of the Attorney-general. I do not mean the speech of the late Attorney-general, who, I must say, is one of the most honest, most learned, and what is far better, the most independent man in the profession, but of the Attorney-general who preceded him. I have also read the speech made by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, so lately as in June last. Now, I ask him whether he will not be reproached for his inconsistency, unless he can account for any difference of his conduct yesterday and in June last, and also when he spoke as Attorney-general in the House of Commons the year before? If I say, that the constitution was completed when the Test and Corporation Acts were passed, that very doctrine I learned from the noble and learned lord in those speeches: and if I think there can be no security in concession, the able and satisfactory reasons I can urge are derived from those speeches of the noble and learned lord. I am now approaching that period of life to which no man can look forward without some feeling of grief and sorrow: four score years will soon be completed by me, and at that stage of human existence there is indisputable authority for expecting nought but sickness and sorrow; but this I will say, that I trust, such at least has been my conduct, that I may listen without self-reproach to all that can be said affecting my character. I cannot, however, bring myself to that degree of apathy which would enable me to hear my accusers without pain. The imputations thrown out against me I will not repeat: I will not expose myself to the agony I should feel were I to repeat them. I am confident that I do not deserve them, and, speaking in the presence of peers and men of honour, they will give me credit for not deserving them."

But, proceeding to the matter more immediately before the House, he should refer first to the Irish Act of 1791. With that act he had officially nothing to do. It was introduced into the House of Commons, while he was a member of it, by a noble lord at the table (Redesdale); and it had that sort of support from him, certainly, which was due to his noble friend, with whom he had lived for somewhat more than half a century, on terms of regard, confidence, and affection. What was that act? It was to relieve Roman Catholics from the penal statutes: and here he must take the liberty of asVOL. XXI.

serting, that there was not that man breathing who could justly charge him with a disinclination to relieve them from the penal statutes. In many instances, and to a most unjust degree, they were auxiliary of the policy of the settlement of 1688. Then came the act of 1793-and what was that? It was likewise a bill of relief; and no man had ever supposed or argued, that the penal statutes were to be perpetual. This was followed by the statute of 1794-the Scotch Actand an intimation had been given, that he was concerned in that law. He had the honour of attending at their lordships' bar, in almost every Scotch cause, from an early period; and had found that he knew so little of the law of Scotland, without intense application, that he was obliged to leave the bill to the lord-advocate, and to the father of the noble viscount opposite. They had then a very able lord-advocate, who was a very good Scotch lawyer; and in the execution of his official duties he had the assistance of the late lord Melville. He had, therefore, little or no concern in that bill; but he was ready to admit, that he gave it his assent. He did not interfere, from a thorough conviction that it was in better hands, and that he should only embarrass by his advice. He was not surprised that the noble lord upon the woolsack should imagine that he did interfere; because he was so much better a Scotch lawyer than he was, that he would not have failed to give his advice on such an occasion.

He now arrived at the time when he had the honour to have the Great Seal intrusted to him. The great object of his professional life had been to be chief Justice of the Common Pleas; and when his late venerable and revered sovereign had called him more immediately to his presence and service, he must say, that he did not obey that call without some reluctance. In the year 1801, he took upon himself the duties of lord Chancellor, and in the discharge of them remained for five-and-twenty years; and during that period, few men had been exposed to more obloquy. He had met that obloquy by the most careful attention to his functions while in office, and he hoped that he might be freed from it now that he had withdrawn to private life. Nevertheless, it did seem to be thought a very pleasant thing in parliament to N

have a dash at the old chancellor [hear, and laughter]. "It brings to my mind," continued the noble earl," an anecdote, which, perhaps, upon this serious question, it would be better to omit. However, with the patience of the House, I will mention it. I was once at Buxton with my venerable deceased friend, lord Thurlow, who went there for the benefit of the waters. I called upon him one evening at the inn where he was sitting, when he told me he had heard that there were six or eight persons in the place who meant to have a dash at the ex-chancellor when in the bath next morning. I asked him what course he intended to take; and he replied prudently, that he meant to keep out of their way. The misfortune is, that I have not been able to keep out of the way of those who have been desirous to have a dash at me [hear, and a laugh]." He now came to the year 1807, when a new administration was formed, under circumstances of clamour which many present remembered. The sovereign then on the throne, his late venerable and beloved master, would not give his royal assent to the bill for the emancipation of the Roman Catholics: it was his opinion that he could not give that assent conscientiously, and he was not the only man in his dominions who entertained that sentiment. In the year 1817, his noble friend (if he would permit him to call him so) was a member of his majesty's government. They had been accused of doing in 1817, what they had refused to do in 1807. The fact was this. It was his opinion perhaps an incorrect one, for lawyers sometimes made mistakes-that persons qualified to serve in the army in Ireland, being, as military men, under the orders of the Crown, were qualified to serve in the same capacity in England. It was thought not safe to rest the matter on any less authority than that of an act of parliament, which was in exact accordance with his opinion. He hoped to be permitted to add this short remark-that in no part of these discussions had he ever stated his objections to go further than to resist the giving of political power to the Roman Catholics, by bringing them into parliament, and allowing them to fill the great offices of state. Here the House would perhaps allow him to state, very shortly, that he here dismissed at once all consideration of the true intent and meaning of the Coronation Oath. It had

