1818 Dec. 30

Parl. Reform Bill

Dialogue

Excluded

II. Peers

III. Churchmen

5

5

Anti-Reformist. Well but, Lord /Peer/: I will not give you any trouble about the

King, /the Grand Signor[?]/ the Emperors of China […?] Austria or Russia, the Emperor

of Japan, civil or ecclesiastical, the Grand Signor[?], the Pope, or an English or

Irish Bishop. But a Peer – what say you to a Peer

Reformist. He may sit for one and unwelcome[?], if a set of Electors can be found to

choose him. Be assured, by any virtually-universal suffrage men, voting secretly and

therefore freely not so much as one would ever be chosen, who to the full conviction

/assurance of the majority was not a friend to their cause. And then to repeat a

former observation, in that House if there were fifty Peers all of them sworn enemies

to that cause, what mischief could they do with twelve times the number of commoners

to prevent it?

Anti-Reformist. And a Clergyman?

Reformist. He is an Office-holder: call him Rector Vicar or Curate what you please.

For unless he be a Curate at least he can not be a Clergyman. This indeed by existing

law which may be abrogated at any time. But at any rate if not occupied in saving

souls in one way, he is in another: and that is quite employment enough for any man’s

time.

Anti-Reformist. But a Clergyman of a Non-Established Church?

Reformist. He is, to this purpose at least, no Clergyman at all. Be his situation in

that way what it may he will not be recognised as being in it. If a man although a

Member of Parliament chooses to save souls, how can you hinder him? And why not

occupy himself in saving souls, or in doing what you can never hinder him from doing

– help destroying them at a gaming-table?