with Political Unions, we may fairly assume the Union was set on foot in consequence that both approve of these associations, of the refusal of the House of Commons to and are influenced by sympathies similar inquire into the distress of the country. to those which prevail within these bodies. The noble Lord, and most of those who sit My hon. and gallant friend did not, I be- with him, for reasons which they explained lieve, mean to say, that the intention of to the House, thought it necessary to vote the noble Lord was to excite disturbance, against the appointment of a Committee. but his argument was, that his letter must When I mentioned this circumstance at inevitably have that tendency. Notwith- the close of the last Session, I expressed standing the eagerness of the noble Lord my surprise that those who had voted for opposite to fix upon my gallant friend the the inquiry, were now to be stigmatized as charge of having said that he had corre- the enemies to the people, while those who sponded with the Birmingham Political had determined that no inquiry should Union, hoping that such a correspondence take place, were to be considered as the would lead to riots, I think it must be in monopolizers of all liberal sentiments. the recollection of the House, that such was The noble Lord said, that he voted not the charge of my gallant friend, al- against such an inquiry because he was though the House and the public have yet convinced that the Committee, if apto learn how it was possible for Cabinet pointed, would have had its attention Ministers to suppose that they could enter called to the question of the currency, into such a correspondence without leading and he, for one, was determined never to the individuals addressed by them to the consent to any alteration in the existing supposition, that their resolutions were in circulation. The Birmingham Political unison with the sentiments of the King's Union was formed avowedly in conseGovernment. The corresponding Minis-quence of those repeated refusals to inters, after having read the resolutions passed at the great meeting which took place at Birmingham last week, and knowing that such resolutions contained language which has been designated by one of their colleagues in the other House of Parliament, as felonious and almost treasonable, have, by such correspondence, approved of that language, in fact if not in words, and it will not be difficult to shew, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has admitted the right of this meeting to enter into resolutions with regard to the non-payment of taxes, since he has condescended to allude to that subject in one part of his letter. So novel is this practice of corresponding with persons who set themselves in array against the Legislature of the country, and it must be so dangerous, that had not my gallant friend taken notice of it, it was my meaning to have called the attention of the House to the subject this evening. Of all men in the House of Commons, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the last person who, I should have thought, would have entered into a correspondence with any individual respecting the Birmingham Political Union. That association was formed in the month of January, 1830-nine months before the Duke of Wellington quitted office-and it was declared in the resolution which accompanied the act of its formation, that

quire into the state of the country; and not a fortnight since a memorial was, he believed, presented from the Council of that body, to Earl Grey, entreating him to look into the question of the currency, and assuring him that the case was so urgent, that unless some alteration in it immediately followed, or was made concomitant with the measure of Reform, the petitioners feared that great disasters would almost immediately come upon the nation. With these facts before us, is it not surprising that the noble Lord should have corresponded with the Birmingham Union, or the Birmingham Union with the noble Lord? Upon what point do they agree? We may be told upon the Reform Bill; but, even upon that, we shall find that there are many differences of opinion between them. The noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is rather unfortunate in his avowals and disclosures: it was only the night before last that, to the surprise of many who heard him, in answer to the charge brought against him by the right hon. member for Tamworth, of attempting to gain popularity by bringing forward so strong a measure as the Reform Bill in its present shape, he protested against such motives, at the same time carefully turning off the attack by assuming that the right hon. Gentleman referred to popularity in the House of Com'mons instead of among the people at large.

those letters, whether they are prepared to exercise the full powers of the law, or to employ that strength which the acknowledged institutions of the country and its statutes may afford. Take the question of refusing payment of taxes as an example; how will the Government act? Of course this can only allude to the assessed taxes, because, notwithstanding all the declamation that we have heard upon this subject the taxation of this country is so

avoid payment except in the case of the assessed taxes, and the noble Lord might have well said to them, "Do not think of refusing the payment of those taxes, or you may oblige me to postpone the payment of a part of the dividends, which portion, perhaps, may belong to individuals resident in Birmingham, and be expended among the butchers, bakers, and others, of that town; so that you will lose as much as you will gain." I do not say that the noble Lord should have used language like this; but if he had thought it necessary to address the Birmingham Political Union in a deprecatory tone upon this subject of non-payment of taxes, such is the language that he might have adopted. But what has he done? He has alluded to that which was not in their letter to himto the really factious part of the resolution passed at the meeting, and instead of avoiding all notice of such a subject, the noble Lord, the Finance Minister of the country, has almost admitted the legality of such refusal, and by noticing it, he has magnified the injury which it might occasion, even if it were legal. I am sorry that Ministers of the Crown should have condescended in the way in which the noble Lords opposite have done. It is the first time that such a correspondence has been entered into; I trust sincerely it may be the last. The noble Paymaster of the Forces says, he does not mean by the

