enormous sinecures, and the tithes tholic peers into the House of Lords, as a means of restoring peace and happiness to Ireland! are collected in that sort of way which makes them doubly odious and burdensome. Every far Emancipated, indeed, the Irish thing's worth of them is grudged want to be, and ought to be; but to the receiver. There needs, no it is from the Protestant Hierarother cause of discontent, sedi-chy; from tithes, from tithetion, rebellion, sunset and sun proctors, from spiritual Courts, rise laws, enormous military and all the powers of a Church, expenditure, starvation amidst that takes from the fruit of the abundance, and all the evils that land, not less than from two to can afflict a country. three millions. This is the emanAnd yon, mighty politician, have, as a re-cipation that the Irish want. In medy for this unparalleled mass one word, they want to get rid of of evils, the passing of a law to tithes; and the existence of the enable a dozen or two of Catho- tithes, and that alone, it is that lic peers to sit in the House of prevents all those emancipation Lords! Betty Canning of old, things that you affect to be driving famed in ballad, could not have after. It is not the Pope; it is thought of any thing more absurd not Anti-Christ, as our Parsons and contemptible; and the ground call him; it is not the “Aud of astonishment is, that you can Whoore," as the Scotch Parsons have lived in England to the year call him; it is not images and 1822, and not be ashamed to talk wafers and saints in calendar; of such a thing as a remedy for any it is not any of these, that the evil whatever; that you can see opposers of your emancipations immense sums of money voted out care about it is the two millions of the taxes of England, to pre-a year of Church property, as they vent the Irish people from starv-call it, that they have in their ing in the midst of abundance; eye, and that a Reformed Parthat you can see whole parishes of liament would so soon put to Catholics prepared for death by rights. This is what they care their priests, on account of want about; and this you must know, of food, while enormous quantities too, or you are blinder than any of food are daily shipped out of buzzard that ever run his head the country, and that you can talk into the net of the fowler. of shipping a dozen or two of Ca Your propositions about Ca the ic Emancipation, as you call words, let us have the begging it, show you, therefore, to be a again: I confess I should be driveller, or a man of very great ready to accept what I think insincerity. But, we have in this by a compromise might be ob speech of yours, something a tained, adjourning, but never great deal more interesting than abandoning those points which any of your Parliamentary pro-"I conceive to be at present positions. We have you here" matters of hopeless litigation." making a confession of your rea--And this, because you are diness to compromise! Never was" anxious to preserve the peace of a more direct begging for place the country." Why did you not than this. You knew well that think of this, when you divided your conduet with regard to this the House, during the last session? Catholic Emancipation had of You did hint at it." When? fended the most powerful persons How? Never that I perceived. in the Ministry. You had not No: and you now, from your forgotten the open, the undis-mountebank stage, make the offer guised hostility of the Chancellor, to the Ministers, if they will take and the famous good rap he gave you in; that is to say, if they you upon the knuckles. The truth will take you in, you will, not is this: you were mortified: they 66% abandon," oh, no! but were sending you away: you journ," Catholic Emancipation for wished to remain: and, at any ever; or, at least, to the day be rate, you were determined to give fore the day of judgment !⠀ them a slap at parting. Your And, yet, the fools that heard motion was well calculated to you were to entertain “no susembarrass them: it did embarrasspicion of improper motives," be them; and the Chancellor gave cause you did not make the offer you a rap by way of punishment. of compromise in Parliament ! NOW, owing to the adventure at Just as if the mountebank stage North Cray, you hope to obtain a were not a fitter place for it! Just respite. You hope, in short, to as if, too, there were nothing in be able to stay at home, and to the time! Just as if any man of have place, too. NOW, there common sense could fail to per fore, you 66 confess," that you ceive, that this was an offer of should be ready to accept of a submission made to the Ministers, compromise! But, let us have the in consequence of the exit of the ad ६ Gentlemen, I now turn to the second question, that of Parliaamentary Reform, with which, perhaps, more than any other my name has been connected: connected too in a way which has drawn upon me much popular observation, and often much popular obloquy. They much mistake me who suppose that I impute to the supporters of Reform a perfect knowledge of what the principles which they advocate would lead to. No! Gentlemen, it is with their doctrines I quarrel, and I now wish, as I have ever done, to discuss those doctrines argumentatively, and not vituperatively. I wish those persons who cry out for Reform, me, to state to themselves, distinctly the objects they have in view, and their means of attaining those objects. Do they ground their necessity for Reform upon the fact of our having been engaged in expensive wars, our having been engaged in long and protracted struggies on the Continent? Do they advocate it on the ground of heavy taxation and severe legislative enactments? Supposing these their grounds for Reform, and granting for argument sake that they are true, then, I ask, these acts have been sanctioned? Do is it by the House of Commons alone that they charge them as the acts of a single body? Has no sanction or confirmation been given by another Assembly to those enactments? If there be another Assembly co-operating with