a parson.' This happened to be true, and flabbergasted me,
but he happily turned it by reminding them, that they were going to
vote for Mr. Harcourt, son of the greatest parson in England but
one (Archbishop of York). Afterwards they left me, and I pursued my
work alone, conversed with a great number, shook hands with a fair
proportion, made some laugh, and once very nearly got hustled when
alone, but happily escaped. You would be beyond measure astonished
how unanimous and how _strong_ is the feeling among the freeholders
(who may be taken as a fair specimen of the generality of all
counties) _against_ the catholic question. Reformers and
anti-reformers were alike sensitive on that point and perfectly
agreed. One man said to me, 'What, vote for Lord Norreys? Why, he
voted against the country _both_ times, _for_ the Catholic bill and
then against the Reform.' What would this atrocious ministry have
said had the appeal to the voice of the people, which they now
quote as their authority, been made in 1829? I held forth to a
working man, possibly a forty-shilling freeholder, [he adds in a
fragment of later years,] on the established text, reform was
revolution. To corroborate my doctrine I said, 'Why, look at the
revolutions in foreign countries,' meaning of course France and
Belgium. The man looked hard at me and said these very words, 'Damn
all foreign countries, what has old England to do with foreign
countries?' This is not the only time that I have received an
important lesson from a humble source.

SPEECH AT THE UNION

A more important scene which his own future eminence made in a sense
historic, was a debate at the Union upon Reform in the same month, where
his contribution (May 17th) struck all his hearers with amazement, so
brilliant, so powerful, so incomparably splendid did it seem to their
young eyes. His description of it to his brother (May 20th, 1831) is
modest enough:--

I should really have been glad if your health had been such as to
have permitted your visiting Oxford last week, so that you might
have heard our debate, for certainly there had never been anything
like it known here before and will scarcely be again. The
discussion on the question that the ministers were incompetent to
carry on the government of the country was of a mi