the right lion. Baronet. Do I blame him for that? No. 
 He said nothing which was not within the just line of his duty as a 
 Member of this House. I allude to a speech which the right hon. 
 Baronet made upon the subject of the emoluments divided among 
 the Privy Councillors. I fully acquit the right hon. Gentleman of 
 saying anything that was not in strict conformity with his duty, 
 but it is impossible for any man so to guard his expressions that 
 bad men shall not misconstrue, and ignorant men misunderstand 
 them. I therefore throw no censure upon the right hon. Baronet, 
 but I do say, that the very circumstance of his own speech having 
 been perverted should make him pause, before bringing charges 
 against men not less attached than himself to the peace and well- 
 being of society charges having no better foundation than bad 
 reports of their speeches, and his own misapprehension of them. 
 Now, Sir, to pass by many topics which, but for the lateness of the 
 hour I would willingly advert to, I come to that which is really 
 the point. This is not less a comparative than a positive question. 
 The meaning of the vote is not, clearly, whether this House ap 
 proves in all respects of the conduct of the Government it is 
 whether this House conceives that a better one can at present be 
 formed. All government is imperfect, but some government there 
 must be; and if the present Government were far worse than any 
 hon. Gentleman on the o.ther side would represent it to be, still it 
 would be every man s duty to support it if he did not see that a 
 
318 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 better one would supply its place. Now, Sir, I take it to be per 
 fectly clear that in the event of the resignation of the present 
 Administration one must be formed, the first place of which must 
 be filled by the right lion. Baronet opposite. Towards that right 
 hon. Baronet, arid towards many of those Noblemen and Gentlemen 
 who, in such an event, would be associated with him, I entertain 
 nothing but kindly and respectful feelings. I am far very far I 
 hope from that narrowness of mind which can see merit in no 
 party but his own. If I may venture to parody the old Venetian 
 proverb, I would say, " Be first an Englishman, and then a Whig." 
 Sir, I feel proud for my country when I think how much of inte 
 grity how many virtues and talents which would adorn any sta 
 tion, are to be found among the ranks of my political opponents. 
 Among them, conspicuous for his high character and ability, stands 
 the right hon. Baronet. When I have said this, I have said enough 
 to prove that nothing is further from me than to treat him with the 
 smallest discourtesy in the remarks which, in the discharge of my 
 public duty, I shall feel it necessary to make upon his policy and 
 that of his party. But, Sir, it has been his misfortune, it has been 
 his fate, to belong to a party with whom he has had less sympathy 
 than any head ever had with any party. I speak of that which is 
 a matter of history. I speak now of times long ago. He declared 
 himself decidedly in favour of those principles of free trade which 
 made Mr. Huskisson odious to a great portion of the com 
 munity. The right hon. Baronet gave every facility for the remo 
 val of the disabilities of Protestant Dissenters. The right hon. 
 Baronet brought in a Bill for the relief of Catholic disabilities ; yet 
 what we are charged with is bringing that enactment into practical 
 operation. The right hon. Baronet declared himself in favour of 
 the Poor-law ; yet if a voice is raised against the " Whig bastiles," 
 or " the tyrants of Somerset House," that cry is sure to proceed 
 from some person who wishes to vote the right hon. Baronet into 
 power. Even upon this great question of privilege, upon which 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 319 
 
 the right lion. Baronet has taken a part which ought to render his 
 name to the end of time honourable in the opinion of this House, 
 and of all who value its privileges, I cannot but conceive that the 
 right lion. Gentleman is at variance with the great body of his sup 
 porters. Sir, I have also observed that where the right hon. 
 Baronet does agree with the great body of his supporters in con 
 clusions, he seldom arrives at thosa conclusions by the same pn> 
 cess of reasoning by which their minds are led. Many great ques 
 tions which they consider as of stern and unbendin-g morality, and 
 of strict principle, have been viewed by him as mere points of 
 expediency, of place, and of time. I have not heard one allegation 
 against the Government of Lord Melbourne which w r ould not enable 
 a Government formed by the right hon. Baronet to bring in, with 
 some little variation, the same measures. I listened to the right 
 hon. Baronet I always listen to him with pleasure upon the sub 
 ject of education, and I could not but be amused at the skill with 
 which he endeavoured to give the reasons of a statesman for the 
 course of a bigot ; and my conclusion, as I listened, was that he 
 thought as I did with respect to the Douay version and the Normal 
 schools. Sir, I ani irresistibly brought to this conclusion, that in a 
 conjuncture like the present, the right hon. Baronet can conduct 
 the administration of affairs with neither honour to himself, nor 
 with satisfaction to that party who seek to force him into office. 
 I will not affect to feel apprehensions from which I am entirely 
 free. I will not say that I think the right hon. Baronet will act 
 the part of a tyrant. I do not think he will give up this country 
 to the tender mercies of the bigoted part and which form so large 
 a part of his followers. I do not believe he would strike out the 
 names of all Catholics from office and from the Privy Council. 
 Nor, Sir, do I believe that the right hon. Baronet will come down 
 to the House with a Bill for a repeal of his own great measure. 
 But, Sir, what I think he will attempt to do is this he will attempt 
 to keep terms with that party which raises him to power by a course 
 
320 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 which would soon excite the gravest discontents in att parts of the 
 empire. And at the same time I think, Sir, that he will not 
 carry the course of his administration far enough to keep their 
 steady support. The result I think, will be this that the right 
 hon. Baronet will lose the support of a great portion of his own 
 party, and, at the same time, he will not gain the support of the 
 other, till at last his Government will fail from causes purely 
 internal. Sir, we have not to act in this merely upon conjecture. 
 We have beheld the same piece performed on the same scene, and 
 by the same actors, at no distant period. In 1827, the right hon. 
 Baronet was, as now, at the head of a powerful opposition. He 
 had a strong minority in this House, and a majority in the House 
 of Lords ; he was the idol of the Church and of the Universities ; 
 and all those who dreaded change all those who were hostile to 
 the principles of liberty and the rights of conscience, considered 
 him their leader ; he was opposed to those Members who were 
 sometimes called Papists, and sometimes idolaters ; he was opposed 
 to a Government which was said to have obtained power by per 
 sonal intrigue and Court favour. At last the right hon. Baronet 
 rises to the principal place in this House. Free from those diffi 
 culties which had embarrassed him, he was in opposition when Tory 
 bigotry had found for the greatest orator, and the most accom 
 plished of Tory statesmen in the nineteenth century, a resting-place 
 in Westminster Abbey, and the right hon. Baronet appeared at the 
 head of Government upon this bench, and those who had raised 
 him to power with the loudest acclamations, and deemed that 
 their expectations must necessarily be accomplished. Is it neces 
 sary to say in what disappointment in what sorrow in what fury 
 all those expectations ended ? The right hon. Baronet had been 
 raised to power by prejudices and by passions in which he had no 
 share. His followers were bigots ; he was a statesman. He was 
 calmly balancing conveniences and inconveniences, whilst they were 
 ready to prefer confiscation, proscription, civil war, to the smallest 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 321 
 
 concession to public feeling. The right hon. Baronet attempted to 
 stand well with his party, and at the same time to perform some 
 part of his duty to his country. Vain effort ! His elevation, as it 
 had excited the hopes and expectations of his own party, awakened 
 gloomy apprehensions in other quarters. Agitation in Ireland, 
 .which for a time had slumbered, awakened with renewed vigour, 
 and became more formidable than ever. The Roman Catholic 
 Association rose to a height of power such as the Irish Parliament 
 in the days of its independence never possessed. Violence engen 
 dered violence ; scenes such as the country for long years had not 
 witnessed, announced that the time of evasion and delay was 
 passed. A crisis was arrived, in which it was absolutely necessary 
 for the Government of the day to take one part or the other. A 
 plain and simple issue was proposed to the right hon. Baronet 
 either to disgust his party or ruin his country. He chose the good 
 path ; he performed a painful, in some sense a humiliating, but in 
 point of fact a most truly honourable part. He came down him 
 self to propose to this House the great measure of Roman Catholic 
 Emancipation. Amongst the followers of the right hon. Baronet, 
 there were some who, like himself, had considered opposition to 
 the Catholic claims purely as a matter of expediency. These rea 
 dily changed about, and consented to support his altered policy. 
 But not so the great body of those who had previously followed 
 the right hon. Baronet. With them, opposition to the Roman 
 Catholics was a passion, which a mistaken sense of duty bound 
 them to cherish. They had been deceived, and it would have been 
 more agreeable to them to think, that they had been deceived by 
 others than by one of their own sect one whom they themselves 
 had been the means of raising to a permanent place in the Admi 
 nistration of the country. How profound was their indignation ! 
 With what an explosion did their rage break forth ! None who 
 saw that time can ever forget the frantic fury with which the 
 
 former associates of the right hon. Baronet assailed their quondam 
 
 14* 
 
322 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 chief. Never was such a torrent of invective and calumny directed 
 against one single head. All history and all fiction were ran 
 sacked by his own followers to furnish terms of abuse and obloquy. 
 The right hon. Gentleman, whom I am sorry not now to see in his 
 place on the bench opposite, unable to express his feelings in the 
 language of English prose, pursued his late chief with reproaches 
 borrowed from the ravings of the deserted Dido. Another, wrest 
 ing to his use the page of holy writ, likened him to Judas Iscariot. 
 The great university, which heretofore had been proud to confer 
 upon him the highest marks of its favour, was now foremost to fix 
 upon him the brand of disgrace and infamy. Men came up in 
 crowds from Oxford to vote against him, whose presence a few days 
 before would have set the bells of all their churches jingling. The 
 whole hatred of the high Church party towards those to whom 
 they had previously been opposed, was sunk and absorbed in this 
 new aversion ; and thence it happened that the Ministry, which in 
 the beginning of 1828 was one of the strongest that the country 
 ever saw, was at the end of 1829 one of the weakest that a politi 
 cal opponent could desire to combat. It lingered on another year, 
 struggling between two parties, leaning now on the Whigs, now 
 on the Tories reeling sometimes beneath a blow from the right, 
 sometimes from a blow on the left certain to fall as soon as the 
 two parties should unite in their efforts to defeat it. At last it fell, 
 attacked by the whole body of the Church, and of the Tory gentry 
 in England. Now, what I wish to know is this : What reason 
 have we to believe, that from an Administration now formed by 
 the right hon. Baronet we could anticipate any different result. 
 The right hon. Baronet is still the same he is still a statesman ? 
 Yes still a statesman, high in intellect, moderate in opinions, calm 
 in temper, free from the fanaticism which is found in so large a 
 measure among his followers. I will not say, that the party which 
 follows him is still the same, for in my opinion it has undergone a 
 change, and that change is this it has become fiercer and more 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 323 
 
 intolerant even than in clays gone by. I judge by the language 
 arid doctrines of its press ; I judge by the proceedings of its public 
 meetings ; I judge by its pulpits pulpits which are every week 
 teeming with invective and slander that would disgrace the hust 
 ings. A change has of late come over the spirit of a part, I hope 
 not the most considerable part, of the Tory party. It was once 
 the boast of that party, that through all changes of fortune they 
 cherished feelings of loyalty, which rendered their very errors 
 respected, and gave to servitude something of the dignity and 
 worthiness of freedom. A great Tory poet, who, in his lifetime, 
 was largely requited for his loyalty, said 
 
 " Our loyalty is still the same, 
 Whether it win or lose the game, 
 True as the dial to the sun, 
 Although it be not shone upon." 
 
 We see now a very different race of Tories. We have lived to 
 see a new party rear its head a monster of a party, made up of 
 the worst points of the Cavalier and the worst points of the Round 
 head. We have lived to see a race of disloyal tories. We have 
 lived to see Toryism giving itself the airs of those insolent pipemen 
 who puffed out smoke in the face of Charles the First. We have 
 lived to see Toryism, which, because it is not suffered to grind the 
 people after the fashion of Strafford, turns round and abuses the 
 Sovereign after the fashion of (the remainder of the sentence was 
 lost in the cheers of the House.) It is my firm belief that the 
 party by which the present motion is supported throughout the 
 country desire the repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Act. For 
 what I say, I will give my reasons, which I think are unanswera 
 ble. In what other way, am I to explain the outcry which has 
 been raised throughout the whole of the country about the three 
 Papist Privy Councillors ? Is the Catholic Emancipation Act to 
 be maintained ? If it is to be maintained, execute it. Is it to be 
 
324 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 abandoned ? If so, openly and candidly avow it. If it is not to 
 be executed, can anything be more absurd than to retain it upon 
 the statute book ? The Tory party resent as a monstrous calumny 
 the imputation that they wish to get rid of the Emancipation Act ; 
 but the moment that an attempt is made to execute it, even to a 
 small extent, they set up a cry as if Church and State were going 
 to ruin. For the repeal of the Emancipation Act, I can see a 
 reason in the desire to repeal it, I see a meaning a baneful 
 meaning a pernicious meaning, but still a meaning ; but I cannot 
 see a particle of reason nor a glimpse of meaning, in the conduct of 
 those who say, " We will retain the Emancipation Act ; those who 
 say we desire to repeal it are calumniators and slanderers ; we are 
 as sensible of the importance of that Act as any party in the coun 
 try," but who, the moment that an attempt is made to execute one 
 jot or tittle of it, exclaim, " No, if you attempt to put the Act in 
 force, we will agitate against you, for we, too, have our agitation; 
 we will denounce you in our associations, for we, too, have our 
 associations ; our oracles shall be sent forth to talk of civil war, of 
 rebellion, of resistance to the laws, and to give hints about the fate 
 of James 2nd to give hints that a Sovereign who has merely exe 
 cuted the law may be treated like a Sovereign who has most grossly 
 violated the law." I could understand a person who told me, that 
 he had a strong objection to admit Roman Catholics to power 
 or office in England ; but how any man who professes not 
 to think, that an invidious distinction should be made between 
 Catholic and Protestant, can bring himself to the persuasion that 
 the Roman Catholics in this country enjoy more than a fair share 
 of official power and emolument, I own passes my comprehension. 
 "What is the proportion of Roman Catholics to the whole popula 
 tion of the kingdom ? About one fourth. What is the proportion 
 of Roman Catholic Privy Councillors ? Perhaps three to two hun 
 dred. And what, after all, is the dignity of a Privy Councillor ? 
 what power does the ieat of a Privy Councillor, merely as such, 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 82-5 
 
 confer ? Are not the hon. Gentlemen opposite Privy Councillors ? 
 If a change of administration were effected to-morrow, and the 
 right hon. Gentlemen opposite were to come into office, would not 
 those whom they displaced, be still Privy Councillors ? In point 
 of fact, the seat of a Privy Councillor absolutely confers no power 
 whatever. Yet, we are seriously called upon to believe, that men, 
 who think it monstrous that this mere futile honorary distinction 
 should be given to three Roman Catholics, do still in their hearts 
 desire to maintain a law by which a Roman Catholic may become 
 Commander-in-chief, with all the promotion of the army in his 
 hands ; First Lord of the Admiralty, with all the patronage of the 
 navy Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, entrusted 
 with all the interests of the country, as connected with foreign 
 states Secretary for the Colonies, with the whole conduct of our 
 remoter dependencies or First Lord of the Treasury, possessing 
 the chief influence in every department of the state. I say, there 
 fore, that unless I suppose, that a great portion of the Opposition 
 who have raised throughout England, the cry against the three 
 Roman Catholic Privy Councillors unless I suppose them more 
 childish, more imbecile than I would willingly suppose any number 
 of my fellow-countrymen to be, I must suspect that the abolition 
 of the Catholic Emancipation Act, is the chief object of a great 
 pro-portion of that party which now ranges itself in direct hostility 
 to the Government. The right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) is, in 
 my opinion, the same that he was in 1829; but his party, instead 
 of being the same, is worse than it was at that period. The diffi 
 culty of governing Ireland, in opposition to the feelings of the great 
 body of the people, is, I apprehend, now as great as ever it was. 
 The right hon. Baronet, last year, was deeply impressed with that 
 difficulty. The impossibility of governing Ireland in conformity 
 with the sense of the great body of the people, and, at the same 
 time, in conformity with the views and opinions of his own follow 
 ers, is now, I apprehend, as great as ever. What, then, is to be 
 
326 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 the end of an Administration of whicli the right hon. Baronet 
 should be head ? Supposing the right hon. Baronet to come into 
 office by the vote to-night, should I be wrong if I were to prophesy 
 that, three years hence, he would be more vilified by the Tory 
 party, than the present Government has ever been ? Should I be 
 very wrong, if I were to prophesy, that all the literary organs of 
 his party now forward to sound his praise, would be amongst the 
 foremost, the boldest, and the loudest to denounce him ? Should 
 T be very wrong if I were to prophesy that he would be burnt in 
 effigy by the very people who are now clamorous to toast his 
 health ? Should I be very wrong if I were to prophesy that the 
 very party who now crowd the House to vote him into power, 
 would then crowd the lobby to bring Lord Melbourne back ? Yes, 
 already have I seen the representatives of the Church, and of the 
 Universities of England, crowding the lobby of the House, for the 
 purpose of driving the right hon. Baronet from the place to which 
 they had previously raised him. I went out with them myself, 
 when the whole body of the Tory Gentlemen all the Represent 
 atives of the Church and of the Universities united to force the 
 right hon. Baronet from the position which he occupied in the 
 councils of his Sovereign, I went out into the lobby, as the right 
 hon. Baronet, the Member for Pembroke (Sir James Graham), will 
 bear me witness, when those Gentlemen went out for the purpose 
 of bringing into power Lord Grey, Lord Al thorp, Lord Brougham, 
 and Lord Durham. You may say, that they reasoned ill perhaps 
 they were weak perhaps they did not see all that would happen. 
 But so it was ; and what has been once may be again. As far as 
 I can see my way, it is absurd to suppose, that the party of whicli 
 the right hon. Baronet is the head, would be content with less from 
 him than they would take from Lord Melbourne. I believe just 
 the contrary. I believe, that of all men in the world, the right 
 hon. Baronet is most the object of distrust to the party opposite. 
 They suffer him to remain at their head, because his great abili- 
 
