guage which he had used; and he would see, that it would not have been borne by one gentleman from another. He would be doing nothing inconsistent with his honour as a man, or as a member of that House, if he would enable his right hon. friend to retract the language he had used, by admitting that the expression he had made use of was not intended to convey a personal insult.

The Speaker seemed disposed to follow up this suggestion, by calling on Mr. Brougham to explain the words which he had used: but Mr. Tierney and lord Archibald Hamilton checked him by insisting, that Mr. Canning was not in a condition to call for an explanation of any ambiguous phrases that had been applied to him, till he had retracted that expression which was a direct violation of the orders of the House. Mr. Bankes then moved, that both parties should be committed to the custody of the sergeant at arms. During all this time, Mr. Brougham remained silent, except that when Mr. Wynn requested him to state what was really the intention of his language, Mr. Brougham refused to give one word of explanation.

Mr. Canning had declared that he would not retract his words: and it was impossible to call on Mr. Brougham to be the first to explain. In this situation of things, there seemed to be no other course than that proposed by Mr. Bankes. It was one, however, which the House was loath to adopt: the manager of the House of Commons in the custody of the sergeant at arms would have been a novel spectacle. At last, sir Robert Wilson hit upon a mode of smoothing down the difficulties, by proposing that Mr. Canning should

make a conditional retractation, so as to enable Mr. Brougham to disavow any purpose of personal offence.

Sir Robert stated, that he was satisfied, that the expressions which had fallen from his learned friend were addressed to the right hon. gentleman in his official character, either as governor general of India, or as secretary of state for foreign affairs: and that the interruption of the right hon. gentleman arose only from the firm conviction of the moment, that the expression was personal, and no otherwise intended. With this view of the case, he thought the right hon. gentleman night, consistently with his honour and feelings, say, that it was under an impression that the language was meant to be personal that he had applied the epithet which had called forth the present discussion.

Mr. Canning declared that the suggestion was one which he should not be unwilling to receive and to act upon: but he begged to be understood as acceding to it under the assurance, that the learned gentleman denied the intention to convey any personal imputation in the language he had used. Personal he had considered that language; as it went to impute to him, that he had made unbecoming submissions to a high individual in the administration of the country, for the sake of obtaining office. Such an imputation he felt to have been cast, not on his official, but his private character. If that imputation should be denied, he was ready to admit, that, in what he had stated subsequently, he was mistaken: if, on the other hand, the imputation should be avowed, he retracted nothing.

The Speaker then stated, that his own opinion was, that no per

sonal offence had been meant by Mr. Brougham, and he trusted the House would believe, that, if he had thought the words were used with any such intention, he would have interfered. He hoped, therefore, to have the sanction of the learned gentleman for saying, that the impression he had received from his language was that which it was intended by him to convey. Mr. Brougham, thus called upon by the Speaker, and the whole House, declared, that he felt that it was an extremely difficult thing to speak with the accuracy, which had now become necessary, of the expressions he had used; and that he was incapable of telling the House exactly what he had said: but he perfectly remembered what was his meaning. He did not know whether his expressions might have been used too warmly, or if they might have had a personal application; because he did not profess that his mind was capable of making a very nice distinction in the selection of phrases, which should apply exclusively to the personal or to the political character. He would, however, tell the House what he meant to say. He had used the words "political tergiversation," and described the conduct of the right hon. gentleman, as something which stood prominent in the history of parliamentary tergiversation. The expression, he admitted, was strong; but he entertained a strong feeling, and he had meant to express it with respect to the right hon. member's public and political life. As a private individual, he had never known aught of him, which did not do him the highest honour. He considered that the right hon. gentleman had, by his speech delivered at Liverpool, for the first

time in his life, said, that he did not wish the Catholic question to be discussed again in Parliament. At that moment it was known, that the right hon. gentleman was about either to become a minister, or to go as governor-general of India: and the lord chancellor was the person of the highest authority and influence in the cabinet. He had talked of the conduct of the right hon. gentleman as it appeared to him from the change which had taken place in his conduct with respect to this question; and he had a right to form an opinion of his motives from the outward and visible form of his actions, which seemed to him to show a truckling to the lord chancellor. He surely had a right to speak of his conduct as a statesman, which he deplored, and this he had done. He had not done so for any party, and still less for any personal purposes, but because its consequences were likely to prove a death blow to that cause, in the support of which they had both been engaged. Whether this explanation were full enough or not, the right hon. gentleman must decide for himself. He (Mr. Brougham) could have wished to have given a fuller one; but what the right hon. gentleman had added to his last speech, in which he almost repeated the disorderly expressions, had stopped him his mouth was closed, on his part, reluctantly and unwillingly.

