The existing England demands reform. discontents of this country have risen to such a height as to make us fear for the general peace of the country; but I deprecate the course which has been pursued in Ireland. What England is now, Ireland was in 1791. What was said of the few, they have now applied to the many; and as there are discontents in this country, which we can neither dissemble nor conceal, let us not, by an unwise and criminal disdain, irritate and fret them into violence and disorder. The discontents may happily subside; but a man must be sanguine indeed in his temper, or dull in his intellect, if he would leave to the operation of chance what he might more certainly obtain by the exercise of reason. Every thing that is dear and urgent to the minds of Endiscontent inglishmen presses upon us; in the critical moment at which I now address you, a day, an hour, ought not to elapse, without giving to ourselves the chance of this recovery. When government is daily presenting itself in the shape of weakness that borders on dissolution-unequal to all the functions of useful strength, and formidable only in pernicious corruption-weak in power, and strong only in influence-am I to be told that such a state of things can go on with safety to any branch of the Constitution? If men think that, under the impression of such a system, we can go on without a recurrence to first principles, they argue in direct opposition to all theory and all practice. These discontents can not, in their nature, subside under detected weakness and exposed incapacity. In their progress and increase (and increase they must), who shall say that a direction can be given to the torrent, or that, having broken its bounds, it can be kept from overwhelming the country? Sir, it is not the part of statesmen, it is not the part of rational beings, to amuse ourselves with such fallacious dreams; we must not sit down and lament over our hapless situation; we must not deliver ourselves up to an imbecile despondency that would hasten the approach of danger; but, by a seasonable and vigorous measure of wisdom, meet it with a sufficient and a seasonable remedy. We may be disappointed. We may fail in the application, for no man can be certain of his footing on ground that is unexplored; but we shall at least have a chance for success-we shall at least do what belongs to legislators and to rational beings on the occasion, and I have confidence that our efforts would not be in vain. I say that we should give ourselves a chance, and, I may add, the best chance for deliverance; since it would exhibit to the country a proof that we had conquered the first great difficulty that stood in the way of bettering our condition-that we had conquered ourselves. We had given a generous triumph to reason over prejudice; we had given a deathblow to those miserable distinctions of Whig and Tory, under which the warfare has been maintained between pride and privilege, and, through the contention of our rival jealousies, the genuine rights of the many have been gradually undermined and frittered away. I say, that this would be giving us the best chance; because, seeing every thing go on from bad to worseseeing the progress of the most scandalous waste countenanced by the most criminal confidence, and that the effrontery of corruption no longer requires the mask of concealment-seeing liberty daily infringed, and the vital springs of the nation insufficient for the extravagance of a dissipated government, I must believe that, unless the people are mad or stupid, they will suspect that there is something fundamentally vicious in our system, and which no reform would be equal to correct. Then, to prevent all this, and to try if we can effect a reform without touching the main pillars of the Constitution, without changing its forms, or disturbing the harmony of its parts, without putting any thing out of its place, or affecting the securities which we justly hold to be so sacred, is, I say, the only chance which we have for retrieving our misfortunes by the road of quiet and tranquillity, and by which national strength may be recovered without disturbing the property of a single individual. tions show that now constitu p0ssess tlie It has been said that the House possesses the confidence of the country as much as Recent peti ever. This, in truth, is as much as the House, as to say that his Majesty's ministers ted, does not possess the confidence of the country of in the same degree as ever, since the the country. majority of the House support and applaud the measures of the government, and give their countenance to all the evils which we are doomed to endure. I was very much surprised to hear any proposition so unaccountable advanced by any person connected with ministers, particularly as the noble Lord [Hawkesbury] had, but a sentence or two before, acknowledged that there had been, to be sure, a number of petitions presented to his Majesty for the dismission of his ministers. The one assertion is utterly incompatible with the other, unless he means to assert that the petitions which have been presented to the Throne are of no importance. The noble Lord can hardly, I think, speak in this contemptuous manner of the petitions from Middlesex, London, Westminster, Surrey, Hampshire, York, Edinburgh, Glasgow, and