CONFIDENCE JN THE MINISTRY. 327 
 
 ties, his eloquence, his influence arc necessary to them ; but. they 
 distrust him, because they never can forget that in the greatest 
 crisis of his public life, he chose rather to be the victim of their 
 injustice than to be its instrument. It is absurd to say, that that 
 party will never be propitiated by any partition amongst their 
 chiefs of the power or fruits of office. They can truly adopt the 
 maxim, " measures not men." They care not who has the sword 
 of state borne before him at Dublin they list not who wears the 
 badge of Saint Patrick on his breast what they dislike, what they 
 are invincibly opposed to, are the two great principles which had 
 governed the administrations of Lord Normanby and Lord Eb ring- 
 ton justice and mercy. What they want is not Lord Iladding- 
 ton, or any other nobleman of their own party whom the right lion. 
 Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) might appoint to the Yiceroyalty of Ire 
 land ; but the tyranny of race over race, and creed over creed. 
 Give them this power, and you convulse the empire ; withhold it, . 
 and you break up the Tory party. Supposing the vote of to-night 
 to be carried in the affirmative, the right lion. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) 
 would not be a month in office before the dilemma of 1829 would 
 be again before him. With every respect for his intentions, with 
 the highest opinion of his ability, I believe that at this moment it 
 would be utterly impossible for him to head the Administration of 
 this, country without producing the most dreadful calamities to Ire 
 land. Of this I believe he was himself sensible when he was last 
 year called upon to form an Administration. The state of the 
 empire was not at that time very cheering. The Chartists were 
 abroad in England the aspect of Canadian affairs \vas not pleas 
 ing an expedition was pending in the East which had not then 
 ended in success discontent prevailed in the West Indies. Yet, in 
 the midst of all these troubles, the discerning eye of the right hon. 
 Baronet left him in no doubt as to the quarter in which his real dan 
 ger lay he knew twas Ireland. The right hon. Baronet admitted 
 that his great difficulty would be in the government of Ireland. I 
 
828 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 believe that the present ministry possessed the confidence of the 
 great body of the people of Ireland ; and I believe that what it does 
 for the people of Ireland, it can do with less irritation from the oppo 
 site party in England, than the right hon. Baronet would find it 
 possible to do. I believe that if, with the best and purest inten 
 tions, the right hon. Baronet were to undertake the Government 
 of this country, he would find that it was very easy indeed to lose 
 the confidence of the party which raised him to power ; but very 
 difficult indeed to gain that which the present Government happily 
 possessed the confidence of the people of Ireland. It is upon 
 these grounds, and principally upon the question of Ireland, that I 
 should be inclined to rest the case of the present Ministry. I know 
 well, how little chance there is of finding here or anywhere an 
 unprejudiced audience upon this subject. Would to God that I 
 were speaking to an audience that would judge this great contro 
 versy fairly and with an unbiassed mind, and as it will be judged 
 by future ages. The passions which inflame us the sophistries 
 which delude us, will not last for ever. The paroxysms of faction 
 have their appointed season, even the madness of fanaticism is but 
 for a day. The time is coming when our conflicts will be to others 
 as the conflicts of our forefathers are to us ; when our priests who 
 convulse the State our politicians who make a stalking-horse of 
 the Church, will be no more than the Harleys and Sacheverells of 
 a by-gone day ; and when will be told, in a language very different 
 from that which now draws forth applause at Exeter Hall, the story 
 of these troubled years. Then it will be said that there was a por. 
 tion of the empire which presented a striking contrast to a portion 
 of the rest. Not that it was doomed to sterility, for the soil was 
 fruitful and well watered not that it wanted facilities for com. 
 merce and trade, for its coasts abounded in havens marked by 
 nature to be the marts of the whole world not that the people 
 were too proud to improve these advantages or too pusillanimous 
 to defend them, for iu endurance ef toil and gallantry of spirit 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 329 
 
 they were conspicuous amongst the nations but the bounty of 
 nature was rendered unavailable from the tyranny of man. In the 
 twelfth century this- fair country was a conquered province, the 
 nineteenth found it a conquered province still. During the interval 
 many great changes took place in other parts of the empire, con 
 ducing in the highest degree to the happiness and welfare of man 
 kind ; but to Ireland they brought only aggravation and misery. 
 The Reformation came, bringing with it the blessings of Divine 
 truth and intellectual liberty. To Ireland it brought only religious 
 animosity, to add flame and fuel to the heats of national animosity, 
 and to give, in the name of " Papist," another war-cry to animate 
 the struggle between England and Ireland. The Revolution came, 
 bringing to England and Scotland civil and religious liberty to 
 Ireland it brought only persecution and degradation. In 1829 
 came Catholic Emancipation, but it came too late, and came too 
 ungraciously it came as a concession made to fear ; it was not 
 followed nor accompanied by a suitable line of policy. It had 
 excited many hopes it was followed by disappointment. Then 
 came irritation and a host of perils on both sides. If agitation 
 produced coercion, coercion gave rise to fresh agitation : the diffi 
 culties and danger of the country thickened on every hand, until 
 at length arose a Government which, all other means having failed, 
 determined to try the only means that have never yet been fairly 
 and fully applied to Ireland humanity and justice. The State, so 
 long the step-mother of the many, and the mother only of the few, 
 became now the common parent of all the great family. The great 
 body of the people began to look upon the Government as a kind 
 and beneficent parent. Battalion after battalion squadron after 
 squadron was withdrawn from the shores of Ireland ; yet every 
 day property became more secure, and order more manifest. Such 
 symptoms as cannot be counterfeited such as cannot be disguised 
 began to appear; and those who once despaired of that great 
 portion of the commonwealth, began to entertain a confident hope 
 
330 CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 
 
 that it would at length take its place among the nations of Eu 
 rope, and assume that position to which it is entitled by its own 
 natural resources, and by the wit and talent of its children. This, 
 I feel, the history of the present Government of Ireland will one 
 day prove. Let it thus go on ; and then as far as I am con 
 cerned, I care not w T hat the end of this debate may be, or whether 
 we stand or fall. That question it remains with the House to 
 decide. Whether the result will be victory or defeat I know not ; 
 but I know that there are defeats not less glorious than even vic 
 tory itself ; and yet I have seen and I have shared in some glori 
 ous victories. Those were proud and happy days even my right 
 hon. Friend who last addressed you will remember them, those 
 were proud and happy days when, amidst the praises and blessings 
 of millions, my noble Friend led us on in the great struggle for the 
 Reform Bill when hundreds waited around our doors till sun-rise 
 to hear the tidings of our success and when the great cities of the 
 empire poured forth their populations on the highways to meet the 
 mails that were bringing from the capital the tidings whether the 
 battle of the people was lost or won. Those days were such days 
 as my noble Friend cannot hope to see again. Two such triumphs 
 would be too much for one life. But, perhaps, there still awaits 
 him a less pleasing, a less exhilarating, but not a less honourable 
 task, the task of contending against superior numbers, through 
 years of discomfiture, to maintain those civil liberties those rights 
 of conscience which are inseparably associated with the name of 
 his illustrious house. At his side will not be wanting men who, 
 against all odds, and through all the turns of fortune, amidst evil 
 days and evil tongues, will defend to the last, with unabated spirit, 
 the noble principles of Milton and Locke. He may be driven from 
 office he may be doomed to a life of opposition he may be made 
 the mark for all the rancour of sects which may hate each other 
 with a deadly hate, yet hate his toleration more he may be 
 exposed to the fury of a Laud on one side, and to the fanaticism 
 
CONFIDENCE IN THE MINISTRY. 331 
 
 of a Praise-God-Barebones but a portion of the praise which we 
 bestow on the old martyrs and champions of freedom will not be 
 refused by posterity to those who have, in these our days, endea 
 voured to bind together in real union, sects and races, too long 
 hostile to each other, and to efface, by the mild influence of a 
 parental Government, the fearful traces which have been left by 
 the misrule of ages. 
 
THANKS TO THE INDIAN ARMY.* 
 
 FEBRUARY 6, 1840. 
 
 HE could not refrain from expressing his high gratification at the 
 unanimity of the House on this very interesting occasion, and at 
 the manner especially in which the right hon. Baronet [Sir B. Peel] 
 had expressed himself in reference to the conduct of the British in 
 India. It was not his intention to enter into any of the political 
 questions which might be considered in connection with this expe 
 dition, Cut he wished to make a remark upon what had fallen from 
 the right hon. Baronet in reference to Lord Auckland. The right 
 hon. Gentleman had omitted all mention of a case of the highest 
 importance the case of Lord Minto to whom, after the reduction 
 of Java, the thanks of the House were awarded for the part which 
 he had taken in superintending the military arrangements ; nor 
 was the right hon. Baronet correct in supposing that Lord Welles- 
 ley had only received the thanks of Parliament as Captain-general, 
 since he also received the thanks of the House in connection with 
 the taking of Seringapatam, when he did not act as Captain-gene 
 ral. He quite conceded to the right hon. Baronet the right, and 
 he fully admitted the propriety, of reserving his opinion as to the 
 general policy under which the expedition took place, till the 
 results were known ; but his own conviction was, that this great 
 event would be found, in its results, highly conducive to the pros 
 perous state of our finances in India, and that, as a measure of 
 economy, it would be found not less deserving of praise than it 
 confessedly was in a military point of view. He could bear witness 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. li. p. 1334-1336. 
 
THANKS TO THE INDIAN ARMY. 333 
 
 to some of the circumstances to which his right hon. Friend had 
 alluded. Among many peculiarities of our Indian empire there 
 was no one more remarkable than this that the people whom we 
 governed there were a people whose estimate of our power some 
 times far exceeded the truth,. and sometimes fell far short of it. 
 They knew nothing of our resources ; they were ignorant of our 
 geographical position ; they knew nothing of the political condition 
 of the relative power of any of the European states. They saw us 
 come and go, but it was upon an element with which they were 
 not acquainted, and which they held in horror. It was no exag 
 geration to state that not merely the common people, but the upper 
 classes nay, even the ministers of the native provinces were, 
 almost without exception, so profoundly ignorant of European 
 affairs that they could not tell whether the King of the French or 
 the Duke of Modena was the greatest potentate. Further, he could 
 tell the House this when he was in India there was a restless, 
 unquiet feeling existing in the minds of our subjects, neighbours, 
 and subsidiary allies a disposition to look forward to some great 
 change, to some approaching revolution ; to think that the power 
 of England was no longer what it had been proved to be in former 
 times. There was a disposition to war on the part of Ava and 
 other states ; on every side, in short, there had prevailed a feeling 
 in the public mind in India, which, unchecked, might have led the 
 way to great calamities ; but this great event, this great triumph 
 at Ghuznee, acted so signally by the British troops, had put down, 
 with a rapidity hardly ever known in history, this restless and 
 uneasy feeling ; and there never was a period at which the opinion 
 of our valour and skill, and what was of equal importance, the 
 confidence in our " star," was higher than it now was in India. 
 He believed that the right hon. Baronet opposite would find reason 
 to think that all the expense incurred by these thousands of camels 
 and thousands of troops was sound and profitable economy. He 
 had seen something of the brave men who defended our Indian 
 
334 THANKS TO THE INDIAN ARMY. 
 
 empire, and it had been matter of great delight to him to see the 
 warm attachment to their country and their countrymen which 
 animated them in that distant land, and which added a ten-fold 
 force to the zeal and vigour with which they performed their ardu 
 ous duties. While he was on this point, let him remark that there 
 was a disposition in that gallant service to imagine that they were 
 not sufficiently appreciated at home ; to think that the Indian ser 
 vice was not so highly considered in England as other services not 
 less able, nor performed with less jeopardy, in other countries. It 
 was extraordinary to see the interest, with what gratification, the 
 smallest scrap, the merest line, in an English newspaper, conveying 
 any praise on this service, was received by them, and their delight 
 would be extreme when they came to read the vote of thanks 
 which had been conferred on them unanimously by the House of 
 Lords, and which he trusted would be passed as unanimously by 
 the House of Commons, the more especially accompanied as it was 
 by the testimony to their merits borne by the greatest general that 
 England ever produced. At the same time that this well-merited 
 tribute conferred the highest pleasure on the brave men who shared 
 in the expedition, it would serve as a powerful inducement to every 
 other man in that gallant service to expose himself to every peril 
 and every privation when the interests of the empire required it. 
 
335 
 
 PRIVILEGE STOCKDALE v. HANSARDBILL TO 
 SECURE PUBLICATION.* 
 
 MARCH 6, 1840. 
 
 HE promised not to detain the House for more than a few minutes, 
 but he confessed he had listened with so much pain to the expres 
 sions of his noble Friend, and of one or two other Gentlemen 
 with whom, during the former proceedings upon this subject, he 
 had most cordially concurred, that he was exceedingly unwilling to 
 allow the question to go to a division without explaining, very 
 briefly, the ground upon which he should give his vote. He had 
 not as yet taken any part in the discussions upon this question. 
 He would not again go over the ground which others had already 
 trod with an ability and eloquence which he was sensible he could 
 only feebly imitate. He would only say, in general, that he 
 believed the House of Commons to be, by the law of the land, 
 the sole judge of its own privileges that he believed the privilege 
 of publication to be by the law of the realm one of the privileges 
 of the House that he believed it to be a privilege essential to 
 the due discharge of the duties of the House that he believed 
 the decision of the Queen s Bench, which attacked that privilege, 
 to have been a decision founded not on law nor on reason, and that 
 he never could give his support to any proposition that he con 
 ceived would tend to render that privilege doubtful. If the pro 
 position now before the House were for a law to provide that 
 henceforth this privilege should belong to the House of Commons, 
 to such a proposition he should give the strongest opposition. 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. 52, p. 1010-1016. 
 
336 BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 
 
 But such was not the proposition of his noble Friend. He could 
 perfectly understand, that by proposing to enact that such or such 
 should be the right and privilege of the House, a question might 
 be raised as to whether such a right or privilege had previously 
 existed. The declaration that it should exist hereafter might 
 appear to carry with it the implication that it had not existed 
 previously. But the proposition in the present case was altogether 
 different. All that was now proposed was by a new law to 
 provide a new remedy for enforcing an old and well-established 
 and undoubted privilege. He would take instances from cases 
 perfectly familiar to every one. Suppose any Gentleman should 
 propose to bring in a law to provide that a person holding a bill 
 of exchange for a good consideration, should be entitled to have 
 an action against the acceptor of that bill, to recover payment. 
 The consequence of such a proceeding would be to throw into a 
 state of doubt the whole of the negotiable paper current throughout 
 the kingdom. But if, on the other hand, a bill were proposed to 
 this effect that the means of holders of bills of exchange not 
 being sufficient to enable them to recover payment, therefore other 
 means should, by a new enactment, be extended to them would 
 any person tell him that a measure of such a nature, acknow 
 ledging the right to recover in the fullest extent, but giving to the 
 holders of negotiable papers an additional remedy would any 
 one tell him that such a measure would, in the smallest degree, 
 bring into question the previously existing right of the holders of 
 bills of exchange to proceed against the acceptors to recover 
 payment ? In point of fact, the proposition now before the House 
 was not to provide, by a new law, that the House should have the 
 privilege of publication not to affect any of the existing remedies 
 which the House already possessed for the vindication of its 
 privileges but simply to superadd a new remedy. It was not 
 even proposed to substitute the new remedy for the old ones. 
 The bill proposed by his noble Friend left the old remedies abso- 
 
BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 337 
 
 lutely untouched. If, after the passing of this bill, any other person 
 should think fit to imitate the example of Mr. Stockdale, and to set 
 the privileges of the House at defiance, it would be as much as ever 
 in the power of the House to send that person to prison. As he 
 understood the bill, it did not acknowledge, did not in any way 
 imply, that the House would not retain that power. It was founded 
 merely upon this that the remedies which the House now pos 
 sessed, were in some respects imperfect, in some respects incon 
 venient. Did not every Member of the House acknowledge that 
 fact ? The noble Lord had referred to conversations which took 
 place out of that House. Was there a single Member of the 
 House who, when he went into the lobby, would hesitate to admit 
 that there were some imperfections some inconveniences in the 
 remedies which it at present possessed for the vindication of its 
 privileges ? Was that a perfect remedy which applied only to 
 one half of the year which protected the privilege of the House 
 during the sitting of Parliament, but left it wholly unguarded 
 during the recess ? Was that a perfect remedy which could only 
 be applied by means of so large and so divided an assembly as 
 the House of Commons ? The noble Lord had stated what he 
 thought to be the cause why so many Gentlemen on the opposite 
 side of the House had ranged themselves against, what he con 
 ceived to be, the undoubted privilege of the House. But, 
 whatever the cause, could there be any doubt as to its effect ? 
 Was there any doubt that there was within the walls of that 
 House, a large body of Gentlemen who had done everything in 
 their power to prevent the House from enforcing its privileges ? 
 AVhat had been the loss of time upon this question ? Was it not 
 a matter of regret, that more time than had been occupied in the 
 discussion of the most important measures measures in which 
 the interests of every part of the empire were deeply concerned 
 had this year been devoted to the discussion of a subject vexatious 
 and troublesome in itself, important no doubt in many particulars, 
 VOL. T. 15 
 
338 BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 
 
 but singularly likely to be misconstrued and misunderstood by the 
 people ? His noble Friend said, he thought it necessary for the 
 vindication of the privileges of the House to imprison the sheriffs ; 
 but at the same time he said he acquitted them of all moral 
 blame. Was it not a matter of regret that the House to vindicate 
 itself should be obliged to imprison persons guilty of no moral 
 blame ? Was that a convenient course ? Let the House consider 
 the case of the sheriff. He was not a person who sought his 
 office not a person who was fined for his office. He was taken 
 and compelled to serve whether he would or not. He often made 
 great interest to be exempted. " No matter," said the right hon. 
 Gentleman, " you take him and compel him to serve you you 
 place him between two opposite forces he receives commands and 
 counter commands from both he cannot obey both, and the 
 moment he obeys one he. is sent to prison for not obeying the 
 other." Was that a state of the law desirable to be continued ? 
 Was it a state of the law in which the great body of the people 
 were likely to acquiesce ? He admitted that the House had no 
 choice in the matter ; it was compelled to imprison the sheriffs. 
 He admitted, also, that the noble Lord the member for Lancashire 
 had stated last night, that if the House had not imprisoned the 
 sheriffs, the Court of Queen s Bench would have imprisoned them. 
 But that fact, so far from being an argument against the course 
 now proposed by his noble Friend, appeared to him to furnish a 
 strong ground in support of it. If a nation were forced to go to 
 war, it was oftentimes compelled to make the innocent suffer with 
 the guilty. If, for instance, there were a small neutral Power 
 situated between two hostile and belligerent nations, however 
 anxious that small power might be to preserve its neutrality, and 
 to keep itself distinct from the quarrels of its neighbours, it would 
 almost inevitably happen, that one or other of the two great 
 Powers would find it necessary for the protection of its own imme 
 diate interests, or for the better prosecution of its hostilities, to 
 
BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 339 
 
 encroach on the independence of the smaller State, and to make 
 it an instrument in the advancement of its own views. This was 
 conspicuous during the last war in the case of Holland. We 
 know how little Holland liked Bonaparte how it detested his 
 continental system, how it hated his dominion yet we were at 
 last forced to blockade her ports, and to treat her with severity, 
 because it was essential to the preservation of our own interests 
 and our own independence. In the same way did he (Mr. 
 Macaulay) defend the necessity which compelled the House of 
 Commons to send the sheriffs to prison. But he maintained that 
 this was a state of things which rendered it absolutely necessary 
 for the House to resort to some legislative enactment to prevent a 
 recurrence of similar difficulties for the future. He did not under 
 stand what a Legislature existed for, if not to meet such cases as 
 these. If there were two powers in the State, neither of which 
 was in the nature of a Court of Appeal from the other if these 
 two powers gave counter orders to the same officer, and had the 
 power of imprisoning him if he disobeyed if the officer, dis 
 tracted between the two, obeyed one and was immediately impri 
 soned by the other, surely, if ever there was a case in the world 
 for legislative interference, that was one. Nay, he would go 
 further : the Solicitor- General stated last night that the House had 
 the power of commitment ; and then went on to contend that all 
 experience had shown that that power was sufficient to enable it 
 to vindicate its privileges. No doubt it would be sufficient, if it 
 were vested in the hands of a party who were ready to exercise it 
 unsparingly and unmercifully. If the House were in all cases to 
 do that, he certainly believed that it would have no difficulty in 
 carrying its point. They all knew how the ancestor of his noble 
 Friend the Member for Cornwall (Lord Eliot) was treated how 
 he was kept in prison till his spirits, health, and strength gave 
 way how his imprisonment was continued even to the hour of 
 his death. But in the present day it was impossible for .the House 
 
- BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 
 
 of Commons to pursue so liarsli a course. Their own good nature 
 would not allow them to do so. The feelings of the people would 
 not permit them to do so. The very moment that the health or 
 spirits of a prisoner began to suffer, that moment the House began 
 to relent, and either upon the instant, or shortly afterwards, the 
 prisoner was set at liberty. So that when the House possessed 
 itself of a prisoner of a robust and hardy constitution, it might 
 have the power of completely vindicating its privileges, by detain 
 ing him in prison till the question at issue was arranged ; but if 
 it happened to have a prisoner of a bilious and apoplectic habit, 
 in that case its privileges must be abandoned, or only feebly 
 asserted, because the health of the prisoner suffered from confine 
 ment. Even if the health of Mr. Stockdale himself should appear 
 to be seriously affected by his imprisonment, it was certain that he 
 would not long be detained in custody. Under these circum 
 stances, it appeared to him, that the House was absolutely com 
 pelled to seek some other mode of protecting and vindicating its 
 privileges. The noble Lord had asked, what would be the effect 
 if this bill should be carried through the House of Commons, and 
 lost in the House of Lords. He hoped that the bill would be 
 carried through both branches, of the Legislature. He hoped 
 most earnestly hoped that the other House of Parliament would 
 interfere to save the country from the scandals and the horrors 
 that would necessarily follow, if it drove the House of Commons, 
 in absolute self-defence, to use the whole of the extreme power 
 which it possessed for the protection of its privileges. But if the 
 Bill should unhappily miscarry in the House of Lords, then he 
 said this, that the House of Commons would be absolved. They 
 would have gone to the other House, not in a degrading or 
 humiliating manner they would have said, " We do possess the 
 power of vindicating our privileges we have the power, if we 
 please, of throwing the whole of the country into confusion we 
 can stop the supplies we can stop the Mutiny Act there is no 
 
BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 3 1 I 
 
 power which any political body can possess which we do not 
 possess we have the power of imprisoning every man who 
 invades our privileges we can commit every judge in the country, 
 not being a peer, if he do not respect our privileges. We have 
 the power of confining every ministerial officer who shall execute 
 the sentence of any court, if that sentence be at variance with 
 our privilege ; but it is not our wish, by means like these, to 
 enforce even the most necessary of our privileges. "We apply for 
 a new remedy, not because we have not in our power remedies 
 that are sufficiently stringent and effective, but because those 
 remedies are such, that some of them cannot be applied without 
 the dissolution of society, and a cruel pressure upon individuals ; 
 we have remedies sufficiently severe we look to you, my Lords, 
 to assist us in adopting one of a milder nature ; we have remedies 
 sufficiently powerful to enable us to attain our ends, but which, 
 from their severity, would be disagreeable to the great body of the 
 people we ask you, my Lords, to give us a remedy which the 
 whole of the people, without exception, will unite in approving." 
 He believed that by going before the House of Lords in that 
 manner, they would have the post of no mean suitors. He 
 believed that there would be nothing degrading on the part of 
 the House of Commons, in bringing forward a measure the object 
 of which was to secure the liberties of the people, and at the 
 same time to enable the House to act with greater lenity in all its 
 dealings with those who, from the misfortune of their situations, 
 or from some other cause over which they had little or no control, 
 had been guilty of violating its privileges. He believed that, if 
 the House of Lords refused to give its assent to such a measure, 
 the jlouse of Commons would then be fairly supported by public 
 opinion in the adoption of measures much stronger than any to 
 which it had yet resorted. He believed that measures stronger 
 even than those suggested by the hon. and learned member for 
 Dublin, would find a support out of the House greater than was 
 
342 BILL TO SECURE PUBLICATION. 
 
 imagined by any who sat within the House, if, having proposed a 
 mild remedy for the protection of its privileges, the House should 
 be told by the Lords, that to that mild remedy they would not 
 give their assent. 
 
343 
 
 THE ARMY ESTIMATES.* 
 
 MARCH 9, 1840. 
 
 His noble Friend (Lord John Russell) had relieved him from the 
 necessity of making some remarks which otherwise he should have 
 thought necessary in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for 
 Kilkenny. He should, therefore, at present only say that any 
 person who had heard that speech, and who was unacquainted 
 with the previous transactions of the country, would have been 
 very slow to believe that the military establishment proposed this 
 year was actually lower in men and charge than that for which 
 the hon. Gentleman himself both voted and spoke. It was only 
 on the 2d of August last, when his noble Friend proposed a sup 
 plemental estimate of 75,000. and an addition of men amounting 
 to 5,000, that the hon. Gentleman declared he would not take on 
 himself the responsibility of refusing that sum of money and 
 those men, which his noble Friend declared necessary for the 
 peace and honour of the state. He should be glad to know why 
 the arguments which the hon. Gentleman had used that evening 
 might not, on the 2d of August last year, have been urged with 
 equal effect. All the hon. Gentleman had said respecting the 
 refusal of justice to Canada, all he had said as to the refusal of jus 
 tice to England, all he had said of those monopolies, some of which 
 he, like the hon. Gentleman, disapproved, as pressing severely on 
 the people of this country, and all he had said as to the condition 
 of the country, might be said exactly with equal propriety and 
 effect on the 2nd of August last year, as it was now. In bringing 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. Hi. p. 1087-1096. 
 
344 ARMY ESTIMATES. 
 
 forward the estimates, which he should have the honour of pro 
 posing to be laid on the table, he should have the satisfaction, at 
 all events, of thinking that he could not be found liable to the 
 charge of profusion, if the Hon. Gentleman was acquitted of it. 
 The estimate brought forward by his noble Friend, the Member 
 for Northumberland, in February, was 6,119,0687. To that sum, 
 in August, was added 7o,000/., making the whole charge 
 6,1 94,06 Si. The whole charge this year would be 40,000^. more ; 
 but in this sum there was included a considerable charge for 
 Indian troops, which would be defrayed out of the Indian revenues. 
 The whole force estimated in February, 1839, including the force 
 for India, was 109,818 men, and this year it was 121,112, making 
 an addition of 11,294, but of these 7,746 were employed in 
 defence of India, and chargeable on the revenues of that country. 
 There remained an increase of 3,548 to be added to the 5,000 
 men voted last August. The additional force that he should have 
 to propose was 4,088. It might be proper to explain the mode in 
 which this addition was made, and the more so, because it would 
 refute, he thought, conclusively, an invidious insinuation of the 
 hon. Member for Kilkenny. About 500 were to be added by an 
 increase- of three companies to the 1st West-Indian regiment, and 
 he trusted that such a sum as w T as requisite would not be refused 
 for raising a force which would spare our own countrymen from 
 the hardships inseparable from foreign service. About 102 men 
 were provided for Malta, which the local authorities declared to be 
 absolutely necessary, not only for the garrison but for port-guard. 
 A small militia (so to, speak) was required for Bermuda. It was 
 thought desirable that a portion of the youth of Bermuda should 
 be formed, not as a separate company, but as a sort of body 
 appended to the best troops from England, and thus initiated in 
 the best system of military discipline ; and after having been for 
 some time so attached, to return to the mass of the population, 
 being relieved by a new set of young men. So that, in the course 
 
ARMY ESTIMATES. 345 
 
 of a few years, every man would be trained to the use of arms, 
 and be capable of bearing them should the public service require 
 it. In this manner was made the addition of 500 men which he 
 had spoken of. The remaining addition was made by 65 men 
 being added to every one of the 81 battalions of infantry in the 
 United Kingdom ; thus raising each from 835 to 900 men. 
 These 65 men consisted of 4 Serjeants, 4 corporals, and 57 privates. 
 To every one of the 20 battalions engaged last year in India 250 
 men were added, raising each from 853 to 1,103 men ; and, lastly, 
 of the two battalions transferred to India, the increase was made 
 from 835 to 1,103, being an addition of 268. And nowjie wished 
 particularly to call the attention of the House to this circumstance, 
 because the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilkenny had said, 
 he had observed that every Government had an interest in 
 proposing an increased force, because it placed at their disposal 
 many comfortable things. Now the whole additional regimental 
 charge for the increase to the 81 battalions he had referred to, did 
 not afford the Government or the Horse Guards, the means of 
 obliging a single acquaintance, or conferring a favour on one ten- 
 pound householder. He wished the House to understand, that if 
 the number of 4,408 which were to be added to the army, were 
 struck off, no means of disarming opposition, or gaining support, 
 would be taken away from the Crown. If any Gentleman took 
 the trouble of looking through the different ranks of the service, 
 he would find that the charge for officers this year was diminished 
 by 2,000?. The only addition to the foreign force which would 
 come out of the revenues of this country was the three additional 
 companies added to the 1st West-Indian Regiment. Of the 
 121,112 men, who it was proposed should compose the military 
 establishment, 28,213 would be charged on foreign revenue, leaving 
 92,899, for whose maintenance this country was to provide. This 
 estimate * was somewhat confused, by having included in it 572 
 
 men, who were not actually charged on this country, but who, as 
 
 15* 
 
346 ARMY ESTIMATES. 
 
 recruiting companies of Indian regiments, were included in the 
 Mutiny Act. Any man disposed to approve of this measure, 
 would have no difficulty in approving of the many parts of the 
 estimate which contributed to it. The increase in the force suffi 
 ciently explained the increase in the regimental charge in the 
 medical department, and the small increase for religious books and 
 tracts granted to the soldiers. Considering that 20,000 men had 
 been raised within the last year, that the applications for works of 
 this nature had been numerous and pressing, and the assistance of 
 benevolent societies not sufficient to supply this want, he thought 
 he was justified in allotting 200/. to this purpose. Here was one 
 item about which he believed it was usual to make some state 
 ment, and he should say a few words respecting it. As to the 
 good-conduct pay, there was not an increase but a diminution. 
 The full effect of it would not be felt until 1843. The principle 
 of a good conduct-warrant was this, that a soldier who had 
 behaved well during seven years, received an additional Id. a-day 
 to his pay. Every soldier, since 183C, had the option of calling 
 the old additional pay the good-conduct pay. The former was 
 superior in this respect, that it could not be taken away unless by 
 court-martial, and it was no less honourable than secure, for the 
 soldier entitled to it had the power of wearing the good-conduct 
 badge. The consequence was, that in 1840, at which time the 
 soldiers enlisted in 1833 would have completed their seven years, 
 we might expect a considerable addition to the soldiers receiving 
 good-conduct pay. But it was not until 1843 that the effects of 
 the new system, which he confidently expected would be found 
 highly beneficial, could be ascertained. The number of the men 
 wearing the good-conduct badge was about 13,000. He had felt 
 it necessary to make a slight addition to the article of provisions, 
 forage, &c. This he had estimated at 245, OOO/., and he saw little 
 reason to expect a falling off in that charge. The reason was 
 this : It was known to the committee that the Australian colonies 
 
ARMY ESTIMATES. 347 
 
 h,ad suffered severely from calamities, which seemed to be a set off 
 against the physical blessings with which they were endowed. 
 The men had suffered from the effects of a most cruel drought ; 
 they had been excluded from the benefits of tea, and of vegetables 
 in their soup, and in consequence of the high price of provisions 
 they had been reduced from three to two meals a day, one of 
 which was scanty and unpalatable, consisting only of oatmeal. 
 These privations had fallen with the utmost cruelty upon those 
 to whom our gallant men were most, attached, and the medical 
 men reported that the effects of the scarcity were visible upon the 
 women and children attached to the regiments. Under these cir 
 cumstances, it would be impossible to maintain proper and efficient 
 discipline, and therefore, if even all considerations of humanity 
 were discarded, policy alone would dictate attention to that point. 
 In fact, to a certain and partial extent, discipline had already 
 given way, and in one regiment the crime of theft had spread to 
 some extent. It was, in consequence, therefore, of the distress 
 which the gallant and deserving men serving in the colonies had 
 suffered that he had made this addition of 5,000^. to the estimates. 
 In the estimate there were three charges upon which, as they 
 were perfectly new, it would be necessary to enter somewhat into 
 detail. The first was a charge of 3,500. for schoolmistresses. 
 He saw some of his hon. Friends near him smiled, but they were 
 perhaps not aware, as indeed he himself was not until a few 
 weeks ago, of the strong reason there existed for this charge. 
 The number of female children actually accompanying our regi 
 ments, was not less than 10,000. Those children were in the most 
 emphatic manner called "the children of the State." For the 
 public service they were hurried from place to place from Malta 
 to Gibraltar, from Gibraltar to the West-Indies from the West 
 Indies to Halifax,, as the common weal might require. It would, 
 therefore, be inexcusable if we did not provide these, at a small 
 expense, with some means of instruction. Ever since 1811 a 
 
348 ARMY ESTIMATES. 
 
 schoolmaster had been attached to every regiment, and he thought 
 that there should be a depot for the instruction of female children 
 also, under the superintendence of a schoolmistress, who might be 
 probably the wife of a serjeant, and whose duty would be to 
 instruct them in reading, writing, needlework, and the rudiments 
 of common knowledge ; with such simple precepts of morality 
 and religion as a good plain woman of that rank might be sup 
 posed capable of imparting to them. The next vote to which he 
 had to call the attention of the committee was 10,000/. for the 
 formation of a veteran battalion in Canada, where desertions had 
 occurred to an extent unknown elsewhere. About six years ago 
 an inquiry had been made, and it was found there being there at 
 that time 2,500 rank and file that desertions had taken place to 
 the number of 663, while, during the same period, the desertions 
 from the whole British army had been only 2,240. These deser 
 tions in Canada had not been confined to bad and disreputable 
 characters non-commissioned officers and men of respectability 
 and good conduct had deserted. Nor was this symptom of 
 desertion to be ascribed to distress, for many had gone away 
 leaving behind them their necessaries and arrears of pay. Why 
 desertion should take place more frequently in North America 
 than in any other part of the empire it was not difficult to explain. 
 In this country, the situation of the soldier was as comfortable, he 
 might say more so, than that of the labourer, to which class 
 generally the soldier belonged. In many of the colonies physical 
 difficulties opposed themselves to flight. When in Malta, the 
 soldiers were surrounded by sea ; wlien at the Cape, they could 
 only escape from their quarters to fly to the dwellings of savages ; 
 and as to India, he could imagine no situation more miserable 
 than that of a deserter in that country, wandering amidst its vast 
 regions, amongst a people of a strange race and colour, and his 
 footsteps pursued by the power of British law. But with respect 
 to the American colonies, the case was widely different. There 
 
ARMY ESTIMATES. 349 
 
 the facilities of escape to the United States were many, and the 
 temptation strong. The soil was flourishing, and the wages of 
 labour high. The consequence was that the high wages, but 
 still more the exaggerated representations that were put forth of 
 the ease and luxury enjoyed by the labourer in America, had con 
 stantly drawn away our soldiers from Canada. Several plans had 
 been proposed for meeting this evil. It had been proposed, and 
 he thought wisely, that Canada should be the last point in rotation, 
 to which the troops on colonial service should be sent. There 
 would then be a great number of men with additional pay and 
 good conduct pay, and those higher advantages would tend to 
 keep the men faithful to their colours. It had also been thought 
 that advantages would arise, and the temptation to which he had 
 adverted be counteracted, if the Government were to hold out to 
 the oldest and most tried of the troops in Canada a sort of 
 military retirement, which should serve as a reward to those who 
 remained faithful to their colours. Such had been the opinion of 
 his noble Friend, the late Secretary at War, and of Lord Seaton, 
 and he had reason to believe that that opinion was generally 
 entertained amongst those who possessed the best information 
 upon the subject. The precise details of the plan had not yet 
 been made out, and much correspondence must take place before 
 it could be produced ; but as it was not improbable that, before 
 the House again assembled, some regiments would be removed 
 from Canada, it would be desirable that some men of good 
 character should be induced to remain there. On these grounds 
 he was induced to ask the House for the additional grant of 
 10,000. on account. There was also a sum of 5,000/. on account, 
 for the purpose of forming a corps for service in St. Helena a 
 place which required to be defended not according to the ordinary 
 system. The whole charge for the land force then was 3,511,S70Z. 
 for the present year. That applied for last year, including the 
 supplemental estimate, was 3,496,382/. 11*. The increase, there- 
 
