TO 
 
 ARL RUSSELL & EARL GREY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 NEW REFORM BILL, 
 
 Cbc Jfnsjj Cburtb, 
 
 &c., &c., 
 
 AND THE EXTREME 
 
 DANGER OF FURTHER INNOVATIONS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BRITISH CONSTITUTION. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 Rev. R. JERMYN COOPER, M.A., 
 
 OF CHRIST CHURCH COLLEGE, OXFORD, RECTOR OF WEST CHILTINGTON. 
 
 This fond election of evil.—B urke. 
 
 Comiptos optimge Reipublicae 
 Est pessima.— Cicero. 
 
 Sapere aude. 
 
 Let me wonder 
 
 At thy affections, which do hold a wing, 
 
 Quite from the flight of all thy ancestors.—S hakspeark. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 RIV1NGTONS, WATERLOO PLACE, PALL MALL; 
 
 AND SOLD BY 
 
 HATCHARD, PICCADILLY; PARKER, OXFORD; 
 
 DEIGHTON, CAMBRIDGE. 
 
 1866. 
 
 One Shi Urn a. 
 
LONDON: 
 
 PRINTED BV MARY S. RICKERBY, 
 MANSION HOUSE. E 
 
 
 4a, walbrook, 
 . c. 
 
 J: 
 
 M 
 
 
131=29 
 
 3 Z-D . SA 2. 
 
 A LETTER 
 
 TO 
 
 EARL RUSSELL AND EARL UREY. 
 
 i _ 
 
 My Lords,— 
 
 The vast importance of the interests at stake, 
 and the immense and momentous alterations which 
 your proposals in Parliament would make in the 
 Constitution of these realms, and the dangerous 
 results of untried experimental legislation, are, in¬ 
 deed, subjects to arrest the most serious attention 
 of any contemplative and patriotic mind. Both 
 noble Peers seem to approach the sacred ark of the 
 Constitution in the same spirit which Uzziah did 
 when he was rash enough to forget (only for an 
 instant) the sanctity of the hallowed depository of 
 which he was in charge, and apparently with a 
 kind of reckless indifference as to its results. But 
 whether actuated by indifferentism, or a judicial 
 blindness to the best interests of the country, you 
 seem to be acting the part of the boy who, having 
 obtained possession of his first watch, and wholly 
 insensible to the estimation of its value, pulls its 
 delicate and finely-adjusted materials to pieces, with¬ 
 er - a '1 
 
 0 
 
out the least reflection that he will ever be able to 
 repair the injury he has done. 
 
 Rut, my Lords, from the speeches recently de¬ 
 livered by one of you, you are so indifferent to 
 the sacred character of a Protestant Church and 
 the obligations of a national oath, that you would 
 extinguish the one and repudiate the other; yet 
 you cannot divest yourselves of your position as Mem¬ 
 bers of your Right Honourable House, that you take 
 your stand there as conservators and custodes of 
 the Constitution of this realm. And as such, the 
 nation looks up to you as their natural and national 
 guardians, to preserve their privileges and liberties 
 and time-honoured institutions from encroachment 
 and spoliation. Noble was the spirit in which the 
 answer was conceived of those ancestors of whom 
 some of you may be lineal descendants— 
 
 Nolunms leges Angli.se mutari. 
 
 Rut I fear, such is the departure in your House 
 from the integrity of such a declaration, that it 
 might be predicated that the change of a single 
 letter would be the best index of the tendencies of 
 some in the House— 
 
 Yolumus leges Anglise mutari, 
 
 as the alteration in the Sixth Commandment made 
 at the Commonwealth, by which murder was en¬ 
 joined, and which, from the frequency of its com¬ 
 mittal, might almost be supposed to be the case at 
 present. 
 
 Rut you are, as the Second Estate of the realm, 
 
5 
 
 in that dignified and exalted position in which our 
 Constitution recognises you as preservers, and not as 
 innovators on its privileges or statutes. 
 
 And in this view the Commons House of Parlia¬ 
 ment seems to be considered, in our nicely-balanced 
 political system, as best adapted to originate any 
 alteration in our laws, and initiate fundamental 
 changes in our institutions. 
 
 The House of Peers seems to have been framed 
 in the twofold capacity of mediator between the 
 conflicting interests of prince and people; of resist¬ 
 ing the arbitrary demands of the Sovereign, as well 
 as of arresting the unscrupulous encroachments of 
 the masses; of supporting the just claims of a 
 limited monarchy, and, at the same time, a 
 barrier to the senseless inroads of anarchy and 
 revolution. 
 
 You are, then, ennobled trustees for the interests 
 of that country of which you are the accredited 
 members, bearing the seignory of a high and dis¬ 
 tinguished office. 
 
 At this juncture, however, when the most astute 
 observer would find it difficult to distinguish any 
 rays of light among the thickening darkness of 
 European politics, and the New World is convulsed 
 by confusion and anarchy,—you, my Lords, appear 
 on the stage not as conservators, but as innovators, 
 of that Constitution of whose interests you are 
 solemnly (that is, by oath) appointed as trustees. 
 The more able and enlightened statesmen and sena¬ 
 tors of former days would have shrunk from the 
 task of embroiling this country in the sea of home 
 
6 
 
 changes and innovations, when the horizon in the 
 West is dark with an impending storm, and when 
 the inhabitants of the North American States appear 
 exulting in the prospect of declaring war against 
 Great Britain, if not directly, yet by an attack on the 
 Canadian frontier. 
 
 Just at this moment you launch two legislative 
 schemes, either of which would, if carried, bring the 
 country to the very verge of revolution :—the one of 
 lowering the Franchise, which is, in fact, offering 
 a premium to the increase of democracy, a bounty 
 on mob rule and plebeian ascendancy; the other, 
 of subverting the ancient Protestant Church of Ire¬ 
 land—far more ancient than its rival—which, in its 
 spirit of venality and corruption, has tended much 
 to untranquillize that unfortunate yet versatile 
 people. 
 
 Now, it is my duty to inquire whether these 
 measures, and another in accordance with them, 
 “ The Parliamentary Oaths Bill,” are either favour¬ 
 able to, or subversive of, the spirit of the British 
 Constitution. 
 
 1 st. The new Reform Bill, whether it is a measure 
 that the exigencies of the times or the voice of the 
 nation require. Now, of the Reform Bill of 1832 
 it was said to be final —it was admitted to be a settle¬ 
 ment of the question. In the transference of the 
 franchise from close boroughs to populous towns and 
 districts, you asserted a principle which was plau¬ 
 sible, if not expedient, and you were doing all that 
 the more ardent advocates of Reform needed. And, 
 therefore, subsequent Reform Bills, whether longi- 
 
7 
 
 tudinal or lateral, never met with that very enthu¬ 
 siastic reception with the thinking part of the nation 
 which their admirers anticipated and desired. 
 
 In fact, it was considered that unless Reform led 
 to any ulterior results, it was a fiction and a nullity. 
 It would only take from one hand to put into an¬ 
 other ; it would rob John to assist James. 
 
 All the most enlightened and talented portion of 
 the community seemed to unite in the opinion that 
 you had in former Houses of Commons, elected before 
 the extension of the franchise, as much of the pro¬ 
 perty, the ability, the intelligence, and the probity of 
 the nation as might be collected in that House. 
 And this was the sentiment of the Duke of Welling¬ 
 ton when he disparaged the necessity for Reform. 
 He was not so weak as to assert that it might not be 
 politic to give Members to such places as Leeds and 
 Manchester, or Glasgow. But he meant, that under 
 the present system you generally secured as much 
 of the education, discernment, and superior acquire¬ 
 ments of the Representation as was needful for 
 the House of Commons, the Third Estate of the 
 realm. 
 
