ent on the 17th. Sir E.
Sugden, who seconded the amendment, agreed with Lord Porchester that
the bill was more democratic in its tendency than its predecessor, and
equally unfounded in any sound principle of the constitution, though
some of the alterations made in the details were changes for the better.
There were other changes, however, which were alterations greatly for
the worst, setting aside the mischievous and unconstitutional tendency
of the measure. Mr. Macaulay contended that since opposition admitted
that the principles of the bill were unchanged, they had no reason for
the exultation in which they had indulged over minor alterations, as
if ministers had abandoned their own plans, and gave the preference to
theirs. The new bill, he said, was an improved edition of the first; but
the first was superior to it in one point, inasmuch as it was the first,
and was, therefore, more likely to cement a reconciliation between the
refractory aristocracy and the exasperated people. It had been asked, he
continued, why they had the temerity to legislate in haste? He did not
mean to dispute that a hurried settlement at a season of excitement
might not be wholly unaccompanied with evil; but if so, the
responsibility must be with those who had withheld concession when there
was no excitement. The time had arrived when reformers must legislate
in haste, because bigots would not legislate early; when reformers
must legislate in excitement, because bigots would not do so at a more
auspicious opportunity. Bigots would not walk with sufficient speed,
nay, they could not be prevailed on to move at all; and now, therefore,
the reformers must run for it. Mr. Macaulay entered into a defence of
the principles of the bill; and in conclusion asserted, that, by fair
means or foul, either through or over parliament, the question must be
carried. He was followed by Mr. Croker, who said that the doctrine now
set up, of some terrific and uncontrollable necessity, put an end to
all argument and consideration. Lord Althorp, in reply, challenged the
opposition to point out any instance in which, ministers had neglected
their duty, or had looked with apathy on the violations of the public
peace, or on outrages against persons and property. Mr. Stuart
Wortley said he had hoped that ministers, after knowing the sentiments
entertained in another place, would have introduced a measure which
might, to a great extent, have met the 'wishes of those who,