Lords in the wrong. It was thus with respect to the Slave trade:
it was thus with respect to Catholic Emancipation: it was thus
with several other important questions. I, therefore, cannot
think that we ought, on the present occasion, to surrender our
judgment to those who have acknowledged that, on former occasions
of the same kind, we have judged more correctly than they.

Then again, Sir, I cannot forget how the majority and the
minority in this House were composed; I cannot forget that the
majority contained almost all those gentlemen who are returned by
large bodies of electors. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to
say, that there were single Members of the majority who had more
constituents than the whole minority put together. I speak
advisedly and seriously. I believe that the number of
freeholders of Yorkshire exceeds that of all the electors who
return the Opposition. I cannot with propriety comment here on
any reports which may have been circulated concerning the
majority and minority in the House of Lords. I may, however,
mention these notoriously historical facts; that during the last
forty years the powers of the executive Government have been,
almost without intermission, exercised by a party opposed to
Reform; and that a very great number of Peers have been created,
and all the present Bishops raised to the bench during those
years. On this question, therefore, while I feel more than usual
respect for the judgment of the House of Commons, I feel less
than usual respect for the judgment of the House of Lords. Our
decision is the decision of the nation; the decision of their
Lordships can scarcely be considered as the decision even of that
class from which the Peers are generally selected, and of which
they may be considered as virtual representatives, the great