 But now 34 years are passed, and another is 
 offered to the British public, and required by whom ? 
 Is it by the enlightened, the educated, the wise, 
 the thoughtful portion of the community? No. 
 Is it by a majority of the wealthiest, the most 
 moneyed men of our commercial circles ? No. Is 
 it by the landed proprietors of the country, those 
 who, by their territorial possessions, are entitled to 
 have a large preponderance in the Elective Fran- 
 
8 
 
 chise ? No. Is it by the possessors of personal 
 or real property of any description % No. For if 
 you claim that the man of £1 0 rental is entitled 
 to one vote in the Elective Franchise (if property 
 gives a title to vote, which is admitted on all sides), 
 then, by the Rule of Three, how many votes should 
 a possessor of <£*50,000 a-year have ? 
 
 And such a theory is not wholly unworthy of 
 consideration; for if you admit the principle in the 
 one instance, by what right have you to ignore it 
 in another ? 
 
 Then by whom was such a Bill required ? By 
 a turbulent faction which always did exist in all 
 civilized countries, and will continue to exist; but 
 which are more invasive, more encroaching, and 
 more clamorous in their demands when the Govern¬ 
 ment of the country—the Executive—is in weak 
 hands. For it is to be regretted that the Legislature 
 has, in many cases in the last few years, listened 
 with too great complacency to the noisy declama¬ 
 tions of an interested few mob orators, who would 
 set class against class, and would involve the country 
 in an insurrectionary movement, in the hope that 
 they might obtain a share of plunder in the uni¬ 
 versal scramble. 
 
 Nor can it be denied that there was no especial 
 demand for the increase of the Suffrage beyond 
 those who incite the masses to shout for it by the 
 argumentum ad crumenam —by the deceptive cry in 
 behalf of the Dorsetshire labourer supporting his 
 starving family on 9s. per week, when the great man 
 was spoiling his digestion and making himself bilious 
 
9 
 
 by over eating on <£‘20,000 per annum.* There was 
 no reason that the Government of the country should 
 have taken the matter up, unless they found it pre¬ 
 sented a fulcrum to prop themselves up against that 
 fall which might be anticipated from sheer weakness 
 and inanition. 
 
 Now, my Lords, as I have a particular recollection 
 of all the events antecedent to and consequent on 
 the Reform Bill of 1832, I think it right to allude 
 to them now, as evidencing the danger of exciting 
 unreasonable expectations in a community—of con¬ 
 cessions which it is very easy to promise, but which 
 it is very dangerous to fulfil. 
 
 For some time previous to the Reform Bill the 
 minds of men had been unsettled by the various 
 innovations in the Statute Law of England effected 
 in Parliament. The more momentous and dangerous 
 of these were the abolition of the Test and Corpo¬ 
 ration Acts,—the throwing open offices in Corporate 
 bodies to the Dissenter and Nonconformist, and 
 the enemies of the Church and the State. 
 
 On this I addressed to one of your Lordships, Earl 
 Russell, a letter, in which I endeavoured to point out 
 the perilous consequences which might be expected 
 from the measure of 1828. Then came the passing 
 of the Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill (falsely so 
 called) effected through the combined efforts of the 
 Dissenters (creclat Judceus l) and the uncompromising 
 and unscrupulous leaders of the Roman Catholic 
 party. 
 
 By this step, mainly accelerated by the moral 
 
 * Vide Mr. Bright’s speech. 
 
10 
 
 weakness of the Duke of Wellington, and the fatal 
 apostacy of Sir Robert Peel, the Conservative pha¬ 
 lanx were wholly discomfited and disunited,—and 
 this, accompanied by the tergiversation of some and 
 demoralization of other Members of Parliament. 
 
 All these events added much to the excitement 
 and agitation of the public mind, in conjunction 
 also with these organic changes thus defacing and 
 altering the ancient landmarks of the Constitution, 
 followed the revolution in Paris of 1830. 
 
 There, after a severe struggle between the Mo¬ 
 narchy, the Chambers, and the people, a complete 
 coup d'etat was effected. Charles X. was expelled 
 from his throne, and the Citizen King, Louis Phil- 
 lippe, called to the Crown in his place, who, after 
 a few years, was himself compelled to abdicate and 
 driven to escape in an open boat across the Channel 
 for refuge in England. 
 
 This emeute in France furnished an example and a 
 pretext for a similar demonstration in England ; and 
 as it was combined with the unsettled state of the 
 public mind, it was considered the best juncture 
 for the Whig party, in unison with the Radicals, 
 to make an attempt to assume the reins of Govern¬ 
 ment. 
 
 The Whig party were well aware that they could 
 not effect this without having recourse to a new 
 machinery for a fresh representation of the people, 
 which should include the transference and redistribu¬ 
 tion of seats from the boroughs to the more populous 
 towns, and also a depreciation of the standard of 
 value in the Elective Franchise. In their scheme? 
 
11 
 
 which eventually became law, they managed, by an 
 insidious stroke of policy, to leave undisturbed those 
 boroughs principally in the patronage of their party » 
 and to confiscate those which were of opposite ten¬ 
 dencies. At the same moment the Manchester 
 School opened a cross fire by issuing pamphlets and 
 tracts, inciting the people to support the proposed 
 Reform Bill, with the double fiction of unseating the 
 then Members of Parliament, of overthrowing the 
 aristocracy, as well as of confiscating Church pro¬ 
 perty and of quenching the dominant spirit of re¬ 
 ligion. The plot too well succeeded. In vain was 
 the Rill opposed and exposed by a majority of the 
 talent, intellect, integrity, and religious principle of 
 both Houses of Parliament. The Dementia Populi 
 had been aroused. The “ Demon ” of Anarchy, as 
 Sheridan said, “was more easily raised than laid.’ 
 The war-cry to the knife had been shouted out. 
 Even the leading journal of the press had denounced 
 the moneyed aristocrats of the day, and held them 
 up to public obloquy, on the plea that they were 
 obstructors to the progress and prosperity of the 
 people. 
 
 The ferment increased till the population of 
 the whole country were moving over a volcano, 
 whose elements might at any moment explode and 
 involve the social edifice in one mass of ruin— 
 
 Et incedis per ignes 
 Suppositos cineri doloso. 
 
 And, my Lord Grey, the flame was greatly increased 
 by the adhesion of many in the House of Peers to 
 
12 
 
 Reform, and among them your noble relative, who, 
 by his fatal charge to the Spiritual Peers, the 
 Bishops,—“ Set your Houses in order,”—gave an ad¬ 
 ditional impetus to the agitation. This charge was 
 never forgotten : it was echoed north and south. 
 It was eagerly responded to in all quarters. And 
 three cities—Bristol, Nottingham, and Derby—were 
 speedily in flames. 
 
 Bristol was most conspicuous, for a turbulent mob 
 fired the Bishop’s palace and several other parts of 
 the city ; and more than half of Bristol would have 
 been destroyed had it not been for the gallant con¬ 
 duct of the 14th Dragoons, under Colonel Towns- 
 hend, who charged the rioters, and Major Beckwith 
 jumped his horse over the fence surrounding the 
 College Green, where a vast mob was assembled, 
 and, calling on his men to follow him, actually by 
 one stroke of his sabre cut off the head of one of 
 the chief ringleaders in the affray. 
 
 In Gloucester, also, near which I then resided, had 
 it not been for the precaution of the magistrates, the 
 same outrages would have been perpetrated, since 
 a body of ruffians from Birmingham had marched in 
 with this intent. 
 
 In Birmingham, likewise, under the organization of 
 Joe Parkes, the Radicals sympathized with the move¬ 
 ments of the fraternity elsewhere. And in London, 
 such was the besotted infatuation of the lower classes, 
 that for two or three days the cabmen refused to 
 take any passengers unless they were paid the most 
 exorbitant fares; even the laundresses refused to 
 work, remarking that, now “ Reform was come, they 
 
13 
 
 were to play and not work, and that their superiors 
 were to toil for themselves.” 
 
 These outrages were scarcely quelled by a Royal 
 proclamation ; but the bat and bludgeon system had 
 prevailed. The Bill was at last carried, to the com¬ 
 plete disappointment, however, and disgust of the 
 lower classes, who were led to expect equalization of 
 property, equalization of rank, and general confis¬ 
 cation. The leaders of the movement who had 
 scaled the walls of the capital, when they found the 
 more vulgar Radicals climbing up after them, kicked 
 the ladders away, and refused the Girondists to have 
 any further share either in the credit or the spoil. 
 