And how did he proceed to prove this? Why, by telling the House that he was perfectly satisfied that, had the late House of Commons divided upon the first reading of the Bill, it would have been rejected by an immense majority. The noble Lord corrects me, I perceive, by saying "the first night." It matters not for the argument; the avowal, Sir, is all I want, because that avowal proves what his Majesty's Government have always been charged with that they brought forward the Re-arranged that the malcontents cannot form Bill knowing that it must be unpalatable, not only to the upper House of Parliament, but, as appears by their own confession, to the House of Commons which brought them into power. The noble Lord assures us, that it would have been considered too extensive had the first feelings of the House been acted upon; so that, in reality, the Ministry stood upon the ground of a projected popular excitement alone, when they ventured to bring this violent measure before the notice of Parliament previously to the late dissolution. At present they have a House of Commons pledged to support them, which is not surprising when we consider the mode in which the late Parliament was dissolved; but they find themselves opposed by such a majority in the House of Lords, as no Minister has ever encountered a second time; because the usual practice has been, to retire from office when a measure by which an Administration has declared that it will either stand or fall, has been rejected in so unceremonious a manner. I know of no instance of an attempt on the part of a Government to continue in power after such a failure, and this, notwithstanding all the excitement and the attempts at getting up meetings which have taken place since the Bill passed this House. The noble Lord admitted that last Session he set himself against the majority of the House of Commons, and now he joins the Birmingham Political Union" whisper of faction," the majority of the in hostility to the majority of the House of Peers. This is not the way in which the King's Ministers have been accustomed to govern the country. When letters of this description are written to individuals who have expressly declared their intention of defying the laws, how can the Ministers who wrote them, venture with any show of justice upon strong and severe measures for putting down the attempts that may be made in consequence of this excitement? I would ask the noble Lords who sent

House of Lords; may I then be allowed to ask-what he does mean? I know not what he can mean, unless that were the faction alluded to. Now, let us see this short letter; its brevity will admit of my reading it to the House without much loss of time: I beg to acknowledge, with heartfelt gratitude, the undeserved honour done me by 150,000 of my countrymen. Our prospects are now obscured for a moment, and I trust only for a moment.' In this letter, the noble Lord, the sworn

6

adviser of the Crown, identifies himself which, at the general election, and during under the word "our," with those whom the excitement of the last four months, a he addresses. Is it not new to hear of Cabinet Ministers openly writing thus to a popular assembly, and venturing to keep office one moment afterwards? Now comes the important paragraph: It is impossible that the whisper of a faction 'should prevail against the voice of a na'tion.' Who constitute the faction? What means "the whisper of faction?" What could the noble Lord have meant by using such language? Faction, indeed! Did he hear of any secret influence at Court any private power of the King-any threat of dismissal from places about the King's person, used as arguments against the darling Bill of his Administration? Were certain sums of money given stealthily to Peers, to induce them to vote against it? Were hints or promises proffered about the raising or lowering the balls on certain coronets, increasing their number or taking some away, with a view of replacing them by strawberry leaves? Were any of these means used to influence members of the majority of the House of Lords to vote against the King's Ministers? I believe not; for these have generally been considered the weapons of an Administration. Where is the faction, I repeat? Is it to be found in the bench of Bishops, so much abused and calumniated even in high places, by persons from whom language of violence to dignitaries ought not to have been expected? The Bishops, at least, have hitherto been accused of being habitually subservient to the powers that be. Their crime is that of always voting with the Administration. This is the first time I have heard it imputed to them as a fault, that they have not supported Government; they have given a vote by which they had much to lose and nothing to gain--a vote which, at all events, cannot have added to their popularity, although it may have endeared them to those who are sincere in defending the Constitution of the country. If this faction is not to be found in the majority of the House of Lords, what unknown and secret cabal had the noble Lord in his head, when he made use of these words? Is the noble Lord certain that the cry in favour of the Reform Bill is the voice of the nation? Have we no test by which we can measure this? What does the noble Lord say to the contest now going on and nearly concluded in Dorsetshire? That was a county in

gentleman, greatly respected and well
known to the public, was rejected, and a
strong supporter of the Bill returned.
Has the noble Lord a right to talk of the
voice of the nation when we find in that
county the Anti-bill candidate (I will not
say the Anti-reform candidate) has as
many--[cries of "more!"]—I will be sa-
tisfied with as many-as many votes as
his opponent? I shall be equally satisfied
whether Lord Ashley gains or loses this
contest-it will be just the same thing
either way for the argument, and that ar-
gument is, that at least the country is di-
vided on the subject. When the country
comes to look at this Bill with calmness,
that which has taken place in Dorsetshire
will take place all over England. That
contest has been the first trial since the
first excitement has subsided. I remember
that before the election it was said, with
much boasting, "No Anti-reformer will
dare to show his face in Dorsetshire."
The boast has been contradicted, and that
contest shows the opinion of the people of
that county, that the Government should
alter and modify the Bill. I must know
from the noble Lord whom he alluded to
when he talks of a faction, and I must ask
him, whether he does not deceive himself
when he supposes that the other party are
"the nation?" With regard to these riots
that have taken place this day, I wish to
ask the noble Lord whether he has observed
that numbers of persons have appeared in
the crowd with white ribbons round their
arms, marked with the words,
"National
Union." Does he know of these general
combinations, and does he not know that
when general combinations took place in
1793, they were put down? and that when
general combinations again took place in
1819, they were again put down? I ask
him this, and I ask him, too, whether those
who in Dorsetshire have shown themselves
to be at least half of the people, will allow
themselves to be silenced and intimidated
by such combinations?
The traitors,
under whatever guise they appeared, were
put down in 1793, and again in 1819;
and I call on him to remember the fact.
I do not mean to say, that the noble Lord
intended to direct these attacks against
any one in particular, but I say that he
must and ought to have been prepared for
them when he wrote such a letter.
I say,
too, that traitors, under whatever guise

