fupporting it, they pledged themselves not to the general queftion, but to the particular plan. The general rule was, for all who agreed on the existence of a grievance, and the neceffity of a remedy, to concur as far as they could, and then to debate the particulars at a more advanced ftage. This was a fufficient answer ad hominem to the right honourable gentleman, and to all the arguments against the mode. All thofe who wished well to the general fubject ought to concur in fupport of the prefent motion, and if that were carried, the fpecific plan would come properly under difcuffion in a future stage.

Another objection was to the time. When the right honourable gentleman made his motion, he alledged, as the reafon for it, that there were no adequate means for fupporting a good Minifter, or of repreffing a bad one, without a reform in the reprefentation; that to the inadequacy of the fyftem had the misfortune of the American war been owing; and that it was neceffary to provide against the nation's falling into a fimilar calamity. What had fince happened to make the calamity lefs to be dreaded, or the precaution lefs expedient ! Under the administration of the Marquis of Rockingham, an administration of which he approved, the right honourable gentleman firft propofed reform, and that too in a time of

Under another adminiftration, of which he did not approve, he again proposed it, and in time of peace. On neither of these occafions did he consider the character of the Miniftry as at all affacting the expediency of his motion, nor had he ever argued on it in that way. A third administration fucceeded, of which he certainly did not entertain a bad opinion, for he was at the head of it himself; ftill he maintained, or faid he maintained, all the doctrines he had held before on the neceffity of reform. His reafon could not be that he distrusted the virtue of the then House of Commons, for it was a favourite House of Commons, on all occafions much extolled by him. Such a favourite indeed, that his plan of reform was not to commence till after the diffolution of that Parliament. Thus, under all poffible circumstances of time, in time of war, in time of peace, under an administration which had his confidence, under an administration that had it not, and when he himself was Minifter, had the right honourable gentleman

agitated the question of reform. What was there now to make it improper for another to do that which it had been proper for him to do in every variety of time and circumftances? The profperity of the country was no argument against reform, for it was not urged as a neceffary measure to reftore profperity, but to give security to the profperity which we enjoyed. That fecurity, by the right honourable gentleman's own admiffion, no change of Ministers, nothing else could give; for he had moved it when Minifter himself, and he did not furely diftruft his own administration. When his honourable friend gave notice of his motion laft year-a part of his argument which had been very unfairly treated — he faid, that a time of national profperity and peace, as the Minifter had defcribed that to be, must be confidered as favourable for reviving the question of reform. Since then this unfortunate and mad war had been entered into, and his honourable friend faid, "You who objected to my motion last year, as improper in the feafon of profperity and peace, cannot now make the fame objection in the feafon of war, and much public diftrefs." This, which he adduced merely as an argumentum ad homines, to prove the inconfiftency of his opponents, was attempted to be made a charge of inconfiftency against himfelf. What objection could the right honourable gentleman raife to reviving the queftion of reform in a House of Commons which he had found fo favourable to him on every other fubject He would hardly venture to say that the Houfe of Commons had been fo univerfally complaisant to him, that he was fure they would never fupport a bad Minister. Had they often joined him in opposing Minifters whom he thought bad, he might indeed fay that they would never suffer mifconduct in a Minifter; but on nine years experience of fupport to his own adminiftration, it would be rather too much to make the fame inference. There could be no objection to the motion being made now, except that it was made by his honourable friend inftead of the right honourable gentleman. In the pride of his new wisdom, his prefent felf felt fuch contempt for his former felf, that he could not look back on his former conduct and opinions without a fort of infulting derifion. As Lord Foppington in the play faid, "I begin to think that when I was a commoner, I was a very naufeous

fellow;" fo the right honourable gentleman began to think, that when he was a reformer, he must have been a very foolish fellow he might, nevertheless, have retained fome degree of candour for his honourable friend, who had not yet received the new lights with which he was fo marvellously illuminated. If the right honourable gentleman had rested his objections on the change of circumftances produced by the events in France, his argument would have been rational, or at least confiftent. But he appealed to the recollection of the right honourable gentleman, whether he had not in 1785 argued as earnestly against univerfal reprefentation, and painted the dangers of it in colours as ftrong as he had done now? The events in France, therefore, had produced no aggravation of the danger in his view of the subject, but rather made it less, in as much as the example of its effects in France had brought it into utter difcredit in the mind of every thinking man; and what he had not confidered as an objection to his own motion in 1785, he had no right to infift upon as an objection to the motion of his honourable friend now.

