agitation, tumult, political associations, libels, inflammatory
harangues. Coercion would only aggravate the evil. This is no
age, this is no country, for the war of power against opinion.
Those Jacobin mountebanks, whom this bill would at once send back
to their native obscurity, would rise into fearful importance.
The law would be sometimes braved and sometimes evaded. In
short, England would soon be what Ireland was at the beginning of
1829. Then, at length, as in 1829, would come the late and vain
repentance. Then, Sir, amidst the generous cheers of the Whigs,
who will be again occupying their old seats on your left hand,
and amidst the indignant murmurs of those stanch Tories who are
now again trusting to be again betrayed, the right honourable
Baronet opposite will rise from the Treasury Bench to propose
that bill on which the hearts of the people are set. But will
that bill be then accepted with the delight and thankfulness with
which it was received last March? Remember Ireland. Remember
how, in that country, concessions too long delayed were at last
received. That great boon which in 1801, in 1813, in 1825, would
have won the hearts of millions, given too late, and given from
fear, only produced new clamours and new dangers. Is not one
such lesson enough for one generation? A noble Lord opposite
told us not to expect that this bill will have a conciliatory
effect. Recollect, he said, how the French aristocracy
surrendered their privileges in 1789, and how that surrender was
requited. Recollect that Day of Sacrifices which was afterwards
called the Day of Dupes. Sir, that day was afterwards called the
Day of Dupes, not because it was the Day of Sacrifices, but
because it was the Day of Sacrifices too long deferred. It was
because the French aristocracy resisted reform in 1783, that they
were unable to resist revolution in 1789. It was because they