Now as no proceedings had been taken in consequence of these harangues, was the house to conclude that the government of Ire land approved of such language? And did the government really believe there were a million of men in Ireland with thousands of leaders ready to come forward against her majesty and her government in case she exercised her undoubted prerogative and dismissed the present administration? If they did believe this statement to be correct, what then became of the vaunted tranquillity of Ireland, of which they had heard so much that night.

Several other speakers followed Mr. Litton in debate the same evening, and amongst them were Mr. Gally Knight, Mr. Paking ton, and lord Claude Hamilton, after whom rose lord Howick for the purpose of vindicating his late conduct in seceding from the government to which he had been for some time attached as secretary at war. He began by recalling to mind the circumstances which induced his colleagues and himself to tender their resignations in the May preceding. To that step they had been forced from their consciousness that they did not possess that amount of confidence and support on the part of this house and of the country, which would enable them to carry on its affairs with advantage. And so deeply sensible was he (lord Howick) of this, that when they were called on most unexpectedly to resume their situations, nothing could have overcome his reluctance to do so but the duty which he thought he owed to her majesty, to support her from whom they had such generous support and such indulgent kindness. "It was, nevertheless,

said his lordship, "impossible for me to shut my eyes to the fact that from the year 1834 up to the time at which we then were, a considerable and increasing defection had taken place from the ranks of the supporters of government of persons anxious for the adoption of liberal policy, but opposed to further changes in the constitution of parliament. I had obsery. ed year by year, I may almost say month by month, now one, now two of the most respectable and earnest supporters of the former whig government falling off from its ranks and joining the ranks of our opponents."

"It was my opinion, that in the new ministerial arrangements an effort should be made to recover the confidence of those persons, and I therefore conceived that such changes should take place as should hold out to this house and to the country an assurance, that while all practical reforms were vigorously carried on, the present constitution of the house should be resolutely maintained. I am not aware what were the views on this subject of the two noble lords at the head of the government in the two houses of parliament. These were of course matters principally regulated by them, and all I know is, that the arrangement on which they determined did not seem to me to answer the description I have given, but on the contrary, calculated to have a different effect. I think it was on the day week preceding the prorogation that my noble friend at the head of the government desired to see me, and in a conversation acquainted me with the contemplated changes, and I at once stated my objections, and afterwards embodied the substance of them in a

letter which I wrote to my noble friend."

"Some further correspondence passed between us to which I am not anxious more particularly to refer. It is sufficient to say that not one of the objections raised by me to any part of the new scheme was admitted to be valid, and the whole of it without any modification whatever was determined upon, and under these circumstances I felt it to be my duty -a most painful duty I can assure the house humbly to tender my resignation to her majesty, which, as the house is aware, was accepted." Lord Howick repudiated the doctrine that the reform act was to be considered a final measure, which he considered contrary to every principle of the constitution. Neither did he look upon it as a perfect measure. At the same time he thought the bill originally introduced into the house on the 1st of March 1831, a much more perfect measure than that which actually passed into a law. Indeed he had no hesitation in saying that every one of the changes since made in that measure were very greatly for the worse. But that bill having once passed, any alteration under the present circumstances of the country would be highly inexpedient, although it was confessedly imperfect, and parliament had an undoubted right if it saw fit, to attempt to improve it. Changes in the constitution were no light matter, and any alteration in the distribution of political power, affecting as it did, all classes of society, was a thing not to be undertaken except under the pressure of great and urgent necessity.

It was an argument constant ly used by Mr. Canning and

other opponents of parliamentary reform, that the then existing representation of the people worked well; and could they have proved that the house as then constructed did work well for the interests of the country, he would have admitted the cogency of the argument against parliamentary reform. But he (lord Howick) was of a totally different opinion, because looking at the state of the country the immence load of debt-the spread of pauperismthe many evils which at that time afflicted the country, he believed that this growth could be distinctly traced to the misconduct of the house of commons-misconduct to be ascribed directly to the influence by a comparatively small number of persons in the return of the members of that house. It was this conviction which made him a sincere and ardent supporter of the great measure of reform, but the state of things which jus tified that measure was now 110 longer in existence.

If he looked at the conduct of the house of commons since the passing of that bill, it did not appear to him that any such sinister interests had influenced its proceedings, and in the work of legislation it had accomplished great things. He was aware that many persons while they admitted that much had been done, contended that more still was required. However that might be, he believed the house as at present constituted did faithfully reflect the sense of the majority of the educated and enlightened classes of the community. And if there was any difference of opinion between the house and the country, he was prepared to maintain this position that the house in liberality of opinion and in enlightenment is

in advance of the constituents whom it represents, and this was naturally to be expected, as it was the part and the duty of the house of commons not only to represent, but to lead and instruct public opinion. The noble lord then went on to observe at considerable length on the aspect of public affairs, and concluded by expressing an anxious hope that he had said nothing to wound or injure his late colleagues or that was likely to separate or alienate him from them. If such should prove the consequence of what he had said, he should regret it more than any obloquy to which he might be exposed by leaving unexplained his public conduct. He hoped, however, he had avoided that danger, although the circumstances of his position compelled him to state the reasons that obliged him very unwillingly to retire from her majesty's service.

Sir James Graham had heard with great satisfaction parts of lord Howick's address, because he had served under the noble lord's father when the reform bill was carried, and because it was imagined the noble lord represented the opinions of that noble individual earl Grey. It was gratifying to find that, although the noble lord rejected the term of the finality of the reform bill, still the party of the noble lord and his more immediate connections adhered to that bill as a satisfactory settlement of a vital question. He regretted, however, that the noble lord was not prepared to support the motion of the hon. baronet the member for Devonshire, as the circumstances which called for the motion and justified the terms in which it was couched, were far stronger and more crititical than those which compelled

the noble lord to tender his resignation.

