diately upon this, there was a meeting of the Livery of London, to which Mr. BROUGHAM was invited. At that meeting he made a speech, which speech he, two days afterwards, wrote out in his own hand, which so written out in his own hand, was kept by some persons of the Westminster committee, as the pledge of his principles, and which speech, which I have seen in Mr. Brougham's own hand-writing, was in the following words; to wit:

46

"Mr. Brougham returned thanks, and said, that the last time he had met the Livery, two years ago, he had declined making professions or promises, because " he saw them so often broken; but had desired the Livery, if it were worth their attention, to mark his conduct, and if it betrayed his declaration, to punish him next time they met by drinking to the memory of his departed principles :— "that time was now come, and he met them without any conscientiousness of having forfeited their favour. These two years had been pregnant with important events; and infinitely various as these were, they all agreed in this, "that they had mightily redounded to the honour of the cause, and the con"firmation of our principles. The fundamental maxim of liberty had been solemnly recognised in the face of the world, that all power is from the people; and that they have a right to choose their government, and dismiss their ruler's "for misconduct. They had done so in France, and it was a lesson that could "not be forgotten in the rest of Europe. The saying that 'laws are silent in the "midst of arms, had failed for once; and this fundamental principle had triumphed over the triumphs of the allied armies. So much for the honour of "the cause. But the principles of Reform had been assisted also in their pro" gress. Where is now the gag, with which our mouths had for five-and-twenty years been stopped, as often as we have required that Parliaments should be “chosen yearly, and that the elective franchise should be extended to all who pay "taxes? We have been desired to wait, for the enemy was at the gate, and ready to avail himself of the discords attending our political contests, in order "to undermine our national independence. This argument is gone, and our "adversaries must now look for another. He had mentioned the two Radical "doctrines of yearly election, and the franchise enjoyed by all paying taxes; but it "would be superfluous to reason in favour of them here, where all were agreed upon the subject. However as elsewhere they may speedily be discussed, he "should take leave to suggest a fact, for the use of such as might have occasion "to defend their principles. It was one for the truth of which he might appeal "to his honourable friend, the Member for Middlesex (Mr. BYNG), who knew as "well as he did, that there was a great improvement always observable in the con"duct of the House of Commons, towards the last year of a Parliament; insomuch, "that he had heard it observed, that more good was done in that year, than in all the "other five or six. The reason of all this he should not presume to state; but "some persons were of so suspicious a nature, as to insinuate, that it might be "the knowledge of the members, that at the end of that session they must meet "their constituents, such of them as had any, and give an account of their trust. "He avowed that this fact had been one of the chief grounds of his conviction "of the expediency of yearly elections: and if any one thought this unsafe, "he should answer, that such frequent recurrence and such extension of "the franchise as should accompany it, is the best check upon profligate expense. If any other check was wanting, it might be provided also. He had "talked of such members as had constituents, being reminded of it by the man"ner in which the toast had been given out by a mistake-he hoped not an omi"nous one. It had been said, 'a full, fair, and free representation in Parliament,' "leaving out the People.' Now this is just what is done elsewhere. There is "a full, fair, and free representation in Parliament'-we need not drink to that. "There is a full representation of the aristocracy-a fair representation of the “landed interest-a free representation-a free ingress of the Court,-but not "much representation of the people-they are left out, as they were to-day. It "must, however, be otherwise soon. While they bear the burdens of the State, "they must, as of right, share in its government; and to effect this reform, all "good men must now unite. He lamented the absence of his friends now de"tained elsewhere; but he knew they would come, the moment their duty per"mitted. Messrs. Whitbread, Brand, Creevey, Bennet, Grattan, Lord Ossulston, VOL. V.

L

"Lord A. Hamilton, he knew, were most anxious to join the meeting. What "they were now about he could not precisely say; but he guessed they were not supporting the Court at that particular moment."

Strange, my Lord, is it not? And is it not a pity, that this gentleman should have been exhibited to the world by his friend, Mr. PERRY, as calling Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage "little nostrums and big blunders ?"

