in judging whether the nation is determined to have that measure
enacted; it is an indication, but it is only one of the indications.
There are others equally decisive. The unanimous voice of the people
may be so strong, and may be conveyed through so many organs, that
it may be assumed to be lasting.

Englishmen are so very miscellaneous, that that which has REALLY
convinced a great and varied majority of them for the present may
fairly be assumed to be likely to continue permanently to convince
them. One sort might easily fall into a temporary and erroneous
fanaticism, but all sorts simultaneously are very unlikely to do so.

I should venture so far as to lay down for an approximate rule, that
the House of Lords ought, on a first-class subject, to be slow?--
very slow--in rejecting a Bill passed even once by a large majority
of the House of Commons. I would not of course lay this down as an
unvarying rule; as I have said, I have for practical purposes no
belief in unvarying rules. Majorities may be either genuine or
fictitious, and if they are not genuine, if they do not embody the
opinion of the representative as well as the opinion of the
constituency, no one would wish to have any attention paid to them.
But if the opinion of the nation be strong and be universal, if it
be really believed by members of Parliament, as well as by those who
send them to Parliament, in my judgment the Lords should yield at
once, and should not resist it.

My main reason is one which has not been much urged. As a
theoretical writer I can venture to say, what no elected member of
Parliament, Conservative or Liberal, can venture to say, that I am
exceedingly afraid of the ignorant multitude of the new