350 ARMY ESTIMATES. 
 
 fore, on this part of the charge was 15,487. He now came to 
 the staff, in which, in the Home Department, there was an increase, 
 but a corresponding decrease on the foreign staff. On the whole 
 there was an increase of about 550^. the reasons for which were to 
 be found in the state of the provinces of New Brunswick and 
 Nova Scotia, where it had been thought desirable that that which 
 had hitherto been a major-general s command should be changed 
 into a lieutenant-general s command, and it was thought that, in 
 consequence of the high responsibility attached to that station, it 
 should be filled by an officer of great talents, and receiving addi 
 tional pay. Why the charge for Canada was increased, it was 
 unnecessary for him to state. He did not know whether hon. 
 Gentlemen were aware how this part of the estimates was formed 
 they were framed from the actual expenditure of the last year of 
 which they had the accounts thus the estimate for 1839 was 
 framed upon that of 1837, and that of 1840 upon that of 1838. 
 With respect to Jamaica, the addition was occasioned by the 
 refusal of the Assembly to vote those allowances which used to be 
 considered as matters of course. The whole charge for the staff 
 in 1839 was, in round numbers, 155, OOO/., while that for the 
 present year was 164,000^. being an increase of 9,000. He was 
 sorry to say, that in consequence of the haste with which these 
 estimates had been prepared, there was an error in the third line 
 of the page, containing the head Public Departments. The item 
 stood there at 5,016Z. 17s. 6d., but it ought to be 6,016/. 17s. 6d. 
 With respect to the Royal Military College, it was unnecessary for 
 him to say anything; and with respect to the Royal Military 
 Asylum, the estimate for this year was 16,70lZ. Qs. 8<^,, while that 
 for last year was 17,486Z. 3s. In the next item there was an 
 increase ; it was in the charge for volunteer corps. The vote for 
 last year was 79,136. 185., while that he asked in the present 
 estimate was 92,993/. This had arisen from the expenses of 
 calling out the yeomanry in aid of the civil power. He believed 
 
ARMY ESTIMATES. 351 
 
 an would admit that, in the trying scenes of last year, the 
 yeomanry exhibited all the valour and firmness for which those 
 corps were distinguished ; but in no instance, he bolieved, had they 
 behaved with rigour and harshness, or otherwise than with pro 
 priety and discretion. While, then, the whole charge for effective 
 estimates for last year was 3,807,073?., the charge for the present 
 year was 3,845,450?. ; being an increase of 3 9,3 7 7 1. He now 
 came to the non-effective estimates. Under the head of Rewards 
 for Service, there was a small reduction. The amount in 1839 
 was 16,041Z. 185. ; while for the present year it was 15,815?. 10s. 
 \d., being a decrease of 226?. The pay for unattached general 
 officers last year was 102,000?. ; this year it was 92,000?., being a 
 reduction of 10,000?. The number of .general officers deceased 
 who had received that pay last year was fifteen, and the number 
 promoted to regiments nine. The number of Chelsea pensioners 
 had decreased upwards of 1,000, and he understood there was a 
 balance in the hands of the hospital, and he thought they might 
 venture to make a reduction of 16,667?. Before he sat down, he 
 could not help making some few observations on what had fallen 
 from the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He knew well how zealous 
 that hon. Gentleman was in the cause of economy ; but he must 
 be permitted to say that that hon. Gentleman had never given a 
 vote so truly in favour of the cause of economy and of civil 
 liberty, as when last August he voted for the increase of the army 
 by 5,000 men, by which he now proposes to reduce it. He 
 believed that that was a just and an economical vote. He had 
 never for a moment doubted, that, on any great crisis that might 
 befal this country, the force marshalled on the side of law and 
 order would be found to be irresistible, and that this great country 
 never could be given over to the hands of freebooters ; but at the 
 same time, when he considered the wealth of our great cities, it 
 was not utterly impossible that a mob, exacerbated and infuriated 
 by dishonest leaders, might have inflicted calamities that might 
 
352 ARMY ESTIMATES. 
 
 have led to a crisis which the ingenuity and good fortune of years 
 could scarcely have effaced. Once and once only, had this great 
 metropolis been in the power of a mob, who for a short time had 
 shown themselves to be stronger than the law, and that was on 
 the occasion of the No Popery Riots in the time of Lord George 
 Gordon. It was a matter of history that, at that time, a sum was 
 awarded for compensation for injuries done to a single house, in a 
 single street, greater in amount than that which was voted last 
 year for the additional 5,000 men. Therefore he would repeat 
 that the hon. Member for Kilkenny had never given a more 
 economical vote than he did in the August of last year. It had 
 been well remarked by Adam Smith, that though standing armies 
 were found hostile to the liberty of the subject, yet that principle 
 must be laid down with qualification. He believed that the 
 remarks of that great man upon this subject were both ingenious 
 and just. He believed that the question before the House a few 
 months ago was simply, whether the force should be increased, or 
 whether the Government should revert to the policy that had been 
 tried by the administration of Mr. Pitt. He would say, then, that 
 whoever voted on that occasion for that increase of force, voted 
 for the House of Commons itself for the freedom of the people 
 for the liberty of the press for the security of property in fact, 
 for all the characteristics of a free state. Firmly was he convinced 
 that the most happy and beneficial effects flowed from that vote. 
 Nothing had since occurred that could justify her Majesty s Minis 
 ters in diminishing their means or their power of upholding and 
 maintaining intact and uninjured the peace, the honour, the dignity 
 and security of this realm. He therefore would place the vote in 
 the hands of the Chairman, with the strongest confidence that it 
 would receive the approbation of the Committee. The right 
 hon. Gentleman concluded by moving, " That a number of land 
 forces, not exceeding 93,471 men (exclusive of the men employed 
 in the Territorial Possessions of the East India Company), commis- 
 
ARMY ESTIMATES. 353 
 
 sioned and non-commissioned officers included, be maintained 
 for the service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and 
 Ireland, from the 1st day of April, 1840, to the 31st day of 
 March, 1841." 
 
354 
 
 THE WAR WITH CHINA.* 
 
 APRIL 7, 1840. 
 
 IF the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham), in rising as the pro 
 poser of an attack, owned that he felt overpowered with the 
 importance of the question, one who rose in defence, might cer 
 tainly, without any shame, make a similar declaration. And he 
 must say, that the natural and becoming anxiety which her 
 Majesty s Ministers could not but feel as to the judgment which the 
 House might pass upon the papers which had been presented to 
 them, had been considerably allayed by the terms of the motion of 
 the right hon. Baronet. It was utterly impossible to doubt the 
 power of the right hon. Baronet, or his will to attack the pro 
 ceedings of the present Administration ; and he must think it a 
 matter on which her Majesty s Ministers might congratulate them 
 selves, that, on the closest examination of a series of transactions 
 so extensive, so complicated, and on some points so disastrous, such 
 an assailant could produce only such a resolution. In the first 
 place, the terms of the resolution were entirely retrospective, and 
 not only so, but they related to no point of time more recent than 
 a year ago ; for he conceived that the rupture between this country 
 and China must date from the month of March, 1839, and there 
 had been no omission and no despatch of a later date that could 
 have been the cause of the rupture of our friendly relations. He 
 conceived, therefore, that the present resolution was one which 
 related entirely to past transactions, and while he did not dispute the 
 right of the right hon. Baronet to found a motion, or the right of the 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. liii. p. 704-720. 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 355 
 
 House to pass any vote censuring any bygone misconduct on 
 the part of her Majesty s Ministers, he must at the same time feel 
 gratified that the right hon. Baronet did not censure any portion 
 of the present policy of the Government, and that he did not think 
 fit in the present motion to raise any question as to the propriety 
 of the measures, which, since the year 1839, her Majesty s Minis 
 ters had adopted. He saw, also, with pleasure that the right hon. 
 Gentleman charged the Administration with no offence of commis 
 sion ; that he imputed to them no impropriety of conduct, no 
 indiscretion, no step which had either lowered the national honour 
 or given to China any just cause of offence. All the complaint 
 was, that they had not foreseen what circumstances might by pos 
 sibility arise, and that they had not given power to the represen 
 tative of her Majesty to meet any such unforeseen circumstances ; 
 and he must say that such a charge was one which required, and 
 which ought to receive, the most distinct, the fullest, and the most 
 positive proof, because it was of all charges the easiest to make, 
 and the easiest to support by specious reasoning, and, at the same 
 time, it was one of the most difficult to refute. A man charged 
 with a culpable act might defend himself from that act, but it was 
 not possible in any series of transactions that an objection might 
 not be made, that something might not have been done which, if 
 done, would have made things better. The peculiarity of the case 
 then before them was, that a grave charge had been brought 
 against her Majesty s Ministers, because they had not sent sufficient 
 instructions, and because they had not given sufficient power to a 
 representative at a distance of fifteen thousand miles from them ; 
 that they had not given instructions sufficiently full, and sufficiently 
 precise, to a person who was separated from them by a voyage 
 of five months. He was ready to admit, that if the papers then 
 on the table of the House related to important negotiations with a 
 neighbouring state, that if they related, for instance, to negotiations 
 carried on in Paris, during which a courier from Downing-street 
 
356 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 coula be dispatched and return in thirty-six hours, and could be 
 again dispatched and again return in as short a period ; if such 
 were the nature of the facilities for the parties negotiating, he 
 would say without hesitation that a foreign secretary giving 
 instructions so scanty and so meagre to the representative of the 
 British Government was to blame. But he said, also, that the con 
 trol which might be a legitimate interference with functionaries 
 that were near, became an useless and a needless meddling with 
 the functionaries at a distance. He might with confidence appeal 
 to Members on both sides of the House who were conversant with 
 the management of our Indian empire, for a confirmation of what 
 he had stated. India was nearer to us than was China ; with 
 India, we were better acquainted than we were with China, and yet 
 he believed that the universal opinion was, that India could be 
 governed only in India. Indeed, the chief point which occupied 
 the attention of the authorities at home was to point out the gene 
 ral line of conduct to be pursued ; to lay down the general prin 
 ciples, and not to interfere with the details of every measure. If 
 hon. Members only thought in what a state the political affairs of 
 that country would be if they were placed under the sole guidance of 
 a person at a distance of even less than 15,000 miles, they would 
 at once see how absurd such a proposition was. They would see a 
 dispatch written during the first joy at the news of the- peace of 
 Amiens received while the French invading army was encamped at 
 Boulogne. They would find a despatch written while Napoleon was 
 in Elba, .arriving when he was the occupant of the Tuilleries ; and 
 they would have positive instructions sent whilst he was in the 
 Tuilleries to come into operation when he was removed to St. 
 Helena. In India, also, occurrences were continually and rapidly 
 taking place, so that the state of things in Bengal or in the Car- 
 natic would have changed long before the specified instructions 
 could have arrived, and they all knew that the great men who had 
 retained for us that country, Lord Clive and Lord Hastings, had 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 35 7 
 
 done so by treating particular instructions from a distance as so 
 much waste paper ; if they had not had the spirit so to treat them, 
 we should now have no empire in India. But the state of China 
 made a stronger case still. Nor was this all. With regard 
 to India, a politician sitting in Leadenh all-street, or in Cannon- 
 row, might not know the state of things at the distance of India, 
 but he might be acquainted with the general state of the country, 
 its wants, its resources ; but with regard to China it should be 
 recollected that that country was not only removed from us by a 
 much greater distance than India, but that those who were per 
 mitted to go nearest knew but little of it ; for over the internal 
 policy of China a veil was thrown, through which a slight 
 glimpse only could be caught, sufficient only to raise the imagina 
 tion, and as likely to mislead as to give information. The right 
 hon. Baronet had honourably told the House that the knowledge 
 of Englishmen residing at Canton resembled the notions which 
 might be acquired of our government, our army, our resources, our 
 manufactures, and our agriculture, by a foreigner, who, having 
 landed at Wapping, was not allowed to go further. The advan 
 tages of literature even, which in other cases presented an oppor 
 tunity of holding personal intercourse as well as looking into the 
 character and habits of remote ages, afforded but little help in the 
 case of China. Difficulties unknown in other countries there met 
 the student at the very threshold ; so that they might count upon 
 their ringers those men of industry and genius, one of whom had 
 been referred to that night, who had surmounted those difficulties, 
 which were unequalled in the study of any other language 
 which had an alphabet. And under these circumstances, with a 
 country so far removed, and yet as little known to the residents at 
 Canton itself as the central parts of Africa under these circum 
 stances, he said, in spite of the jeers of hon. Gentlemen opposite, 
 the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs could not be expected to 
 give the same precise instructions to the representative of his Sove- 
 
358 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 reign as lie could to our Ministers at Brussels or the Hague: This 
 was evidently the feeling of the Government of Earl Grey, of 
 that Government to which the right hon. Baronet belonged, and 
 for the acts of which he claimed, and rightly claimed, a full share 
 of responsibility. The instructions, to which the right hon. 
 Baronet was a party, did not go into detail they laid down the 
 broadest general principles they simply told the representative of 
 her Majesty to respect the usages of China, and to avoid by all 
 means giving offence to the prejudices or the feelings of the 
 Chinese. As for precise instructions, they never gave any. When 
 the Duke of Wellington came into office, that great man, well versed 
 as he was in great affairs, and knowing as he did, that even a man 
 of inferior ability on the spot could judge better than the ablest man 
 at a distance of 15,000 miles, in the only despatch which he 
 addressed to a resident at Canton, contented himself with referring 
 the Superintendent to the instruction of Lord Palmerston. Now, 
 what he wished to impress on hon. Gentlemen was, that when 
 charges were brought against the Government of omitting to 
 give instructions, or omitting to empower our representative, or 
 that by this omission had been produced a great and formidable 
 crisis in the relations between this country and China, this charge 
 ought to be sustained by the clearest, by the fullest, and by the 
 most precise proof that such was one of the causes, if not the prin 
 cipal cause of such a crisis, and that proof the right hon. Baronet 
 in the course of his long and elaborate speech had altogether failed 
 to give. He had selected from the evidence on the table a great 
 mass of information that was interesting, and much that was by 
 no means applicable to the only point on which the present motion 
 could rest. What were the omissions in the instructions and in 
 the power given to our representative ? The right hon. Baronet 
 had read some despatches of the East India Company in 1832 ; 
 and he had also discussed the conduct of Captain Elliott subse 
 quent to the rupture ; but he conceived that neither the one nor 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 359 
 
 the other was before the House ; that he had entirely forgotten to 
 notice what act the Government might have done which it had not, 
 and which might have prevented the present unfortunate position 
 of affairs. What, however, were the omissions of which the right 
 hon. Baronet complained ? They were four in number. First) 
 that the Government had omitted to correct a point in the Order 
 in Council, which directed the Superintendent to reside in Canton ; 
 secondly, that they had omitted to correct the Order in Council on 
 the point which showed the Superintendent a new channel of com 
 munication with the Chinese government ; thirdly, that they had 
 omitted to act upon the suggestion of the memorandum made by 
 the Duke of Wellington to keep a naval force in the neighbour 
 hood of Canton ; and, fourthly, what was most important of all, 
 that they did not give sufficient power to the superintendent to 
 put down the illicit trade. He believed that there was not one 
 other omission specifically mentioned in the able speech of the right 
 hon. Gentleman. With regard to the first omission, the answer 
 was simple. It was true that the order in council, directing the 
 superintendent to reside at Canton, had not been revoked by her 
 Majesty s Government. But it was also true, that no dispute as 
 to the residence of the superintendent had anything to do with 
 the unfortunate rupture ; it was true that that dispute was perfectly 
 accommodated. Captain Elliott said, in a letter dated Macao, 
 March 18, 1837: 
 
 " My Lord A ship upon the point of sailing for Bengal, affords me a 
 prospect of communicating rapidly with your Lordship, by the means of an 
 overland mail of May. I seize this opportunity to transmit the translation 
 of an edict, just procured through a private channel, containing the impe 
 rial pleasure, that I shall be furnished with a passport to proceed to 
 Canton for the performance of my duties. The official notification may be 
 expected from Canton in the course of a few days. For the first time in the 
 history of our intercourse with China, the principle is most formally 
 admitted, that an officer of a foreign sovereign, whose functions are purely 
 public, should reside in a city of the empire. His Majesty s Government 
 
360 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 may depend upon my constant, cautious, and earnest efforts to improve the 
 state of circumstances. I have, &c. 
 
 (Signed) "CHARLES ELLIOTT." 
 
