the times.  Let it not be supposed that I would disparage the progress of freedom, that I wish checks to be applied to it, or that I am pleased at the sight of obstacles thrown in its way.  Far, very far from it.  I am only desiring it to be observed, that we cannot expect to enjoy at the same time incompatible advantages.  Freedom must ever be the greatest of blessings; but it ceases to be a distinction, in proportion as other nations become free.

But, Sir, this is only a partial view of the subject; and one to which I have been led by the unreasonable expectations of those who, while they make loud complaints of the diplomacy of England, as less commanding than heretofore, unconsciously specify the very causes which necessarily diminish and counteract its efficacy.

There are, however, other considerations to which I beg leave to turn the attention of the House.

It is perfectly true, as has been argued by more than one honourable member in this debate, that there is a contest going on in the world, between the spirit of unlimited monarchy, and the spirit of unlimited democracy.  Between these two spirits, it may be said that strife is either openly in action or covertly at work, throughout the greater portion of Europe.  It is true, as has also been argued, that in no former period in history is there so close a resemblance to the present, as in that of the Reformation.  So far my honourable and learned friend (Sir J. Mackintosh) and the honourable baronet (Sir F. Burdett) were justified in holding up Queen Elizabeth’s reign as an example for our study.  The honourable member for Westminster, too, has observed that, in imitation of Queen Elizabeth’s policy, the proper place for this country, in the present state of the world, is at the head of free nations struggling against arbitrary power.  Sir, undoubtedly there is, as I have admitted, a general resemblance between the two periods; forasmuch as in both we see a conflict of opinions, and in both a bond of union growing out of those opinions, which establishes, between parts and classes of different nations, a stricter communion than belongs to community of country.  It is true—­it is, I own I think, a formidable truth—­that in this respect the two periods do resemble each other.  But though there is this general similarity, there is one circumstance which mainly distinguishes the present time from the reign of Elizabeth; and which, though by no means unimportant in itself, has been overlooked by all those to whose arguments I am now referring.  Elizabeth was herself amongst the revolters against the authority of the Church of Rome; but we are not amongst those who are engaged in a struggle against the spirit of unlimited monarchy.  We have fought that fight.  We have taken our station.  We have long ago assumed a character differing altogether from that of those around us.  It may have been the duty and the interest of Queen Elizabeth to make common cause with—­to put