Misc Writings and Speeches, vol 4 | Page 8

great defects of our system, I would conduct him
through that immense city which lies to the north of Great Russell
Street and Oxford Street, a city superior in size and in population to the
capitals of many mighty kingdoms; and probably superior in opulence,
intelligence, and general respectability, to any city in the world. I
would conduct him through that interminable succession of streets and
squares, all consisting of well built and well furnished houses. I would
make him observe the brilliancy of the shops, and the crowd of
well-appointed equipages. I would show him that magnificent circle of
palaces which surrounds the Regent's Park. I would tell him that the
rental of this district was far greater than that of the whole kingdom of
Scotland, at the time of the Union. And then I would tell him that this
was an unrepresented district. It is needless to give any more instances.
It is needless to speak of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield,
with no representation, or of Edinburgh and Glasgow with a mock
representation. If a property tax were now imposed on the principle that
no person who had less than a hundred and fifty pounds a year should
contribute, I should not be surprised to find that one half in number and
value of the contributors had no votes at all; and it would, beyond all
doubt, be found that one fiftieth part in number and value of the
contributors had a larger share of the representation than the other
forty-nine fiftieths. This is not government by property. It is
government by certain detached portions and fragments of property,

selected from the rest, and preferred to the rest, on no rational principle
whatever.
To say that such a system is ancient, is no defence. My honourable
friend, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir Robert Harry
Inglis.), challenges us to show that the Constitution was ever better
than it is. Sir, we are legislators, not antiquaries. The question for us is,
not whether the Constitution was better formerly, but whether we can
make it better now. In fact, however, the system was not in ancient
times by any means so absurd as it is in our age. One noble Lord (Lord
Stormont.) has to-night told us that the town of Aldborough, which he
represents, was not larger in the time of Edward the First than it is at
present. The line of its walls, he assures us, may still be traced. It is
now built up to that line. He argues, therefore, that as the founders of
our representative institutions gave members to Aldborough when it
was as small as it now is, those who would disfranchise it on account of
its smallness have no right to say that they are recurring to the original
principle of our representative institutions. But does the noble Lord
remember the change which has taken place in the country during the
last five centuries? Does he remember how much England has grown in
population, while Aldborough has been standing still? Does he consider,
that in the time of Edward the First, the kingdom did not contain two
millions of inhabitants? It now contains nearly fourteen millions. A
hamlet of the present day would have been a town of some importance
in the time of our early Parliaments. Aldborough may be absolutely as
considerable a place as ever. But compared with the kingdom, it is
much less considerable, by the noble Lord's own showing, than when it
first elected burgesses. My honourable friend, the Member for the
University of Oxford, has collected numerous instances of the tyranny
which the kings and nobles anciently exercised, both over this House
and over the electors. It is not strange that, in times when nothing was
held sacred, the rights of the people, and of the representatives of the
people, should not have been held sacred. The proceedings which my
honourable friend has mentioned, no more prove that, by the ancient
constitution of the realm, this House ought to be a tool of the king and
of the aristocracy, than the Benevolences and the Shipmoney prove
their own legality, or than those unjustifiable arrests which took place
long after the ratification of the great Charter and even after the Petition

of Right, prove that the subject was not anciently entitled to his
personal liberty. We talk of the wisdom of our ancestors: and in one
respect at least they were wiser than we. They legislated for their own
times. They looked at the England which was before them. They did
not think it necessary to give twice as many Members to York as they
gave to London, because York had been the capital of Britain in the
time of Constantius Chlorus; and they would have been amazed indeed