 Therefore, this point of omission which the right hon. Baronet 
 made an article of charge against the Government was no charge at 
 all ; for two years before the rupture the point had been fully conceded 
 in the most formal and honourable manner by the Chinese authori 
 ties. And he would venture to say, that in no subsequent letter 
 was there any document which indicated that the place of residence 
 of the superintendent was any point in question. Therefore, he 
 said with confidence, that the first of the right hon. Baronet s 
 omissions had not any groundwork on which it could rest. The 
 second charge was, that the Government did not alter the order in 
 council to direct the superintendent as to his future communica 
 tions with the Government, and did not tell him not to communi 
 cate as the supercargos used to do with the Chinese Government. 
 To that alleged case of omission the answer was, that the Chinese 
 Government had fully conceded the point. Negotiations had 
 taken place between Captain Elliott and the Chinese authorities, 
 and the dispute was, in fact, at an end. As to the question which 
 arose, it was about the use of the word " Pin ;" the point was 
 easily answered, because Captain Elliott did not adhere to the 
 construction which was put upon it. He must say, that Captain 
 Elliott, acting under the discretion which it was absolutely neces 
 sary that every Government should give to their officers at a dis 
 tance, had given up the point of superscription, and, therefore, the 
 second omission imputed to the British Government by the right 
 hon. Baronet had nothing to do with the present state of 
 affairs. The third charge brought forward was, that the Govern 
 ment had not provided a vessel of war to be stationed upon the 
 Chinese coast to be ready to act upon any emergency which might 
 arise. What was the recommendation of the Duke of Wellington, 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 361 
 
 in reference to this very subject? It was, that a vessel of 
 war should be off Canton ready to act until the trade of the Bri 
 tish merchants should return to its proper channel. He wrote in 
 reference to the state of things which existed at that time, but 
 there was not one syllable in the despatch of the noble Duke which 
 showed that that advice should extend beyond the continuance of 
 the existing circumstances. His Grace said, that he should recom 
 mend that, until trade should resume its ordinary course, there 
 should always be within reach of Canton a stout frigate or vessel 
 of war ready to act in case of necessity ; but this charge was not 
 made until four years after that advice was given, in the course of 
 which Sir George Robinson had declared that affairs had been 
 restored to their usual condition. The Duke of Wellington recom 
 mended that the frigate should be there only until trade should 
 take its regular course. The right hon Baronet had told the House 
 that, subsequently to that, Sir George Robinson had brought 
 about a peaceable state of affairs ; and then, after that, when cir 
 cumstances had occurred which he would venture to say no human 
 mind could have foreseen, it was wondered at, and fault was 
 found, that no vessel was at the spot pointed out. He was confi 
 dent that nothing was contained in any of the Duke of Welling 
 ton s prior despatches which could be taken to exhibit any desire 
 on his part that there should be a naval force constantly upon the 
 Canton station, to await any calamitous event which might take 
 place. Then he came to the fourth charge, which he thought was 
 the most important ; for those to which he had already referred he 
 conceived that there existed no ground whatsoever. The fourth 
 point was, that the English Government, having legal authority to 
 do so, had omitted to send to the superintendent at Canton proper 
 powers for the purpose of suppressing the illicit trade which they 
 knew was carried on there. In the first place, during a consider 
 able portion of time since the present administration had been in 
 office, there were stronger reasons in existence than there had been 
 VOL. r. 16 
 
362 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 in the time of Lord Grey, or when the Duke of Wellington was 
 Minister for Foreign Affairs, against sending over such powers. 
 There Avas this plain and obvious reason, that down to the month 
 of May, 1838, the Foreign Secretary had very strong reasons 
 to believe that it was in the contemplation of the government of 
 China immediately to legalize the opium trade, which had undoubt 
 edly been carried on in disobedience to the existing law. It was 
 quite clear from these papers, though it Avas not easy to follow all 
 the Avindings of Chinese policy, that in 1.836, the attention of the 
 government of that country was called in a very peculiar manner 
 to the opium trade. The system under which that trade had been 
 carried on was this it had been prohibited by law, but connived 
 at in practice. The Chinese Government appeared to think that 
 a worse state of things could not exist ; that it produced all the 
 evils of a contraband trade; that it gave rise to as much intem 
 perance as if there Avere no prohibition ; and, Avhat they looked 
 upon Avith equal regret, that the exportation of silver Avas likewise 
 as great as if there Avas no prohibition upon it. That the then 
 existing system could not last, seemed to have been the opinion of 
 the Chinese authorities. Tang-Tzee, the able and ingenious Pre 
 sident of the Sacrificial Offices, who he was sorry to perceive had 
 been dismissed, because dismissal in China, he believed, was a 
 much more severe punishment than in England, had argued that 
 it was unwise to prohibit the introduction of the drug ; that if it 
 Avere desired by the people, whatever might be the abuse of it by 
 intemperance, no prohibition could keep it out ; and that as both the 
 revenue and the morals of the people would suffer by the continu 
 ance of a contraband trade, it was desirable to make the trade legi 
 timate, and tax the importation of the article. But Tchu-Sung 
 appeared to be one of that class of statesmen, who, when they 
 found that the laAvs were rendered nugatory, and that it Avas 
 impossible to carry them into execution by altering their machi 
 nery, and by opposing public feeling, made them more stringent. 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 363 
 
 Tchu-Sung informed the Emperor that he had discovered in the 
 course of his ministerial studies that the mode in which Europe 
 had established her empire in several parts of Asia was, by the 
 introduction of opium, which so weakened the intellect and ener 
 vated the bodies of the inhabitants, that they were easily pounced 
 upon and made prisoners of by the Europeans. The opinion that 
 the trade would be legalized was entertained by Captain Elliott, 
 and he could himself vouch for the fact, that the mercantile com 
 munity of Calcutta, during a part of the year 1837, decidedly 
 believed that notification of the authorisation of the traffic by the 
 Chinese government might be expected from day to day. It was 
 not until the month of May, 1838, that a despatch arrived at the 
 Foreign office, interfering with, or putting an end to that expecta 
 tion. That being the case, it was not strange that his noble Friend, 
 the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, should have hesitated to send 
 out an order to put down a trade which he had every reason to 
 believe would have been made legitimate before such order could 
 have reached the Chinese seas. But he (Mr. Macaulay) did not 
 think it would have been at all desirable or right that such an 
 order should have been sent out even in 1838. He thought that 
 that House would have required of the Government a very clear 
 account indeed, a very strong proof of the necessity or policy of 
 f;uch order, and that if they could not have furnished that proof 
 the House would have been justified in calling them to a sharp 
 reckoning for sending out powers to the Superintendent authorising 
 him to seize and send home any British subject who should have been 
 found carrying on a trade which that superintendent might have pro 
 hibited. Without meaning to deny that there were extreme cases 
 which authorised extreme powers, he must say, that he conceived 
 such powers as these were not to be lightly granted by any British 
 Minister. He certainly should be convinced, before he agreed to a 
 vote of censure upon any Government for not granting them, 
 that, in the first place, there were grounds for supposing them to 
 
364 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 have been absolutely necessary ; and in the next, that their having 
 been withheld was the cause of the unfortunate circumstances in 
 which we were now placed with regard to China. He, however, 
 felt satisfied, that whether their powers had been granted or with 
 held, those unfortunate circumstances would have taken place : 
 nay more, he ventured to say, that if those powers had been 
 granted we should now find ourselves involved in hostilities with 
 China under circumstances of peculiar calamity and national dis 
 honour. With regard to the practicability of carrying the order, 
 if it had been given, into effect, he must say, that it would have 
 been impossible to put down the trade, except by the exertions of 
 the Chinese themselves. The right hon. Baronet was far too expe 
 rienced a member of the Government to suppose that, to suppress 
 a lucrative trade, it was only necessary to issue a written edict. In 
 England we had a preventive service, which cost half a million 
 of money, which employed 6,000 effective men, and upwards of 
 fifty cruisers, and yet every one knew well that every article which 
 was reasonably portable, which was much desired, and on which 
 severe duties were imposed, was smuggled to a very great extent. It 
 was known that the amount of brandy smuggled had been ordinarily. 
 600,000 gallons every year, and of tobacco an amount not much less 
 than the whole quantity regularly imported through the Custom 
 house, was conveyed into the country by clandestine means. It 
 has been proved, also, before a Committee of the House that 
 no less than 4,000,000lbs. of tobacco had been smuggled into Ire 
 land in opposition to the most effective preventive laws which 
 existed in the world. Knowing this knowing that the whole 
 power of King, Lords, and Commons could not put an end to a 
 lucrative traffic ; could the House believe that a mere order could 
 put a stop to the trade in opium ? Did they suppose that a traffic 
 supported on the one hand by men actuated by the love of a drug, 
 from the intoxicating qualities of which they found it impossible 
 to restrain themselves ; and on the other, by persons actuated by 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 365 
 
 the desire of gain, could be terminated by the publication of a 
 piece of paper signed " Charles Elliott." There never was a 
 stronger proof of the impotence of Chinese power to keep out an 
 article of traffic than that afforded by the year 1839. If the trade 
 could have been stopped by them, it was impossible to suppose that 
 Mr. Commissioner Lin would have caused the seizure of certain indi 
 viduals, against some of whom there existed mere suspicion, whilst 
 against others there was no hesitation in supposing that there was 
 not the slightest ground for believing them implicated in the traffic 
 which had been carried on. Could it be supposed even that if the 
 orders of Elliott had failed, the preventive service of China, had 
 it been as effectual and as trustworthy as our own, would have 
 been able to overcome the affection of the opium-eater for the drug 
 upon which he feasted, or the longing of the merchant for the 
 profit which he obtained ? If it could not be supposed to produce 
 so good a result, he would ask whether it were to be considered 
 that it would produce no effect at all ? He believed that it would, 
 and that the effect would have been this that it would have 
 driven the opium trade from Canton ; but would have spread it 
 throughout the coast of the whole country. The traffic would not 
 have been carried on, indeed, any longer under the very eye of the 
 commissioner, or in such a manner as that the traders might after 
 wards be called upon to answer for their offences in some English 
 court, but they would remove from Canton, where an English 
 society being collected, their proceedings would be watched with 
 unremitting jealousy, but they would have found that the lawless 
 trade would have been carried on all along the coast, by means 
 infinitely more lawless than those which had been already adopted. 
 The traders would have gone to a distance from the great port, 
 the whole east coast would have been covered with smugglers, and 
 in their efforts to secure the object which they had in view, they 
 would have undoubtedly come in contact with the local authori 
 ties, who would be unaccustomed to deal with European traders ; 
 
366 WAR WITH CHIXA. 
 
 the mala prohibita of a contraband traffic would be converted into 
 the mala per se, and smuggling would be turned into piracy, 
 a crime of a much more heinous description. If under the eye of 
 an English society consisting certainly of persons, some of whom 
 were suspected of being concerned in the trade, but many of whom 
 were of the highest respectability the traffic could not long be 
 carried on without producing acts having some appearance of 
 piracy, what could they expect when no man would have any 
 judge of his own conduct but himself? It would be found that 
 men being congregated in vessels for the purpose of carrying on 
 the trade, would land for the purpose of procuring fresh supplies 
 of provisions ; that their demands would be refused ; that they 
 would attempt to seize them ; wells would be poisoned, or four or 
 five sailors, perhaps, going to fill their water casks, would be cap 
 tured, and that the demand for their liberation not being complied 
 with, their comrades would proceed to burn and sack the neigh 
 bouring village. Similar circumstances had occurred in former 
 instances, and he saw no reason why, at the present time, scenes 
 of equal atrocity should not occur. He believed, therefore, that 
 if .the smuggling trade had been removed from Macao, and scat 
 tered along the coast in the manner which he had described, hos 
 tilities with China would have been the speedy and the inevitable 
 consequence. What did they see in the proceedings of the 
 Chinese government, or of Mr. Commissioner Lin, to induce them 
 to suppose that those hostilities would not have taken place? 
 Commissioner Lin had not hesitated to inflict severe punishment 
 upon men whose characters were totally unsuspected, and was it 
 likely, that if the events which he had endeavoured to describe, 
 had occurred along the coast of China, Lin would have been 
 more scrupulous ? Would he not have published some procla 
 mation, setting forth, that Captain Elliott had undertaken to put 
 a stop to the contraband trade, but that he had deceived him ; 
 that he had pretended to command the discontinuance of the 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 367 
 
 traffic, but that lie had issued false edicts for that it had been 
 carried on along the whole coast, to an extent even greater than 
 that to which it had before gone, and that therefore he would 
 hold all Englishmen, who ought to have had the power to prevent 
 all this, whether blameable or not blameable, as hostages, until 
 the wrong which had been committed should have been remedied. 
 That would have been the spirit of Mr. Commissioner Lin ; and 
 therefore he said that, so far as he had been able to form a judg 
 ment, he believed that the positive prohibition of the opium trade 
 by Captain Elliott, unsupported by physical force, would have 
 been inadequate to put the trade down. Did the right hon. 
 Baronet mean, that this country should pay the expense of a 
 preventive service for the whole coast of China ? He knew that 
 it was impossible that he, or any one else, could for one moment 
 advocate a doctrine so absurd ; and he could not but repeat his 
 firm belief, that by any course but that which had been adopted, 
 the existing evils would only have been aggravated, and the 
 rupture which had taken place would have been brought about in 
 a manner still more calamitous, and still more dreadful. He had 
 now gone, he thought, through the four charges on which the 
 right hon. Baronet rested his case ; and he declared most solemnly, 
 that it did not appear to him that, according to the terms of the 
 motion which was before the House, to any one of the four 
 omissions which were alleged to have been made, was to be attri 
 buted that interruption of our friendly relations which was so 
 deeply and so universally deplored. If he could believe that hon. 
 Gentlemen would vote, keeping in mind really what the proposi 
 tion was, he should not have the smallest hesitation as to the 
 result ; but he could not refrain from saying, that some persons, 
 for whose feelings of humanity he entertained the highest respect, 
 might possibly imagine, that in giving their assent to the motion, 
 they were marking their disapprobation of the trade, which he 
 regretted as deeply as they did. They had seen it asserted over 
 
368 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 and over again, that the Government was advocating the cause of 
 the contraband trade, in order to force an opium war on the 
 public ; but he thought that it was impossible to be conceived that 
 a thought so absurd and so atrocious should have ever entered the 
 minds of the British Ministry. Their course was clear. They 
 might dowbt whether it were wise for the government of China to 
 exclude from that country a drug which, if judiciously adminis 
 tered, was powerful in assuaging pain, and in promoting health, 
 because it was occasionally used to excess by intemperate men 
 they might doubt whether it was wise policy on the part of that 
 Government to attempt to stop the efflux of precious metals from 
 the country in the due course of trade. They learned from his 
 tory and almost every country afforded proof, which was strength 
 ened by existing circumstances in England, to which he had already 
 alluded that no machinery, however powerful, had been sufficient 
 to keep out of any country those luxuries which the people enjoyed, 
 or were able to purchase, or to prevent the efflux of precious 
 metals, when it was demanded by the course of trade. What 
 Great Britain could not effect with the finest marine, and the most 
 trustworthy preventive service in the world, was not likely to be 
 effected by the feeble efforts of the mandarins of China. But, 
 whatever their opinions on these points might be, the Governor of 
 China alone, it must be remembered, was competent to decide ; 
 that government had a right to keep out opium, to keep in silver, 
 and to enforce their prohibitory laws, by whatever means which 
 they might possess, consistently with the principles of public mora 
 lity, and of international law; and if, after having given fair 
 notice of their intention to seize all contraband goods introduced 
 into their dominions, they seized our opium, we had no right to 
 complain ; but when the government, finding, that by just and 
 lawful means, they could not carry out their prohibition, resorted 
 to measures unjust and unlawful, confined our innocent country 
 men, and insulted the Sovereign in the person of her representa- 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 369 
 
 live, then he thought, the time had arrived when it was fit that 
 \ve should interfere. Whether the proceedings of the Chinese 
 were or were not founded on humanity, was not now to be decided. 
 Let them take the case of the most execrable crime that had ever 
 been dignified by the name of a trade- the African slave trade. 
 The prosecution of that trade was made a misdemeanour, a felony, 
 and finally piracy. We made treaties with foreign powers and paid 
 large sums of money to secure the object which we had in view ; 
 and yet it was perfectly notorious, that notwithstanding all the 
 efforts which we had made, slaves had been introduced from Africa 
 into our colony of the Mauritius. Undoubtedly it was our duty to 
 put down the traffic which had so long been carried on with 
 rigour, and to bring all persons engaged in it to punishment; but 
 suppose a ship under French colours was seen skulking under the 
 coast of the island, and that the Governor had his eye upon it, 
 and was satisfied that it was a slaver, and that it was waiting for 
 an opportunity by night to run its cargo ; suppose the Governor, 
 not having a sufficient naval force to seize the vessel, should send 
 and take thirty or forty French gentlemen resident in the island, 
 some of them, perhaps, suspected of having been engaged in the 
 trade, and some who had never fallen under any suspicion, and 
 lock them up. Suppose amongst others, he had laid violent 
 hands on the Consul of France, saying that they should have no 
 food till they produced the proprietor of the vessel, would not the 
 French government be in a condition to claim reparation, and, if 
 so, would not the French government have a right to exact repa 
 ration if refused by arms ? Would it be enough for us to say, 
 " Oh, but it is such a wicked trade, such a monstrous trade, that 
 you have no right to quarrel with us for resorting to any means 
 to put it down ?" The answer would be, " Are you not trampling 
 upon a great principle by doing so ?" If such would be the answer 
 of France, was it not fit and right that her Majesty should demand 
 
 reparation from China ? They had seen the success of the first 
 
 16* 
 
370 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 great act of injustice perpetrated by that government produce its 
 natural effect on a people ignorant of the relative places they and 
 we held in the scale of nations. The Imperial Commissioner 
 began by confiscating property ; his next demand was for innocent 
 blood. A Chinese was slain ; the most careful inquiry had been 
 made, but was insufficient to discover the slayer, or even the 
 nation to which he belonged ; but it was caused to be notified that, 
 guilty or not, some subject of the Queen s must be given up. 
 Great Britain gave an unequivocal refusal to be a party to so bar 
 barous a proceeding. The people at Canton were seized ; they 
 were driven from Macao, suspected or not. Women with child, 
 children at the breast, were treated with equal severity, were 
 refused bread, or the means of subsistence ; the innocent Lascars 
 were thrown into the sea ; an English gentleman was barbarously 
 mutilated, and England found itself at once assailed with a fury 
 unknown to civilized countries. The place of this country among 
 nations was not so mean or ill ascertained that we should trouble 
 ourselves to resist every petty slight which we might receive. Con 
 scious of her power, England could bear that her Sovereign should 
 *be called a barbarian, and her people described as savages, desti 
 tute of every useful art. When our Ambassadors were obliged to 
 undergo a degrading prostration, in compliance with their regula 
 tions, conscious of our strength, we were more amused than irri 
 tated. But there was a limit to that forbearance. It would not 
 have been worthy of us to take arms upon a small provocation, 
 referring to rites and ceremonies merely ; but every one in the scale 
 of civilized nations should know that Englishmen were ever living 
 under the protecting eye of their own country. He was much 
 touched, and he thought that probably many others were so also, 
 by one passage contained in the dispatch of Captain Elliott, in 
 which he communicated his arrival at the factory at Canton. 
 The moment at which he landed he was surrounded by his coun 
 trymen in an agony of despair at their situation, but the first step 
 
WAR WITH CHINA. 371 
 
 which he took was to order the flag of Great Britain to be taken 
 from the boat and to be planted in the balcony. This was an act 
 which revived the drooping hopes of those who looked to him for 
 protection. It was natural that they should look with confidence 
 on the victorious flag which was hoisted over them, which reminded 
 them that they belonged to a country unaccustomed to defeat, to 
 submission, or to shame it reminded them that they belonged to 
 a country which had made the farthest ends of the earth ring 
 with the fame of her exploits in redressing the wrongs of her chil 
 dren ; that made the Dey of Algiers humble himself to the insulted 
 consul ; that revenged the horrors of the black hole on the fields 
 of Plessey ; that had not degenerated since her great Protector 
 vowed that he would make the name of Englishman as respected 
 as ever had been the name of Roman citizen. They felt that 
 although far from their native country, and then in danger in a 
 part of the world remote from that to which they must look for 
 protection, yet that they belonged to a state which would not 
 suffer a hair of one of its members to be harmed with impunity. 
 All were agreed upon this point of the question. He had listened 
 with painful attention to the speech of the right hon. Baronet, bu*. 
 he had not detected in it one word which implied that he was not 
 disposed to insist on a just reparation for the offence which had 
 been committed against us. With respect to the present motion, 
 whatever its result might be, he could not believe that the House 
 would agree to a vote of censure so gross, so palpable, or so unjust 
 as that which was conveyed in its terms ; and he trusted that even 
 if there was to be a change of men consequential upon the conclu 
 sion of the debate, there would at all events be no change of mea 
 sures. He had endeavoured to express his views and his opinions 
 upon this subject, and he begged in conclusion to declare his earnest 
 desire that this most rightful caarrel might be prosecuted to a 
 triumphal close that the brave men to whom was entrusted the 
 task of demanding that reparation which the circumstances of the 
 
372 WAR WITH CHINA. 
 
 case required, might fulfil their duties with moderation, but with 
 success that the name, not only of English valour, but of English 
 mercy, might be established ; and that the overseeing care of that 
 gracious Providence which had so often brought good out of evil, 
 might make the crime which had forced us to take those measures 
 which had been adopted the means of promoting an everlasting 
 peace, alike beneficial to England and to China. 
 
