of tranquillity. If, ten years ago, nay, if only two years ago,
there had been at the head of affairs men who understood the
signs of the times and the temper of the nation, we should not
have been forced to hurry now. If we cannot take our time, it is
because we have to make up for their lost time. If they had
reformed gradually, we might have reformed gradually; but we are
compelled to move fast, because they would not move at all.

Though I admit, Sir, that this bill is in its details superior to
the former bill, I must say that the best parts of this bill,
those parts for the sake of which principally I support it, those
parts for the sake of which I would support it, however imperfect
its details might be, are parts which it has in common with the
former bill. It destroys nomination; it admits the great body of
the middle orders to a share in the government; and it contains
provisions which will, as I conceive, greatly diminish the
expense of elections.

Touching the expense of elections I will say a few words, because
that part of the subject has not, I think, received so much
attention as it deserves. Whenever the nomination boroughs are
attacked, the opponents of Reform produce a long list of eminent
men who have sate for those boroughs, and who, they tell us,
would never have taken any part in public affairs but for those
boroughs. Now, Sir, I suppose no person will maintain that a
large constituent body is likely to prefer ignorant and incapable
men to men of information and ability? Whatever objections there
may be to democratic institutions, it was never, I believe,
doubted that those institutions are favourable to the development
of talents. We may prefer the constitution of Sparta to that of