question in the State, the question of Reform; only two parties,
the friends of the Reform Bill and its enemies.

It is not my intention, Sir, again to discuss the merits of the
Reform Bill. The principle of that bill received the approbation
of the late House of Commons after a discussion of ten nights;
and the bill as it now stands, after a long and most laborious
investigation, passed the present House of Commons by a majority
which was nearly half as large again as the minority. This was
little more than a fortnight ago. Nothing has since occurred to
change our opinion. The justice of the case is unaltered. The
public enthusiasm is undiminished. Old Sarum has grown no
larger. Manchester has grown no smaller. In addressing this
House, therefore, I am entitled to assume that the bill is in
itself a good bill. If so, ought we to abandon it merely because
the Lords have rejected it? We ought to respect the lawful
privileges of their House; but we ought also to assert our own.
We are constitutionally as independent of their Lordships as
their Lordships are of us. We have precisely as good a right to
adhere to our opinion as they have to dissent from it. In
speaking of their decision, I will attempt to follow that example
of moderation which was so judiciously set by my noble friend,
the Member for Devonshire. I will only say that I do not think
that they are more competent to form a correct judgment on a
political question than we are. It is certain that, on all the
most important points on which the two Houses have for a long
time past differed, the Lords have at length come over to the
opinion of the Commons. I am therefore entitled to say, that
with respect to all those points, the Peers themselves being
judges, the House of Commons was in the right and the House of