which our Representative system is defended. Corruption vouches
corruption. Every abuse is made the plea for another abuse. We
must have nomination at Gatton because we have profusion at
Liverpool. Sir, these arguments convince me, not that no Reform
is required, but that a very deep and searching Reform is
required. If two evils serve in some respects to counterbalance
each other, this is a reason, not for keeping both, but for
getting rid of both together. At present you close against men
of talents that broad, that noble entrance which belongs to them,
and which ought to stand wide open to them; and in exchange you
open to them a bye entrance, low and narrow, always obscure,
often filthy, through which, too often, they can pass only by
crawling on their hands and knees, and from which they too often
emerge sullied with stains never to be washed away. But take the
most favourable case. Suppose that the member who sits for a
nomination borough owes his seat to a man of virtue and honour,
to a man whose service is perfect freedom, to a man who would
think himself degraded by any proof of gratitude which might
degrade his nominee. Yet is it nothing that such a member comes
into this House wearing the badge, though not feeling the chain
of servitude? Is it nothing that he cannot speak of his
independence without exciting a smile? Is it nothing that he is
considered, not as a Representative, but as an adventurer? This
is what your system does for men of genius. It admits them to
political power, not as, under better institutions, they would be
admitted to power, erect, independent, unsullied; but by means
which corrupt the virtue of many, and in some degree diminish the
authority of all. Could any system be devised, better fitted to
pervert the principles and break the spirit of men formed to be
the glory of their country? And, can we mention no instance in