“What would our ancestors say to this, Sir?  How does this measure tally with their institutions?  How does it agree with their experience?  Are we to put the wisdom of yesterday in competition with the wisdom of centuries? (Hear! hear!) Is beardless youth to show no respect for the decisions of mature age? (Loud cries of hear! hear!) If this measure be right, would it have escaped the wisdom of those Saxon progenitors to whom we are indebted for so many of our best political institutions?  Would the Dane have passed it over?  Would the Norman have rejected it?  Would such a notable discovery have been reserved for these modern and degenerate times?  Besides, Sir, if the measure itself is good, I ask the Honourable Gentleman if this is the time for carrying it into execution—­whether, in fact, a more unfortunate period could have been selected than that which he has chosen?  If this were an ordinary measure, I should not oppose it with so much vehemence; but, Sir, it calls in question the wisdom of an irrevocable law—­of a law passed at the memorable period of the Revolution.  What right have we, Sir, to break down this firm column on which the great men of that age stamped a character of eternity?  Are not all authorities against this measure—­Pitt, Fox, Cicero, and the Attorney and Solicitor-General?  The proposition is new, Sir; it is the first time it was ever heard in this House.  I am not prepared, Sir—­this House is not prepared, to receive it.  The measure implies a distrust of his Majesty’s Government; their disapproval is sufficient to warrant opposition.  Precaution only is requisite where danger is apprehended.  Here the high character of the individuals in question is a sufficient guarantee against any ground of alarm.  Give not, then, your sanction to this measure; for, whatever be its character, if you do give your sanction to it, the same man by whom this is proposed, will propose to you others to which it will be impossible to give your consent.  I care very little, Sir, for the ostensible measure; but what is there behind?  What are the Honourable Gentleman’s future schemes?  If we pass this bill, what fresh concessions may he not require?  What further degradation is he planning for his country?  Talk of evil and inconvenience, Sir! look to other countries—­study other aggregations and societies of men, and then see whether the laws of this country demand a remedy or deserve a panegyric.  Was the Honourable Gentleman (let me ask him) always of this way of thinking?  Do I not remember when he was the advocate in this House of very opposite opinions?  I not only quarrel with his present sentiments, Sir, but I declare very frankly I do not like the party with which he acts.  If his own motives were as pure as possible, they cannot but suffer contamination from those with whom he is politically associated.  This measure may be a boon to the constitution, but I will accept no favour to the constitution from such hands. (Loud