373 
 
 COLONIAL PASSENGERS BILL.* 
 JUNE 4, 1840. 
 
 HE entertained so high a respect for his right hon. and learned 
 friend [Sir S. Lushington], and knew so well the services he had 
 rendered to the cause of freedom, that he felt much pain in differ 
 ing from him. But after the speech they had just heard, he was 
 unwilling to give his vote without stating the grounds of it. He 
 believed, that with respect to the general principle there was little 
 difference between his right hon. friend and himself. None knew 
 better than his right hon. friend how important it was to remove 
 labourers from districts where the population was thick and wages 
 were low, to districts where the land was widely spread, and labour in 
 demand. He would admit, there might be exceptions he thought, 
 that wheresoever slavery existed there ought to be restrictions 
 placed upon immigration ] he was also of opinion, that while 
 slavery existed in the West Indies, it was in the highest degree 
 pernicious to the labouring population to permit the emigration 
 from parts where the demand for labour was small to those where 
 it was great. And he considered, that the system of slavery, 
 separating, as it did altogether, the interest of the capitalist from 
 that of the labourer, depriving the latter of the fair advantage, 
 which in a free condition he had a right to expect from the fertile 
 soil, and a great demand for his labour, rendered it necessary to 
 impose a restriction upon the passage of the labourer from one 
 country to another. But now, if there was any one part of the 
 empire from which it was desirable to encourage emigration, it was 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. liv. p. 941-944. 
 
374 COLONIAL PASSENGERS BILL. 
 
 India, and if there was any part to which the tide should flow, it 
 was the Mauritius. The wages in the latter place would be fifty 
 times what the labourer received in his native place. When he 
 considered the state of the native peasantry of India, he would 
 say, with every respect for the sincere feelings of humanity which 
 actuated those who were opposed to the present measure, that 
 they might be betrayed by those very feelings into committing 
 a great wrong upon that unfortunate population. He could 
 state it as a fact, that at the time when the debates on the subject 
 of these peasants were going on while persons were speaking 
 with the greatest horror of the new system of slave-trade, the 
 Governor-general was obliged to turn out of his road to avoid the 
 s : ght of these wretched peasants dying in the ditches from starva 
 tion, in consequence of low wages. He understood his right hon. 
 friend to say, that as a general principle, they ought not to inter 
 fere with tho free labourers removing from one part of the country 
 to another, therefore it would appear as if he contended, that in 
 the present case, there were circumstances which counterbalanced 
 the difference between famine and plenty, and between two-pence 
 a day as wages and one shilling. " His right hon. friend had spoken 
 of the disparity between the sexes. Had he heard the statement 
 of his noble friend, he would have heard that measures were in 
 view which would remedy that great evil. His right hon. friend 
 had also spoken of the artifices, blameable in the highest degree, 
 practised by the agents in the Mauritius ; but had he heard the 
 speech of his noble friend, he would have discovered that no 
 agency would now be permitted, except such as was authorized by 
 the government in India or the government in the Mauritius. 
 Had his right hon. friend heard the speech, he would also have 
 discovered that it was intended to limit the contracts entered into 
 to such a degree that the labourers would be at liberty to choose 
 their masters, and that no contract was to last for a longer term 
 than twelve months. That was a state of things under which 
 
COLONIAL PASSENGERS BILL. S7o 
 
 evils would arise, such as those anticipated by his right hon. friend. 
 With regard to the point that the language of these people was 
 not understood in the Mauritius, his right hon. friend seemed to 
 have overlooked the fact, that in that island were constantly to be 
 found a considerable number of the civil servants of the East 
 India Company, men of high respectability, character, and attain 
 ments. Those persons understood the language of the emigrants, 
 and would naturally be disposed to feel a strong interest in their 
 welfare. That pircumstance alone would constitute a strong dis 
 tinction between the case of the Mauritius and of the West Indies, 
 which his right hon. friend had paralleled. With respect to some 
 unfortunate circumstances in the past history of the Mauritius he 
 would say, without attempting to impute to his right hon. friend 
 any other motives than those by which he was guided, and which 
 were the purest and most humane, that both his right hon. friend, 
 and the hon. Member for Bridport, had insisted too much upon 
 that point. It was worth while to consider whether the last 
 slave trade, so long carried on in the Mauritius, were to be attri 
 buted entirely to a lawless disposition arid contempt for the mother 
 country, or whether it were not to be attributed to the fact that 
 the Mauritius was close to the slave market, while other colonies 
 were more distant. There were many general local circumstances 
 to induce the belief that the emigrants would be better off in the 
 Mauritius, and return to their own country afterwards under better 
 circumstances from the Mauritius than from the West Indies. He 
 would say, then, looking at the papers, if he were asked whether 
 the evils he saw there were those of the slave trade such as existed 
 between Africa and the West Indies, or those of the slave trade as 
 it existed between this country and the colonies on the other side 
 of the Atlantic, he should say that the evils, though great and requir 
 ing correction, certainly belonged to the latter class. He would 
 only add that he believed no persons or few at least had felt 
 more strongly than he had felt during the contest that took place 
 
370 
 
 on the subject of negro slavery. He would not say that he did 
 not feel for those persons who were connected with colonial pro 
 perty ; and he declared that since that time, so far from regard 
 ing those proprietors with unfriendly feelings, there was no interest 
 in the empire which he was more desirous to see in a flourish 
 ing and prosperous condition, because he believed that on the 
 fate of the great experiment that had been tried depended the 
 fate of slaves throughout the civilized world. If, twenty years 
 hence, those colonies in which slavery continued, should be able 
 to point to those in which it had been abolished, ruined, and the 
 plantations in them abandoned, then he would say that although 
 we should indeed have wiped a stain from our own land, he ques 
 tioned whether we should have conferred a great and signal boon 
 upon humanity in general. Believing, then, that the measure of 
 his noble friend would have a tendency to promote the prosperity 
 of the colonies by means at once just towards the labourer, and 
 compatible with his freedom and comfort, he should give it his 
 most cordial support. 
 
377 
 
 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND.* 
 
 JUNE 19, 1840. 
 
 HE entertained so great a respect for the eminent talents and legal 
 acuteness of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down 
 [Sir E. Sugden], that it was with great diffidence he ventured 
 to oppose his opinion to that of the right hon. and learned 
 Gentleman on the construction of a single clause. But when the 
 right hon. and learned Gentleman had emphatically, distinctly, and 
 repeatedly assured the Committee that the question on which they 
 were to divide was, whether a person now on the register was to 
 remain on it all his life, he (Mr. Macaulay) could not but say that 
 it appeared to him that the words of his noble Friend s amend 
 ment by no means bore out such a statement. His reading of the 
 words was, that the voter should be continued on the register so 
 long as his right of voting and the registry were to remain in 
 force, which under the present law were not for the term of his 
 life, but for the period of eight years. If he was correct in con 
 ceiving that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had thus, from 
 reading it but cursorily, mistaken his noble Friend s amendment, 
 he might well suppose that the right hon. and learned Gentleman 
 had not been altogether correct in his other remarks. He utterly 
 denied, that the smallest imputation of unfairness, of violation of 
 Parliamentary rule, or of want of perfect candour, could be 
 brought against his noble Friend. The question which his noble 
 Friend had brought forward was one of the gravest importance ; 
 it was the question of re-investigation or no re-investigation, and 
 
 * Hansard, 3d Series, vol. liv. p. 1349-1357. 
 
378 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 
 
 was one which the Committee would repeatedly have to decide on 
 during the progress of the bill. It w r as a question which it was 
 possible for any Member of that House, without the slightest 
 infringement of Parliamentary rule, to bring forward on the dis 
 cussion of any clause in which it could with propriety be inserted. 
 Considering the history of the noble Lord s bill considering that on 
 the question of going into Committee the noble Lord had a majority 
 of but three, and that of that majority two hon. Members declared 
 themselves unfavourable to the principle of re-investigation, two 
 used language such as gave the House to understand that should 
 the bill come to a third reading, still containing that principle, they 
 would vote against it he thought his noble Friend was justified 
 on the first occasion which presented itself in taking the opinion 
 of the Committee on the great question of whether re-investigation 
 was to remain the prominent defect of the bill ? Although it was 
 the intention of Government to go fully and fairly into the Com 
 mittee on the bill, he entertained no expectation of any good 
 result. He did not hope that any good measure could be made 
 out of one so laboriously, so elaborately, bad as that of the noble 
 Lord ; but if any effectual alteration could be made, it must bo 
 made by a series of amendments like the present. By such altera 
 tions the bill might, perhaps, leave the Committee what it purported 
 to be, a bill to amend the Registration. At present he coulc 1 
 designate it by no other name than a bill to take away the right 
 of voting under the pretence of ascertaining it. He need hardly 
 say, that it was to no purpose that the bill did not directly affec- 
 the right of voting, because there was no right which could not be 
 annulled by indirect as well as by direct means, or by providing a 
 tedious, troublesome, and costly mode of obtaining it. That was 
 seen in all questions relating to the rights of property. It was to 
 no purpose, by the substantive law of the land, particular estates 
 or sums of money belonged to a certain person, if that law were 
 so expensive as only to obtain his right at a greater expense than 
 
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 379 
 
 the object was worth. There was not an lion. Member in that 
 House who had not at some time or other submitted to an unjust 
 demand rather than run the risk of vexatious proceedings. If a 
 law were brought into that House for the purpose of making jus 
 tice expensive, he should be justified in calling it a law of spoliation, 
 and so he thought he was justified in designating a bill the object 
 of which was disfranchisement under the name of registration. 
 At the same time he had not the smallest doubt but that the bill 
 of the noble Lord would remove some persons from the register 
 who had not the smallest right to be there, in the same way as if 
 they made a law making the Court of Requests as expensive as 
 the House of Lords. Many a groundless action would be driven 
 out of it, but the question was, whether they would not be throw 
 ing difficulties in the way of the just as well as of the unjust 
 claimant. Let the noble Lord satisfy him that the impediments 
 provided by this bill would lie only in the way of fraudulent 
 claimants, and he would give him his support. But he saw no 
 provision to that effect in the bill. He saw that it went to make 
 registration costly and difficult both for the fraudulent and the 
 just claimant, and it was on the distinction between the two that 
 the sense of the Committee would be taken. It provided repeated 
 hearings of the same question first before a subordinate, and then 
 before an appellate tribunal. He would beg of the committee 
 to consider to what extent that abuse might be carried under the 
 bill. Even the legal knowledge of the right hon. and learned 
 Gentleman would not enable him to find a parallel in any law, 
 British or foreign, ancient or modern. It would not be necessary 
 to select as matter of objection some point which had not been 
 investigated before, for one and the same objection might be raised 
 every time a new assistant barrister came to the country, or as 
 often as a new judge went the circuit. If he rightly understood 
 the noble Lord s bill, an objection might be made in 1840 before 
 the assistant barrister, from that there might be made an appeal to 
 
880 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 
 
 the Court of Queen s Bench ; in 1841 it might be again brought 
 before the assistant-barrister, and from him to the Court of Com 
 mon Pleas ; in 1842 it might again come before the assistant- 
 barrister, and then there was an appeal to the Court of Exchequer. 
 Nay, further, should there be a new Chief Justice, it might be tried 
 another year in the Court of Common Pleas. Now, he would 
 venture to ask if the whole jurisprudence of the world contained 
 anything which afforded a parallel to such a system of legislation ? 
 He would venture to assert that there was no parallel, because, 
 although there was something like it in the English system 
 and it was the vice of the system yet there was only one trial, but 
 in any other respect he defied the noble Lord to find a parallel in 
 any country that ever called itself civilized. The noble Lord said, if 
 that power of objection was not given, persons would get upon the 
 registry who had no legal right to be there. Did the noble Lord 
 imagine that there were no persons in possession of property in 
 this country the judgments in whose favour were by no means 
 justified ? Did the noble Lord imagine that all the damages 
 awarded to plaintiffs by juries, and that all the large sums which 
 had been paid by the Courts of Law, were sanctioned by truth 
 and justice ? Did he not believe that there were many estates 
 which were in the possession of wrong owners ? But the Courts 
 of Law could not and ought not to set these matters right by 
 eternal re-investigation. Suppose an injured man had come and 
 said that the judgment obtained against him was erroneous that 
 he had procured the evidence that he had found in the bottom 
 of a chest an old paper which would establish his claim that he 
 had been taken by surprise ; the court might naturally say, that 
 they regretted the hardship of the case, but it would be impossible 
 for them to go on hearing and re-hearing the case twenty or thirty 
 or fifty times ; that the noble Lord s bill admitted, and it required 
 no great stretch of imagination to suppose a case in which the 
 voter might be objected to 120 or 130 times in the course of his 
 
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 381 
 
 life. He had not the smallest doubt that if they went on hearing 
 criminal cases over and over again, they would at length hang 
 some great ruffians. He had no doubt that if a man brought an 
 action over again for the same cause, some cases of importance 
 might be set right ; but it had been ruled over and over again 
 that it was better occasionally that some wrong should be endured 
 than that the rights of society should be constantly interfered with ; 
 and why should they depart from that principle in the single case 
 of the franchise ? No doubt the bill would exclude many dis 
 honest voters, but the question was, what would be its effect on 
 the honest voter ? All the objections in the bill were common to 
 the rightful and the wrongful claimant. The vexation and expense 
 of travelling, of appearing before the judge, of severe cross- 
 examinations, of brow-beatings, and reflections upon his integrity, 
 were all common to the rightful as well as the wrongful claimant. 
 But did the noble Lord believe that a case never broke down unless 
 when a man went with a fraudulent intention ? Did he not know 
 that the accidental absence of a witness, or direct perjury (for 
 if the noble Lord imputed so much on the side of the claimant, 
 surely he might allow a little on the side of the objectors) would 
 break down the claim ? Was he not aware that men, who thought 
 they had a good right, were frequently withheld from pressing it 
 in a court of law, because they were in doubt whether they could 
 establish it satisfactorily ; or had the noble Lord never heard of 
 the uncertainty of the law ? If out of one hundred honest 
 claimants only four or five were defeated, or saddled with costs, 
 could any one doubt that that would act to the injury of the 
 honest claimant ? Almost every clause of the noble Lord s bill 
 for keeping out the wrongful, acted just as effectually against the 
 rightful claimant. The noble Lord had drawn a pretty picture of 
 an unfortunate claimant being opposed by a pauper ; but the 
 noble Lord should recollect that property was the best of qualifi 
 cations that the claim of the rich man must be a valid one, and 
 
382 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 
 
 that it was much more likely that the case might be reversed. 
 He would suppose another case, the case of a man of great wealth, 
 and of imperious, obstinate, and arbitrary temper one of those 
 men, who, as had been said by his lamented and valued friend, in 
 words which should be engraven on his tomb, thought much of 
 the rights of property, and little of its duties. He would suppose 
 that man willing to spend 6,000 or 7,000 a year in securing the 
 command of a county; that, every man knew, would not be 
 impossible even in England. He would not mention any recent 
 transaction ; he did not wish to mix up personalities with that 
 serious debate ; but they all knew that a certain man now dead, 
 provoked by the opposition he received in a certain town, vowed 
 that he would make the grass grow in its streets, and he kept his 
 vow. Another ejected 400 voters in one county, and entered 15 
 criminal and 225 civil actions. Such a man could easily command 
 an Irish county. It would only be a picture less in his gallery, or 
 an antique gern the less in his collection. The cost would be but 
 as dust under his feet, compared with the pleasure of domination. 
 He had no hesitation in saying that every clause in the noble 
 Lord s bill tended to harass and obstruct the voter in obtaining his 
 just rights. The effect, in short, would be, that a great many 
 would abandon the claim altogether. The franchise was a sacred 
 public trust, which should be used for the benefit of the public, 
 and yet when honestly seeking that, their pecuniary interests were 
 to be seriously affected. They should also take into consideration 
 that men did not go to the registry with the same spirit with 
 which they went to the poll. There had been few registrations 
 since 1826, at which a general election was expected; and men 
 who, when the candidates were declared, and when perhaps the fate 
 of a ministry was to be sealed, would pay 50 or run any trouble 
 to record their votes in a hard-fought election, would hardly go 
 across the street to register. Therefore, you ought rather to 
 encourage than discourage registration. Yet, supposing a Parlia- 
 
