the King, and abolished the House of Peers. Therefore, if it
again has the supreme power, it will act in the same manner.
Now, Sir, it was not the House of Commons that cut off the head
of Charles the First; nor was the House of Commons then
allpowerful. It had been greatly reduced in numbers by
successive expulsions. It was under the absolute dominion of the
army. A majority of the House was willing to take the terms
offered by the King. The soldiers turned out the majority; and
the minority, not a sixth part of the whole House, passed those
votes of which my honourable friend speaks, votes of which the
middle classes disapproved then, and of which they disapprove
still.

My honourable friend, and almost all the gentlemen who have taken
the same side with him in this Debate, have dwelt much on the
utility of close and rotten boroughs. It is by means of such
boroughs, they tell us, that the ablest men have been introduced
into Parliament. It is true that many distinguished persons have
represented places of this description. But, Sir, we must judge
of a form of government by its general tendency, not by happy
accidents. Every form of government has its happy accidents.
Despotism has its happy accidents. Yet we are not disposed to
abolish all constitutional checks, to place an absolute master
over us, and to take our chance whether he may be a Caligula or a
Marcus Aurelius. In whatever way the House of Commons may be
chosen, some able men will be chosen in that way who would not be
chosen in any other way. If there were a law that the hundred
tallest men in England should be Members of Parliament, there
would probably be some able men among those who would come into
the House by virtue of this law. If the hundred persons whose