 I adduce all this to show that the evils here 
 enunciated may at some not very distant day be all 
 repeated, unless a strong moral courage and in¬ 
 domitable spirit, such as animated Mr. Pitt, arrest 
 the tide of popular fervour, and resolve to command 
 and direct the current of public opinion, instead of 
 basely truckling to it. 
 
 And next to the New Reform Bill. If the results 
 of the Bill of 1832 be fairly considered, it has 
 worked as much of evil as its patriotic opponents 
 predicted, and its dangerous promoters intended. 
 It has proved a valuable fulcrum on which to 
 ground more forcible demands, and to insist on 
 more alarming concessions. In the balancing scale 
 of the Constitution it has given a serious impetus 
 to agitation, and a heavy preponderance to the demo¬ 
 cratic element. Some of its fruits have been the elec¬ 
 tion of demagogues who advocate extreme Radical 
 opinions ; the election of delegates from certain towns 
 
14 
 
 and districts rather than of representatives for the 
 interests of the nation collectively. The £10 House¬ 
 hold Franchise has worked well the behests of its 
 patrons, for, as it was asserted, it has rendered the 
 constituencies more accessible to corruption ; it has 
 proved so favourable to bribery, that even a modern 
 House of Commons was obliged to suspend for a 
 time the franchise of certain marked holds of cor¬ 
 ruption. Then where was the necessity for the new 
 Reform Bill ? 
 
 As Mr. Horsman and Mr. Lowe so forcibly show, 
 by unanswerable arguments, the one by conclusions 
 drawn from reasoning which cannot he disproved, 
 and the other by the reductio ad absurdum , which 
 for felicitous expression and happy illustration has 
 rarely been equalled,—“ Why this Bill V ’ It can 
 be answered that, after the Member for Birming¬ 
 ham had made his theatrical debuts at Rochdale 
 and Birmingham, it was plainly intimated to the 
 Ministry that, if they expected the support of the 
 Liberal party in Parliament, they must endeavour to 
 carry out Mr Bright’s plan of Reform, and that, bit 
 by bit,—on the O'Connel principle, u to get an 
 instalment.No comprehensive measure was to be 
 proposed, else the lynx-eyed Conservatives and the 
 more moderate party men would burke it at once. 
 
 But under the insinuating and plausible eloquence 
 of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the lowering of 
 the Franchise should be the first principle to be 
 mildly introduced, which probably might not alarm 
 the Senate. Alas, poor misguided men ! why did 
 you not look to your own auxiliaries, to say nothing 
 
15 
 
 of the Conservatives to detect the latent guile ? 
 Was it to be supposed that men of such masterly 
 minds as Mr. Lowe and Mr. Horsman would allow the 
 vulgar tail of the Manchester School to ride rough¬ 
 shod over them, or to be held in silence by the 
 specious sophistries and traitorous declamations of 
 the Member for Birmingham. No, it was impossible 
 for any honourable or prescient mind, when they 
 saw the “ cloven foot” peeping out beneath the skirt 
 of the measure, not boldly to step forward and de¬ 
 nounce the downward and dangerous characteristics 
 of this Bill. 
 
 Then what are its provisions ? To give an in¬ 
 creased impetus to democracy—an increased vigour 
 to the popular element already far too influential; 
 to increase the number of voters in cities and 
 boroughs by several hundred thousand, and to allow 
 those so enfranchised to have votes for the counties ; 
 never glancing at all at the present disproportion 
 of the Counties to the Boroughs, or, if numeration 
 is to form the basis of calculation, that the County 
 Representation should be the first provided for. 
 
 But for whom is the Bill designed who are to be 
 enfranchised 1 The working classes. And not the 
 working classes of the rural population, to which I 
 would not so much object, but to the working classes 
 of towns. 
 
 This is the very denomination of persons among 
 the lower order least fitted to be entrusted with 
 any political power. They have just enough edu¬ 
 cation to be apt pupils of any political demagogue ; 
 and the principal part of the audience at Binning- 
 
16 
 
 ham, who Mr. Bright designated as his Parliament, 
 and said he did not know whether they could not 
 make laws quite as well as the Members of the 
 House of Commons, these are the scum of great 
 cities which have, in other times, brought about 
 those memorable convulsions in Greece and Rome 
 and other dynasties. It was the ouvriers and pois- 
 sardes of Paris who were the most conspicuous 
 in the first French Revolution, and it was those who 
 in the last were the most forward to erect the 
 barricades and to fire on all opposed to them. 
 The instigators and advocates for their enfran¬ 
 chisement know that, as a class, they are the worst 
 to be entrusted with power, and they are selected 
 accordingly. 
 
 And then, as to the question of Right. It is 
 unblushingly asserted, they have a right because 
 they are so intelligent. Monstrous absurdity ! Is 
 spelling-book knowledge and penny newspaper in¬ 
 formation to constitute a title to be an elector ? No, 
 no, Mr. Gladstone, this will not do: your pupils 
 must be better read—they must drink deeper of 
 the “ Pierian spring/’ Suppose you instruct them 
 in a little Greek, and finish them off with the polish 
 of your Homeric acquirements. 
 
 And then, as to inherent right, it is only a con¬ 
 ventional right granted by the State. The inherent 
 right to elect Members for Parliament I do not 
 know that any class may claim. If it belong to 
 any, it belongs to persons of large property, on the 
 principle of self-preservation, that he who has the 
 largest property at stake will be the most mindful 
 
17 
 
 of the interests of that community in which it is 
 situated. But this is a privilege, not a right. It 
 flows from the Sovereign power, which is the fountain 
 of all social privileges. Therefore there can be no 
 argument urged in favour of the £7 householder 
 which will not apply with equal force to the £5 or 
 £2, or, in fact, to Universal Suffrage. Open the 
 flood-gates—unloose the democratical torrent— 
 
 Facilis Descensus Averni] 
 
 Sed revocare gradum . , , , • 
 
 What would he have thought of all this, from 
 whom the former party of the Whigs claim to 
 be derived, though now quanto mutati ? What would 
 Lord Somers have thought of the present modern 
 innovations and tampering with and tinkering of 
 the British Constitution \ What would he think, 
 if he could live now, at this second edition of a 
 Reform Bill of '32—Reforms already repeated usque 
 ad nauseam ? 
 
 Why, if you set up a claim on behalf of a £7 
 householder, why are the other grades of society 
 to be excluded ? If a man of low life, with the least 
 modicum of knowledge, is to have one vote, a man of 
 high education and intellect ought to be entitled to 
 twenty. And if you indulge in what is called— 
 and improperly called—the “ Fancy Franchise,” why, 
 physicians, clergymen, barristers, officers in the army 
 and navy, and those who have taken degrees, should 
 be entitled to twenty or thirty votes. 
 
 If it is granted on the principle of inherent right, 
 the privilege of voting should he accorded to persons 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 of high position and education in proportion to their 
 relative merit. And these deductions expose the 
 fallacy of abstract reasoning on such a question as 
 this, which involves the principle of the reconstruc¬ 
 tion of a State, and justifies the witty remark of the 
 poet— 
 
 Till each fair borough, numerically free, 
 
 Shall choose its Members by the Rule of Three. 
 
 But now I beg to refer to the opinion of many 
 eminent and distinguished reasoners, lawyers, and 
 statesmen, who have well weighed the question, as 
 well as the incompatibility of Republican doctrines 
 co-existent with the liberty and limited monarchy 
 of the British Constitution. 
 
 It is a matter of history that Cromwell, the regi¬ 
 cide and Republican, made a Reform Bill; but he 
 knew too well of the popular will to allow pseudo- 
 Reformers and Radical revolutionists to have any 
 share in his Parliament. So he admitted 262 
 Members for counties, but permitted only 133 for 
 towns. 
 
 Junius, who might be considered somewhat of a 
 Reformer, said in his day (1771), “That the form 
 of the Constitution leaned rather more than enough 
 to the popular branch.” 
 