many other places, unless he means to insinuate that they are proofs only of our very great industry, and that they are not the genuine sense of the districts from which they come. If the noble Lord ascribes them to our industry, he gives us credit for much more merit of that kind than we are entitled to. It certainly is not the peculiar characteristic of the present Opposition, that they are very industrious in agitating the public mind. But, grant to the noble Lord his positionbe it to our industry that all these petitions are to be ascribed. If industry could procure them, was it our moderation, our good will and forbearance, that have made us, for more than fourteen years, relax from this industry, and never bring forward This refers to the operation of the Treason and Sedition Bills, which restricted the holding of public meetings, extended the laws of high treason, and subjected persons found guilty of seditious libels to transportation beyond the seas. False reasoning on the added to the number of those who had from the referred to this event as to a demonstration of this these petitions until now? No, sir, it is not to our industry that they are to be ascribed now, nor to our forbearance that they did not come before. The noble Lord will not give us credit for this forbearance; and the consequence is, that he must own, upon his imputation of industry, that the present is the first time that we were sure of the people, and that these petitions are a proof that at length the confidence of the people in ministers is shaken. That it is so, it is in vain for the noble Lord to deny. They who in former times were eager to show their confidence by addresses have now been as eager to express their disapprobation in petitions for their removal. How, then, can we say that the confidence of the people is not shaken? Is confidence to be al-strate the necessity of parliamentary reform. He ways against the people, and never for them? It is a notable argument, that because we do not find at the general election very material changes in the representation, the sentiments of the people continue the same, in favor of the war, and in favor of his Majesty's ministers. The very ground of the present discussion gives the answer to this argument. Why do we agitate the question of parliamentary reform? Why, but because a general election does not afford to the people the means of expressing their views; because this House is not a sufficient representative of the people. Gentlemen are fond of arguing in this circle. When we contend that ministers have Bubject. not the confidence of the people, they tell us that the House of Commons is the faithful representative of the sense of the country. When we assert that the representation is defective, and show, from the petitions to the Throne, that the House does not speak the voice of the people, they turn to the general election, and say, that at this period the people had an opportunity of choosing faithful organs of their opinion; and because very little or no change has taken place in the representation, the sense of the people must be the same. Sir, it is in vain for gentlemen to shelter themselves by this mode of reasoning. We assert that, un-ities." This was his argument in 1782; this der the present form and practice of elections, we can not expect to see any remarkable change produced by a general election. We must argue from experience. Let us look back to the period of the American war. It will not be denied by the right honorable gentleman, that toward the end of the war, it became extremely unpopular, and that the King's ministers lost the confidence of the nation. In the year 1780 a dissolution took place, and then it was naturally imagined by superficial observers, who did not examine the real state of the representation, that the people would have returned a House of Commons that would have unequivocally spoken their sentiments on the occasion. What was the case? I am able to speak with considerable precision. At that time I was much Illustration tions at the close of the more than I am at present in the way from the elec- of knowing personally the individuals returned, and of making an accurate American war. estimate of the accession gained to the popular side by that election. I can take upon me to say, that the change was very small indeed not more than three or four persons were warning. was his prophecy; and the right honorable gentleman was a true prophet. Precisely as he pronounced it, the event happened; another war took place; and I am sure it will not be considered as an aggravation of its character that it is at least equal in disaster to the war of which the right honorable gentleman complained. "The defect of representation," he said, "is the national disease; and unless you apply a remedy directly to that disease, you must inevitably take the consequences with which it is pregnant." With such an authority, can any man deny that I reason right? Did not the right honorable gentleman demonstrate his case? Good God! what a fate is that of the right honorable gentleman, and in This was in Mr. Pitt's speech in favor of Parlia mentary Reform, delivered in 1782; and we have here a striking instance of the dexterity and force with which Mr. Fox took the arguments of his opponents and