He had always difliked univerfal representation as much as the right honourable gentleman; but that diflike was no reafon for charging it with more mifchief than was fairly imputable to it. It had not been the caufe, as the right honourable gentleman alledged, of all the evils in France. The first, or Conftituting Affembly, was not elected on this plan, but on old ufages and old abuses; yet that Affembly had done fome of the most unjustifiable things done in France: it had defpoiled the clergy without regard to fituation or character, and deftroyed the nobility. The fecond, or Legislative Affembly, was not chofen by individual fuffrage; for when the conftitution was framed, wild as the French were, they had laid many restrictions on individual fuffrage, and made the diftinction between active and inactive citizens. It was, therefore, unjust to charge on it what was done by affemblies elected before it was brought into ufe. France, after doing great honour to herself by shaking off her old intolerable despotism, had since been governed by counfels generally unwife, and often wicked. But what had this to do with our reform? It had been faid, that French principles, though not more deteftable than the principles of Ruffia, were more dangerous and more to be

3

guarded against, because more fascinating. Would any man now say that French principles were fascinating? What then had we to fear from what no man in his fenfes would wish to copy?

A right honourable friend of his (Mr. Windham) had last night, in a very eloquent, but very whimsical speech, endeavoured to prove that the majority was generally wrong. But when he came to answer fome objections of his own suggesting, he found himself reduced to fay, that, when he differed from the majority, he would confider himself as equally independent of the decifion of that majority as one independent country of the decifion of another, which was just to say that he would put an end to fociety; for where every individual was independent of the will of the reft, no fociety could exist. It was fingular for him to defend the decifion of the majority, who had found it so often against him; and he was in hopes that his right honourable friend would have fhewn him fome eafy way of folving the difficulty. His right honourable friend faid a wife man would look first to the reason of the thing to be decided, then to force, or his power of carrying that decifion into effect, but never to the majority. He would say, look first, and look laft to the reafon of the thing, without confidering whether the majority is likely to be for or against you, and leaft of all to force. He admitted that the majority might fometimes opprefs the minority, and that the minority might be justified in refifting fuch oppreffion, even by force; but as a general rule, though not without exception, the majority in every community mult decide for the whole, because in human affairs there was no umpire but human reafon. The prefumption was alfo that the majority would be right; for if five men were to decide by a majority, it was probable that the three would be right and the two wrong, of which, if they were to decide by force, there would be no probability at all. What was the criterion of truth but the general fenfe of mankind? Even in mathematics we proceeded from certain axioms, of the truth of which we had no other proof but that all mankind agreed in believing them. If, then, what all men agreed on was admitted to be true, there was a strong prefumption that what many, or the majority, agreed on, was true likewife. Even reverence for antiquity refolved itfelf

into this; for what was it but confulting the decifion of the majority, not of one or two generations, but of many, by the concurrence of which we justly thought that we arrived at greater certainty? His objection to universal suffrage was not diftruft of the decifion of the majority, but because there was no practical mode of collecting fuch fuffrage, and that by attempting it, what from the operation of hope on fome, fear on others, and all the finifter means of influence that would fo certainly be exerted, fewer individual opinions would be collected than by an appeal to a limited number. Therefore, holding fast to the right of the majority to decide, and to the natural rights of man, as taught by the French, but much abused by their practice, he would refift univerfal fuffrage. Without attempting to follow his right honourable friend, when he propofed to foar into the fkies, or dive into the deep, to encounter his metaphyfical adverfaries, because in such heights and depths the operations of the actors were too remote from view to be observed with much benefit, he would reft on practice, to which he was more attached, as being better understood. And if by a peculiar interpofition of Divine power, could be collected all the wifeft men of every age and of every country into one affembly, he did not believe that their united wisdom would be capable of forming even a tolerable constitution. In this opinion he thought he was fupported by the unvarying evidence of history and obfervationanother opinion he held, no matter whether erroneous or not, for he stated it only as an illuftration, viz. that the most skil ful architect could not build, in the first inftance, fo commodious a habitation as one that had been originally intended for some other use, and had been gradually improved by fucceffive alterations suggested by various inhabitants for its present purpofe. If then fo fimple a structure as a commodious habitation was fo difficult in theory, how much more difficult the ftructure of a government? One apparent exception might be mentioned, the Conftitution of the United States of America, which he believed to be so excellently conftructed, and so admirably adapted to their circumftances and fituation, that it left us no room to boast that our own was the fole admiration of the world. The objection, however, was only apparent. They had not a conftitution to build up from the foundation; VOL. XXXV.

3 S