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 3S d 
 
 ment to last seven years, the noble Lord s bill would expose the 
 voter to fourteen law-suits, against which what human fortitude or 
 human patriotism could stand out ? and this was the principle 
 which the House was now called upon to assert or reject. Sir, 
 (continued the right lion. Gentleman), there is another considera 
 tion which applies specially to Ireland ; that is, the state of the 
 franchise. It is impossible to separate that from the subject of 
 registration it is impossible to have a perfect law of registration, 
 that is, one which shall throw the greatest difficulties in the way 
 of the wrongful, and every facility in the way of the rightful 
 claimant : but it is still open for you to distinguish as clearly as 
 possible which are the rightful and which are the wrongful claim 
 ants, and how can I decide upon a question like this without look 
 ing at the state of the franchise ? It is impossible not to feel how 
 much more the Irish franchise is restricted, as compared with the 
 English, even by the Reform Bill how much it is restricted even 
 below what Pitt, and Castlereagh, and Grenville, and Windham, 
 considered to be just. Looking at statistics, I find that Westmore 
 land, with little more than 50,000 inhabitants, and covered by 
 naked hills and barren moors, has more voters than any Irish 
 county than Tipperary with 400,000 inhabitants, or Cork with 
 800,000. Sir, I cannot think that even the superiority of England 
 in point of property can explain so enormous a disparity ; and, 
 whatever way I look at the question, I think that the Irish franchise 
 ought to be rather extended than restricted if it is to be altered 
 at all and I do not pledge myself .to support any proposition for 
 its extension ; but if I hesitate to interpose to make it better, I 
 will not lay violent hands upon it to make it worse and strong 
 as is my regard for the great settlement of 1832, I will never 
 consent to m-ake it final as against the people alone ; and if 
 not restoring what it took away, I will not consent to withdraw the 
 smallest portion of what it gave. But, Sir, this is not an Irish 
 merely, it is an imperial question. I hope and trust that if the 
 
384 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 
 
 bill is to pass at all, it will pass modified by the amendment pro 
 posed to-night, and by others conceived in the same spirit. But 
 if not, I shall regard it as the first step in a great retrograde move 
 ment as the beginning of a scheme of which the object is to 
 undo what was done by the Reform Bill. I do not believe the 
 Reform Bill would be directly attacked. Much as hon. Gentle 
 men have talked of re-action, they well know that there has been 
 no re-action here they well know that it would not be safe to 
 attempt to despoil our great cities and towns of political power, and 
 confer it again on old walls and mouldering towers. But what 
 cannot be done directly may be done indirectly it matters not 
 what franchise is conferred if the means of acquiring it are 
 restricted. It matters not how well the law of rights is framed, if not 
 accompanied by as efficient a law of remedies power that can be 
 obtained only by wealth or time, though nominally given to the 
 many, is really given only to the few. Let us have the most demo 
 cratic Reform Bill, and let the noble Lord frame our registration, 
 and political power may yet be in the hands of the aristocracy and 
 its tools. The Opposition begin with Ireland, and they are wise. 
 Distance, difference of religious belief perhaps that unfriendly 
 feeling, the natural effect of much wrong inflicted, and much 
 wrong endured may have deterred the people of this country from 
 resenting the insult offered to the Irish nation as they would have 
 resented the same insult to themselves. But, Sir, I grieve for the 
 short-sightedness of my countrymen ; Ireland is the first field it 
 will not be the last. I believe this struggle is just as much for 
 Yorkshire and Kent as for Cork and Kerry. And the day when 
 the constituencies, worked upon this bill, shall send up to this 
 House representatives regarded by the Irish people as enemies, will 
 be dark and dreary for the liberties of England. But it is not 
 necessary that I should resort to topics like these. The derisive 
 expressions of Gentlemen opposite, I suppose intimate, that they 
 would be unjust to Ireland alone. Well, whether they mean this 
 
REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 385 
 
 injustice to be confined to Ireland or to extend to England, I 
 hardly know how to express my reprobation of so odious and dis 
 gusting a measure. The people of Ireland have been already 
 hardly enough used. When we granted them religious emancipa 
 tion, we took away their franchise. By the Reform Bill, a very 
 small portion of what was before taken away was restored ; and 
 now the noble Lord by this bill would take away the little which 
 the Reform Bill bestowed. There is only one bill on the table 
 relative to the registration in England, a bill laid on the table "by 
 the same hand that laid the Reform Bill there, and one worthy of 
 that hand. But as regards Ireland, we are now discussing a bill 
 made up of the very worst features of all the bills that have been 
 of late years introduced on the subject of registration of the 
 English system, of the system at present existing in Ireland, 
 and of the ill-considered plan of Sir Michael O Loghlen. Yes ! 
 the ill-considered plan of Sir Michael O Loghlen. Each and all 
 of these systems have been made to contribute their evil, but not 
 one of their redeeming qualities ; and the noble Lord, out of those 
 evil qualities, has framed his bill. What must be the feelings of 
 the people of Ireland when they compare that bill with the bill 
 laid on the table by my noble Friend for the settlement of the 
 registration system in England ? To perpetuate differences and to 
 excite discord seems to be the object of the noble Lord. Not 
 such was the spirit in which the great minister who carried the 
 act of Union treated the people of Ireland. The words which he 
 quoted seem to have been forgotten by the noble Lord. 
 
 "Paribus se legibus ambas 
 Invictse gentes scterna in foedera irittant." 
 
 These were the sentiments of the promoter of the act of 
 
 Union. I venerate that great measure. I am ready to defend it 
 
 against the open enmity of the hon. and learned member for 
 
 Dublin, as against the still more dangerous friendship of the noble 
 
 VOL. T. 17 
 
ft 86 REGISTRATION OF VOTERS IRELAND. 
 
 Lord. I am satisfied that for every repealer made by the 
 eloquence of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, ten 
 would be produced by the bill of the noble Lord if it passed in its 
 present shape, and unmitigated. Should an universal cry for 
 repeal of the Union arise in Ireland on the passing of the bill, I 
 should not regard it in any other light than as the natural succession 
 of effect and cause. It would be puerile, nay it would be hypo 
 critical, to go on misgoverning, and to pretend to hope that the 
 results of good government would follow to assume that those 
 whom we treat as aliens, ought to feel towards us as brothers to 
 oppose agitation and multiply the grievances by which agitation 
 is alone supported, and by which it was originated to raise the 
 cry of civil war whereon the people of Ireland called for a repeal 
 of the legislative Union, and at the very time when you are tak 
 ing steps to annul all those rights and privileges, without which 
 the legislative Union would be but an empty name. 
 
387 
 
 THE COPYRIGHT BILL* 
 
 FEBRUARY 5, 1841. 
 
 THOUGH, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject 
 with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself 
 to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a 
 course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as 
 unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is 
 painful to me, I will add, to oppose ray lion, and learned Friend 
 on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and 
 which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have 
 hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under 
 discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the 
 measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the 
 public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of 
 letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it. 
 The first thing to be done, Sir, is to settle on what principles the 
 question is to be argued. Are we free to legislate for the public 
 good, or are we not ? Is this a question of expediency, or is it a 
 question of right ? Many of those who have written and petitioned 
 against the existing state of things, treat the question as one of 
 right. The law of nature, according to them, gives to every man 
 a sacred and indefeasible property in his own ideas, in the fruits 
 of his own reason and imagination. The legislature has indeed 
 the power to take away this property, just as it has the power to 
 .pass an act of attainder for cutting off an innocent man s head 
 without a trial. But as such an act of attainder would be legal 
 
 * Hansard, 3<1 Series, vol. Ivi. p. 344-357. 
 
388 COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 murder, so would an act invading the right of an author to his 
 copy be, according to these gentlemen, legal robbery. Now, Sir, 
 if this be so, let justice be done, cost what it may. I am not 
 prepared, like my hon. and learned Friend, to agree to a compro 
 mise between right and expediency, to commit an injustice for the 
 public convenience. But I must say, that his theory soars far 
 beyond the reach of my faculties. It is not necessary to go, on 
 the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin 
 of the right of property ; and certainly nothing but the strongest 
 necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be dis 
 tasteful to the House. I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that 
 property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates 
 property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law 
 beneficial to mankind. But it is unnecessary to debate that point. 
 For even if I believed in a natural right of property, independent 
 of utility and anterior to legislation, I should still deny that this 
 right could survive the original proprietor. /Few, I apprehend, 
 even of those who have studied in the most mystical and senti 
 mental schools of moral philosophy, will be disposed to maintain 
 that there is a natural law of succession older and of higher 
 authority than any human code. If there be, it is quite certain 
 that we have abuses to reform much more serious than any con 
 nected with the question of copyright. For this natural law can 
 be only one, and the modes of succession in the Queen s dominions 
 are twenty. To go no further than England, land generally 
 descends to the eldest son. In Kent the sons share and share 
 alike ; in many districts the youngest takes the whole. Formerly 
 a portion of a man s personal property was secured to his family. 
 It was only of the residue that he could dispose by will. Now he 
 can dispose of the whole by will. But a few years ago you 
 enacted, that the will should not be valid unless there were two 
 witnesses. If a man dies intestate, his personal property generally 
 goes according to the statute of distributions. But there are local 
 
COPYRIGHT BILL. 389 
 
 customs which modify that statute. Now which of all these systems 
 is conformed to the eternal standard of right ? Is it primogeni 
 ture, or gavelkind, or borough English ? Are wills jure divino ? 
 Are the two witnesses jure divino ? Might not the pars rationa- 
 bilis of our old law have as fair a claim to be regarded as of celes- 
 
 K tial institution ? Was the statute of distributions enacted in Heaven 
 long before it was adopted by Parliament ? Or is it to Custom of 
 York, or to Custom of London, that this pre-eminence belongs ? 
 Surely, Sir, even those who hold that there is a natural right of 
 property must admit that rules prescribing the manner in which 
 the effects of deceased persons shall be distributed, are purely 
 arbitrary, and originate altogether in the will of the legislature. 
 If so, Sir, there is no controversy between my hon. and learned 
 Friend and myself as to the principles on which this question is to 
 be argued. For the existing law gives an author copyright during 
 
 - his natural life ; nor do I propose to invade that privilege, which 
 I should, on the contrary, be prepared to defend strenuously against 
 any assailant. The point in issue is, how long after an author s 
 death the State shall recognise a copyright in his representatives 
 and assigns, and it can, I think, hardly be disputed by any rational 
 man that this is a point which the legislature is free to determine 
 in the way which may appear to be most conducive to the general 
 good. We may now, therefore, I think descend from these high 
 regions, where we are in danger of being lost in the clouds, to 
 firm ground and clear light. Let us look at this question like 
 legislators, and after fairly balancing conveniences and inconve 
 niences, pronounce between the existing law of copyright and the 
 law now proposed to us. The question of copyright, Sir, like 
 most questions of civil prudence, is neither Hack nor white, but 
 grey. The system of copyright has great advantages, and great 
 disadvantages, and it is our business to ascertain what these are, 
 and then to make an arrangement undei which the advantages 
 may be as far as. possible secured, and the disadvantages as far as 
 
390 COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 possible excluded. The charge which I bring against my hon. and 
 learned Friend s bill is this, that it leaves the advantages nearly 
 what they are at present, and increases the disadvantages at least 
 four fold. The advantages arising from a system of copyright are 
 obvious. It is desirable that we should have a supply of good 
 books ; we cannot have such a supply unless men of letters are 
 liberally remunerated : and the least objectionable way of remune 
 rating them is by means of copyright, You cannot depend for 
 literary instruction and amusement on the leisure of men occupied 
 in the pursuits of active life. Such men may occasionally produce 
 pieces of great merit. But you must not look to them for works 
 which require deep meditation and long research. Such works 
 you can expect only from persons who make literature the business 
 of their lives. Of these persons few will be found among the rich 
 and the noble. The rich and the noble are not impelled to intel 
 lectual exertion by necessity. They may be impelled to intellectual 
 exertion by the desire of distinguishing themselves, or by the 
 desire of benefiting the community. But it is generally within 
 these walls that they seek to signalize themselves and to serve 
 their fellow creatures. Both their ambition and their public spirit, 
 in a country like this, naturally take a political turn. It is then on 
 men whose profession is literature, and whose private means are 
 not ample, that you must rely for a supply of valuable books. 
 Such men must be remunerated for their literary labour. And 
 there are only two ways in which they can be remunerated. One 
 of those ways is patronage ; the other is copyright. There have 
 been times in which men of letters looked, not to the public, but to 
 the Government, or to a few great men, for the reward of their 
 exertions. It was thus in the time of Maecenas and Pollio at 
 Rome, of the Medici at Florence, of Louis the Fourteenth in France, 
 of Lord Halifax and Lord Oxford in this country. Now, Sir, I 
 well know that there are cases in which it is fit and graceful, nay, 
 in which it is a sacred duty, to reward the merits, or to relieve the 
 
cory>::inirr BILL. 391 
 
 distresses of men of genius by the exercise of this species of libe 
 rality. But these cases are exceptions. I can conceive no system 
 more fatal to the integrity and independence of literary men, than 
 one under which they should be taught to look for their daily 
 bread to the favour of ministers and nobles. I can conceive no 
 system more certain to turn those minds which are formed by 
 nature to be the blessings and ornaments of our species into its 
 scandal and its pest. We have then only one resource left. Wo 
 must betake ourselves to copyright, be the inconveniences of copy 
 right what they may. Those inconveniences, in truth, are neither 
 few nor small. Copyright is monopoly, and produces all the 
 effects which the general voice of mankind attributes to monopoly. 
 My hon. and learned Friend talks very contemptuously of those 
 who are led away by the theory that monopoly makes things dear. 
 That monopoly makes things dear is certainly a theory, as all the 
 great truths which have been established by the experience of all 
 ages and nations, and which are taken for granted in all reasonings, 
 may be said to be theories. It is a theory in the same sense in 
 which it is a theory that day and night follow each other, that 
 lead is heavier than water, that bread nourishes, that arsenic 
 poisons, that alcohol intoxicates. If, as my hon. and learned 
 Friend seems to hold, the whole world is in the wrong on this 
 point, if the real effect of monopoly is to make articles good 
 and cheap, why does he stop short in his career of change? 
 Why does he limit the operation of so salutary a principle to sixty 
 years ? Why does he consent to anything short of a perpetuity ? 
 He told us that in consenting to anything short of a perpetuity 
 he was making a compromise between extreme right and expe 
 diency. But if his opinion about monopoly be correct, extreme 
 right and expediency would coincide. Or rather why should we 
 not restore the monopoly of the East-India trade to the East-India 
 Company ? Why should we not revive all those old monopolies 
 which, in Elizabeth s reign, galled our fathers so severely that, 
 
392 , COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 maddened by intolerable wrong, they opposed to their sovereign a 
 resistance before which her haughty spirit quailed for the first and 
 for the last time ? Was it the cheapness and excellence of com 
 modities that then so violently stirred the indignation of the 
 English people ? I believe, Sir, that I may safely take it for 
 granted that the effect of monopoly generally is to make articles 
 scarce, to make them dear, and to make them bad. Arid I may 
 with equal safety challenge my hon. Friend to find out any 
 distinction between copyright and other privileges of the same 
 kind, any reason why a monopoly of books should produce an 
 effect directly the reverse of that which was produced by the East- 
 India Company s monopoly of tea, or by Lord Essex s monopoly 
 of sweet wines. Thus, then, stands the case. It is good, that 
 authors should be remunerated ; and the least exceptionable way 
 of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. 
 For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil ; but the 
 evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose 
 of securing the good. Now, I will not affirm, that the existing 
 law is perfect, that it exactly hits the point at which the monopoly 
 ought to cease, but this I confidently say, that it is very much 
 nearer that point than the law proposed by my hon. and learned 
 Friend. For consider this ; the evil effects of the monopoly are 
 proportioned to tlie.-leugth of its duration. But the good effects 
 for the sake of which we bear with the evil effects are by no means 
 proportioned to the length of its duration. ATmbnopoly of sixty 
 years produces twice as much evil as a monopoly of thirty years, 
 and thrice as much evil as a monopoly of twenty years. But it is 
 by no means the fact that a posthumous monopoly of sixty years, 
 gives to an author thrice as much pleasure and thrice as strong a 
 motive as a posthumous monopoly of twenty years. On the con 
 trary, the difference is so small as to be hardly perceptible. We 
 all know how faintly we are affected by the prospect of very 
 distant advantages, even when they are advantages which we may 
 
COPYRIGHT BILL. 39S 
 
 reasonably hope that we shall ourselves enjoy. But an advantage 
 that is to be enjoyed more thaifhalf a century after we are dead, 
 by somebody, we know not whom, perhaps by somebody unborn, 
 by somebody utterly unconnected with us, is really no motive to 
 action. It is very probable, that in the course of some generations, 
 land in the unexplored and unmapped heart of the Australian 
 continent, will be very valuable. But there is none of us who 
 would lay down five pounds for a whole province in the heart of 
 the Australian continent. We know, that neither we, nor anybody 
 for whom we care, will ever receive a farthing of rent from such a 
 province. And a man is very little moved by the thought that in 
 the year 2000 or 2100, somebody who claims through him, will 
 employ more shepherds than Prince Esterhazy, and will have the 
 finest house and gallery of pictures at Victoria or Sydney. Now,. 
 this is the sort of boon which my hon. and learned Friend holds j 
 out to authors. Considered as a boon to them, it is a mere j 
 nullity ; but, considered as an impost on the public, it is no nullity, ) 
 but a very serious and fatal reality ; I will take an example. Dr; 
 Johnson died fifty-six years ago. If the law were what my hon. 
 and learned Friend wishes to make it, somebody would now have 
 the monopoly of Dr. Johnson s works. Who that somebody 
 would be, it is impossible to say, but we may venture to guess. I 
 guess, then, that it would have been some bookseller, who was the 
 assign of another bookseller, who was the grandson of a third 
 bookseller, who had bought the copyright from Black Frank, the 
 Doctor s servant, in 1785 or 1786. Now, would the knowledge, 
 that this copyright would exist in 1841, have been a source of 
 gratification to Johnson ? Would it have stimulated his exertions ? 
 Would it have once drawn him out of his bed before noon ? 
 Would it have once cheered him under a fit of the spleen 3 
 Would it have induced him to give us one more allegory, one 
 more life of a poet, one more imitation of Juvenal ? I firmly believe 
 not. I firmly believe that a hundred years ago, when he was 
 
