of two heroic men, Henry IV. of France and the Prince of Orange, are conspicuous illustrations of this truth.  In expressing our unaffected and profound sympathy with the citizens of the United States on this untimely end of their elected chief, let us not, therefore, sanction any feeling of depression, but rather let us express a fervent hope that from out of the awful trials of the last four years, of which the least is not this violent demise, the various populations of North America may issue elevated and chastened, rich with the accumulated wisdom and strong in the disciplined energy which a young nation can only acquire in a protracted and perilous struggle.  Then they will be enabled not merely to renew their career of power and prosperity, but they will renew it to contribute to the general happiness of mankind.  It is with these feelings that I second the address to the crown.

AGAINST DEMOCRACY FOR ENGLAND (Delivered in 1865)

Sir, I could have wished, and once I almost believed, that it was not necessary for me to take part in this debate.  I look on this discussion as the natural epilogue of the Parliament of 1859; we remember the prologue.  I consider this to be a controversy between the educated section of the Liberal party and that section of the Liberal party, according to their companions and colleagues, not entitled to an epithet so euphuistic and complimentary.  But after the speech of the minister, I hardly think it would become me, representing the opinions of the gentlemen with whom I am acting on this side of the house, entirely to be silent.  We have a measure before us to-night which is to increase the franchise in boroughs.  Without reference to any other circumstances I object to that measure.  I object to it because an increase of the franchise in boroughs is a proposal to redistribute political power in the country.  I do not think political power in the country ought to be treated partially; from the very nature of things it is impossible, if there is to be a redistribution of political power, that you can only regard the suffrage as it affects one section of the constituent body.  Whatever the proposition of the honorable gentleman, whether abstractedly it may be expedient or not, this is quite clear, that it must be considered not only in relation to the particular persons with whom it will deal, but to other persons with whom it does not deal, though it would affect them.  And therefore it has always been quite clear that if you deal with the subject popularly called Parliamentary Reform, you must deal with it comprehensively.  The arrangements you may make with reference to one part of the community may not be objectionable in themselves, but may be extremely objectionable if you consider them with reference to other parts.  Consequently it has been held—­and the more we consider the subject the more true and just appears to be the conclusion—­that if you deal with the matter you must deal with it comprehensively.