Mr. Peel then put it to the House, whether it was not their sincere conviction that a satisfactory explanation had been given, and that the affair ought not to be further proceeded in. Mr. Bankes having expressed himself completely satisfied and withdrawn his motion, Mr. Tierney mentioned, that all that remained to be done,

was, for the parties to say that they would think no more of the matter. Mr. Canning immediately rose and said, that he should think no more of the matter; and Mr. Brougham repeated the - same expressions.

So ended this approximation to a personal quarrel, in which Mr. Canning did not sufficiently consider either his exalted and responsible station or the dignity annexed to his high endowments of mind. Mr. Brougham's language, though harsh, and, as far as we can judge, unfounded in fact, did not exceed the bounds of political invective: and if met at all, it ought to have been met either by cool denial or by a grave statement of circumstances. The intemperate language of irritation and passion was unworthy of Mr. Canning; and it was degradation to be goaded into the bravado of a bully. Mr. Canning's words, in effect, said "you shall either fight me or retract." It may be doubted, whether a statesman, in legislative debate, ought ever to have recourse to this mimicry of the ultima ratio of kings: but if he does choose to tender such an issue to his opponents-if he does condescend to say to them, "I will prove by fighting you, that I do not merit your sarcasms:"-he ought, at least, to be consistent; and he should make this communication privately, and not in the face of an assembly, where the purpose must necessarily be defeated by the mere promulgation of it. To tell a man in private life that what he says is false, has a meaning and a result: to tell him the same thing in Parliament, is mere passion and fury, and, at the most, is only a formal invitation to the House to commit him, who uses such expressions, to the custody of the sergeant at arms.

After this personal affair had been settled, Mr. Brougham went on with his speech, exhorting the friends of the Catholics not to relax in their efforts, in spite of the certainty of present failure. Several other members having spoken to a similar effect, the Speaker called on Mr. Plunkett to proceed with his motion. Sir Francis Burdett, Mr. Bennett Mr. Hume, Mr. Hobhouse, Lord Sefton, Sir R. Sir R. Wilson, Mr. Creevey, and several other Opposition members immediately left the House. After a short interval, Mr. Plunkett rose, and after de ploring the secession of so many members, deprecating the desponding language of Mr. Tierney, and defending his own conduct in accepting office, he proceeded with his motion, which he concluded by moving that the House go into a committee on the Catholic claims. A few remarks from Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Becher, constituted the whole of the debate: after which, it was first moved, "That this House do now adjourn;" but this motion was with the leave of the House, withdrawn. It was next moved, "That the debate be adjourned till the following day." Upon this the House divided; Ayes, 134. Noes, 292. It was afterwards moved, "That the debate be adjourned till Monday next." This motion being negatived without a division, it was then moved, "That the debate be adjourned till this day six months," whereupon a motion was made, and the question put, "That this House do now adjourn." The House divided: Ayes, 313. Noes, 111.-The question was not again brought forward during the ses

sion.

Lord Nugent brought in a mea

sure for placing English Catholics on an equal footing with those of Ireland, by giving them the elective franchise, and admitting them to hold certain offices. At the suggestion of Mr. Canning, it was divided into two bills; the first of which was confined to the grant of the elective franchise by repealing so much of the statute of William III, as related to the administration of the oath of supremacy to persons voting for members of parliament. This concession, being supported by Mr. Peel, passed the Commons without much difficulty. The objection relied on, especially by Mr. Bankes, was, that this was the first step to further encroachment, and that it was inconsistent to give Catholics the right of voting for members of parliament, and yet exclude them from sitting there themselves. Mr. Peel declared, that he could not see, how, upon granting the elective franchise to the Catholics, he was at all bound to grant them the further right of sitting in parliament. In fact, the two things had no connexion with each other. The hon. member for Corfe Castle had said"This measure gives us a class of men who may make members of parliament, but who cannot be come members of parliament themselves." Why, what was there new in this? From the different rights attaching to different kinds of property, there were already thousands of men in the country who could vote for members of parliament, and yet could not sit in parliament themselves; and vice versa, there were many, who were competent to sit in the House, but who had not not qualification for voting. There were, for instauce, the clergy of England, a whole body of individuals who were excluded by law