But, I have not yet finished the history of the Westminster Seatscheme. That scheme was put aside in 1814, by that sense of justice and that high sentiment, which led the people of Westminster to re-elect Lord Cochrane, though he had been expelled by the House of Commons, and the good effects of that re-election they and the whole country now feel. But though frustrated for this time, the connection was carefully kept up with some persons in Westminster; and, at a meeting in Palaceyard, about a year ago, upon the subject of the Property-tax, a regular plan was laid, in concert with himself, for introducing Mr. Brougham to the people of that city. He was so introduced; but, it falling to the lot of Mr. HUNT to speak before the part of Mr. Brougham came to be performed, the former gentleman so prepared the way for the latter, that he thought it prudent to withdraw, and magnanimously to forego the sort of applause which awaited his debut. Mr. Brougham, upon being afterwards reminded of this sudden retreat by Lord Castlereagh, said that he did not intend to speak at the meeting, he not being an inhabitant of Westminster. I have it not under his own hand, indeed, that he did intend to speak at the meeting, but a gentleman, on whose word I can rely, assures me, that Mr. Brougham (though not an inhabitant of Westminster), did attend at a previous select meeting where the resolutions were prepared, and that it was at that meeting settled that he should speak upon one of the resolutions.

Frightened away from his game here, the gentleman does not seem, however, to have wholly abandoned the chase; for, at a dinner, on the 23rd of May last, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern, at which dinner I was, the name of Mr. Brougham was inserted in the List of Toasts immediately after the names of the two Members for the City. I, seeing this name so placed, and finding Major Cartwright's name at nearly the bottom of the list, intimated to the stewards, that, unless Major Cartwright's name was placed before that of Mr. Brougham, I would oppose the toast; and that this alteration was made accordingly. Nor did I stop here, for I read to the company at dinner a paper, the purport of which was, that if a vacancy in Westminster should happen, Major Cartwright, and no other man, ought to be the person to fill it, and one of the objects of which paper was well known to be, to guard the City against the schemes and intrigues which had long been going on in favour of Mr. Brougham. At this dinner, and coming with views similar to my own, was Mr. HUNT; and, one of the committee told that gentleman and me, that though Mr. Brougham had by letter, said that he would be at the dinner, he had left word, that if Mr. HUNT came, information should be sent to him of it. We were also told, that such information had been sent to Mr. Brougham; and, in about half an hour afterwards, came an apology from Mr. Brougham, saying that he could not attend on account of his duty in the House of Commons, a motion of Sir Samuel Romilly's being just about to come out!

I will leave your Lordship to judge in what degree these transactions

may have given rise to those bitter reproaches, which have been cast on the "little nostrums and big blunders" of the " designing and evilminded" leaders of the " poor, deluded, duped creatures of Reformers;" and also, in what degree these transactions may have tended to draw forth the imputations cast on the prompters" and "abettors" of Lord Cochrane. But, I must beg your Lordship well to note the fact, that, in May last, Mr. Brougham's hopes as to Westminster were completely destroyed; and, I will leave your Lordship to judge if you can, as to the precise time when the mind of this gentleman returned to its old state of dislike to Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage.

Your Lordship knows, that the above inserted manuscript speech of Mr. Brougham, was read in the House of Commons by Lord Cochrane on Monday last; and his Lordship did this, as he does every thing, in an open and manly manner, and also with great ability and effect The answer of Mr. Brougham has been published by Mr. PERRY, in these words:

