when another proposition of the Minister's was resisted, and against the powerful coalition of the friends of Mr Windham, the family of Lord Grenville, and the adherents of Mr Fox, Mr Addington still made head. He continued to do so for upwards of a year, and then, indeed, a change of Ministry was effected; but how? A most suspicious circumstance was observed by all those who contemplated the movements of the Cabinet; for it was found a number of the friends of Mr Pitt (including the Noble Marquis opposite) had become members of Mr Addington's administration, and there was reason to believe that the Premier and Mr Pitt understood one another. Of this fact, indeed, no man entertained a doubt; that if Mr Addington had been supported strongly by all his friends, and if he had chosen to run the risk of his place, remaining by his Sovereign, as his Sovereign was willing to remain by him, he might perhaps have been Minister to the present hour. The Parliament to which he had been referring was not dissolved till the latter end of 1806; and at this time it would not be forgotten, that the strongest phrases were used in every quarter regarding the conduct and language of Mr Fox; charging him, almost in terms, with unfurling the standard of rebellion, although it was known that he never could assemble any Parliamentary force that deserved to be called a body capable of giving even a slight resistance to the Minister of the day. Nevertheless, an event happened about 1806, which let in a new and sudden light upon the honourable House of Commons. Mr Fox came into office, an event of which the House was most curiously observant. Nothing was looked at in Parliament with more anxious, prying and wary eyes, than a circumstance of this kind, when a man was sent down by his Monarch to be the Minister. When the appointment was gazetted, when

the favoured individual was really Minister-that change produced, of course, a corresponding and correlative change in the House of Commons. The moment the operation was complete out of doors, the alteration within doors was wonderfully rapid. On the 3d of March 1806, the very House of Commons that just before had charged Mr Fox with unfurling the standard of rebellion, no longer entertained the slightest distrust of his person or his principles. They followed him implicitly, and in as great a numerical force as they had followed any of his predecessors in office. A very remarkable instance was afforded of the complete change of sentiment which the honourable House had undergone, in the question on which that sentiment was first distinctly pronounced. For a considerable time no attempt was ventured at bringing the House to a division; but at length, in the month of March, an honourable member connected with the Noble Marquis opposite brought forward a proposition founded on a measure which the new administration had adopted. What was the consequence? The House behaved with their usual kind and tender forbearance towards all men in office, and which could be equalled only by their stern, their iron firmness towards all men out of office. In short, when the question was brought to a division, by a curious coincidence, only 65 members voted against Mr Fox and his colleagues on that strong constitutional question; being about the same feeble number that had divided with Mr Fox against Mr Pitt on the last division which took place in the same House of Commons just before Mr Pitt went out of office.

"Having taken an instance from the conduct of a House of Commons assembled under Tory auspices, he would take an instance from the conduct of a House of Commons assembled under Whig auspices in the autumn of 1806.

And here he would observe, that there was a great change in the composition of that assembly. There had been what in former times was called a purging of the House.' No fewer than 180 new members were introduced. It was naturally to be supposed that such a House would, in some degree, redeem the character which its prede cessors had lost. And so at first it did. But, if its conduct throughout the whole of its career were scrutinized, it would be found much worse, and much more discreditable even than that of its illustrious predecessor. As might be expected, considerable differences of opinion arose on the opening of that Parliament, between the Ministers of the Crown and their political opponents. Those differences were stated at an early period of the session, by several of the latter, and especially by a right honourable gentleman (Mr Canning,) who moved an amendment to the address on the first day of the session, with a view to show the different views of policy entertained by the different parties in the House. For a considerable time, however, the opponents of the existing Government, aware that they should only show their own weakness, and the strength of their antagonists, did not venture to divide on any question. First, then, was the subject of foreign affairs. On that question a motion was made, but no division was pressed. Then came the consideration of the army estimates, involving the question of Mr Windham's military plans. Still no division. Afterwards the orders in council were discussed, on which Mr Perceval made a motion; but no division was pressed. Next came Sir S. Romilly's bill, being the first attempt of that learned and illustrious person to reform the criminal law; a proposition made in the most moderate and temperate manner, but exceedingly objected to by the gentlemen in opposition, and especially by

VOL. XIV. PART I.

one, than whom, with the exception of Mr Pitt, perhaps no man had ever greater personal sway in the House of Commons; he meant Sir W. Grant, the Master of the Rolls. To that bill numerous objections were raised, but no division was resorted to. Even on the Maynooth College vote, a question on which Mr Perceval declared he would make a stand; a question on which he gave notice that he would rouse the whole country to opposition; even on that Maynooth College vote, no division took place. It was not until February, when the petition from Hampshire, complaining of a corrupt election, was presented, and when it was thought that there was a strong case which might induce many members to vote against Government, that the first division occurred; and the result was 184 to 57 in favour of Ministers. Question after question followed, without any division, until the 12th of March, when on another division the minority did not exceed 60. And here he begged to observe, that the 12th of March was an important epoch. The House of Commons were approaching a very critical time. Rumours were spread of certain things passing elsewhere, which made the members quite alive. They began to look sharply about them, to try to see their way, as they had done after the decease of Mr Pitt. They began to be aware that they had better be quiet, that they had better abstain from all strong demonstrations, that they had better steer near the land, and with a snug sail, lest they should get on a lee-shore and be suddenly shipwrecked. They did not exactly understand what was passing around them; but they knew that something was passing. Birds of ill omen were fluttering about; and who knew what might ensue? The great point was, that something was not as it had been. Mr Fox was no more. Ilis friends, it was true, were in office; but

