eral, but was still a member of the
same Bar. If this was not a premium given to that gentleman to continue
his course of disturbing the country, I do not know what else could be
so considered. I feel that no more effectual mode could be found to
encourage agitation than to reward the promoter of it. But it is not
alone in this respect that his Majesty's Government has encouraged
agitation. What was the meaning, I ask, of the friends of government
taking the course they have taken out of doors, with reference to the
Reform Bill? What was the meaning of the letter of the noble Lord in
another house, addressed to the Political Union of Birmingham, in which
that noble Lord designated the sentiments of noble Peers on this side of
the House as the "whisper of a faction?"--What was the meaning of two
friends of government collecting a mob in Hyde Park, and the Regent's
Park, on one of the days on which the House of Lords was discussing the
Reform Bill? What was the meaning of those individuals directing the
line of march of the assembled multitude upon St. James's, and
publishing their orders in the papers devoted to government? And what
was the meaning of the publications in the government newspapers,
libelling and maligning all those who opposed the Bill? What was the
meaning of all these deeds being allowed by government, and why did they
tolerate and abet them, unless they calculated upon some advantages to
themselves in encouraging such agitation? I don't accuse the noble Earl
of instigating those mobs--I do not mean to say, that he was delighted
at seeing my house assailed, or any other work of destruction
committed; but I say some of his colleagues, and some of the friends of
government, have encouraged and incited the people to works of violence.
I must say, I have long felt on this subject very strongly. I feel that
the country is in a most dangerous state. I find the country is in a
most dangerous state, on account of government not taking the proper
measures to put a stop to confusion and agitation; and on the contrary,
in place of putting a stop to such scenes, allowing some Lords of his
Majesty's household, to encourage and instigate the people to lawless
acts.

_February 27th, 1832._

[Earl Grey had risen and denied that the Government had encouraged
agitation upon which the Duke made the previous short but energetic
speech.]

* * * * *

_Mr. O'Connell ought not to have had a