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