The conduct of the government in respect of the appropriation clause was the next point to which sir J. Graham called the attention of the house, as clearly demonstrating how little they deserved the confidence of the country. It was the ground on which his noble friend (lord Stanley) and himself had left lord Grey's government. It was also the ground on which the administration of the right hon. baronet (sir R. Peel) had been overturned, and it was the foundation of lord Melbourne's government. And if ever a ministry were bound to adhere to a principle, it was lord Melbourne's ministry to the principle of appropriation. He would repeat to the house the declaration of that noble lord in the other house of parliament in 1836, that "not only in point of honour, but in point of feeling, and of every regard which they should consider binding as public men, he, and his colleagues felt bound to adhere to the principle and letter of this resolution."

Sir J. Graham went on to contend that the noble lord, the leader of the ministerial party in the house of commons had betrayed similar inconsistency in the opinions he had expressed at different times, and the course he was now pursuing in reference to the ballot, universal suffrage, and triennial parliaments. In his address to the electors of Stroud last April, the noble lord (lord John Russell) had thus spoken of the ballot, "It is," he said, "only suited to an absolute government, or a free government, where the suffrage is universal. But for the middle classes of this country to pretend to an irresponsible and secret power over

The hon. baronet briefly adverted to the manner in which the patronage of the government had been distributed, and said that he was no prude on that subject himself-nay that he admitted generally the doctrine that every government was justified in giving a preference to its friends and supporters. At the same time there were two vast exceptions to that rule, and those were the two great services of arms in this countrythe army and the navy; and he said distinctly with respect to the navy, that the root of its efficiency was struck at if officers were led to understand that services performed on the quarter-deck were secondary to services performed on the hustings. The hon. and learned judge-advocate had said that he delighted in facts, he would make no comments on these he was about to mention, but simply detail them to the house. No less than eight naval officers above the rank of lieutenants had stood contests at the last general election, and had been defeated. Every one of those officers having stood election contests had since been placed in command. Admiral Ommaney who had contested Hampshire had since been placed VOL. LXXXII.

in command at Lisbon; lord John Churchill who had contested Woodstock now commanded the Druid, captain Plumridge, the candidate for Falmouth had been appointed to the Astræa, and lord Clarence Paget, the candidate for Southampton to the Howe. Captain Napier who stood for Greenwich now commanded the Powerful, and captain Townshend who contested Tamworth had been appointed to the Tyne. The right hon. baronet quoted several other instances in which the same curious coincidence took place, and his speech certainly told with remarkable effect upon the house, especially his severe exposure of the contradictory opinions entertained by different members of the same cabinet. These observations called up Mr. Macaulay, who thought the house might imagine he rose under some little feeling of irritation to reply to the accusations and personalities of the right hon. baronet, but said he should indulge neither himself. It would be easy to reply to them, to recriminate would be still easier. Were he alone personally considered, he should think either course unworthy of him, and if ever he was under the necessity of addressing the house on matters which concerned himself, he hoped it would not be on an occasion when the dearest interests of the empire were staked on the event of the debate. He felt, indeed, with the most intense conviction, that in pleading for the government to which he belonged, he was pleading for the dearest interests of the commonwealth-for the reformation of abuses, and for the preservation of august and venerable institutions, and the general welfare of the people. Mr. Macaulay trusted that [F]

the first cabinet minister who offered himself in debate, when the question was, whether the government be or be not worthy of confidence, would find some portion of that generosity and good feeling which once distinguished English gentlemen. But however that might be, his voice should be heard, and he would first advert, not to any matter relating to himself alone, but to those parts of the subject with which his name was in some degree bound up with the character of the government of which he formed a part.

His opinions were favourable to secret voting, and the opinions of his noble friend (lord John Russell) were in favour of open voting, and although this discrepancy existed between them, they met together notwithstanding, as members of one government. This had been made a topic of charge against the government by every gentleman who had addressed the house since the commencement of the debate. Now, if on account of this difference of opinion the house should consider them unworthy of its confidence, then no government for many years had been, or was, worthy of the confidence of the house of commons; for the several governments of Mr. Pitt, of Mr. Fox, of lord Liverpool, of Mr. Canning, and of the duke of Wellington, had all had open questions on subjects of the greatest moment.

The question of parliamentary reform was an open question with the government of Mr. Pitt-Lord Granville was opposed to that question, yet he was brought into the cabinet by Mr. Pitt who favoured it. Mr. Pitt was adverse to the slave-trade, while a defender of it,

Mr. Dundas, was a member of his government. Mr. Fox, in the same manner, in his cabinets of 1792 and 1806, had open questions of similar importance; and 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 executive administration, ought perhaps to have been one of the last questions which should ever have been left open by any cabinet.

But, continued the right hon. gentleman, to take still more important ground, and to come to a question more nearly interesting to them, suppose they were to dismiss the present government, on what principle did they mean to constitute an administration composed of hon. gentlemen opposite? Was it proposed by them to leave the privileges of the house an open question? Was it intended, that their projected government should consist of those amongst them who declared themselves favourable to their privileges? He seriously believed, that the differences of opinion on the other side, on the question of privilege would, if a ministry were formed from that quarter, produce, practically, more inconvenience in a week, than would be caused in ten years by leaving the ballot an open question.

In Mr. Macaulay's opinion, the main argument used by the hon. baronet who opened the debate, constituting the substance of every succeeding speech, amounted to this:-"The country is in an unsatisfactory state-there is great turbulence-there is great disposition to extensive political changeand at the bottom of all lies the agitating policy of those Whigs. They raised themselves to power