"It had often been observed, and indeed with great justice, that there was not perhaps, a more painful and irksome situation, than where a man was obliged to speak of himself. In proportion to that painful situation, and in compassion to it, the indulgence of the House had always been extended, and he hoped it would be so on the present occasion. (Hear, hear! from all sides of the House.) He trusted it would not, however, be thought that he was courting anxiously an opportunity of going into detail, or that on the contrary he wished to avoid such details, for he felt it his duty to say, that he expressed his warmest thanks to the noble Lord for the frank and open manner in which he had afforded him the opportunity of going into the subject. A more groundless aspersion had, he believed, never been brought forward against any individual. He did not accuse the noble Lord, however, or those out of doors, who had put the brief into his hands, of uttering any falsehood in the statement which had just been submitted to the House, but he decidedly accused them of rashness and imprudence, and of not waiting for only a few days longer, when they would have had a full and fair opportunity of hearing his opinions on this most momentous and important subject, and then they would have found whether he was or was not inconsistent. (Hear, hear, hear.) Had those out of doors, whose tool the noble Lord was, but waited those few days, they would then have known what his real sentiments on the question were, having, as the House well knew, reserved to himself the right of then speaking what he felt on the subject. (Hear, hear.) How then could the noble Lord, how could they in whose hands he is, presume to know what were the opinions he (Mr. B.) had formed on this most interesting question? How do they know that he would not have stated his opinion then in the very terms which had just been read? That they should have ascertained his sentiments was a moral impossibility. (Hear, hear.) But the noble Lord had given a mis-statement of what took place, and he should now endeavour to give the House the particulars of the case. A dinner was given at the London Tavern to the friends of Parliamentary Reform, at which he (Mr. B.) attended, with his friend the Member for Middlesex, with the late truly respected and muchlamented Member for the town of Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), with the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Brand), and the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Bennet). In the course of what passed there, some observations fell from him similar to what had been read by the noble Lord. The chief motive he had in correcting what he had there stated, was to prevent the possibility of his words on this dangerous and yet important question being misrepresented. He then said, or at least meant to be understood as saying, what he still maintained, that it was consonant to the genius and spirit of the Constitution and expedient in every sense of the word, that the power of elections should be limited to those who paid direct taxes. He corrected what he had said on the subject, as he was aware of the mistakes of reporters. He again repeated, and wished it to be understood, that what he then said the same he now maintained, viz. that the payment of direct taxes ought to be the limit of the elective franchise. He did not wish to compete with the noble Lord, but this was his meaning when he so spoke. He should wish to say one word

upon what had been said respecting his advocating the cause of a moderate and gradual Reform. Six years ago it would he remembered he had repeatedly said, both within and without the House, that it would be proper for those who wished for Annual Parliaments to unite with those who were more moderate, and thus secure a footing. There was no reason for their stopping short, and he did not hold it to be inconsistent in the friends of Annual Parliaments to unite with the more moderate Reformers, and to obtain, in the first instance, a beginning. This was the opinion he then held, and he had never deviated from it. The noble Lord was much mistaken when he supposed that the mere production of a speech delivered by him (Mr. B.) at a tavern, would make him swerve from the line of duty merely from the foolish and childish desire of keeping up an appearance of consistency. If he supposed him (Mr. B.) to do so, he was much mistaken. The House had heard him declare his intention to reserve his right of being heard, when the question was brought fully under the consideration of the House, and he could only add, that he would still reserve to himself that right uninfluenced by any thing the noble Lord had said. He again repeated, that when he spoke of the extension of suffrage, it should be to those who had paid direct taxes only, for he never dreamt of it going further. As to the miserable motives alleged to have actuated him, as if he could prostitute himself at one time to deliver opinions which were not the sentiments of his heart for the purpose of being carried into the House on the shoulders of a rabble (hear, hear), and at another time to bend to prejudices he might have to contend with in the House, all he should say was, that he treated such charges with the contempt they deserved. The only pain he felt, was when he contemplated the folly and the madness of some wild theorists, and the base expedients and false practices they made use of to divide the people from the Constitution, merely to gratify party purposes and to compass objects in which the good of the country was neglected, while the interests of one or two individuals was the all in all. (Hear, hear, hear.) This gave him more pain than all the noble Lord had said or could say. (Hear.)"

