flower symbolic of the Stuart dynasty. Sir Robert
Inglis was a man of education, of intelligence, and of high principle.
His sincerity was unquestioned, and his opinion would probably be well
worth having on any question which was not concerned with the
antagonism between Whig and Tory. Sir Robert argued boldly in his
speech that the principle of representation had never been recognized
by the Constitution as the Parliamentary system of England. He
insisted that the sovereign had a perfect right to choose any
representative he pleased from any constituency which it suited him to
create. The King could delegate to any nobleman or gentleman his right
of nominating a representative. Sir Robert scouted the idea that a
large, prosperous, and populous town had any better claim to be
represented in the House of Commons than the smallest village in the
country. It was all a matter for the sovereign, and if the sovereign
thought fit he had as good a right to invite any one he {145} pleased
to represent an unpeopled plain as to represent Manchester, Leeds, or
Sheffield. He denounced Russell's proposal to disfranchise the small
nomination boroughs, and he used an argument which was employed in the
same debate and by much wiser men than he in defence of the pocket
boroughs and the whole system of nomination. Some of the most
brilliant, gifted members of the House of Commons, he contended, had
been sent into that House by the patrons and owners of such boroughs,
and otherwise never could have got into Parliament at all, for they
could not have borne the enormous expense of a county contest.

We have heard that argument over and over again in days much more
recent. It would, of course, have been hard to dispose of it
completely if it could be shown that there was no possible way by which
the expenses of elections could be reduced to a reasonable amount; if
it could be shown that there was any human system so bad as to have no
compensating advantages whatever; and finally if it could be shown that
with the spread of education and the growth of popular intelligence a
man of great and commanding ability without money would not have a much
better chance of election at the hands of a large constituency than by
the mere favor of some discerning patron. Sir Robert Inglis also used
an argument which is even still not unfamiliar in political debate,
whether inside or outside Parliament. He contended not merely that the
English pop