turned them against themselves. The pungency and eloquence with which he turns upon Mr. Pitt at the close of the paragraph, are surprisingly great. what a state of whimsical contradiction does he mony that happily reigns in all the departments stand! During the whole course of his admin- of the executive power? Is it the reciprocal afistration, and particularly during the course of fection that subsists between the government and the present war, every prediction that he has the people? Is it in the energy with which the made, every hope that he has held out, every people are eager to carry into execution the prophecy that he has hazarded, has failed; he measures of the administration, from the hearthas disappointed the expectations that he has felt conviction that they are founded in wisdom, raised; and every promise that he has given has favorable to their own freedom, and calculated proved to be fallacious; yet, for these very dec- for national happiness? Is it because our relarations, and notwithstanding these failures, we sources are flourishing and untouched, because have called him a wise minister. We have given our vigor is undiminished, because our spirit is him our confidence on account of his predictions, animated by success, and our courage by our and have continued it upon their failure. The glory? Is it because government have, in a only instance in which he really predicted what perilous situation, when they have been obliged has come to pass, we treated with stubborn in- to call upon the country for sacrifices, shown a credulity. In 1785, he pronounced the awful conciliating tenderness and regard for the rights prophecy, "Without a parliamentary reform the of the people, as well as a marked disinterestednation will be plunged into new wars; without ness and forbearance on their own parts, by which a parliamentary reform you can not be safe they have, in an exemplary manner, made their against bad ministers, nor can even good minis- own economy to keep pace with the increased ters be of use to you." Such was his predic-demands for the public service? Are these the tion; and it has come upon us. It would seem as sources of the strength of government? I forif the whole life of the right honorable gentleman, bear, sir, to push the inquiry. I forbear to alfrom that period, had been destined by Provi-lude more particularly to symptoms which no dence for the illustration of his warning. If we were disposed to consider him as a real enthusiast, and a bigot in divination, we might be apt to think that he had himself taken measures for the verification of his prophecy; for he might now exclaim to us, with the proud fervor of success, "You see the consequence of not listening to the oracle. I told you what would happen; it is true that your destruction is complete; I have plunged you into a new war; I have exhausted you as a people; I have brought you to the brink of ruin, but I told you beforehand what would happen; I told you that, without a reform in the representation of the people, no minister, however wise, could save you; you denied me my means, and you take the consequence!" The keenness of the sarcasm involved in these questions will be seen by adverting to the state of the country at this time, which was partially referred to in the Introduction. About a month before, the fleet at Spithead had broken out into a general mutiny, and, notwithstanding the measures of Parliament designed to remove their discontent, they had renewed the mutiny only four days previous to the delivery of this speech. The King, as head of the "executive power,' felt so much pressed by the unpopularity of Mr. Pitt, that he was supposed to be seriously contemplating a change of ministers. Mr. Fox also alludes to the wide-spread commercial embarrassments, the suspension of specie payments, the general distress which prevailed among the people, their loss of energy and spirit as the natural consequence, the diminished resources of the government, and the victories of France on the Continent, which had left England to continue the war alone. In addition to this, he refers to the lavish expenditures of the government, and the favoritism shown to their friends and adherents. man can contemplate at this moment without energy of popu among the an Now, sir, though I do not wish you to imitate France; and though I am persuaded Argument for you have no necessity for any terror reform from the of such imitation being forced upon largovernments you, yet I say that you ought to be cents and in as ready to adopt the virtues as you France. are steady in averting from the country the vices of France. If it is clearly demonstrated that genuine representation alone can give solid power, and that in order to make government strong, the people must make the government, you ought to act on this grand maxim of political wisdom thus demonstrated, and call in the people, according to the original principles of your system, to the strength of your government. In doing health which it would be sure to give? When we see the giant power that it confers upon others, we ought not to withhold it from Great Britain. How long is it since we were told in this House that France was a blank in the map of Europe, and that she lay an easy prey to any power that might be disposed to divide