bill, than it was the first. If the first bill had passed, it
would, I firmly believe, have produced a complete reconciliation
between the aristocracy and the people. It is my earnest wish
and prayer that the present bill may produce this blessed effect;
but I cannot say that my hopes are so sanguine as they were at
the beginning of the last Session. The decision of the House of
Lords has, I fear, excited in the public mind feelings of
resentment which will not soon be allayed. What then, it is
said, would you legislate in haste? Would you legislate in times
of great excitement concerning matters of such deep concern?
Yes, Sir, I would: and if any bad consequences should follow
from the haste and the excitement, let those be held answerable
who, when there was no need of haste, when there existed no
excitement, refused to listen to any project of Reform, nay, who
made it an argument against Reform, that the public mind was not
excited. When few meetings were held, when few petitions were
sent up to us, these politicians said, "Would you alter a
Constitution with which the people are perfectly satisfied?" And
now, when the kingdom from one end to the other is convulsed by
the question of Reform, we hear it said by the very same persons,
"Would you alter the Representative system in such agitated times
as these?" Half the logic of misgovernment lies in this one
sophistical dilemma: If the people are turbulent, they are unfit
for liberty: if they are quiet, they do not want liberty.

I allow that hasty legislation is an evil. I allow that there
are great objections to legislating in troubled times. But
reformers are compelled to legislate fast, because bigots will
not legislate early. Reformers are compelled to legislate in
times of excitement, because bigots will not legislate in times