from being elected to parliament, although they possessed, or might possess, the elective franchise. As for danger in the present measure, he saw none; and he denied that it bound its advocates to support any ulterior measure. The Catholics of England were few in number; and even in Lancashire, the county in which their party was strongest, he did not believe that they would have influence enough to return a single member to parliament. The law of exclusion at present was one of the very worst character. Its enforcement depended upon the pleasure of individuals, who would never make use of it upon public grounds, or upon principle; because the individual who barred the Catholic from voting, was always the party against whom he was going to vote. If the exclusion were to continue, he would prefer seeing the veto made absolute, to leaving the law in its present state; but, as he thought that admission could do no possible mischief, and that much advantage would accrue out of that community of feeling between Catholic and Protestant, which the bustle of an election would produce, he gave his hearty support to the measure.

The principal division on the bill took place in the Committee, where it was carried by a majority of 89 to 30.

On the 9th of July, lord Lansdowne moved the second reading of it in the House of Lords. It was supported by the bishop of Norwich, lord Westmoreland, lord Liverpool, lord Melville, and lord Harrowby; but it was vehemently opposed by lord Redesdale, and the Lord Chancellor. The result of a division was a majority of 7 against the bill; the numbers

being as follows: Contents, 43; Proxies, 30-73: Not-contents, 41; Proxies, 39–80.

The second bill-that for making Catholics eligible to certain offices in England also passed the House of Commons, but it was not introduced into the Lords; the mar quis of Lansdowne having, even before the rejection of its comrade, expressed his willingness to defer. the consideration of it till the following session, in order to give time for its full discussion.

On the 3rd of July, leave was asked and obtained in the House of Commons for sir Henry Parnell, and sir John Newport, to bring in a bill to enable Roman Catholics to make and execute gifts and grants for pious and charitable purposes; but nothing was done in pursuance of this permission. The only effect of it was, to excite the vigilance of the opponents of the Catholic cause; and, in particular, to induce lord Colchester to move for returns of the number of Roman Catholic Chapels, Schools, Academies, Colleges, and religious houses in England, and also of the number of persons belonging to such monastic establishments, or bound by monastic or religious vows. This motion was reprobated by lord Rosslynas inquisitorial, and, at the recommendation of the lordchancellor, it was withdrawn by the noble mover, who stated, however, that he would renew it, if any step should be taken towards such a bill as that which had been mentioned in the House of Com

mons.

A number of petitions in favour of parliamentary reform were presented; among which, that of Yorkshire was the most conspicuous. It boasted of being 380 feet in length, and of having 17,083 VOL. LXV.

signatures. This was considerably more than two-thirds of all the free-holders of the county; for, at the contested election sixteen years before, when every part of Yorkshire was ransacked for voters, only 23,070 came to the poll. Lord Milton, in presenting the petition, stated, that the utmost pains had been taken to exclude the names of persons who were not bona fide freeholders; and he did not believe, having gone over the whole of them, that there were fifty to which an exception could be reasonably made. One or two had signed as trustees, a few more as freeholders of Hull, and of York, who ought properly not to have been included, and he believed that the names of five females would be found upon the list.

On the 24th of April, lord John Russell moved, that the present state of parliamentary representation required the most serious consideration of the house; lord Normanby seconded the motion, which was supported by Mr. Ricardo, sir J. Newport, and sir F. Blake, and opposed by sir H. East and Mr. R. Martin. The house divided, for the motion, 169-against it, 280,-majority, 111. The discussion was exceedingly languid and did not excite much interest. Lord J. Russell's plan of reform was, to have a hundred members, to be taken from the quota now furnished by the boroughs, added to the representation of the counties and populous towns. The only circumstance, in which it differed from the scheme proposed by him in the preceding year, was, that he now professed his willingness to acknowledge the right of the boroughs, which should be disfranchised, to have compen sation for the loss of their privilege. [G]