the University of Oxford, are virtually, though not directly,
represented. Are not the wishes of Manchester, he asks, as much
consulted as those of any town which sends Members to Parliament?
Now, Sir, I do not understand how a power which is salutary when
exercised virtually can be noxious when exercised directly. If
the wishes of Manchester have as much weight with us as they
would have under a system which should give Representatives to
Manchester, how can there be any danger in giving Representatives
to Manchester? A virtual Representative is, I presume, a man who
acts as a direct Representative would act: for surely it would
be absurd to say that a man virtually represents the people of
Manchester, who is in the habit of saying No, when a man directly
representing the people of Manchester would say Aye. The utmost
that can be expected from virtual Representation is that it may
be as good as direct Representation. If so, why not grant direct
Representation to places which, as everybody allows, ought, by
some process or other, to be represented?

If it be said that there is an evil in change as change, I answer
that there is also an evil in discontent as discontent. This,
indeed, is the strongest part of our case. It is said that the
system works well. I deny it. I deny that a system works well,
which the people regard with aversion. We may say here, that it
is a good system and a perfect system. But if any man were to
say so to any six hundred and fifty-eight respectable farmers or
shopkeepers, chosen by lot in any part of England, he would be
hooted down, and laughed to scorn. Are these the feelings with
which any part of the government ought to be regarded? Above
all, are these the feelings with which the popular branch of the
legislature ought to be regarded? It is almost as essential to