kind reserved for singular emergencies, does it follow, that this power is to be exercised at caprice, and without weighty and comprehensive reasons?  It may happen, that the parliament is in the midst of its session, that the very existence of revenue may be unprovided for, and the urgent claims of humanity unfulfilled.  It is of little consequence,” they will perhaps pretend, “who is in, and who is out, so the national interests are honestly pursued, and the men who superintend them be not defective in abilities.  That then must be a most lawless and undisguised spirit of selfishness, that can for these baubles risk the happiness of millions, and the preservation of the constitution.”

All these observations, my lord, may sound well enough in the harangue of a demagogue; but is it for such a man, to object to a repetition of that appeal to the people in general, in the frequency and universality of which the very existence of liberty consists?  Till lately, I think it has been allowed, that one of those reforms most favourable to democracy, was an abridgment of the duration of parliaments.  But if a general abridgment be so desirable, must not every particular abridgment have its value too?  Shall the one be acknowledged of a salutary, and yet the other be declared of a pernicious tendency?  Is it possible that the nature of a part, and of the whole, can be not only dissimilar, but opposite?  But I will quit these general and accurate reasonings.  It is not in them that our strength lies.

They tell us, that the measure of a dissolution is an unpopular one.  My lord, it is not so, that you and I are to be taken in.  Picture to yourself the very kennels flowing with rivers of beer.  Imagine the door of every hospitable ale-house throughout the kingdom, thrown open for the reception of the ragged and pennyless burgess.  Imagine the whole country filled with the shouts of drunkenness, and the air rent with mingled huzzas.  Represent the broken heads, and the bleeding noses, the tattered raiment, and staggering bodies of a million of loyal voters.  My lord, will they pretend, that the measure that gives birth to this glorious scene, is unpopular?  We must be very ill versed in the science of human nature, if we could believe them.

But a more important consideration arises.  A general election would be of little value, if by means of it a majority of representatives were not to be gained to the aristocratical party.  If I were to disadvise a dissolution, it would be from the fear of a sinister event.  It is true, your lordship has a thousand soft blandishments.  You can smile and bow in the newest and most approved manner.  But, my lord, in the midst of a parcel of Billingsgate fishwomen, in the midst of a circle of butchers with marrow-bones and cleavers, I am afraid these accomplishments would be of little avail.  It is he, most noble patron, who can swallow the greatest quantity of porter, who can roar the best catch, and who is the compleatest