be of tenfold force against any Reform Bill proposed by you. For
this bill is the work of men who are Reformers from conscientious
conviction, of men, some of whom were Reformers when Reformer was
a name of reproach, of men, all of whom were Reformers before the
nation had begun to demand Reform in imperative and menacing
tones. But you are notoriously Reformers merely from fear. You
are Reformers under duress. If a concession is to be made to the
public importunity, you can hardly deny that it will be made with
more grace and dignity by Lord Grey than by you.

Then you complain of the anomalies of the bill. One county, you
say, will have twelve members; and another county, which is
larger and more populous, will have only ten. Some towns, which
are to have only one member, are more considerable than other
towns which are to have two. Do those who make these objections,
objections which by the by will be more in place when the bill is
in committee, seriously mean to say that a Tory Reform Bill will
leave no anomalies in the representative system? For my own
part, I trouble myself not at all about anomalies, considered
merely as anomalies. I would not take the trouble of lifting up
my hand to get rid of an anomaly that was not also a grievance.
But if gentlemen have such a horror of anomalies, it is strange
that they should so long have persisted in upholding a system
made up of anomalies far greater than any that can be found in
this bill (a cry of "No!"). Yes; far greater. Answer me, if you
can; but do not interrupt me. On this point, indeed, it is much
easier to interrupt than to answer. For who can answer plain
arithmetical demonstration? Under the present system,
Manchester, with two hundred thousand inhabitants, has no
members. Old Sarum, with no inhabitants, has two members. Find