any

to abolish Parliamentary Government, to levy money by his own authority, and supersede the ancient liberties of England by the doctrine of divine right ?—that it was not lawful and praiseworthy to resist a system of despotism, not intended, not projected, but actually established, in England in the early years of that reign? Or will man say that the mean debauchery of Louis XV. was a fit employment for the resources of a great nation like the French? That the abuses of the French Government did not require reform? If there be any man who will say this, let him enjoy his opinion if he will, but let him not presume to think himself worthy to enjoy the benefits of the British Constitution; and, above all, let him not venture to think his counsels can be listened to in a British Parliament.

I assume, then, and let us now confine our attention to one of the two countries-I assume, that Lord Clarendon, and Lord Strafford, and Lord Falkland were right in their early opposition to the misgovernment of Charles I. But why not stop, it will be said, like Lord Clarendon and Lord Falkland? Alas! Sir, who shall say that the policy of Lord Clarendon and Lord Falkland would have procured for us a system of liberty? Who will venture to lay his finger upon that point in the history of Charles I., when it would have been possible to save the monarchy without losing the Constitution? Who shall presume himself to possess more learning than Selden, more sagacity than Pym, more patriotism than Hampden?

The question, in fact, was involved in inextricable difficulty. From all I have read, and all I have thought upon this subject, I take the cause of that difficulty to be this: The aristocracy were divided; they were divided between a larger party, who were satisfied to bear arbitrary power for the sake of property and tranquillity; and a smaller party, who were ready to sacrifice property and even life

for the sake of destroying arbitrary power. But this last party, being the minority, were obliged to call to their aid the assistance of the people. Now the history of the world shows, that to accomplish great changes in Government by the active agency of the people is a task of great hazard and uncertainty. The people, in a state of agitation, are, in times like those I speak of, naturally suspicious; they awake from a dream of confidence, and find that their facility has been abused by those rulers in whom they had implicitly trusted. In this wreck of all their established reliances, in this anxious desire for the benefits of freedom, in this tremorous apprehension of falling back into slavery, what wonder is it that their fears should be continually roused, that they should listen to accusations even against their best friends, and that, with a mixture of zeal and timidity, they should destroy the beautiful temple at the same time that they tear down the foul idol that it contains? What matter of surprise is it, that, unable to know exactly the truth, they should rase the very foundations of a society under which they have greatly suffered ?

But how are these evils to be avoided? How are these natural and usual calamities, attendant on popular revolutions, to be averted? By a united aristocracy. History here, too, tells us, that if great changes accomplished by the people are dangerous, although sometimes salutary, great changes accomplished by an aristocracy, at the desire of the people, are at once salutary and safe. When such revolutions are made the people are always ready to leave in the hands of the aristocracy that guidance which tends to preserve the balance of the Government and the tranquillity of the State. Such a change was the expulsion of the Tarquins from Rome; of James II. from England. These were revolutions accomplished without bloodshed and confusion, by the influence of an united

aristocracy. I call upon the aristocracy of England, therefore, now to unite to make that change safe, which, if they do not unite, may be dangerous, but which will not be the less inevitable. I call upon the Tories to stay the progress of abuses, which must end in the convulsion of the State. I appeal still more confidently to the Whigs to unite for a similar object. If I know anything. of Whiggism, the spirit of Whiggism is, to require for the people as much liberty as their hands can safely grasp at the time when it is required and I am so far from agreeing to the flimsy accusations sometimes made against the Whigs, that I think, looking at their conduct from the beginning, their chief fault has been a fault of policy, in asking for more freedom and more securities for freedom than the people wished or could retain. The Exclusion Bill and the whole life of Mr. Fox are instances of this observation. When at the Revolution, however, the Government of this country was settled, the Whigs retained in their own hands the boroughs which they were able to influence. I really believe that to this measure the settlement of the House of Hanover is mainly owing. During the reigns of the two first Kings of the House of Brunswick the county members consisted almost entirely of the most determined Tories; and had they prevailed, we should probably have seen upon the throne the descendants of James II., granting, perhaps, more securities for our religion, but not more. guarantees for our liberty than James himself. I think, therefore, the Whigs were fully justified in retaining a certain quantity of borough influence, which they could not otherwise have justly held. But now, when the people are enlightened, and fully capable of understanding their own interests, the Whigs will act wisely if they yield to the increased intelligence of the country a due share in the return of their representatives. As they formerly retained the boroughs to secure liberty, let them now for the

same noble object consent to part with them. Let them show to the country, that if Reform is impeded the Whig aristocracy stands free from the charge of hindering its progress from any personal and selfish interest of their own. In so doing they will give energy and effect to their opposition in Parliament; for I do not wish to conceal it, the possession of these boroughs has lessened the energy of their efforts in support of the liberties of the country. They have been able to state, with less firmness and frankness than they might otherwise have done, the causes of the misgovernment of the country; and the people, on the other hand, seem to feel that the Whig aristocracy retain something which properly belongs to themselves. Hence the union between the party of the people within and without the walls of Parliament has been less cordial than it would be if the Whigs were content to yield something to the popular desire for Reform: I beseech them to do so; but not them only-all the aristocracy of the land. Sir William Temple, a wise and amiable man, but whom no one will accuse of being too great an enthusiast for liberty, has said that this great nation never can be ruined but by itself: and that, even in the greatest changes, if the weight and number rolled one way, yet England would be safe. I beseech you that the weight and number may roll one way; I beseech the possessors of great property to consider how nearly it concerns them to retain the affections of the great mass of the people. I beseech you, that, throwing aside all feminine fears, all pedantic prejudices, and all private advantages, you will consider only your duty as men, the wants of the age in which we live, and that permanent and pervading interest which we all have in the maintenance of the English constitution. May you remember, that the liberty which was acquired for you by your ancestors will be required of you by your descendants: then will you agree to a temperate and timely re

form, reconcile the different classes of society, and prevent a convulsion which may involve all in one common ruin. Then may that proud Constitution, which has now subsisted in maturity little more than one hundred years, continue to maintain the spirit of its freedom, and extend the sphere of its salutary influence, until its existence vies with that of the most durable institutions that were ever reared for the happiness of mankind in any age or in any country. I now move, That the present state of the representation of the people in Parliament requires the most serious consideration of this House.'

REPEAL OF THE TEST AND CORPORATION ACTS. Tuesday, February 26, 1828.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL rose and said :—I rise, Sir, in consequence of the notice which I some time ago gave upon the subject, for the purpose of submitting to the consideration of the House a motion which, although it has not for many years been submitted to the House, will, I am sure, not be esteemed less worthy of their attention, either on that account, or on account of the weakness of the advocate by whom it is about to be supported. I am satisfied that the great number of petitions in favour of civil and religious liberty which are now upon your table, will, at least, induce the House to take the question into their most serious consideration; and if they do dismiss it, at least not to do so until after the investigation which its importance demands. There is one consideration, personal to myself, which I certainly feel very forcibly. It is not that I have the smallest doubt of the strength of the case. On the contrary, I feel that if brought before a House with no preconceived opinions-no long-cherished prejudices— an assembly, in short, new to the subject of the debate, I