the House of Commons, of Commons is nugatory, without then, I say, a Reform of the House a co-ordinate Reform of that other question, and I have never yet met bedy also? (cheers.) I put this plain the man who would answer it satisof Commons, pray what are your factorily. If you reform the House intentions with respect to the House of Lords? (applause.)inIf you wish a Reform on the ground of the House of Commons having sanctioned the war with America; if you wish for a Reform on the ground of the House of Commons having sanctioned the war with France, sinking for a moment the fact that war with America was the war of the people, sinking the fact that the war with France was the war of the nation. If you wish for Reform, because at a later period the House of Commons found it necessary to pass severe enactments for the repression of dangerous disturbances, then I ask, are the House of Lords, who were parties to these transactions, to go free? If not, then I ask, what is the remedy you propose? And, if you propose no remedy for the House of Lords, where is the benefit of reforming the House Commons? Do you mean to prevail by reason or by compulsion? If by reason, then reason is as good out of doors as in. Is it by compulsion? Aye, that is what you mean, but what' you do not dare to say (loud Why, then, my quarrel with formers is not as to the mode of or the degree; ask that, instead take an objection, in limine, that they of a tripartite Government, there Commons, and has led to that should be erected a simple instru ment which would do its own work taxation under which the country by sweeping off every obstacle and is suffering. This is the substance impediment which stood in its way of our complaint and, what is This is my objection to the proposed Reform. I do not object to it because Old Sarum returns one, or two, or twenty Members to Parliament. I don't object to it be alone that makes the laws; but cause it would prevent this or that that and the House of Lords conPeer from exercising his influence your answer? It is this that it is not the House of Commons in returning Members for Bo-jointly; and, therefore, a reform roughs. For God's sake, if you of the former can be of no use can prove corruption in any Bo Here you think, that, having rough, disfranchise it as you have without a reform of the latter. The Six-Acts before our eyes, you pin us up. Making sure that we dare not answer, you call on us to answer, as Southey and Gifford did on me as soon as the gagging and dungeoning bills were passed. Making sure, that we dare not say a word in answer, you go crowing This is "discussing the question argumentatively" is it? This you call argument. It is, to be sure, less of the jack-pudding on, that you put this "plain cast than that which I shall come question" to us: What do you to by-and-by; but what is there mean to do with the House of here more than a mere disfiguring Lords?" You have never yet, you of the question; a mere keeping say, met with a man to give you of the real question out of sight? an answer to this question. You Our complaint is this: are particularly lucky just at your “people are not represented: they going off, then; for, now you have "have shown by their petitions, met with the very man that you "that the Aristocracy, and not have been so long looking for in "the Commons, send a majority vain; and this is the answer to "of the members to the Lower your plain question: WE MEAN "House," And, what is your TO REFORM THE HOUSE answer to this complaint? We OF LORDS TOO. There now! further complain, that this representation of the Aristocracy has produced a want of feeling for the There is an answer for you, though you were so cock-sure, that no one dared give it you, on good out of doors as it is in? Do you mean, that, unless the House of Lords be absolutely forced to act thus, or thus, by the House of Commons, the people may as well have no representatives at And, now, I will describe to you the sort of Reform that we would effect in the House of Lords, Mr. Grey, now Lord Grey, presented, in 1793, a petition, which stated that a majority of the members of the Lower House all? This, if any, must be your were returned to it by the Upper meaning; and, then, why is there. House, and by a few men closely a thing called a House of Com connected with those of the Upper mons? Yours is a very good ar House. We would take away gument for getting rid of a House from the Upper House the power of Commons altogether; but, of doing this; and, as this is di- good for nothing else. rectly in the teeth of the " law," The basis of your argument is which you say is "so binding," this: that the House of Lords, we should call this reform of the when deprived of the power of House of Lords not only a legal, returning a majority to the other but a moral reform. House, would have a disposition,and would be constantly endea vouring, to do just the same as if Aye, but you have a tickler in soak for us. We must change the way of acting in the Lords.it retained that power. You do That is we must prevail on the not seem to perceive, that it is the House of Lords to act differently possession of that power, which,. from the manner in which they and which alone, creates and sus, act now; or else we do nothing, tains the disposition to do those? they being a body without whom things which we say ought not to the other House can now do no-be done. Take away that power, thing. Then comes your tickler: the disposition ceases; or, at "Do you mean to prevail by rea- least, if it exist in some degree in the breast, it is restrained from breaking out into flagrant acts son, or by compulsion? If by reason, then reason is as good ་་ out of doors as in. Is it by a restraint that you may call "compulsion? Aye, that is what" compulsion;" and, so far are you mean, but what you dare we from “not daring” to avow “not say.” that we mean to prevail by this Impudent mountebank! What species of compulsion, that we do you mean by reason being as look upon those as idiots that |