and plunder her? Yet we see that, by the mere force and spirit of this principle, France has brought all Europe to her feet. Without disguising the vices of France, without overlooking the horrors that have been committed, and that have tarnished the glory of the Revolution, can not be denied that they have exemplified the doctrine that if you wish for power you must look to liberty. If ever there was a moment when this maxim ought to be dear to us, it is the present. We have tried all other means; we have had recourse to every stratagem that artifice, that influence, that cunning could suggest; we have addressed ourselves to all the base passions of the nation; we have addressed ourselves to pride, to avarice, to fear; we have awakened all the interested emotions; we have employed every thing that flattery, ev this, you will not innovate, you will not imitate. | the benefit which the wisdom of our ancestors reIn making the people of England a constituent solved that it should confer on the British Conpart of the government of England, you do no stitution? With the knowledge that it can be more than restore the genuine edifice designed reinfused into our system without violence, withand framed by our ancestors. An honorable out disturbing any one of its parts, are we bebaronet spoke of the instability of democracies, come so inert, so terrified, or so stupid, as to hesand says that history does not give us the exam-itate for one hour to restore ourselves to the ple of one that has lasted eighty years. Sir, I am not speaking of pure democracies, and therefore his allusion does not apply to my argument. Eighty years, however, of peace and repose would be pretty well for any people to enjoy, and would be no bad recommendation of a pure democracy. I am ready, however, to agree with the honorable baronet, that, according to the experience of history, the ancient democracies of the world were vicious and objectionable on many accounts; their instability, their injustice, and many other vices, can not be overlooked. But surely, when we turn to the ancient democracies of Greece, when we see them in all the splendor of arts and of arms, when we see to what an elevation they carried the powers of man, it can not be denied that, however vicious on the score of ingratitude or injustice, they were, at least, the pregnant source of national strength, and that in particular they brought forth this strength in a peculiar manner in the moment of difficulty and distress. When we look at the democracies of the ancient world, we are compelled to acknowledge their oppression of their dependencies, their horrible acts of injustice and of ingratitude to their ownery thing that address, every thing that privilege citizens; but they compel us also to admiration by their vigor, their constancy, their spirit, and their exertions in every great emergency in which they were called upon to act. We are compelled to own that this gives a power of which no other form of government is capable. Why? Because it incorporates every man with the state, because it arouses every thing that belongs to the soul as well as to the body of man; because it makes every individual feel that he is fighting for himself, and not for another; that it is his own cause, his own safety, his own concern, his own dignity on the face of the earth, and his own interest in that identical soil which he has to maintain; and accordingly we find that whatever may be objected to them on account of the turbulency of the passions which they engendered, their short duration, and their disgusting vices, they have exacted from the common suffrage of mankind the palm of strength and vigor. Who that reads the Persian war-what boy, whose heart is warmed by the grand and sublime actions which the democratic spirit produced, does not find in this principle the key to all the wonders which were achieved at Thermopyla and elsewhere, and of which the recent and marvelous acts of the French people are pregnant examples? He sees that the principle of liberty only could create the sublime and irresistible emotion; and it is in vain to deny, from the striking illustration that our own times have given, that the principle is eternal, and that it belongs to the heart of man. Shall we, then, refuse to take the benefit of this invigorating principle? Shall we refuse to take could effect: we have tried to terrify them into exertion, and all has been unequal to our emergency. Let us try them by the only means which experience demonstrates to be invincible; let us address ourselves to their love; let us identify them with ourselves; let us make it their own cause as well as ours! To induce them to come forward in support of the state, let us make them a part of the state; and this they become the very instant you give them a House of Commons which is the faithful organ of their will. Then, sir, when you have made them believe and feel that there can be but one interest in the country, you will never call upon them in vain for exertion. Can this be the case as the House of Commons is now constituted? Can they think so if they review the administration of the right honorable gentleman, every part of which must convince them that the present representation is a mockery and a shadow? sentation of the ed by the con Parliaments. There