change, now own that some change may be proper, may be necessary.
They assure us that their opposition is directed, not against
Parliamentary Reform, but against the particular plan which is
now before us, and that a Tory Ministry would devise a much
better plan. I cannot but think that these tactics are
unskilful. I cannot but think that, when our opponents defended
the existing system in every part, they occupied a stronger
position than at present. As my noble friend the Paymaster-
General said, they have committed an error resembling that of the
Scotch army at Dunbar. They have left the high ground from which
we might have had some difficulty in dislodging them. They have
come down to low ground, where they are at our mercy. Surely, as
Cromwell said, surely the Lord hath delivered them into our hand.

For, Sir, it is impossible not to perceive that almost every
argument which they have urged against this Reform Bill may be
urged with equal force, or with greater force, against any Reform
Bill which they can themselves bring in.

First take, what, indeed, are not arguments, but wretched
substitutes for arguments, those vague terms of reproach, which
have been so largely employed, here and elsewhere, by our
opponents; revolutionary, anarchical, traitorous, and so forth.
It will, I apprehend, hardly be disputed that these epithets can
be just as easily applied to one Reform Bill as to another.

But, you say, intimidation has been used to promote the passing
of this bill; and it would be disgraceful, and of evil example,
that Parliament should yield to intimidation. But surely, if
that argument be of any force against the present bill, it will