way,

whole course of that war (to which they now, by the attribute all our distresses), a majority-an immense majority of the nation, were of the same way of thinking with the majorities of the two Houses of Parliament? Do they doubt that, in that glorious war in which England saved Europe, and with Europe saved herself, her Government was enabled to effect these mighty purposes, not only by a confiding Parliament, but by a concurring people? Το say that such a war was, or could be carried on in contradiction to the wishes of the country-that it was a war against the people-is absurd. A war of twenty yearsaccompanied with privations and sacrifices never before heard of, and all cheerfully borne by a people reluctant and unconsenting, insensible to the demands of their own security, and deaf to the shouts of triumphant valour→→ borne, too, without murmur or remonstrance-the statement refutes itself. Gentlemen know that it does so. They know that the war was undertaken for the destruction of tyranny, and for the vindication of the liberties of mankind. They know that the glory acquired to England, and the interest felt in that glory by the people of England, were as great as the majorities in Parliament were overwhelming; and they know that those parliamentary majorities were but the express image of the sentiments of the nation.

"There is another consideration which induces me to distrust the honourable baronet's assumption of a general popularity for the doctrines of which he is the champion. It is, that this question of parliamentary reform is never eagerly agitated, unless when some poignant, though passing, difficulties assail the country. This was notoriously the case at the first promulgation of the doctrines of reform, towards the end of the American war. It was the case in 1793, when the desolating principles of the French revo

lution, and its tremendous military successes, disquieted sober minds with an apprehension of ruin to the kingdom. It was the case in 1797, at the period of the mutiny at the Nore; and again in 1798, during the height of the disturbances in Ireland. In 1810 and 1812, the question of reform was indeed brought forward, but without exciting much interest, or receiving any material support, either within doors or without; and from the latter period it slept until the year before last, when the honourable baronet burst upon us with the elaborate plan of Major Cartwright. To that admirable system, and to the peculiar doctrines of that patriarch of reform, I consider the honourable baronet as inviolably pledged. He is the undoubted and sole heir of the venerable major. I hope that when that system and those doctrines shall descend to him by right of inheritance, he will enjoy them to as full a maturity of age and intellect as his predecessor; and that he will finally hand them down unimpaired to some successor, equally gifted with himself, but doomed to be, equally with himself, unsupported and hopeless in the prosecution of them.

"Beside this plan of the honourable baronet, I am not aware of any specific proposition for reform now before the public-except the threatened one, from the other side of the House, for shortening the duration of Parliaments. It is now, Sir, about one hundred years since the Whigs made Parliaments septennial from triennial. During the first half century after that change, they monopolized the Administration of the Government. So far, all went well. But for nearly the whole of the last fifty years, the Whigs have been out of office. Are they anxious to try whether they may better their chance by undoing the work of their own hands, and returning to triennial Parliaments?

"Now, Sir, as to triennial Parliaments, I confess I object to them-anti-reformer as I am:-but if I were a radical

On my

reformer, I should object to them infinitely more. own part I object to them for all the reasons so often urged in debate against the repeal of the Septennial Act, in the course of the twenty years that followed its enactment; reasons, I admit, of expediency rather than of principle. But as a reformer, I should reject with indignation an attempt to delude me with a specious appearance of regeneration; calculated to aggravate in effect that very inequality of representation of which the reformers particularly complain. The objects of their strongest antipathy we know are the close boroughs, in defence of which I have ventured to say a few unpopular words; they hold it an abomination, that Tavistock should return by nomination as many members as York, or Bristol, or Liverpool, by free election. But what could so much enhance the advantage of Tavistock over York, or Bristol, or Liverpool, as increasing the frequency of elections? The trouble, the anxiety, the expense-the lawful expense, I mean—of a contested election for a populous place, are no light matter: while the quiet sitter for a close borough may be returned by the dash of a pen, without moving out of his easy chair. This takes place now, once in seven, or, as is the practice, once in about six years. Make it to happen once in three years;-you double the disadvantage against the popular representative;—and then have the assurance to call this a reform !

"But let not gentlemen deceive themselves with a fond expectation, that dextrous contrivances such as these, or that any palliatives, however specious, can amuse the real reformers. It is not with such sacrifices that you can gorge and satisfy the all-devouring monster of radical reform. No, no, no. The reformers mean, and they demand, a strict personal representation; they mean and they demand a direct expression of the people's will.

"I can only say, that if Government be a matter of will, (I thought it had been matter of reason and convention) and if the will of the whole nation be once fully represented -these two premises being assumed, the conclusion that follows from them is to my mind inevitable: it is shortly and plainly this, that the assembly so fully representing the national will, must be, and in sound logic ought to be, the whole Government. There is no room, no pretence for any other power in the State. Kings and lords are useless incumbrances: and such a House of Commons all in all.

"Such, I say, is the logical, the necessary, the unavoidable inference from the premises, once admitted, of the honourable baronet and the radical reformers. I content myself for the present with merely stating them, not presuming to find fault with them, nor proceeding to argue them on this occasion. Opportunities will probably occur for that purpose. I should not even have touched upon the subject of Parliamentary reform to-night, had it not been for the taunting invitation of the right honourable gentleman, and the solemn admonition of the honourable baronet. But, so called upon, I could not decline stating my opinions, without appearing to shrink from them. I do not shrink from them. I have stated them, I hope, intelligibly; I am sure without any reserve.

"Other warnings are addressed, not to me only, but to the House, as to the lessons to be learned from the French revolution. Undoubtedly these two lessons are to be learned from the French revolution; first, that proper changes ought not to be delayed too long; secondly, that precipitate changes are subversive of the peace and order and happiness of nations. But can any man look to the history of the ill-fated Louis XVI., and say, that it was his obstinate adherence to the rights of the throne which he

VOL. IV.

inherited, that embittered the last years of his reign, and finally led him to the scaffold? Can any man seriously contemplate the course of events which brought that monarchy to ruin, without trembling at the consequences of a too obsequious subservience to temporary popularity?— without perceiving how easy and how dangerous is the mistake of sacrificing the interests of a whole community to the clamours of a discontented few? Let not then the lessons of the French revolution be lost upon us! When our ears are assailed by clamour for change, let us not be unmindful of the silent apprehensions, the confiding patience of that large portion of the community whom these clamours distract and appal! Let us not mistake their silence for acquiescence; nor their confidence for carelessness! The feeling of alarm is deep, and general, and just. The persons, whose machinations are the subject of this debate, and the cause of our being called together at this season, are valueless as motes in the sun-beam, compared with the loyal, quiet, unmurmuring millions, who look up to Parliament for protection. Let them not look up to you in vain! Let not the claims, and the welfare of those millions, -of the loyal and the good, of the peaceful and the pious, -be disregarded by the House, in deliberating upon the measures which are necessary for the safety of the country. Vos ne populo Romano deesse videamini providete? Obsessa fascibus et telis impiæ conjurationis vobis supplex manus tendit patria communis. Vobis se, vobis vitam omnium civium, vobis arcem et capitolium, vobis aras penatium, vobis muros atque urbis tecta, vobis templa deorum atque delubra commendat."