people. 'Reform is proposed,' he said, 'whilst the
events of the last year in Paris and Brussels are be-
wildering the judgments of many, and provoking a
restless, unquiet disposition, unfit for the calm consi-
deration of such a question. Granted that the resist-
ance to authority in those countries was just; but
look at the effects, -- on the national property, on in-
dustry, on individual happiness, -- even of just resist-
ance. . . . . . Do not rely upon this temporary
excitement; do not allow it to be your only guide.
All I ask is, time for deliberation npon a question of
such vital importance. . . . . When the steady good
sense and reason of the people of England shall re-
turn, they will be the first to reproach us with the
baseness of having sacrificed the constitution in the
vain hope of conciliating the favour of a temporary
burst of popular feeling. . . . . . It is not making
an addition to an existing structure to accommodate
an increasing family, but uprooting all the foundations
of an ancient edifice, and attempting to construct a
new one. . . . . I give my conscientious opposition
to this bill, because it does not fulfil the conditions
recommended from the throne -- because it is not
founded on the acknowledged principles of the constitu-
tion -- because it does not give security to the acknow-
ledged prerogatives of the Crown -- because it does not
guarantee the legitimate rights, influences, and privi-
leges of both Houses of Parliament -- because it is not
calculated to render secure and permanent the happi-
ness and prosperity of the people -- and, above all,
because it subverts a system of government which has

-53-