the details of the bill, to shew its evil tendency. He concluded his speech with a chastisement of Mr O'Connell, and a promise to bring the affair of that gentleman with the Irish government shortly before the House. This speech, though not one of the most attractive, either in delivery or in print, was considered to be one of the most practically effective which was made against the bill; Admiral Sotheron took the first opportunity the next evening of announcing his conversion to the side of the opponents of the bill, in consequence of it, which nettled Lord John Russell extremely. He said, the course pursued by the admiral was consistent neither with fairness nor justice; for which the noble lord was rebuked by a brother admiral, Sir J. Yorke, who insisted, that a more manly and straight-forward course than that of his gallant friend, it was impossible to pursue. After some skirmishing about the delay of the Irish Reform bill, the debate on the second reading of the English bill was resumed by Lord Mahon, in a speech of much earnestness and eloquence; he argued from example, that anomaly in theory was no proof of practical error or inconvenience; and, in reply to the argument deduced from the alleged cry of the people for Reform, he boldly declared that, if the voice of the country was loud, it was his Majesty's Ministers that had influenced it. If those Ministers had taken half the pains to allay and to quiet the public mind that they had taken to excite it, there would have been no cry for this measure. Sir John Shelley strongly opposed the bill, and stated, that if, in voting against it, he should give his last vote in that House, he should have the consolation of knowing that he had done his duty. Mr Cavendish, the member for Cambridge university, who so distinguished himself as a science-scholar, and from whom so much was expected in the senate, failed completely in his speech. He and all the members of the Devonshire family are in favour of the bill. Mr Gore spoke against the bill, and Captain Polhill said a few words in its favour. Mr W. Ward, the only one of the city of London members against the bill, spoke at some length. Alderman Thomson, who was of two

or three different minds upon the subject within two or three weeks, has, for the present, settled down into a decided reformer. Mr Wyse talked of Blackstone-Locke-Revolution, and the History of England; he was in favour of the bill, but was not heard with such patience as usual. Sir R. Bateson was, although a reformer, against the measure; then followed two young lords, of whom the first, Lord Mountcharles, (not without a" con-si-de-ra-tion,") was in favour of the measure; and the next, Lord Castlereagh, against it. Mr Shaw followed also against the bill; and there was then a very clever speech from the Attorney-General, (Denman,) in reply to Sir E. Sugden's of the previous night. He was followed by Sir James Scarlett, to whom, whatever cloud may have, of late, fallen upon his public character, it is impossible to deny, in this instance, the highest credit for a manly straight-forward course, which he pursued even at the expense of his seat in Parliament. His speech, like most of those which he delivers, whether in or out of Parliament, was cleverly and closely reasoned, touching, with great tact and exactness, upon the most vulnerable points of the measure, both in a legal and practical view, and insisting, that if expediency were taken for a guide, so large a disfranchisement would not be attempted. As to energy of feeling, or force and eloquence of expression on this or any other subject, it seems not to belong to the nature of Sir James Scarlett. T. Acland made a speech full of compliment to the Ministers, and of apology for his intention to vote against them; this is a half-and-halfmethod of proceeding, which we think rather insipid, but his vote went the right way.

Sir

Lord John Russell then replied, and received the cheers of his party when he spoke exultingly of the French Revolution of last July, which he represented as the consequence of the opposition of Charles and his ministers to popular opinion, and endeavoured to cast an imputation on the anti-reformers, of holding views similar to theirs. By such sophistry are men deceived. Had Charles and his ministers only opposed popular opinion by such fair and constitu

tional means as the anti-reformists resort to, they had saved France and their own stations and fortunes. The principle of constant yielding to popular opinion is the weakest and most worthless that a government could dream of adopting; popular opinion must often be opposed, if the popular good be consulted; but it is no marvel that a weathercock, like Lord John Russell, should seek, in some such principle as this, an excuse for his own twistings and turnings.