 Mr. Fox, who must be considered a Whig, but 
 far more moderate than any modern of that school, 
 said, 6C That the Landed Interest should have an 
 increase in the Representation. Again he said, in 
 reference to those who were arguing in favour of 
 the lower classes having a share,—“ We are bound 
 
19 
 
 to promote the true interests of the people, in pre¬ 
 ference to the dearest wishes of their hearts.” 
 
 Next, Mr. Burke, who must be ranked as the 
 highest authority, since he published much to warn 
 this country from adopting the Atheist and Jacobin 
 tenets of the French Revolutionists, said,—“ A Re¬ 
 form in Parliament is an object of such small 
 account in comparison of the more pressing claims 
 upon the nation, that it is like a man leaving his 
 doors open when thieves are in the street, and 
 being up stairs mending a pane in his window.” 
 
 Again, speaking of the Jacobins-—that is, the 
 Radicals—he said ,—“ They are like the importunate 
 guinea-fowls, which have but one note, and that is, 
 Reform.” Again ,—“ When the goal at which our 
 improvements is pointed at as the starting-place of 
 revolution, it is for a prudent man to determine 
 whether, for the sake of obviating a substantial evil, 
 he will risk everything that is dear, everything that 
 is estimable.” 
 
 But next in retrospect of the opinion of great men 
 on Reform. 
 
 Lord Chatham was not favourable, nor his son, 
 Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt had no objection to have added 
 fifty more Members to the county interest. Sheridan 
 adverse, after the mutiny of the navy; and, as 
 above, Fox, Burke, and, since, Perceval, Sidmouth, 
 Castlereagh. Nor of more recent times. Lords 
 Sidmouth and Liverpool. The three master spirits 
 of later days, Lords S to well, Eldon, and Lyndhurst; 
 especially Lord Lyndhurst, who, by his vast legal 
 knowledge, exalted intellect, and predictive acumen, 
 
 a 2 
 
20 
 
 saw through the flimsy and shallow sophisms by 
 which the question was endeavoured to be involved. 
 The Duke of Wellington, also Lord St. Leonards, 
 Sir C. Wetherell, and especially Sir R. Inglis, all 
 of whom exhausted the subject and resisted the 
 demand step by step. Mark the distinguished array 
 of superior talent, of legal knowledge, and forensic 
 information, all warning the intelligence, the pro¬ 
 perty of the country, not to yield to senseless 
 clamour, not to remove the ancient landmarks, nor 
 undermine the buttresses which support the Consti¬ 
 tutional edifice. Alas, notwithstanding, Che sara 
 sarci! the “ madness of the people,” urging forward 
 by what has been called the pressure from without, 
 carried the question. And from that hour, as Lord 
 Eldon had before observed, “ the sun of Great Britain 
 would set for ever.” 
 
 And what have been the consequences ? All that 
 was predicted has been fulfilled. The arch-agitator 
 O’Connel arose (made by the occasion), and with 
 his tail of myrmidons of forty Irish Members, not 
 inaptly called the Forty Thieves, vowed he could 
 turn any minority into a majority, either for or 
 against the Ministry, in which he usually succeeded. 
 And here was realized the sagacity of the memorable 
 inquiry of the Duke of Wellington, “ How is the 
 Queen’s Government to be carried on 1” It would 
 be difficult to deny its wisdom, and far more difficult 
 to find a solution, since it is a task more inaccessible 
 every day, and is only to be effected by one course 
 in nations, as in individuals,—Retrocession and peni¬ 
 tential Reformation (not Reform). 
 
21 
 
 And now we will turn to the Protestant Church of 
 Ireland—that Church which, by an Act passed 65 
 years since, is indissolubly united with the Church of 
 England. 
 
 The Protestant Church of Ireland, in union with 
 that of England, can never be considered, per se, 
 to be the proximate or even remote cause of the evils 
 which afflict Ireland. 
 
 These evils are flowing, not from British misrule, 
 not from British neglect, but from the Constitution 
 of the country itself. That Constitution, though 
 united to England, has never been remodelled. It con¬ 
 tains in its own bosom its own source of inquietude. 
 It has two forms of Christianity—the one the Protes¬ 
 tant Reformed Church, which should be the domi¬ 
 nant ; the other the Romish Church, which is ever 
 aspiring to be mistress. 
 
 Each claim an ascendancy, if not over the con¬ 
 sciences, at least over the allegiance, of their followers. 
 Though there are many individual cases, where the 
 Popish Priest and Protestant Clergyman do, in the same 
 parish, out of mutual forbearance and Christian cha¬ 
 rity, live without overt hostility, yet it is not always 
 the case. Hence the bitterness and rancour between 
 those who do not kneel at the same altar, and those 
 who acknowledge a divided allegiance,—the one 
 bowing to the supremacy of the Pope in temporals as 
 well as spirituals, the other yielding to the authority of 
 the Crown in all things ecclesiastical and civil. 
 Still the land cannot be otherwise designated but as 
 a house divided against itself, and such is its true 
 picture ; “ therefore if Satan be divided against Satan, 
 
22 
 
 how can his kingdom stand ? ” Again, the Irish people, 
 with the exception of persons of education and 
 superior information, are ever desirous of and pre¬ 
 dicting a Millennium. Like the ancient, and indeed 
 the modern unconverted Jews, they are ever sighing 
 for a deliverance, for the advent of some great 
 deliverer. Thus they are ever disturbed, panting after 
 unattainable objects, or floating down on the stream 
 of unsubstantial expectations. Did but the scales 55 
 fall from their eyes, and the veil, for a short time, be 
 removed from their mental vision, they would see 
 that their best interests were bound up with those of 
 Great Britain, and that she was the best friend to 
 Ireland who counselled her to cultivate the arts of 
 industry, agriculture, and peace; that, instead of 
 indulging in rancorous enmity and secret sedition, 
 they should adhere to the ploughshare and abandon 
 the sword. They would then in their rural districts 
 realize the beautiful vision of a poet of their own 
 country— 
 
 Loveliest village of the Plain. 
 
 Where health and plenty cheer’d the labouring swain, 
 
 Theirs would then in truth be— 
 
 Tho Land of the Free, 
 
 Bright Isle of the Ocean—first gem of the Sea. 
 
 There is another serious evil — the uneducated 
 condition of the Romish Clergy. 
 
 Independently of the doctrine they preach, their 
 educational status is not such as to induce their fol¬ 
 lowers to entertain the respect due to ministers of 
 
23 
 
 religion. For throughout the Roman Catholic dis¬ 
 tricts, it may be said, “ As are the priests, so are the 
 people.” And all this renders them only more 
 peculiarly adapted to be caught in the draught net of 
 any political and religious adventurer, and especially 
 accessible to the arts of money persuasion. 
 
 Thus Fenianism is not to be wondered at, since it 
 was cradled in that hot-bed of revolution and Re¬ 
 publicanism—Federal America. It was by the true 
 arts of demoniacal agency to propagate its doctrines 
 everywhere; and the soil of Ireland being very con¬ 
 genial for its growth, it rapidly spreads there by 
 deceit and bribery. 
 
 But, my Lord Grey, I beg very deferentially to 
 submit that you had not summoned to your aid that 
 calm and dispassionate consideration which ought to 
 animate every Member of Parliament, and that deli¬ 
 berate view of the ulterior consequences resulting 
 from such a measure, before you introduced the 
 subject into the arena of your Right Honourable 
 House. For let me venture to bring to your recollec¬ 
 tion the conduct of your noble relative, the late Earl 
 Grey, on the question of Roman Catholic Emancipa¬ 
 tion, and of a portion of which I was a personal 
 auditor. Lord Grey, then arguing in a speech of 
 considerable length on the pacific bearing of the 
 proposed measure, in conclusion made a forcible 
 appeal to the House, saying that it would be the 
 means of healing much of that animosity, and of 
 restoring much of that tranquillity which had been so 
 deeply disturbed by a denial to the Roman Catholics 
 of their just immunities and advancement to place 
 
24 
 
 and power. It would throw peace on the troubled 
 waters, adding the beautiful lines of Horace—- 
 
 Defluit saxis asfifcatus humor 
 Concidunt venti, fugiuntque nubes 
 Et minax, quod sie voluere, ponto 
 Unda recumbit. 
 
