have a great stake in the prosperity and tranquillity of the
country. Look at the metropolitan districts. This is an a
fortiori case. Nay it is--the expression, I fear, is awkward--an
a fortiori case at two removes. The ten pound householders of
the metropolis are persons in a lower station of life than the
ten pound householders of other towns. The scot and lot
franchise in the metropolis is again lower than the ten pound
franchise. Yet have Westminster and Southwark been in the habit
of sending us members of whom we have had reason to be ashamed,
of whom we have not had reason to be proud? I do not say that
the inhabitants of Westminster and Southwark have always
expressed their political sentiments with proper moderation.
That is not the question. The question is this: what kind of
men have they elected? The very principle of all Representative
government is, that men who do not judge well of public affairs
may be quite competent to choose others who will judge better.
Whom, then, have Westminster and Southwark sent us during the
last fifty years, years full of great events, years of intense
popular excitement? Take any one of those nomination boroughs,
the patrons of which have conscientiously endeavoured to send fit
men into this House. Compare the Members for that borough with
the Members for Westminster and Southwark; and you will have no
doubt to which the preference is due. It is needless to mention
Mr Fox, Mr Sheridan, Mr Tierney, Sir Samuel Romilly. Yet I must
pause at the name of Sir Samuel Romilly. Was he a mob orator?
Was he a servile flatterer of the multitude? Sir, if he had any
fault, if there was any blemish on that most serene and spotless
character, that character which every public man, and especially
every professional man engaged in politics, ought to propose to
himself as a model, it was this, that he despised popularity too