Rarer out rum in recent There have since been altercations of equal bitterness. The deepest wounds which sarcasm and invective rages of deco- could inflict, have been unsparingly dealt to polititimes. cal opponents. Combatants "have sharpened their tongues like a serpent; adder's poison is under their lips." But good taste and a stricter order in debate, have restrained the grosser outrages to decency. The weapons of debate have been as keen and trenchant as ever; but they have been wielded according to the laws of a more civilized warfare. The first years of the Reformed Parliament threatened the revival of scenes as violent and disorderly as any in the last century; but as the host of new members became disciplined by experience, and the fierce passions of that period subsided, the accustomed decorum of the House of Commons was restored. Increased au Indeed, as the Commons have advanced in power and freedom, they have shown greater self-restraint, thority of the and a more ready obedience to the authority of Chair. the Speaker. They have always been more or derly in their proceedings than the Lords; and the contrast which the scenes of the first twenty years of George III. present to those of later times, can scarcely fail to strike an attentive student of Parliamentary history. What would now be thought of such scenes as those enacted in the time of Sir John Cust, Sir Fletcher Norton, and Mr. Cornwall, of rebukes and interruptions,2- of unseemly altercations with the Chair, of the words of the Speaker himself being taken down, — and of a motion that 1 Mr. Sheil and Lord Althorp, 5th Feb. 1834.- Hansard's Deb., 3d Ser., xxi. 146. Mr. Rigby Wason and Lord Sandon, 12th March, 1834. - Ibid. xxii. 116. Mr. Romayne and Mr. O'Connell, 6th May, 1834. — Ibid. xxiii. 24. Mr. Hume and Mr. Charlton, 3d June, 1835.- Ibid. xxvii. 485. 22d ་ 1 Ibid. 879. they were disorderly and dangerous to the freedom of debate? 1 In concluding this sketch of Parliamentary oratory, a few words may be added concerning the general stand- General ard of debate in the House of Commons. If standard of debate. that standard be measured by the excellence of the best speakers at different periods, we have no cause to be ashamed of the age in which our living orators and statesmen have flourished. But judged by another test, this age has been exposed to disparaging criticisms. When few save the ablest men contended in debate, and the rank and file were content to cheer and vote, a certain elevation of thought and language was, perhaps, more generally sus tained. But, of late years, independent members, active, informed, and business-like, -representing large interests,more responsible to constituents, and less devoted to party chiefs, living in the public eye, and ambitious of distinc tion, have eagerly pressed forward, and claimed a hearing. Excellence in debate has suffered from the multiplied demands of public affairs. Yet in speeches without pretensions to oratory, are found strong common sense, practical knowledge, and an honesty of purpose that was wanting in the silent legions of former times. The debates mark the activity, and earnest spirit of a representative assembly. At all times there have been some speakers of a lower grade, - without instruction, taste, or elevation. Formerly their commonplace effusions were not reported: now they are freely read, and scornfully criticised. They are put to shame by the writers of the daily press, who discuss the same subjects with superior knowledge and ability Falling below the educated mind of the country, they brug discredit upon the House of Commons, while they impair its legislative efficiency. But worse evils than these have been overcome; and we may hope to see this abuse of free discussion eventually corrected, by a less tolerant endurance on the art of the House, and by public reprobation and contempt. 1 Feb. 16th, 1770; Parl. Hist. xvi. 807. INDEX TO VOL. I. ABERCORN, Earl of, his rights as Abercromby, Mr., his motion on A, Court, Colonel, deprived of com- BAKER, Mr., his motion against Geo. Baronetage, past and present num- against Lord Bute's influence, 40. Bishops, their number in the House, a Blandford, Marquess of, his schemes 66 Boyer, reports debates in parlia- Brand, Mr., his motion against the Bribery at elections, prior to parlia- Bribery of members of parliament. Brougham, Lord, his motion against Buckingham, Marquess of, refuses to Burdett, Sir F., his schemes of re- his remarks on pledges to on. Bute, county, absurd case of election Bute, Earl of, his unconstitutional CABINET, the, admission of a judge 126; III., 24. Calcraft, Mr., deprived of office for Canning, Mr., his conduct regarding Divorce Bil, 114; withdrawn, 115. the. Charles I., alienates the crown lands Charles II., crown revenues recov- |