At the conclusion of the noble lord's reply, there were more members in the House than had been ever known to be crowded together within its walls before-exhausted with waiting, and with impatience for the issue, they divided; when there were found in favour of the second reading of the bill 302-against it 301leaving Ministers upon this mighty question with a majority of one man, or rather one Calcraft, which is perhaps a more cautiously correct me thod of expression. Of such a majority as this, upon so vitally important a question, it is difficult to speak with gravity. It is ridiculous to suppose that a preponderance of ONE, in an assembly of six hundred and three, should have the effect of overturning the legislative constitution which has existed for centuries. Such a majority on the other side, might be a reasonable justification for remaining as we are; but where mighty changes are proposed, which, if effected, must alter the character and circumstances of the whole nation, it is monstrous to suppose, that a single voice preponderating in the balance, should sway the community to a course of experimenting upon the form of government under which they and their ancestors have lived. Again, had the majority been against government, it would, at least, have been certain that it was a majority of votes freely and fairly given; but in a house where there are so many paid servants of the crown, it is clear that a considerable number of votes are given as a part of the service of office, and therefore, it has hitherto been considered by every government, that any majority of a very small number, should be looked upon in the light of a defeat. Our present Ministry, however, are not sensitive;

and whether in a minority of fortysix, or with a majority of one, hold fast to their places, undisturbed by the nice scruples of less enlightened periods.

The division in the Commons took place between three and four in the morning of the 23d of March, and in the evening an animated discussion took place in the House of Lords upon the subject of Reform, growing out of the presentation of petitions against it. Lord Grey, proud in his majority of one, was very peremptory and decisive in his tone. In reply to Lord Roden's observation, that "he was hostile to any revolutionary measure," the Premier, in his severe and haughty manner, answered, "I say on the contrary, that the bill offers the best means of putting a stop to all revolutionary tendency, and therefore, I am determined to support it." On the succeeding evening (the 24th), both Houses were occupied by the engrossing subject. In the Lords, the discussion arose upon the presentation of a petition from Down, which led to a speech from Lord Londonderry, and an answer from the Premier, in which he put forth the full force of his great ability as a Parliamentary speaker. It is impossible not to be strongly impressed by the clear, vigorous, and commanding tone of the noble earl's oratory; but it must be confessed, that in this speech, notwithstanding the complaint which he made, of others having used assertion in place of argument, he fell into the same fault himself, and was content with stating strongly what he would do, without condescending to prove that he would be right in so doing. The following passage, as a good example of his lordship's style, and for another reason, which a future time will develope, is worthy of particular note: "I have no objection to say that I consider myself completely committed by, and identified with, the measure, and by this measure I shall stand or fall. That in so complicated a scheme, formed upon such a large and extensive subject, something may not require to be altered, is certainly more than I can undertake to assert; but this I will say, that as far as depends upon me, I will suffer no alteration to be made

that will detract from its efficiency. As an efficient measure, I will stand or fall by it; and without throwing out any threat of dissolution, I have no objection to say, that in order to support and carry into effect this measure, as an efficient measure, there are no means sanctioned by the principles and practice of the constitution, and by a devoted sense of public duty, from the employment of which I will shrink. The noble marquis has said, that he supposes I have too great a regard for my order, to desire to promote any revolutionary measure. I have supported, and will support that order, because I think that it is necessary to the preservation of the constitution that it should exist. I am by station, and still more by disposition and habit, a member of the aristocracy. But I support it as an order, only because it is a necessary order in the state-because it is a necessary link between the crown and the people-and because its existence contributes to the good of the community. Whenever the aristocracy ceases to be this, then I am no longer a member of the aristocracy; but while it continues to be this, and while its rights and privileges are conducive to the preservation of the rights and privileges of all, I repeat that I am ready to stand or fall with it."

This is no doubt a fine specimen of the bold proud language of a British Peer; but it may be well questioned, whether the same proud feeling which inspires such language, does not blind him to the danger of the course he is pursuing. With his lofty conception of his order, and the high idea of his own ability, which he not unjustly entertains, he feels no apprehension of the power which he is throwing into the hands of the democracy; but calmer experience looks with a more apprehensive eye upon his proceedings. The Duke of Wellington was wont to be called peremptory and despotic in his style; let us take a passage from his speech also on this occasion, and compare it with the_tone of the proud Earl Grey: "I beg your lordships to believe that I feel no interest in the question, except ing that which I have in common with every individual in the country.

I possess no influence or interest of the description which will be destroyed by the measures now pro posed. I am an individual who has served his Majesty for now, I am sorry to say, nearly half a century. I have been in his Majesty's service for forty-five years:-for thirty eventful years of that period I have served his Majesty in situations of trust and confidence, in the command of his armies, in embassies, and in his councils; and the experience which I have acquired in the situations in which I have served his Majesty, enables me, and imposes upon me the duty to say, that I cannot look at this measure without the most serious apprehensions, that from the period of its adoption, we shall date the downfall of the constitution."