 This, by the sequel, was proved to be his con¬ 
 scientious opinion, and coming from a nobleman 
 who had always professed Whig sentiments, and not 
 from a fresh recruit or immediate apostate from the 
 ranks of Protestantism, was entitled to much respect¬ 
 ful attention. By the efforts of your noble relative* 
 however, and of others of the same school, the fatal 
 question was carried. The Roman Catholics were 
 emancipated, and the waters of religious discord w T ere 
 let loose over the whole kingdom in an undisturbed 
 current. But was the sister country benefited? 
 Was the pacification of Ireland effected ? Was the 
 spirit of rancour and animosity subdued % Were the 
 deadly poignard, or fatal shot, less frequently shown ? 
 Were the dark conspiracies against life, person, and 
 property, less numerous ? No ! that dangerous part 
 of the Roman Catholic system, by which temporals 
 and spirituals are all mingled and mystified together, 
 these denunciations from the altar by which dire and 
 dark anathemas the guilty may be absolved, and the 
 injured and innocent may be criminated, still con¬ 
 tinued in full force. All that had been urged by the 
 opponents to the measure were actually and literally 
 verified. The party always in unison with loyalty, 
 patriotism—the peaceful supporters of good govern¬ 
 ment and religious truth in Ireland—were disheartened 
 
25 
 
 fc and discouraged. The Orange Association were in a 
 
 measure paralysed—the descendants of those who 
 fought in the cause of Protestantism in olden times 
 felt deeply wounded, as well they might, by the pro¬ 
 motion of their enemies and degradation of them¬ 
 selves—so that that unhappy country, instead of 
 being appeased and tranquillized, was ascerbated and 
 agitated still more. Then arose O’Connel and his 
 party, sworn to mislead the lower classes, to agitate 
 more and more, and, assuming the name of 
 Liberator of Ireland, urged to fresh acts of sedition, 
 and multiplied the difficulties in the way of govern¬ 
 ing this infatuated people. 
 
 Then it was about three or four years subsequent 
 to the passing of the Roman Catholic Bill, that on a 
 debate relating to the then unsatisfactory and dis¬ 
 turbed state of Ireland, your noble relative made 
 the following highly honourable recantation of his 
 opinions. His language (as I am not quoting from 
 “ Hansard ”) was to the following effect “ My Lords, 
 it may be in your recollection that I was one of 
 the most prominent advocates for Roman Catholic 
 Emancipation, considering it to be a remedial measure 
 which would tend more than every other to the 
 establishment of peace in Ireland. I used the well- 
 known quotation from Horace to that effect. But 
 I confess, my Lords, I have been deeply disappointed. 
 I have had my predictions falsified. I regret to 
 ) observe that the expectations I had formed of the 
 
 future conduct of the Roman Catholic party in 
 Ireland, from the concession of this great measure, 
 have not been realized.” I am quoting from memory; 
 
26 
 
 but I believe this to be generally the substance of 
 the remarks of your noble relative. 
 
 But all this substantiates the argument, that, by 
 elevating the Roman Catholic party and depressing 
 the Protestant, you have never brought about the 
 pacification of Ireland—that it is as open as ever to 
 the arts of disaffection, sedition, and Fenianism. In 
 respect to the antiquity, the purity, the loyalty of 
 the Protestant Church in Ireland, I cannot do better 
 than quote the authority of the Right Hon. 
 Member for the University of Dublin, Mr. White- 
 side, in his last able and luminous speech. “The 
 Church of Ireland is a corporation, and its 
 property is vested in it as such. It got its property 
 by no Act of Parliament. It got it at a period 
 anterior to any Act of Parliament. The Right Hon. 
 Gentleman is under the delusion which has been 
 participated in by many—that the property of the 
 Church was spoliated from Rome. This book I 
 hold in my hand contains the Patent Rolls published 
 under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, and 
 any gentleman who looks at it will see in Ulster, 
 for instance, every estate was given to the Church on 
 condition of its being enclosed, planted, and built 
 upon, and it has been enclosed, planted, and built 
 upon. They have been possessed for 300 years, and 
 the Chancellor of the Exchequer seeks about for 
 arguments to cast doubts upon such a title as that. 
 That is not all. It is true that the fortunes of the 
 Church of Ireland went with the monarchy. As 
 Queen Elizabeth passed through Cheapside the Lord 
 Mayor presented her with a Bible. It was the 
 
£7 
 
 principles of that book that she undertook to up¬ 
 hold, and those are the principles which the Church 
 of Ireland has upheld ever since. If that policy was 
 a mistake, then the Great Councillors, the famous law¬ 
 yers, and the wise statesmen of that reign, were all 
 wrong when they endeavoured to extend to Ireland 
 the institutions of this country, and to plant among 
 that people a Church, with a sufficient number of 
 laymen, who might, by their industry and energy, 
 maintain and support it. I grapple with those who 
 say that the Protestants have not accomplished that 
 object. Who built the towns in Ulster ? The Protes¬ 
 tants. Who established manufactories there ? They 
 did, and while there were only about 50 Protestants in 
 that province. There are nearly a million now. 
 And do you, let me ask, imagine that the Wesleyan 
 Methodists, or the Members of the Church of Scot¬ 
 land, who side by side fought in the same breach, 
 will turn against each other to accomplish the 
 designs of a few Scotch Radicals and English volun¬ 
 taries ? The Right Hon. Gentleman opposite does not 
 understand the feelings of those against whom this 
 motion is pointed. Whom does this flourishing 
 province of Ulster return to Parliament ? Why, 30 
 Members, some of whom have sat in Parliament 
 for two centuries. If Hon. Gentlemen will read the 
 list of representatives for Fermanagh, in Parliament, 
 in the days of Oliver Cromwell, they will find it was 
 represented by Mr. John Cole, whose descendant is 
 sitting here now. And it is well you should un¬ 
 derstand that the principles and convictions which 
 prevailed in that province in the reign of Elizabeth 
 
28 
 
 and James I. exist there still; and that on the day 
 upon which the Church of the Protestants in Ireland 
 is struck down, the men by whom these convictions 
 are maintained will be likely to become your deadly 
 enemies. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says the 
 argument derived from the Union is nothing, and 
 has come to the conclusion that the Government 
 can do nothing but sit where they are. ‘ But,’ 
 says the Bight Hon. Gentleman, ‘the time will 
 come when your patience shall be rewarded, if 
 I can only induce you now to believe my mys¬ 
 tical speech.’ That is the way in which I un¬ 
 derstand his argument; but what, I would ask, 
 does he think of the Act of Settlement ? When 
 Charles II. was restored, that quiet fundamental 
 statute provided that the property of the Church, 
 alienated from it in times of violence and confusion, 
 should be restored. That was accordingly done ; 
 and I should like therefore to know how that Act of 
 Parliament, which settled the property of private 
 individuals as well as of the Church, is to be dis¬ 
 posed of. But passing over the Act of Settlement, 
 we come to the Act of Union; and Lord Castlereagh, 
 in introducing that measure, pledged the faith of 
 England to the principle that, if Ireland assented 
 to the Union, there should be one law and one 
 Church for both countries, and that there would be 
 no question of a numerical majority against the 
 Church; because, after the passing of the Union, 
 there would only be one Church, and that the mem¬ 
 bers in the whole United Kingdom should be re¬ 
 garded as being in a vast majority in favour of its pro- 
 
29 
 
 tection. That principle is embodied in the sixth article 
 of the Union, which is declared to be fundamental; 
 and Lord Lyndhurst, in speaking of it in a judicial 
 judgment, pronounced it to be fundamental between 
 the two nations. Yet we are told that it is in the 
 power of the majority to overthrow this article of the Union . 
 Now , all I have to say is , the clay that you do so, the 
 Union is at an end. According to the evidence 
 of Dr. Doyle, and the maxims of the Komish 
 Church itself, it would be impossible to meddle 
 with the property of the Established Church thus 
 settled, and the whole body of the Boman Catholic 
 Bishops signed a declaration to that effect. The 
 ancestor of Viscount Palmerston, Sir J. Temple, was 
 one of those who supported the Act which secured 
 this property to the Church, that on this question we 
 must do with the Church property in England as in 
 Ireland, and that that property cannot be diverted 
 from the great purposes for which it was designed. 
 