has been, at different times, a great deal of dispute about virtual representa- A real and not tion. Sir, I am no great advocate a virtual repre of these nice subtleties and special people demandpleadings on the Constitution; much duct of recent depends upon appearance as well as reality. I know well that a popular body of five hundred and fifty-eight gentlemen, if truly independent of the Crown, would be a strong barrier to the people. But the House of Commons should not only be, but appear to be, the representatives of the people; the system should satisfy the prejudices and the pride, as well as the reason of the people; and you never can expect to give that the people; it does more, it undermines the very principles of integrity in their hearts, and gives a fashion to dishonesty and imposture. They hear of a person receiving four or five thousand pounds as the purchase-money of a seat for a close borough; and they hear the very man who received and put the money into his pocket make a vehement speech in this House against bribery! They see him move for the commitment to prison of a poor, unfortunate wretch at your bar, who has been convicted of taking a single guinea for his vote in the very borough, perhaps, where he had publicly and unblushingly sold his influence, though, under the horrors of a war which he had contributed to bring upon the country, that miserable guinea was necessary to save a family from starving! Sir, these are the things that paralyze you to the heart; these are the things that vitiate the whole system; that spread degeneracy, hypocrisy, and sordid fraud over the country, and take from us the energies of virtue, and sap the foundations of patriotism and spirit. The system that encourages so much vice ought to be put an end to; and it is no argument, that because it lasted a long time without mischief, it ought now to be continued when it is found to be pernicious; it has arisen to a height that defeats the very end of government; it must sink under its own weakness. And this, sir, is not a case peculiar to itself, but inseparable from all just impression which a House of Commons a scandal on our character, which not merely ought to make on the people, until you derive it | degrades the House of Commons in the eyes of unequivocally from them. It is asked why gentlemen who were against a parliamentary reform on former occasions should vote for it now. Ten years ago men might reasonably object to any reform of the system, who ought now, in my opinion, to be governed by motives that are irresistible in its favor. They might look back with something like satisfaction and triumph to former Parliaments, and console themselves with the reflection that, though in moments of an ordinary kind, in the common course of human events, Parliament might abate from its vigilance, and give ministers a greater degree of confidence than was strictly conformable with representative duty -yet there was a point beyond which no artifice of power, no influence of corruption, could carry them; that there were barriers in the British Constitution over which the House of Commons never would leap, and that the moment of danger and alarm would be the signal for the return of Parliament to its post. Such might have been the reasoning of gentlemen on the experience of former Parliaments; and with this rooted trust in the latent efficacy of Parliament, they might have objected to any attempt that should cherish hopes of a change in the system itself. But what will the same gentlemen say after the experience of the last and the present Parliament? What reliance can they have for any one vestige of the Constitution that is yet left to us? Or rather, what privilege, what right, what securi-human institutions. All the writers of eminence ty, has not been already violated? "Quid intactum nefasti liquimus ?" And seeing that in no one instance have they hesitated to go the full length of every outrage that was conceived by the minister; that they have been touched by no scruples, deterred by no sense of duty, corrected by no experience of calamity, checked by no admonition or remonstrance; that they have never made out a single case of inquiry; that they have never interposed a single restraint upon abuse; may not gentlemen consistently feel that the reform which they previously thought unnecessary is now indispensable? No argument from the per of borough representaLives. We have heard to-day, sir, all the old arguments about honor on the one side beto be derived ing as likely as honor on the other; sonal honor that there are good men on both sides of the House; that a man upon the one side of the House as well as upon the other, may be a member for a close borough; and that he may be a good man, sit where he may. All this, sir, is very idle language; it is not the question at issue. No man disputes the existence of private and individual integrity; but, sir, this is not representation. If a man comes here as the proprietor of a burgage tenure, he does not come here as the representative of the people. The whole of this system, as it is now carried on, is as outrageous to morality as it is pernicious to just government; it brings 7 What, in our wickedness, have we left untouch ed! upon forms of government have said that, in order the patron age of the |