they appear, must be grappled with, in- I say in that letter to which the hon. Baronet stead of being caressed. Those who are objects? I returned my thanks through opposed to this Bill of Reform are accused the Chairman, for the vote of approbation of desiring to govern against the wishes of which the meeting had given me, and prothe people, and without any regard for fitting by that opportunity, I stated then their interests. I deny the fact. That to a gentleman whom I knew to be poswhich is called public opinion has, in this sessed of great influence among his fellowinstance, been uttered by persons who are townsmen, my strong wish and desire that not capable of forming any opinion. The he would use that influence to prevent the people ought to have liberty, and in no adoption of any unconstitutional and illegal other country have they more than in this; measures. I said, it is true, that I thought they ought to participate in the advantages the rejection of the Reform Bill was a seof the Government, and they do so. Yet rious calamity. I do think so. The hon. we are put under the imputation that we Baronet says, that by saying this I put who have voted against the anomalies in myself in opposition to the House of Lords. this Bill, have voted against all Reform Did I, by writing that letter, put myself in and against all improvement. It is not opposition to them? Was it not notorious true. We shall, no doubt, have to separate before I wrote that letter, that I must be in a few days, and I hope that, during the in opposition to them by my having suptime of our separation, the Ministry will ported so long and so eagerly a measure have modified this Bill in such a way as which the House of Lords has rejected? to make it a safe measure, and that they The hon. Baronet says, that the House of will make it such a measure as will be Lords did not exceed their privileges in reconsistent with the prerogatives of the jecting this measure-I agree with him Crown, the privileges of the House of they did not; but if they have the priviLords, and the liberties of the people. lege of expressing their opinion on any But when I see those hand-bills, fringed measure which may be brought before with black, pointing out by name the them, I have also the privilege of expressPeers who voted against the Bill, and thus ing my opinion on what they do with marking them for the knife-when I see respect to any such measure. That opinthese things-when I see no police em-ion I have expressed, and I shall always ployed to put them down-I must suppose, that though the Ministers did not intend to create this excitement, they at least have the intention of deriving what benefit they can from the excitement itself. Though I do not say they wished to create these riots, still I must believe them too happy not to derive all the advantage they can from such proceedings.

Lord Althorp said, the hon. Baronet has made an attack on me for having written, as he says, a letter to the Political Union. I deny that I did write a letter to the Political Union-I wrote a letter to the Chairman of a meeting, which he said consisted of 150,000 of my fellow-countrymen, and which he stated in his letter to me had come to an unanimous vote of approbation of my conduct. I know not what may be the feelings of the hon. Baronet, but mine must be very different from what they are if I did not value the language of approbation from so large a body of my fellow-countrymen. I do value it highly, and when a vote of thanks is given to me in that manner, I am sure I shall never be the person who would disdain to acknowledge it. But what did I

be ready to express, and whatever may be the assembly, whether the House of Lords, or the House of Commons, or whatever other assembly may be against me, I have a right to hold my opinions, and to express them freely on all occasions. I do not see on what ground it is, that such a letter as I wrote, or such a letter as was written by my noble friend, can be in any way considered as exciting to riot, or to illegal practices. The hon. Baronet asks how I could write to a man who differed from me on the Question of the Currency-I am aware that Mr. Attwood does differ from me on the Question of the Currency, but is that a reason why I should not express my thanks to a meeting at which he presided, for their approbation of my conduct? The hon. Baronet, in his speech of tonight, puts me in mind of the speech which I heard from him in April last. stated then, as he states now, that the opinion of the country was against us. The hon. Baronet stated then, the opinion of the country would be against us at the elections; on the present occasion I admit he does not go so far, but merely asserts that we have not a right to say, that the

He

Mr. George Bankes did not intend to call in question the discretion of the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, but he must confess, that he entertained a very different opinion with respect to the letter of the other noble Lord; and view-measure. ing him in the situation which he now filled -that of a sworn Minister of the Crown -it must be admitted, that whatever might be the sentiments and feelings of that noble Lord, he should have withheld himself from expressing them to that extent, being a Crown Minister. It was much to be wondered at that he should write such a letter, still more that he should so far forget himself as now to justify it. They had this day seen the repetition of an evil, which, at the outset of his career as Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had, in mistake of the law, stated not to be illegal. That noble and learned Lord had then stated, that the going in procession in large bodies with flags and devices was not illegal. As a VOL. VIII. {es