ich
followed this amendment continued three nights; and it consisted chiefly
of a repetition of the views, arguments, and anticipations which
had been brought out at such great length in the former parliament.
Ministers and their supporters, however, found new matter for triumph
in the evidence with which the general election had furnished them, that
the people were generally for reform. All doubt or hesitation was at an
end: the voice of the people had decided, not merely that there must
be reform, but that it must be that kind of reform contained in the
ministerial bill. This voice had been pronounced unanimously, for the
returns from close boroughs and particular counties could not be taken
into account in estimating the will and the wishes of those who formed
the people. The opposition on the other hand contended, that the
argument drawn from the mere fact of a popular clamour having been
raised in favour of this measure, was fit only for legislators who
had been invested with that character on no other terms than those of
pledging themselves to discharge the humble duty of delegates, and not
to act according to any opinions which they might form on the measures
proposed by government. No man, it was said, could deny the violent
excitement which had taken place, and few would maintain that large
bodies of electors were the fittest persons for deciding on the merits
of so complicated and delicate a question; and every man must concede,
that least of all could the decision of such assemblages be regarded
when made under the influence of agitation, sedulously cherished by
false pretexts, and supported by groundless anticipations. Nor could the
returns, it was argued, be considered as manifesting the opinion of the
country on this plan of reform. They had been influenced, it was said,
by considerations not connected with the merits of the proposition; and
by identifying it with consequences, to which even its most rational and
candid friends admitted that it never would lead. It was asked, Where
had been the unanimity in favour of reform before the promulgation of
the present measure, and the triumphs of the democracy of France? How
little ministers could trust to reason and calmness among the people,
and how much they reckoned on everything that was the reverse, was clear
from the delicacy and respect with which they treated bodies that ought
to have been unknown to them as a government, except for the purpose
of checki