 “ My arguments are based not on the numbers which 
 we have in any parish, though there are a greater 
 number of Protestants in most of the parishes now 
 than at any former period ; my argument is that the 
 property of the Church belongs to it as an ancient 
 Corporation, united with the Crown, and linked 
 with the Peerage, in the common bond of our free 
 Constitution; and may this Church, the United 
 Church, one and the same in England and Ire¬ 
 land, long continue endeared to the affections and 
 cherished to the hearts of the people!”— Speech, 
 1865. 
 
 Now, I submit, my Lords, that these arguments are 
 
so 
 
 as forcible as they are unanswerable, and that in a 
 small compass they exhaust the whole of the ques¬ 
 tion. If the Church of Ireland is worth establishing, 
 it is worth preserving. If it was considered by many 
 sagacious men worthy uniting with the Church of 
 England, then the union is worthy of being retained 
 unimpaired. 
 
 And, therefore, you must seek for another remedial 
 measure than the destruction of a Church, which is 
 the only one to throw light upon the darkness which 
 the Romish faith would enjoin for a remedy for the 
 evils of Ireland. Why, this suggested measure is so 
 fafcuitous, so monstrous, that it ought not to be 
 entertained in either House of Parliament for a 
 single moment, and never would have been enter¬ 
 tained under the sage councils of our ancestors, 
 had we not Dissenters and Roman Catholics in place 
 and power enough together to obtain majorities 
 in both Houses of the Legislature, and bound by 
 no common bond of affinity, excepting hostility 
 and jealousy to the Church of England—a Church to 
 which, by the Act of Toleration, they owe even their 
 existence; and in one House of Parliament a 
 Chancellor of the Exchequer, who formerly wrote 
 books in the support of that very Church which he 
 now opposes, and who, having lost his seat for one 
 of the great seminaries of learning, now supports 
 measures which would be adverse not only to the 
 Union, but to the very existence of a National 
 Church. We have also a Liberation Society which 
 is endeavouring to destroy both Church and 
 Monarchy—which works in the dark, and which is so 
 
31 
 
 far right, that if it can make the popular mind 
 disaffected to the Church, will also soon effect the 
 fall of the Monarchy and the aristocracy. And com¬ 
 bined with this you have a measure introduced to 
 Parliament to underrate and invalidate the sacred 
 character of those oaths which we have been 
 accustomed to recognise from our earliest years, and 
 which, as Britons, we have been taught to revere, or 
 never to be altered, tampered, or trifled with. On 
 such a subject, in the words of Cicero, we may well 
 say— 
 
 Quousque abuteris Catilina, pafcientia nostra ! 
 
 And all this as expedients to prolong the existence 
 of a wavering or effete administration, who, to 
 keep themselves longer in power, will fall back on the 
 very popular element which aims at their ultimate 
 extinction, and which would give them only that 
 indulgence which the monster Polyphemus promised 
 Ulysses, “ That he would devour him the last” 
 
 And in respect to what I advanced in the first 
 part of this letter, the tendency of the House of 
 Lords to support those principles of innovation, by 
 which the Constitution is endangered, and which 
 their ancestors would have repudiated in limine . 
 
 Let me point out how this change is come over 
 the counsels of that august body. 
 
 From the continuous tampering with and, to a 
 certain extent, degrading the dignity of that House, 
 by advancing persons to the Peerage known to be 
 certain adherents to certain measures, not for their 
 public virtues or worth, or heroic deeds in the 
 
32 
 
 service of their country, but because they were 
 proselytes and advocates for a certain party—would 
 infallibly support that party—and also could command 
 a certain number of votes in the House of Commons. 
 Gracious heaven ! and is the honour of England in 
 the latter part of the nineteenth century fallen so low 
 as this, that titles and honours are to be held out 
 as premiums and bribes to those who will renounce 
 all honest Church and State principles, and become 
 acolytes to the new school of Innovation and 
 Revolution ? 
 
 As an illustration,—for the passing of the Roman 
 Catholic Emancipation (so called) measure, how 
 many commoners were advanced to the Peerage, <fcc., 
 and how many of the then Peers were elevated to a 
 higher rank ? Also to facilitate the passage of the 
 Reform Bill, how many fresh Peers were at that 
 time created? Again,.in various exigencies of the 
 present Ministry, how many fresh nominees of the 
 Liberal (so called) party have been elevated ? And 
 for what purpose ? But to swamp the intelligence 
 and good sense of the House, and to obtain majori¬ 
 ties in favour of the present occupants of place and 
 power. And the arch-demon of Democracy looks 
 quietly on, as he sees that they are sedulously 
 advancing his work! 
 
 Again: the pernicious tendency of the policy to 
 Ireland—as pointed out by some able writers at the 
 time—was the extinction of ten bishoprics merely 
 by the stroke of the pen—a measure introduced and 
 carried through by you, my Lord Russell. This 
 was enough to disgust any loyal Protestant, and 
 
33 
 
 to alienate the affections of all well-affected members 
 of the Church from the State. For, in fact, 
 the true strength of the Union—never popular 
 among the generality of the Irish people—consisted 
 in the adhesion of all the Protestant bodies—Church 
 as well as Dissenters—to the high and exalted 
 objects that measure had in view. A wise and 
 prudent statesman would therefore see that such 
 loyal men should be supported and patronized, and 
 raised to places of trust and influence, in proportion 
 as they were animated j by a serious regard for the 
 Union, and an earnest desire for the best interests 
 of Great Britain and Ireland. 
 
 But the policy pursued has been directly antago¬ 
 nistic to this: it has been the exercise of extensive 
 patronage in favour of their opponents—the shower¬ 
 ing down places and pensions on Roman Catholics, 
 whose religion is never to be trusted, and who at 
 times may have simulated some respect for, yet at 
 others have never disguised their enmity to, the 
 dominion of England in Ireland. 
 
 I cannot do better than here again quote the 
 words of Mr. Whiteside. 
 
 ******* Fundamental acta of the 
 Legislature are not to be got rid of in that manner, any more than 
 fundamental institutions of the empire are to bo placed in danger 
 by sowing the seeds of that future policy which will be adopted 
 when the noble Viscount is no longer at the head of the Goven* 
 ment to restrain and direct it. (Cheers.) 
 
 Again, it is said that nothing has been done 
 for the Roman Catholics in Ireland. Why, Mr. 
 Whiteside asserts “ that the Irish Parliament gave 
 
34 
 
 .£8,000 a-year to Maynooth when the population 
 was eight millions; the English Parliament gives 
 £30,000 a-year to the College when the population 
 is reduced to five millions. And out of the annual 
 grant for £300,000 for education, about ,£240,000 
 go to the Bomish schools. I venture to say that, 
 since the Union, the British Parliament have given 
 no less than £300,000 to those who never before 
 had a single shilling of the public money.” 
 
 But here I must remark that this is a very cool 
 kind of remedy for the extinction of one branch 
 of the United Protestant Church of these realms, 
 and yet more, handing over the accredited property 
 of that Church (held by a tenure as secure as any 
 title to real property in the kingdom) to be the 
 property of her ecclesiastical opponent. Why, 
 has it never occurred to these Church destroyers 
 that this act of robbery would be in positive contra¬ 
 vention of the oath taken by the Sovereign on the 
 Coronation, — “ Will you, to the utmost of your 
 power, maintain the laws of God and the Protestant 
 Beformed Beligion by the law; and will you pre¬ 
 serve unto the Bishops and Clergy of the realm all 
 such rights and privileges as by law do appertain 
 to them ?” (King or Queen.) “ All this I promise 
 to do.” 
 