Here, indeed, is a testimony-a powerful and affecting testimony, to make the nation pause ere it plunges into the course to which Lord Grey pledges himself with such haughty confidence. If words of solemu warning from one, who, above all others, has a right to speak of his experience, be of any avail, this declaration of the Duke of Wellington ought to have, and we are persuaded it has had, a most powerful effect to confirm the minds of the respectable people of these kingdoms against the revolutionary reform of the King's Ministers.

In the House of Commons, the Reform bill for Ireland was brought in, which, after some discussion by the Irish members, led to a renewal of the debate on the general question. Very able speeches were made by Sir Charles Wetherell, Sir Henry Hardinge, the Lord Advocate, and Sir Robert Peel, of which we regret the limits of this article will not permit a sketch to be given. Sir Robert Peel's speech on this occasion, was considered to be almost, if not altogether, the best he ever made in the House.

In the House of Commons, on the evenings of the 25th and 28th, the presentation of petitions led to renewed discussions of the Reform measure, but no important speeches were delivered. On the latter evening, the question was brought on in the House of Lords by Lord Wharncliffe, in moving for population re

turns, and discussed at length. The debate was irregular and ill timed, but brought forth a great deal of ability of the first order. Giving Lord Wharncliffe all due credit for a speech in which he produced a whole host of powerful arguments against the Ministerial measure, we must say, that he suffered his desire to take the lead in this matter, to betray him into about as injudicious a course as he could possibly have adopted, if he was sincerely desirous that the bill should not succeed. There are some men who set such value upon a good speech, particularly if it be made by themselves, that they imagine their duty to their country is discharged by making a speech, whether in season or out of season, and whether in unison with others who hold similar views upon the question or not. Now there is no more pernicious mistake than this, and we do not in the least thank Lord Wharncliffe for having made a display, however marked by ability, in which it was but too plain that he had himself as much in view as the cause in which he spoke. It is not from detached talkers throwing in a speech at their own time, that we are to expect a successful opposition to the dangerous measure of the Ministry-it is from a united, well-arranged, well-timed effort of the whole body of the Opposition, and therefore a friend like Lord Wharncliffe is more a hinderance than a help. Moreover, we by no means admire the kind of candour which his lordship manifests, when he tells us the reason of being no longer the anti-reformer that he used to be. "I have always," he said, " been ready to fight the battle of anti-reform, while there was a party out of doors to back my exertions; and let not those who shrunk from the contest while there was a prospect of success, now come forward and complain that I and others, who fought the battle while there was any use in fighting it, have now ceased to engage in so hopeless a contest." If his lordship was an anti-reformer on principle, we cannot see how the want of a party out of doors should make him cease to be so; and if his exertions were not upon principle, what security is there that he may not be by the time next session arrives, a partisan of Lord John Rus

sell's bill? So far, however, as a speech goes, Lord Wharncliffe deserves all the credit that can be awarded him-to give even an outline of it is impossible, for it was very long, but it is throughout pregnant with matter, and worthy of more than one perusal.

At the close of his speech, an attempt was made to stop the discussion as irregular, while the bill was pending in the other House; but the effort was unsuccessful, and the debate went on. Lord Durham replied to Lord Wharncliffe in a long speech, marked by the harshness and presumption which have ever distinguished his harangues. The atmosphere of the House of Peers has not been sufficient to imbue his spirit with the amenity which is more looked for in that region than in the Lower House, where, as Mr Lambton, he was in the habit of offending by his superciliousness.

We are disposed to speak of the Duke of Richmond more in sorrow than in anger, yet it was something too much to hear him endeavouring to make little of Sir Charles Wetherell, and to defend his own consistency. In common prudence, the less he says about consistency the better.

Lord Plunkett did all that first-rate ability as a logician and an orator could do, in support of the Ministerial measure, thereby balancing the account which had the Chancellorship of Ireland on the debtor side. His lordship seldom exerts himself without a substantial motive, but no one can more effectually repay by his services any matter of favour which may have been bestowed upon him, or which may be in prospect. What can be better than this?

Surely the noble lord, who I know was warmly attached to Mr Canning, was as much opposed to Reform at one time as that gentleman was. But we are not to be terrified by the shadows which are reflected from the tombs of great men. We are called upon to consider the nature of the question before us now, without reference to what might have been the opinions of those who are not in existence to speak for themselves."

Lord Chancellor Brougham followed, in a speech full of misrepresentation and transcendent ability.