Englishmen, who are not, and who cannot in the nature of things
be, highly educated, to say that distress produces on them its
natural effects, those effects which it would produce on the
Americans, or on any other people, that it blinds their judgment,
that it inflames their passions, that it makes them prone to
believe those who flatter them, and to distrust those who would
serve them. For the sake, therefore, of the whole society, for
the sake of the labouring classes themselves, I hold it to be
clearly expedient that, in a country like this, the right of
suffrage should depend on a pecuniary qualification.

But, Sir, every argument which would induce me to oppose
Universal Suffrage, induces me to support the plan which is now
before us. I am opposed to Universal Suffrage, because I think
that it would produce a destructive revolution. I support this
plan, because I am sure that it is our best security against a
revolution. The noble Paymaster of the Forces hinted, delicately
indeed and remotely, at this subject. He spoke of the danger of
disappointing the expectations of the nation; and for this he was
charged with threatening the House. Sir, in the year 1817, the
late Lord Londonderry proposed a suspension of the Habeas Corpus
Act. On that occasion he told the House that, unless the
measures which he recommended were adopted, the public peace
could not be preserved. Was he accused of threatening the House?
Again, in the year 1819, he proposed the laws known by the name
of the Six Acts. He then told the House that, unless the
executive power were reinforced, all the institutions of the
country would be overturned by popular violence. Was he then
accused of threatening the House? Will any gentleman say that it
is parliamentary and decorous to urge the danger arising from