There needs little comment. The calling of Lord Cochrane "a tool" in the hands of others; the calling the paper a “groundless aspersion;" the "warmest thanks" to his Lordship for bringing forward such aspersion; the " contempt" expressed at the imputation of the "miserable motive' for making the pledge; the disdain expressed at the idea of a desire to be "carried to the House on the shoulders of a RABBLE;" the assertion about the folly and madness of some wild theorists, who were making use of base expedients and false practices to divide the people from the Constitution for the mere private interests of one or two individuals: All these, my Lord, shall pass for what they are worth; and, I fancy, the full value of them will be found in the pity of a nation, naturally good-natured, and never prone to triumph over a fallen adversary.

But, as to the two great points; Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage, what explanation is here given? Why, as to the first, as to Annual Parliaments no explanation at all. Indeed it was utterly impos sible. Ingenuity equal to that of Lord Peter in the Tale of a Tub could not have got rid of that point. And, what is suffrage co-extensive with taxation; what is that short of universal suffrage, when every human creature in the country pays heavy taxes? Oh! says Mr. Brougham, but I meant "direct taxes." Meant! Why did you not say so then? Meant! You meant what you said, to be sure; and so it was understood unquestionably. Besides, my Lord, be pleased to consider the occasion of writing this famous paper. It was the gentleman's creed; it was his political confession of faith. Lawyers are not apt to be careless in their use of words; they are not very much in the habit of leaving their meaning dubious from a desire to abbreviate. And, upon an occasion like the one here mentioned, was it likely that the gentleman would deliberately, after two days of reflection, put upon paper that which he did not mean?

Yet it is not of the change of opinion, though under such peculiar circumstances, that any reasonable man will find fault; it is, as Lord Cochrane truly said, the attacks on those who now entertain the same opinions; the charges of wildness, madness, mischievousness, of evil designs and base motives, preferred against those persons, and the abuse heaped upon them (in the Chronicle Speeches), under the name of Mr. Brougham, day after day. This was too much for flesh and blood to bear, and the noble Lord had resented it in a most able, manly and effectual manner. “A few days!” The gentlemen who held the pledge, were to wait a few days, till Mr. Brougham should declare his sentiments? What sentiments? He had declared that those who proposed Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage, were deluters, and those who listened to them were deluded; he had called these propositions, "little nostrums and big blunders;" he had spoken of the promoters of the petitions as wild, mad, mischievous men. Was not this a pretty full declaration of his sentiments? What more were the holders of the pledge to wait for?

I am not sorry to perceive, however, that the learned gentleman received, in the hour of his altered tone, the kind condolence of his friends. Mr. BRAND is reported to have said, "that his learned friend had vindi"cated he ought rather to say he had completely repelled the uncalled"for and undeserved attack that had been levelled at him." Mr. LITTLETON Went still further, as appears from the report; for he "not only "thought that his learned friend had completely vindicated himself, but "said that he (Mr. Littleton) was quite ready to share in any odium that might attach to his honourable and learned friend for his conduct on "this important question." Upon which I can only say, my Lord, that I envy the gentleman his generosity rather than his taste.

Now then, my Lord, what is the sum and substance of all that I have, to your great fatigue, I am afraid, submitted to the consideration of your Lordship? Why, it is this: that there are both law and reason on the side of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage; that this plan of reform has actually been, within these forty years, brought before Parlia ment, in the shape of a Bill, by one of the first peers of the realm; and that those who have been the most harsh in their censure of the present Reformers, were, a very little while ago, the most decided advocates for this very plan of reform.

We contend, that we are right. We may, nevertheless, be wrong; but we want fact and argument to convince us of our errors, and shall never be convinced by abuse. We shall never be convinced by the Sinecure Placemen, who write in the Quarterly Review, and who actually propose the silencing of us by force. In short, my Lord, they use these infamous words : "The press may combat the press in ordinary times " and upon ordinary topics; a measure of finance, for instance, or the common course of politics, or a point of theology. But in seasons of I great agitation, on those momentous subjects in which the peace and security of society, nay the very existence of social order itself is involved, it is absurd to suppose, that the healing will come from the same weapon as the wound." Then, after saying that the people receive my Journal "with entire faith; that it serves them for law and "for gospel, for their creed and their ten commandments; that they "talk by it and swear by it; that they are ready to live by it, and to die

"