thought it the most democratic form of motion that could be adopted for the removal of her majesty's ministers. It did not declare that the principles of the ministry were bad, but it said this, if it said anything, that the ministers of the crown ought to possess the confidence of that house. He had always contended himself for that principle. He was a member of the house in the year 1835. The right hon. baronet opposite was then prime minister. What did the opposition do? They met him on the first day of the session; and having rejected his speaker, they next amended his address, and then they dismissed his ambassador. They did not suffer the right hon. baronet to be in more than one majority during the two months he was in office. (Sir R. Peel said here that he did not remember it). And now the right hon. baronet did not remember even that one majority. In spite, however, of these abundant proofs that he did not possess their confidence, the right hon. baronet did not resign. The right hon. baronet said, "How unfair this is because you are reformers, and I have been an anti-reformer, you refuse to give me your confidence-why, I am going to pass all your measures, I am going to pass your tithe bill." And because they would not vote for him after all, the right hon. baronet called them "a tyrannical majority."

Mr. Gisborne concluded a short address with a very high eulogium on the leaders on both sides of the house (Sir R. Peel and lord J. Russell); but although he had the greatest confidence in the abilities of the right hon. baronet, he was yet unable to forget his having been the strenuous opponent of the reform

bill. The machinery of that bill required amendment, and he had. more expectation of seeing the requisite amendments introduced by those who had been friendly, than by those who had been hostile to the measure.

Mr. D'Israeli said, they had been told, that the great want of this country was a steady executive, and he was not disposed to deny it. A strong government was the one thing needful, but could that be found on the treasury bench, whose chief recommendation, even in their own opinion was, that they were a middle party. A middle party governing, a state reminded him of the lawyer's position in the fable, who taking the oyster himself, held out a shell to each of the contending parties.

The ministers and their supporters seemed to understand, by a strong government, a government of strong measures; but it was a great mistake to confound two things so different. Strong measures were rather symptomatic of a weak government. A weak government levied troops at the end of the session, when there were not sixty members in the house. A weak government it was which felt obliged to abolish the constitutional guardians of the peace to erect a new police force in their stead. A strong government, on the contrary, was one which, feeling itself firmly established in public esteem, was enabled to carry its measures through the ardent co-operation of all the influencial classes in the realm, and to whom the great body of the people looked up with confidence. But that was not the case with the present ministry-in one sense only could he admit they were entitled to be called a steady government

they were steady in their determination to retain their places.

Mr. Litton took a review of the policy of the government in connection with Irish affairs, and after the evidence taken before the lords' committee on the state of crime in Ireland, it was impossible for him not to speak of lord Normanby's government in terms of the strongest censure. It was, however, to the maladministration of affairs during the last six months, that he was anxious to direct their lordships' attention. When lord Ebrington first came among them he entertained hopes that justice would be done towards all classes of her majesty's subjects. Many topics of agitation had long since ceased to exist in Ireland. The relief bill had passed, and the tithe question was settled, and he had hoped the materials of agitation were exhausted. But peace and tranquillity did not suit the purposes of the agitators, and he did not hesitate to charge the government with having encouraged their projects. And in proof of what he stated, he read extracts from two speeches made within a mile of Dublin castle, and almost within hearing of the law officers of the crown. The first speech was delivered on the 27th of December, at a public meeting composed principally of the lower classes, and these were the words used by the speaker (Mr. O'Connell) "I have always declared that not one drop of blood should be shed-I hate bloodshed and violence; but I now declare that I am ready to die in the field rather than submit to tory domina-. tion. Let others do what they may, I am determined not to submit, and I am certain I shall not stand alone, for I shall be sup

ported by millions in that determination." This paragraph he (Mr. Litton) read from the Pilot Dublin newspaper (Mr. O'Connell's organ), and he would ask any lawyer in or out of that House to contradict him when he stated that such language was at least seditious. Again, at a public theatre, as it was called in Dublin, similar expressions had fallen from the same hon. and learned member on the 11th of January. Talking of the house of lords, the hon. and learned gentlemen said, "If one of those aristocrats had gone to a stockbroker and told him that Tipperary was in commotion, that Galway was in arms, and that Kerry was up and led on by (here said Mr. Litton there was a blank and cheers from the people), if that had been stated, and if the same authority had asked in case it were attempted to put down these disturbances and to hang the agitator, what the national debt in this country would be worth, and what do you think would be the answer of the stockbroker;" and on a dinner given to him the same day, the hon. and learned member (Mr. O'Connell) delivered the following sentiments :-"That the people of Ireland were to talk no more, and were no longer to show either apathy or agitation. The man who did not become as great an agitator as himself was a traitor to Ireland. He bade them send round to their million of men with their thousands of leaders, and let them know that their country was lost if they did not rise to prevent their liberties being wrested from them by force and fraud. The peasant was ready to sacrifice himself, and he called upon them to stand between him and the knife of the oppressor."

Now as no proceedings had been taken in consequence of these harangues, was the house to conclude that the government of Ireland 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. Pakingtou, 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 observ. 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. 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 constantly 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 justified 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 avoid ed 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 crițitical 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