the House, has alluded to the opinions which some of His
Majesty's Ministers formerly entertained on the subject of
Reform. It would be officious in me, Sir, to undertake the
defence of gentlemen who are so well able to defend themselves.
I will only say that, in my opinion, the country will not think
worse either of their capacity or of their patriotism, because
they have shown that they can profit by experience, because they
have learned to see the folly of delaying inevitable changes.
There are others who ought to have learned the same lesson. I
say, Sir, that there are those who, I should have thought, must
have had enough to last them all their lives of that humiliation
which follows obstinate and boastful resistance to changes
rendered necessary by the progress of society, and by the
development of the human mind. Is it possible that those persons
can wish again to occupy a position which can neither be defended
nor surrendered with honour? I well remember, Sir, a certain
evening in the month of May, 1827. I had not then the honour of
a seat in this House; but I was an attentive observer of its
proceedings. The right honourable Baronet opposite (Sir Robert
Peel), of whom personally I desire to speak with that high
respect which I feel for his talents and his character, but of
whose public conduct I must speak with the sincerity required by
my public duty, was then, as he is now, out of office. He had
just resigned the seals of the Home Department, because he
conceived that the recent ministerial arrangements had been too
favourable to the Catholic claims. He rose to ask whether it was
the intention of the new Cabinet to repeal the Test and
Corporation Acts, and to reform the Parliament. He bound up, I
well remember, those two questions together; and he declared
that, if the Ministers should either attempt to repeal the Test