proceedings will be quite in place in the Reformed Parliament,
but that we ought to remember that the House of Commons is still
an assembly of gentlemen. This, I say, is to set up mere theory,
or rather mere prejudice, in opposition to long and ample
experience. Are the gentlemen who talk thus ignorant that we
have already the means of judging what kind of men the ten pound
householders will send up to parliament? Are they ignorant that
there are even now large towns with very popular franchises, with
franchises even more democratic than those which will be bestowed
by the present bill? Ought they not, on their own principles, to
look at the results of the experiments which have already been
made, instead of predicting frightful calamities at random? How
do the facts which are before us agree with their theories?
Nottingham is a city with a franchise even more democratic than
that which this bill establishes. Does Nottingham send hither
mere vulgar demagogues? It returns two distinguished men, one an
advocate, the other a soldier, both unconnected with the town.
Every man paying scot and lot has a vote at Leicester. This is a
lower franchise than the ten pound franchise. Do we find that
the Members for Leicester are the mere tools of the journeymen?
I was at Leicester during the contest of 1826; and I recollect
that the suffrages of the scot and lot voters were pretty equally
divided between two candidates, neither of them connected with
the place, neither of them a slave of the mob, one a Tory Baronet
from Derbyshire, the other a most respectable and excellent
friend of mine, connected with the manufacturing interest, and
also an inhabitant of Derbyshire. Look at Norwich. Look at
Northampton, with a franchise more democratic than even the scot
and lot franchise. Northampton formerly returned Mr Perceval,
and now returns gentlemen of high respectability, gentlemen who