 But you have four Bills before the two Houses,— 
 the Beform Bill, the Irish Church, the Parlia 
 mentary Oaths, and the University Tests. All these, 
 as they affect the vital interests of the Constitution, 
 require the most deliberate considerations. Why, 
 each of them demands the almost exclusive attention 
 
and devotion of a Session. And why this haste, 
 why this public display of these Bills before Par¬ 
 liament in a collective state ? Would not one 
 measure suffice to be introduced at a time ? No, 
 to satisfy the insatiable appetite for spoliation of 
 the Liberation Society and its adherents, a battery 
 was to be erected, in which they were all to be 
 discharged at once against the iEgis of the Consti¬ 
 tution. And the old measure, the Abolition of 
 Church Bates, which was supposed to be exploded 
 long since, is again fired as a great gun auxiliary! 
 And all this to keep the Destructive Party in the 
 ascendant. Then where are the defenders ? 
 
 “ Among the faithless faithful.” 
 
 Only a few, who resolve to defend or die on the altar 
 of the Constitution. 
 
 . . . Scandit fatalis machina muros, 
 
 Feeta armis. 
 
 0 patria, 0 JDivum domus Ilium, et inclyta hello 
 Mcenia Dardanium ! 
 
 Instamus tamen immemores, caecique furore 
 Et monstrum infelix sacrata sistimus arce. 
 
 But you who are possessed of education and intel¬ 
 ligence, do you look at the Constitution as many do 
 the public highway, which any person may invade 
 or make incursions upon at his caprice or pleasure ? 
 Again with the aristocracy—those of large territorial 
 possessions—are you so blinded by the popular 
 movement, or so cajoled and flattered, as not to see 
 the ultimate aim and the certain accomplishment 
 of all these destructive, blandly called liberal, mea- 
 
36 
 
 sures ? Are you willing to be led, dressed up in 
 popular garlands, by such priests as Earls Russell 
 and Grey, and the Right Honourable the Chancellor 
 of the Exchequer, to the slaughter ? 
 
 Nor deem it impossible : what has been, may be. 
 Hear Mr. Burke’s historical delineation of the nobles 
 and landed gentry in France at the time of the 
 Revolution of 1788. Why, they offered up, some 
 their estates, some their rank and position, some their 
 personal property, to appease and soften the revolu¬ 
 tionary ogre of the time. “ The men of property in 
 France,” said Mr. Burke, “ confiding in a force 
 which seemed to be irresistible because it had never 
 been tried, neglected to prepare for a conflict with 
 their enemies at their own weapons.” “ And the 
 nobles who suffered from the cannibal philosophy of 
 France were of as illustrious a race as ours; some 
 few had fortunes as ample. Secueity, howevee, 
 was theie euin. They were dashed to pieces in 
 the storm, and our shores were covered with their 
 wrecks.” These memorable words would find a 
 similar accomplishment in England if those of rank, 
 prosperity, place, and power do not control the revo¬ 
 lutionary doctrines now so prevalent in the land. 
 
 And 4 ‘ remember the end,” says the greatest of 
 all books; what would be the end of the abolition 
 of Church Rates ? The gradual decadence and dila¬ 
 pidation of all churches in the rural, and many in 
 the suburban, districts. And if Church Rates are 
 extinguished, how long would the Tithe Rent Charge 
 remain ? And if Church Property is usurped and 
 appropriated, how long would Rent remain intact ? 
 
37 
 
 , Does the politically liberal landlord suppose that if a 
 
 grasping democracy seize upon the annual rental of 
 the Church, it would not also confiscate, and pro¬ 
 bably divide, the annual Rental of the opulent and 
 the titled ? And if the Land-holder were mulcted, 
 would not the Fund-holder come in for a participa¬ 
 tion in the glorious work of confiscation ? How 
 long, also, would the Monarchy exist, or its annual 
 revenues be voted, if the Church Property was thus 
 appropriated ? How long would the Sovereign 
 Power exist, de facto or de jure, or if existent, would 
 it not be a Puppet ? 
 
 With regard to the intelligence of the lower classes. Why, if 
 Mr. Gladstone will consult his Bible, he will find that there shall 
 be rich, there shall be poor. “ The poor and the rich meet toge¬ 
 ther, but the LOBD is Maker of them all; ” that it is intended 
 that there should be the governors and the governed; that 
 there should be this very inequality that now prevails; that 
 Mr. Gladstone and all other equality advocates are acting 
 in direct defiance of the laws of nature, of the sanctions of re¬ 
 ligion, of the teaching of the Bible, of the administration of 
 Government for the well-being of society ; that all such doctrines 
 as Hooker, in his “ Ecclesiastical Polity,” has said are subversive 
 of all order and all law, that they are the indirect and fatal 
 cause of revolutions. 
 
 By unsettling the minds of the lower orders, by instilling into 
 them false principles, by elevating them out of that condition and 
 sphere of life which the All Supreme and nature has fixed for 
 them, and inspiring them with principles of insubordination, pride, 
 disaffection, and disrespect, you render them unfit for good working 
 members of society. 
 
 Q “ Nisi paret, imperat.” 
 
 “ For two things,” says the wisest of men, “ is the earth dis¬ 
 quieted, a servant when he reigneth , and a fool when he is filled 
 with meat.” 
 
 * 
 
38 
 
 England for many years has been on the decline 
 in national greatness. By the discovery of the 
 precious metals in her colonies she has added to her 
 external wealth and prosperity. But she has not 
 added additional lustre to her diadem by the true 
 riches of a State—her honour, her morality, her 
 integrity— 
 
 Incorrupta tides 
 Nudaque veritas. 
 
 In these respects it could be easily pointed out she 
 has sank in the scale of nations. 
 
 Many demoralizing measures have received the 
 sanction of the Legislature. You sap the very 
 foundation of morals by having laws framed in 
 advance of, and prejudicial to, your social and re¬ 
 ligious character. Such is the case of the Beer 
 House Bill, which may rightly be styled a Bill for 
 promoting Yice and Immorality, and for debauching 
 the virtue of the young. But you must “ Awake, 
 arise ! ” or the storm may burst over you with irre¬ 
 sistible fury, and sweep all away in its resistless 
 waters, as Mr. Canning said, by 
 
 Confiscation, in whose sweeping toils 
 
 The poor man’s pittance and the rich man’s spoils, 
 
 Mix’d in one common mass, are swept away. 
 
 And as he also said, “ You cannot urge your horses 
 to their utmost speed to the brink of a precipice, and 
 then hope to stay them in their fatal career, and to 
 avert the plunge into the whelming gulf below. 
 
 And here I would wish incidentally to remark that & person of 
 good connexions at Gloucester, Mr. Bouly, much respected in the 
 city, and who formerly belonged to the same religious persuasion as 
 
39 
 
 that of Mr. Bright, and was thirty-five years ago an ardent Reformer, 
 has now had the candour and manliness to avow the change in his 
 opinions. He has evidenced much zealous usefulness and assiduity 
 in advocating temperance ; and though some persons may consider 
 that he has pushed the subject too far, yet every person will 
 admire the consistency with which he adheres to his principles, 
 and his warm desire to promote the moral and religious welfare of 
 all the lower orders. At a temperance meeting a short time since 
 held in Gloucester, after enumerating one great instance of evil 
 habits and dissipated courses being checked by the absence of 
 inebriety and the avoidance of all intoxicating stimulants, he 
 added, “That men might talk of Reform Bills, but the reclamation 
 of one notorious drinker from the error of his course was of more 
 importance to society than fifty Reform Bills.” 
 
 Now is the time to pause when you are making 
 fresh changes, contemplating fresh innovations, 
 inflicting fresh stabs on the genius of the Consti¬ 
 tution. 
 
 But you should be prepared for the evil to come. 
 The part of wisdom is always to hope for the best, 
 but at the same time to arm yourself against the 
 worst. The threatened storm may come when it is 
 least anticipated. If you awake Electricity, you 
 must recollect that it is a force which acts by irre¬ 
 sistible and invisible agency, above, below, and on 
 all sides, — a force most useful, like the Steam 
 Engine and Telegraph, when subsidiary and under 
 due control, but when let loose, bringing desolation 
 on its wing and thunder and lightning as its instru¬ 
 ments of destruction. 
 