 17* 
 
894 COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 writing our debates for the Gentleman s Magazine, he would very 
 much rather have had twopence to buy a plate of shin of beef at a 
 cook s shop underground. Considered as a reward to him, the 
 difference between a twenty years term, and a sixty years term of 
 posthumous copyright, would have been nothing or next to 
 nothing. But is the difference nothing to us ? I can buy Rasse- 
 las for sixpence ; I might have had to give five shillings for it. I 
 can buy the Dictionary the entire genuine Dictionary for two 
 guineas, perhaps for less ; I might have had to give five or six 
 guineas for it. Do I grudge this to a man like Dr. Johnson ? 
 Not at all. Show me that the prospect of this boon roused him 
 to any vigorous effort, or sustained his spirits under depressing 
 circumstances, and I am quite willing to pay the price of such an 
 object, heavy as that price is. But what I do complain of is that 
 my circumstances are to be worse, and Johnson s none the better; 
 that I am to give five pounds for what to him was not worth a 
 farthing. The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on 
 readers for the purpose of givtng a bounty to writers. The tax is 
 an exceedingly bad one ; it is a tax on one of the most innocent 
 and most salutary of human pleasures ; and never let us forget, 
 that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. 
 I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and 
 learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even 
 to this severe and burdensome tax. Nay, I am ready to increase 
 the tax, if it can be shown that by so doing I should proportionally 
 increase the bounty. My complaint is, that my hon. and learned 
 Friend doubles, triples, quadruples, the tax, and makes scarcely 
 any perceptible addition to the bounty. To recur to the case of Dr. 
 Johnson, what is the additional amount of taxation which would 
 have been levied on the public for Dr. Johnson s works alone, if 
 my hon. and learned Friend s bill had been the law of the land ? 
 I have not data sufficient to form an opinion. But I am confident 
 that the taxation on his Dictionarv alone would have amounted to 
 
COPYRIGHT BILL. 395 
 
 many thousands of pounds. In reckoning the whole additional 
 sum which the holders of his copyrights would have taken out of 
 the pockets of the public during the last half century at twenty 
 thousand pounds, I feel satisfied that I very greatly under-rate it. 
 Now, I again say, that I think it but fair that we should pay 
 twenty thousand pounds in consideration of twenty thousand 
 pounds worth of pleasure and encouragement received by Dr. 
 Johnson. But I think it very hard that we should pay twenty 
 thousand pounds for what he would not have valued at five 
 shillings. My hon. and learned Friend dwells on the claims of 
 the posterity of great writers. Undoubtedly, Sir, it would be very 
 pleasing to see a descendant of Shakespeare living in opulence, 
 on the fruits of his great ancestor s genius. A house maintained 
 in splendour by such a patrimony would be a more interesting 
 and striking object than Blenheim is to us, or than Strathfieldsaye 
 will be to our children. But, unhappily, it is scarcely possible that, 
 under any system, such a thing can come to pass. My lion, and 
 learned Friend does not propose that copyright shall descend to 
 the eldest son, or shall be bound up by irrevocable entail. It is to 
 be merely personal property. It is therefore highly improbable 
 that it will descend during sixty years or half that term from 
 parent to child. The chance is that more people than one will 
 have an interest in it. They will in all probability sell it and 
 divide the proceeds. The price which a bookseller will give for it 
 will bear no proportion to the sum which he w r ill afterwards draw 
 from the public, if his speculation proves successful. He will give 
 little, if any thing, more for a term of sixty years than for a term 
 of thirty or five-and-twenty. The present value of a distant 
 advantage is always small ; but when there is great room to doubt 
 whether a distant advantage will be any advantage at all, the 
 present value sinks to almost nothing. Such is the inconstancy 
 of the public taste, that no sensible man will venture to pronounce, 
 with confidence, what the sale of any book published in our days 
 
30(5 COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 will be in the years between 1890 and 1900. The whole fashion 
 of thinking arid writing has often undergone a change in a much 
 shorter period than that to which my hon. and learned Friend 
 would extend posthumous copyright. What would have been 
 considered the best literary property in the earlier part of Charles 
 the Second s reign ? I imagine Cowley s poems. Overleap sixty 
 years, and you are in the generation of which Pope asked, " who 
 now reads Cowley ?" What works were ever expected with more 
 impatience by the public than those of Lord Bolingbroke, which 
 appeared, I think, in 1754. In 1814, no bookseller would have 
 thanked you for the copyright of them all, if you had offered it 
 to him for nothing. What would Paternoster-row give now for 
 the copyright of Hayley s Triumphs of Temper, so much admired 
 within the memory of many people still living ? I say, therefore, 
 that, from the very nature of literary property, it will almost 
 always pass away from an author s family ; and I say, that the 
 price given for it to the family will bear a very small proportion 
 to the tax which the purchaser, if his speculation turns out well, 
 will in the course of a long series of years levy on the public. 
 If, Sir, I wished to find a strong and perfect illustration of the 
 effects which I anticipate from long copyright, I should select, 
 my hon. and learned Friend will be surprised^ I should select 
 the case of Milton s grand-daughter. As often as this bill has 
 been under discussion, the fate of Milton s grand-daughter has 
 been brought forward by the advocates of monopoly. My hon. 
 and learned Friend has repeatedly told the story with great elo 
 quence and effect. He has dilated on the sufferings, on the abject 
 poverty, of this ill-fated woman, the last of an illustrious race. He 
 tells us that, in the extremity of her distress, Garrick gave her a 
 benefit, that Johnson wrote a prologue, and that the public contri 
 buted some hundreds of pounds. Was it fit, he asks, that she 
 should receive, in this eleemosynary form, a small portion of what 
 was in truth a debt ? Why, he asks, instead of obtaining a 
 
COPYRIGHT BILL. S9T 
 
 pittance from charity, did she not live in comfort and luxury on 
 the proceeds of the sale of her ancestor s works ? But, Sir, will 
 my lion, and learned Friend tell me that this event, which he has 
 so often and so pathetically described, was caused by the shortness 
 of copyright ? Why, at that time, the duration of copyright was 
 longer, than even he, at present, proposes to make it. The mono 
 poly lasted not sixty years, but for ever. At the time at which 
 Milton s grand-daughter asked charity, Milton s works were the 
 exclusive property of a bookseller. Within a few months of the 
 day on which the benefit was given at Garrick s theatre, the holder 
 of the copyright of Paradise Lost, I think it was Tonson, applied 
 to the Court of Equity for an injunction against a bookseller, who 
 had published a cheap edition of the great epic poem, and obtained 
 his injunction. The representation of Comus was, if I remember 
 rightly, in 1750 the injunction in 1752. Here, then, is a perfect 
 illustration of what I conceived to be the effect of long copyright. 
 Milton s works are the property of a single publisher. Everybody 
 who wants them, must buy them at Tonson s shop, and at Tonson s 
 price. Whoever attempts to undersell Tonson is harassed with 
 legal proceedings. Thousands who would gladly possess a copy 
 of Paradise Lost, must forego that great enjoyment. And what, 
 in the meantime, is the situation of the only person for whom we 
 can suppose that the author, protected at such a cost to the public, 
 was at all interested ? She is reduced to utter destitution. Milton s 
 works are under a monopoly. Milton s grand-daughter is starving. 
 The reader is pillaged ; but the writer s family is not enriched. 
 Society is taxed doubly. It has to give an exorbitant price for the 
 poems ; and it has at the same time to give alms to the only sur 
 viving descendant of the poet. But this is not all. I think it 
 right, Sir, to call the attention of the House to an evil, which is 
 perhaps more to be apprehended when an author s copyright 
 remains in the hands of his family, than when it is transferred to 
 booksellers. I seriously fear, that if such a measure as this should be 
 
398 COPT RIGHT BILL. 
 
 adopted, many valuable works will be either totally suppressed or 
 grievously mutilated. -I can prove that this danger is not chime 
 rical ; and I am quite certain that, if the danger be real, the safe 
 guards which my lion, and learned Friend has devised are 
 altogether nugatory. That the danger is not chimerical may easily 
 be shown. Most of us, I am sure, have known persons who, very 
 erroneously, as I think, but from the best motives, would not 
 choose to reprint Fielding s novels, or Gibbon s History of the 
 Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Some Gentlemen may 
 perhaps be of opinion, that it would be as well if Tom Jones 
 and Gibbon s History were never reprinted. I will not, then, dwell 
 on these or similar cases. I will take cases respecting which it is 
 not likely that there will be any difference of opinion here, cases 
 too in which the danger of which I now speak is not matter of 
 supposition, but matter of fact. Take Richardson s novels. What 
 ever I may, on the present occasion, think of my hon. and learned 
 Friend s judgment as a legislator, I must always respect his judg 
 ment as a critic. He will, I am sure, say that Richardson s 
 novels are among the most valuable, among the most original 
 works in our language. No writings have done more to raise the 
 fame of English genius in foreign countries. No writings are 
 more deeply pathetic. No writings, those of Shakespeare excepted, 
 show such profound knowledge of the human heart. As to their 
 moral tendency, I can cite the most respectable testimony. Dr. 
 Johnson describes Richardson as one who had taught the passions 
 to move at the command of virtue. My dear and honoured 
 Friend^Mr. Wilberforce, in his celebrated religious treatise, when 
 speaking of" the unchristian tendency of the fashionable novels of 
 the eighteenth century, most distinctly excepts Richardson from 
 the censure. Another excellent person whom I can never mention 
 without respect and kindness, Mrs. Hannah More, often declared 
 in conversation, and has declared in one of her published poems, 
 that she first learned from the writings of Richardson those princi- 
 
CO Prill GHT BILL. 399 
 
 plus of piety, by which her life was guided. I may safely say 
 that books celebrated as works of art through the whole civilised 
 world, and praised for their moral tendency by Dr. Johnson, by 
 Mr. Wilberforce, by Mrs. Hannah More, ought not to be suppressed. 
 Sir, it is my firm belief, that if the law had been what my hon. 
 and learned Friend proposes to make it, they would have been 
 suppressed. I remember Richardson s grandson well; he was a 
 clergyman in the city of London ; he was a most upright and 
 excellent man; but he had conceived a strong prejudice against 
 works of fiction. He thought all novel-reading not only frivolous 
 but sinful. He said, this I state on the authority of one of his 
 clerical brethren, who is now a bishop ; he said that he had never 
 thought it right to read one of his grandfather s books. Suppose, 
 Sir, that the law had been what my hon. and learned Friend would 
 make it. Suppose that the copyright of Richardson s novels had 
 descended, as might well have been the case, to this gentleman. I 
 firmly believe, that he would have thought it sinful to give them 
 wide circulation. I firmly believe, that he would not for a hundred 
 thousand pounds have deliberately done what he thought sinful. 
 He would not have reprinted them. And what protection does 
 my hon. and learned Friend give to the public in such a case? 
 Why, Sir, what he proposes is this : if a book is not reprinted 
 during five years, any person who wishes to reprint it may give 
 notice in the London Gazette : the advertisement must be repeated 
 three times : a year must elapse ; and then, if the proprietor of 
 the copyright does not put forth a new edition, he loses his exclu 
 sive privilege. Now, what protection is this to the public 2 What 
 is a new edition ? Does the law define the number of copies that 
 make an edition ? Does it limit the price of a copy ? Are 
 twelve copies on large paper, charged at thirty guineas each, an 
 edition ? It has been usual, when monopolies have been granted, 
 to prescribe numbers and to limit prices. But I do not find that 
 my hon. and learned Friend proposes to do so in the present case. 
 
400 COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 And, without some such provision, the security which he offers is 
 manifestly illusory. It is my conviction, that under such a system 
 as that which he recommends to us, a copy of Clarissa would 
 have been as rare as an Aldus or a Caxton. I will give another 
 instance. One of the most instructive, interesting, and delightful 
 books in our language is BoswelPs Life of Johnson. Now it is 
 well known that Boswell s eldest son considered this book, consi 
 dered the whole relation of Boswell to Johnson, as a blot in the 
 escutcheon of the family. He thought, not perhaps altogether 
 without reason, that his father had exhibited himself in a ludicrous 
 and degrading light. And thus he became so sore and irritable, 
 that at last he could not bear to hear the Life of Johnson men 
 tioned. Suppose that the law had been what my hon. and learned 
 Friend wishes to make it. Suppose that the^copyright of Boswell s 
 Life of Johnson had belonged, as it well might, during sixty years 
 to Boswell s eldest son. What would have been the consequence ? 
 An unadulterated copy of the finest biographical work in the 
 world would have been as scarce as the first edition of Camden. 
 These are strong cases. I have shewn you that, if the law had 
 been what you are now going to make it, the finest prose work of 
 fiction in the language, the finest biographical work in the lan 
 guage, would very probably have been suppressed. But I have 
 stated my case weakly. The books which I have mentioned are sin 
 gularly inoffensive books, books not touching on any of those 
 questions which drive even wise men beyond the bounds of 
 wisdom. There are books of a very different kind, books which 
 are the rallying points of great political and religious parties. 
 What is likely to happen if the copyright of one of these books 
 should by descent or transfer come into the possession of some 
 hostile zealot ? I will take a single instance. It is fifty years since 
 John Wesley died ; his works, if the law had been what my hon. 
 and learned Friend seeks to make it, would now have been the 
 property of some person or other. The sect founded by Wesley 
 
COPYRIGHT BILL. 401 
 
 is the most numerous, the wealthiest, the most powerful, the most 
 zealous, of sects. In every election it is a matter of the greatest 
 importance to obtain the support of the Wesleyan Methodists. 
 Their numerical strength is reckoned by hundreds of thousands. 
 They hold the memory of their founder in the greatest reve 
 rence ; and not without reason, for he was unquestionably a great 
 and a good man. To his authority they constantly appeal. His 
 works are in their eyes of the highest value. His doctrinal writings 
 they regard as containing the best system of theology ever deduced 
 from Scripture. His journals, interesting even to the common 
 reader, are peculiarly interesting to the Methodist : for they contain 
 the whole history of that singular polity which, weak and despised 
 in its beginning, is now, after the lapse of a century, so strong, so 
 flourishing, and so formidable. The hymns to which he gave his 
 imprimatur are a most important part of the public worship of his 
 followers. Now suppose that the copyright of these works 
 belonged to some person who holds the memory of Wesley and 
 the doctrines and discipline of the Methodists in abhorrence. 
 There are many such persons. The Ecclesiastical Courts are at 
 this very time sitting on the case of a clergyman of the Established 
 Church who refused Christian burial to a child baptized by a 
 Methodist preacher. I took up the other day a work which is 
 considered as among the most respectable organs of a large and 
 growing party in the Church of England, and there I saw John 
 Wesley designated as a forsworn priest. Suppose that the works 
 of Wesley were suppressed. Why, Sir, such a grievance would 
 be enough to shake the foundations of Government. Let Gentlemen 
 who are attached to the Church reflect for a moment what their 
 feelings would be if the Book of Common Prayer were not to be 
 reprinted for thirty or forty years, if the price of a Book of Com 
 mon Prayer were run up to five or ten guineas. And then let 
 them determine whether they will pass a law under which it is 
 possible, under which it is probable, that so intolerable a wrong 
 
402 , ^J COPYRIGHT BILL. 
 
 may be done to some sect consisting perhaps of half a million of 
 persons. /"I am. so sensible, Sir, of the kindness with which the 
 House has listened to me, that I will not detain you longer. I 
 will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass, and 
 should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to 
 produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, there will soon be 
 a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind. Just as the absurd 
 acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by 
 the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually 
 repealed by the smuggler, will this law be virtually repealed by 
 piratical booksellers. At present the holder of copyright has the 
 public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are 
 regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouth of 
 deserving men. Every body is well pleased to see them restrained 
 by the law and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No 
 tradesmen of good repute will have anything to do with such 
 disgraceful transactions. Pass this law : and that feeling is at an 
 end. Men of a character very different from that of the present 
 race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable 
 monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed 
 in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade 
 legal pursuit ; and the whole nation will be in the plot. On which 
 side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is 
 whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pil 
 grim s Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be 
 confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great 
 grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a 
 hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great 
 distress ? Remember too that when once it ceases to be considered 
 as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person 
 can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes 
 nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will 
 share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you 
 
COPYRIGHT BILL. 403 
 
 are about to create; And you will find that, in attempting to 
 impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of 
 the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints 
 which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living. 
 If I saw, Sir, any probability that this bill could be so amended in 
 the committee that my objections might be removed, I would not 
 divide the House in this stage. But I am so fully convinced that 
 no alteration which would not seem insupportable to my hon. and 
 learned Friend, could render his measure supportable to me, that I 
 must move, though with regret, that this bill be read a second time 
 this day six months. 
 
 END OF VOL. L 
 
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 BERKELEY 
 
 Return to desk from which borrowed. 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 MV? 17 
 
 
 16Nov51CF 
 
 6No-/5lLU 
 
 OCC271S38 
 
 - ^. 
 
 
 13MY 64S 
 
 CD 
 
 DEAD 
 
 
 " J DOT H1981 bl 
 SEP H tfuk 2l 8BZ 
 
 4Dec 62W |ferD 
 
 LD 21-100m-9, 47(A5702sl6) 
 
 JUli :8 1982 
 
 SEP07-98 
 
 SAM