confidence in His Majesty's Ministers. I consider these two
declarations as identical. The question of Reform is, in my
opinion, of such paramount importance, that, approving the
principles of the Ministerial Bill, I must think the Ministers
who have brought that bill forward, although I may differ from
them on some minor points, entitled to the strongest support of
Parliament. The right honourable gentleman, the Member for the
University of Cambridge, has attempted to divert the course of
the debate to questions comparatively unimportant. He has said
much about the coal duty, about the candle duty, about the budget
of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. On most of the
points to which he has referred, it would be easy for me, were I
so inclined, to defend the Ministers; and where I could not
defend them, I should find it easy to recriminate on those who
preceded them. The right honourable Member for the University of
Cambridge has taunted the Ministers with the defeat which their
plan respecting the timber trade sustained in the last
Parliament. I might, perhaps, at a more convenient season, be
tempted to inquire whether that defeat was more disgraceful to
them or to their predecessors. I might, perhaps, be tempted to
ask the right honourable gentleman whether, if he had not been
treated, while in office, with more fairness than he has shown
while in opposition, it would have been in his power to carry his
best bill, the Beer Bill? He has accused the Ministers of
bringing forward financial propositions, and then withdrawing
those propositions. Did not he bring forward, during the Session
of 1830, a plan respecting the sugar duties? And was not that
plan withdrawn? But, Sir, this is mere trifling. I will not be
seduced from the matter in hand by the right honourable
gentleman's example. At the present moment I can see only one