With much more force, at least with much more plausibility, the
noble Lord and several other members on the other side of the
House have argued against the proposed Reform on the ground that
the existing system has worked well. How great a country, they
say, is ours! How eminent in wealth and knowledge, in arts and
arms! How much admired! How much envied! Is it possible to
believe that we have become what we are under a bad government!
And, if we have a good government, why alter it? Now, Sir, I am
very far from denying that England is great, and prosperous, and
highly civilised. I am equally far from denying that she owes
much of her greatness, of her prosperity, and of her civilisation
to her form of government. But is no nation ever to reform its
institutions because it has made great progress under those
institutions? Why, Sir, the progress is the very thing which
makes the reform absolutely necessary. The Czar Peter, we all
know, did much for Russia. But for his rude genius and energy,
that country might have still been utterly barbarous. Yet would
it be reasonable to say that the Russian people ought always, to
the end of time, to be despotically governed, because the Czar
Peter was a despot? Let us remember that the government and the
society act and react on each other. Sometimes the government is
in advance of the society, and hurries the society forward. So
urged, the society gains on the government, comes up with the
government, outstrips the government, and begins to insist that
the government shall make more speed. If the government is wise,
it will yield to that just and natural demand. The great cause
of revolutions is this, that while nations move onward,
constitutions stand still. The peculiar happiness of England is
that here, through many generations, the constitution has moved