The great object of most of these reformers is, to prepare the destruction of the Constitution, by disgracing and discrediting the House of Commons.  For they think, (prudently, in my opinion,) that, if they can persuade the nation that the House of Commons is so constituted as not to secure the public liberty, not to have a proper connection with the public interests, so constituted as not either actually or virtually to be the representative of the people, it will be easy to prove that a government composed of a monarchy, an oligarchy chosen by the crown, and such a House of Commons, whatever good can be in such a system, can by no means be a system of free government.

The Constitution of England is never to have a quietus; it is to be continually vilified, attacked, reproached, resisted; instead of being the hope and sure anchor in all storms, instead of being the means of redress to all grievances, itself is the grand grievance of the nation, our shame instead of our glory.  If the only specific plan proposed, individual personal representation, is directly rejected by the person who is looked on as the great support of this business, then the only way of considering it is a question of convenience.  An honorable gentleman prefers the individual to the present.  He therefore himself sees no middle term whatsoever, and therefore prefers, of what he sees, the individual:  this is the only thing distinct and sensible that has been advocated.  He has, then, a scheme, which is the individual representation,—­he is not at a loss, not inconsistent,—­which scheme the other right honorable gentleman reprobates.  Now what does this go to, but to lead directly to anarchy?  For to discredit the only government which he either possesses or can project, what is this but to destroy all government? and this is anarchy.  My right honorable friend, in supporting this motion, disgraces his friends and justifies his enemies in order to blacken the Constitution of his country, even of that House of Commons which supported him.  There is a difference between a moral or political exposure of a public evil relative to the administration of government, whether in men or systems, and a declaration of defects, real or supposed, in the fundamental constitution of your country.  The first may be cured in the individual by the motives of religion, virtue, honor, fear, shame, or interest.  Men may be made to abandon also false systems, by exposing their absurdity or mischievous tendency to their own better thoughts, or to the contempt or indignation of the public; and after all, if they should exist, and exist uncorrected, they only disgrace individuals as fugitive opinions.  But it is quite otherwise with the frame and constitution of the state:  if that is disgraced, patriotism is destroyed in its very source.  No man has ever willingly obeyed, much less was desirous of defending with his blood, a mischievous and absurd scheme of government.  Our first, our dearest, most comprehensive relation, our country, is gone.