 No—the dread Avatar may be approaching. Like 
 travellers in their ice-sledge, passing through the 
 trackless wilds and forests of Siberia, hearing the 
 dreadful blood-cry of the ravenous wolves in their 
 
40 
 
 rear, they urge their smoking steeds, and for an 
 interval leave their pursuers in the distance; but 
 on looking round, amid the fitful light of the moon, 
 they shudder to perceive that their relentless hunters 
 are still on their track, and running mute, in order 
 to avoid arresting the attention of their prey. But 
 all escape is vain : these blood-thirsty tenants of 
 the forest have marked them as their victims, and 
 their doom is sealed. 
 
 Or like the fatal error of Mr. Huskisson stand¬ 
 ing in the midst of the roadway to see the 
 completion of the first laid down—the Liverpool 
 and Manchester Railway; he hears the thunder 
 of the express train approaching, he considers 
 himself safe for the moment, then hesitates, be¬ 
 comes spell-bound and perplexed, and finally steps 
 on the very tramway where the train is rush¬ 
 ing, and in a moment the train is upon him and 
 hurls him to destruction. These are only truthful 
 images of the dangers of those in authority who 
 pander to and arouse the popular element, which 
 terminates in the immediate destruction of all who 
 are its foremost patrons and instigators. 
 
 Lastly, listen to Mr. Burke and Mr. Canning on 
 Reform. “Is all we hold precious to be hazarded 
 for the attainment of what—a theoretical existence— 
 a model perhaps more perfect, a picture better 
 finished; but our property, laws, and lives are to 
 be at stake for an object so chimerical, so unim¬ 
 portant?” “Let us be sensible of the advantages 
 which it 'is our happiness to enjoy; let us guard with 
 pious gratitude the flame of genuine liberty (not 
 licentiousness), that fire from heaven of which our 
 
 
41 
 
 Constitution is the only depository ; and let us not, 
 for the chance of rendering it more intense and more 
 radiant, impair its purity, or hazard its extinction.” 
 
 There has long ceased to be any danger from the 
 exercise of a too enlarged prerogative on the part 
 of the Crown. The great peril that is now to be 
 dreaded is the assumption of too great a prerogative 
 (if it may be so called) of the Commons House 
 of Parliament, and which, if it does not domineer 
 over, quite overawes, the other Estates of the 
 realm; and, from the encouragement given to 
 demagoguism, enlarges its sphere of power, and 
 threatens, like Aaron’s rod, to swallow up all the 
 other rods of authority. And now the question is 
 of the fate of any measure, not how it will meet 
 the approval of the Eoyal mind in council, nor the 
 deliberative and conscientious sanction of the House 
 of Peers, but how it will pass through under the 
 almost omnipotent fiat of the House of Commons. 
 
 The Crown, as Judge Blackstone observes, has not any power 
 to do wrong , but it has of preventing wrong to be done. The 
 Crown, therefore, has the power of affirming or negativing any 
 law. The Sovereign is made by law a part of the Parliament. 
 And it ought to be particularly observed that, in the reign of 
 Charles the First, the two Houses of Parliament assumed the 
 power of legislation without the Royal authority, and subse^ 
 quently the reins of administration. In consequence of these 
 united powers, they overturned the Church and State, and estab¬ 
 lished a worse oppression than any they had promised to remedy. 
 To hinder, therefore, any such encroachment in future, the King 
 is made a part of the Parliament; and as this is the reason of his 
 being so, very properly the share of legislation which the Constitu* 
 tion has placed on the Crown consists in the power of rejecting 
 rather than resolving, this being sufficient to answer the end 
 proposed. 
 
42 
 
 My Lords, there was in former days, in the 
 capitals of the ancient dynasties, an officer called a 
 TSL X o<pv\a resembling the warder of tjie old baronial 
 castles : his duty was to circumambulate the walls, 
 and, as head sentinel, to see that there was no 
 hostile nor insidious foe at hand to endanger the 
 safety of the city, and to give alarm to the authori¬ 
 ties, should any be found. At the time of the cap¬ 
 ture of Babylon there was one appointed to the 
 office, Zophyrus, a pretended deserter and a Per¬ 
 sian, and he was the instrument of betraying the 
 city into the hands of its deadliest enemies ! 
 
 Your classical recollections will also recall to your 
 mind the names of Thersites and Sinon, both dis¬ 
 tinguished for their presumption, their turpitude, 
 and their treachery. 
 
 You need not look around far for types of a 
 similar character at the present day. There are 
 some Zophyrus’s, Thersites', and Sinon’s now, men 
 of unbridled presumption, men of insatiable ambi¬ 
 tion, men who prostitute talent of a high order to 
 the gratification of private pique or personal ad¬ 
 vancement, and would sacrifice the best principles 
 of our hallowed Constitution on the altar of selfish 
 and individual aggrandisement. These men, deter¬ 
 mined to govern somewhere, say— 
 
 It is better to rule in hell 
 Than serve in heaven* 
 
 They have all the blandishments of eloquence on 
 their lips, but the venom of rancour in their hearts. 
 These men, the agrarian disturbers of Borne, the 
 Jacobins of France, the destructives of Great Britain, 
 are fertile adepts in the science of Bevolution, and 
 
43 
 
 fertile as they are in that, as fertile in deception ; of 
 whom it may he truly said, in the words of the 
 witty poet,— 
 
 Lie on, and my revenge shall be 
 To speak the very truth of thee. 
 
 I have the honour to remain, 
 
 My Lords, 
 
 &c. <fcc. &c. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Lastly, let me warn all the loyal and Protestant 
 part of the community that they must endeavour to 
 discourage and to stamp out the revolutionary and 
 American doctrines now prevalent among them. 
 These, more deadly than the Upas tree, more fatal 
 than the plague, are insinuating their pestilential 
 contagion through our favoured and time-honoured 
 land. 
 
 Then up, Protestants, up ! 
 
 By the blood of your fathers, the martyrs of old, 
 
 By the honour and courage that never were sold, 
 
 By the throne that you love and the faith you revere, 
 Up, Protestants up, and in phalanx appear. 
 
 It will be worse than superfluous to urge “ that I 
 do not understand politics.” You know, or ought to 
 know, the true politics of the most sacred of all 
 
44 
 
 books. “ Fear God, honour the king ; meddle not 
 with those who are given to changes.” And as the 
 revolutionary measures now proposed involve the 
 safety of your throne, your altar, aye, and your very 
 hearths and homes, lift up your prayer to the All¬ 
 wise Disposer of Events that He will crush the sedi¬ 
 tionary spirit in nations and individuals, that with 
 our National Anthem, He will 
 
 Confound their politics , 
 
 Frustrate their knavish tricks ; 
 
 and, finally, from gathering 
 
 Evil still educing good, 
 
 may ensure perpetuity instead of decadence to our 
 beloved national and sacred Institutions. 
 
 Mary S. Riekerby, Printer, 4a, Walbrook, Mansion House. E. C. 
 
By the same Author. 
 
 MANUALS OF DEVOTION FOR THE POORER 
 
 All CLASSES, 1821. 
 
 REMONSTRANCE TO MEMBERS OF THE BIBLE 
 
 IV SOCIETY ON DOMICILIARY VISITING, 1824. 
 
 T ETTER TO LORD JOHN RUSSELL ON THE RE- 
 Li PEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS, 1828. 
 
 APPEAL TO PROTESTANTS ON THE 
 
 CATHOLIC QUESTION, 1829. 
 
 ROMAN 
 
 T ETTER TO THE LATE EARL DUCIE 
 Li REFORM BILL, 1831. 
 
 ON THE 
 
 •;> a, - . 
 
 QN THE SABBATH QUESTION, 1858. 
 
 
 RIVE LETTERS TO THE CONSERVATIVES OF 
 L ENGLAND ON THE AMERICAN QUESTION, 1860. 
 
 O N RATIONALISTIC INFIDELITY AND THE 
 TRUTH OF THE BIBLE, 1860. 
 
 N GARIBALDI-ISM AND REVOLUTIONISTS, 1865. 
 
 IN THE PRESS. 
 
 i \N SOCIAL PROGRESS AND SOCIAL DISORGANI- 
 
 V7 Z ATI ON. 1866.