been said to-night, that this was an extremely delicate question. He thought so too; and he thought, likewise, that the decision of it belonged only to the Crown. They would, indeed, place his majesty in a distressing situation if, by passing this bill, knowing his opinion to be adverse to it, they were to place upon him the whole weight and odium of refusal. He was therefore inclined, at the present moment, on this point to say no more than that, according to his present opinion, the obligation of the Coronation Oath must be settled between God and the king. It was not for him or for others to say, that in their judgment his majesty could not safely give his assent to this bill, regard being had only to that sacred obligation: whether he would or would not withhold his approbation, was a matter he must decide; and he was sure that he would decide conscientiously. In so deciding, he might overrule his (lord Eldon's) opinion, and he hoped that be would satisfactorily overrule the opinions of all who, on this point, agreed with him.

They now came to the consideration of what was the constitution of this country in 1688: and first, he must be allowed to say, that because fundamental laws were then passed, on every page of every statute of which it was said, that they were to be permanent and established, he did not, on that account, deny the competence of parliament to change those laws. The legislature of that day thought that to make a change might again put the constitution in hazard; but he did not assert that such a change could not be made. He maintained, this, however— that looking at the 13th of Charles the 2nd, the 25th of Charles the 2nd, and the 30th of Charles the 2nd, the exclusion from parliament operated by the last of these statutes, was in conformity with the true construction of the acts of 1688, and with the act of Union with Scotland, too, in the reign of Anne. These were meant to be the ruling and governing principles of the constitution, until a strong necessity for altering it should be made apparent. If the good of the nation required a change, a change might be made: no man denied it; but the necessity must be established, and there ought to be no strong and reasonable apprehension for the consequences. The Constitution of 1688 was the pride, honour, and glory of the country; and

they could not make an alteration in it without, in some degree, altering the notions of the people as to its excellency. To produce doubt, alarm, and discontent among the people, was a practical evil which it was difficult to counterbalance by any theoretical good. The people were justly attached to the constitution of 1688-they looked to it as the foundation and bulwark of their freedom. If a part were changed, they might change the whole; and that change they dreaded. Perhaps the state of the opinions of the people might be more manifest to one who had risen from the people, and who had been long in communication with the people, the strength and ornament of the empire, than to most of their lordships, the proprietors of hereditary titles. They felt it to be their lordships' duty, and a duty the most paramount that they had to execute, to preserve in this Protestant kingdom, the Protestant religion. Not a syllable had fallen from him, in this or in any previous debate, to show that if the safety and honour of this Protestant kingdom be completely preserved-if they preserved a Protestant king, a Protestant House of Peers, a Protestant House of Commons, and a Protestant executive government-they might not make alterations in the system which might afford better securities than they had yet possessed for the Protestant religion.

The securities offered were of two kinds -first, those which belonged to the change, as it might operate upon the minds of the Roman Catholics; second, those which were connected with the bill now before us, and the other measure by which it was attended. First, they had passed a law to put down the Catholic Association, and he agreed that it was due to the dignity of parliament, and the natural impulse of the great mind of the noble duke, that no concession should be made while that Association existed, the character of which was truly described in the preamble of the bill. If that bill had in any way affected the remedies at common law against the Association, or individuals, it would not operate as it was intended. With regard to the Disfranchisement bill, he held it to be a measure of the utmost moment, and he was far from denying the competence of parliament to pass it. The legislature had sanctioned a bill reducing the number of voters, but he wished noble lords to consider the nature, or rather the

effects of that bill, as it might operate upon other measures affecting the present constitution of parliament. That House, on all such occasions, proceeded in a judicial as well as in a legislative capacity: it required the production of evidence at its bar-distinct proof of the nature and extent of the evil-and it would not act upon the mere probability of what might or might not be the fact. Having determined to exercise this power, and to reduce the number of voters, because they thought the present qualification injurious to the public interest, it became their lordships to consider how they would proceed. They must remember, that the present condition of the exercise of the franchise might not arise from any fault in itself, but from a want of discrimination in the individual electors to make a choice for themselves. They might find it extremely difficult to say that they would disfranchise a large population, and yet leave the state of the representation complete. He admitted that the evil was great, and that a remedy ought to be applied to it; but when it was put to him, whether the removal of that evil should purchase this invasion of their constitution, he could not consent to the latter part of the alternative. He hoped his memory did not mislead him when he said that, in opening the bill of Relief now before them, the noble duke had not even mentioned the Disfranchisement bill. As to the securities offered by that measure, his humble opinion was, that they were a perfect nullity; and it might deserve consideration what securities ought to have been inserted in their stead; but if it should be the pleasure of the House to agree to the second reading of the bill, and to admit its principle, he would be content on the details, to reserve himself to a future occasion.

From one task (continued the noble lord) I feel myself altogether relieved, because the subject has already been discussed with so much ability. I shall leave the exposition of the acts of the parliaments of England and Scotland, upon the able statement and exposition of my noble and learned friend, the lord chief justice of England. To that argumentative and luminous statement, it will be unnecessary for me to add aught. His talents, character, and ability, entitle him to the highest respect for his opinions, and his zealous consistency and high