N

it was not very clear whether they ought to be supported. They, the members, were plain downright matterof-fact men. They wished to know whether the men apparently in power were de facto Ministers. "Make it quite clear to us-clear to demonstration-that you are not going out, and then we shall immediately know what to do." In the mean while, they comported themselves as the members were wont to comport themselves whenever they were engaged in such an interesting speculation. The first thing in those cases was a tendency on the part of honourable members to absent themselves from the House. There were suddenly many calls into the country. Journies were to be taken for health, for amusement, or for the health and amusement of dear friends and relations. It was quite astonishing to perceive the ties which bound a member of Parliament to his home, when it was not convenient to him to take his place in the House. Accordingly, at the period to which he had been alluding, the numerical force of the House speedily dwindled to nearly one half its usual amount. The suspense, however, began to be painful; it would have become intolerable had it been much longer protracted. But at length it pleased his Majesty to put an end to all doubt and indecision by changing his Ministers. On the 12th of March, only 60 honourable members could be found to support a strong measure proposed to them by the opponents of the then administration. On the 3d of March, only 57 had been found ready to support a still stronger measure. And yet, no sooner had the House been enabled to look well about them -no sooner had they had time and opportunity to take an observation-no sooner had they made themselves sure of who were to be in, and who were to be out of office, than the 60 or 57 members became expanded in a most

marvellous manner to 258; that being, to the great astonishment of all beholders, the number of members who voted for the negative of the proposition, whether or not the House of Commons reposed any confidence in his Majesty's late Ministers. Thus did a large majority of that House, in which but a very short period before only 57 members could be found to express their disapprobation of those Ministers, come forward to protest that they never liked those Ministers, that they liked any Ministers better, and that they were very grateful to his Majesty for having taken the public affairs out of their hands."

The learned gentleman then adverted, in a strain of the keenest irony, to some acts of time-serving and political watchfulness and subserviency on the part of the University of Oxford, to the Walcheren expedition, the fate of Mr Western's motion last session for the repeal of the malt-tax, and other votes of the House of Commons; and concluded by declaring, that if he should be so fortunate as to have the decision of the House in his favour, it was his intention to follow it up by a remedial measure; in other words, by a proposition for a reform in the representation, the only corrective to that overgrown influence which now predominated in Parliament.

Ad

The Marquis of Londonderry replied to Mr Brougham in a speech rather below the ordinary standard of that noble person, leaving all the sore places untouched, and gently covering them with the balm of panegyric. mitting that the influence of the Crown was a just subject of Parliamentary jealousy, he objected to the course which Mr Brougham had pursued, in attempting, under this weak disguise, to entrap the House into sanctioning a proposal for a reform in Parliament. But whatever that influence might be, he maintained that the House was com

posed of materials too sound and too durable to be acted upon or corrupted by it. He then entered into the detail of our establishments, and, taking into account the reductions which had been recently effected, he contended that, within the last thirty years, the patronage of the Crown had neither been enlarged in the ratio laid down by Mr Brougham, nor had the numerical increase of the public functionaries made any material addition to ministerial influence. He next pronounced a glowing panegyric on the career of honour and of glory pursued by this reviled Parliament, which, notwithstanding the sarcasms and attacks of the learned gentleman, had, he said, by the support which it afforded Ministers, enabled them to struggle against the acts of revolutionary governments, and to meet the machinations of some of the infatuated subjects of this country; which, in periods of great peril and alarm, had nobly done its duty to the empire, and conducted it safely through erises which threatened the very existence of the Government. From all which flattering generalities, he inferred, that it was "the bounden duty of the members of that House to support the Minister of the Crown for the time being;" a bold conclusion undoubtedly, and fit only to be pronounced by the lips of a Minister, who, by long possession, had acquired a sort of prescriptive title to power, and who felt himself too firmly established in office to be very scrupulous about the terms in which he avowed a tenet which all Ministers of all parties hold equally sacred, though few perhaps would have been honest enough to proclaim so openly.

Mr Bennet followed the Noble Lord, and eulogized the efforts of Mr

Brougham as fervently as his Lordship had done the actual constitution of Parliament. Mr Stuart Wortley opposed the principle and object of the motion, and alleged that the Opposition had not only lost the confidence of the House, but of the people, and that they were outbid in popularity by those who were willing to go greater lengths than they could promise. Mr Peel defended the University of Oxford from certain imputations of Mr Brougham, founded on their election of Lord Grenville as Chancellor, at a period when he was generally expected to come into power, and on their allowing a measure of concession to the Catholics, which they had opposed in 1807, to pass in silence in 1817. Lord Grenville, he said, had been elected solely on account of his high character, his attachment to our ecclesiastical establishment, his opposition to French principles, and the station he had held in the University, as one of her most distinguished scholars ; while, with regard to the measure of 1817, it was not precisely the same with that of 1807; and even if it had, circumstances were changed, the conscientious scruples of his late Majesty no longer requiring them to continue their opposition. Mr Brougham, in reply, asserted, that they had opposed the bill, not on the score of the King's conscience, but on its own merits, and that he complained much less of those who yielded to these scruples, unconstitu¬ tional as such compliance was, than of those who raised the cry of " No Popery," caring as much for Popery as for the King's conscience, and as much for the King's conscience as for the opinions of William the Conqueror.The motion was lost by a majority of 216 to 101,