to believe that it is the only power by which we can sweep away _those sectional privileges and interests that impede the intelligence and industry of the community_, ... and yet the only way ... to terminate what, in the language of the present day, is called class legislation, _is not to entrust power to classes_. You would find a ‘locofoco’[69] majority as much addicted to class legislation as a factitious aristocracy.... In a word, _true wisdom lies in a policy that would effect its ends by the influence of opinion, and yet by the means of existing forms_.” And the other-- “Mr. Rigby began by ascribing everything to the Reform Bill, and then referred to several of his own speeches on Schedule A. Then he told Coningsby that want of ‘religious faith’ was solely occasioned by want of churches, and want of loyalty by George IV. having shut up himself too much at the cottage in Windsor Park, entirely against the advice of Mr. Rigby. He assured Coningsby that the Church Commission was operating wonders.... The great question now was their architecture. Had George IV. lived, all would have been right. They would have been built on the model of the Buddhist pagoda. As for loyalty, if the present king went regularly to Ascot races, he had no doubt all would go right. Finally, Mr. Rigby impressed on Coningsby to read the _Quarterly Review_ with great attention, and to make himself master of Mr. Wordy’s “History of the Late War,” in twenty volumes--a capital work which proves that Providence was on the side of the Tories.’...” As regards the principles and conduct of the Reform Ministers themselves, years before he entered Parliament, in that brilliant series of speeches on the hustings of High Wycombe and Taunton, which preluded so many of his ideas, he denounced the incompleteness of the measure and the inadequacy of the men. In 1832 he said-- “... If, instead of filling the humble position of a private individual, I held a post near the person of my King, I should have said to my sovereign, ‘Oppose all change, or allow that change which will be full, satisfactory, and final.’ In the change produced by the professing party now in power, there are omissions of immense importance. These points they promised; these points they have not given you; and now, after all their protestations, they turn round and ask how the people can have the audacity to demand them.”[70]