circumstances which tend to guide the choice of constituencies in the election of their representatives, and to induce them to give a preference to fit over unfit candidates.

In the first place, no person who has not received a fair education can, in the ordinary state of things, present himself as a candidate for the representation of a large popular body. The necessity of addressing the people, and of expounding his opinions orally, excludes any person who is unable, from defect of education or intelligence, to make such a statement as is suited to a tolerably critical audience. In the next place, the members of a legislative assembly, particularly of the more important ones, must make such sacrifices of time and money, as are scarcely compatible with the means of those who do not belong to the educated classes of society. Besides which, there is a disposition prevalent throughout a constituency, to select as their representatives persons who, from their social station, are distinguished from the mass, and are, on that account, better known and more conspicuous than persons of a humbler position in society.*

qui a assez de capacité pour se faire rendre compte de la gestion des autres, n'est pas propre à gérer par lui-même."-MONTESQUIEU, Esprit des Lois, 1. II. ch. 2. The broad distinction is correctly taken in this passage; but the facility of a choice of fit persons for a public trust is stated too strongly. See also a similar passage in 1. XI. ch. 6: "Il y avait un grand vice, &c.," where the superiority of the representative principle over the direct voting in the ancient republics is pointed out.

* “There is an unconquerable, and to a certain extent (in the present state of society at least) a beneficial proneness in man, to rely on the judgment and authority of those who are elevated above himself in rank and riches. From the irresistible associations of the human mind, a feeling of respect and deference is entertained

These safeguards for the discreet exercise of the power of selection by a popular constituency, may be expected to produce an assembly containing an amount of intelligence and wisdom beyond the average of the educated classes, in the country over which it presides. Besides, the variety of experience and information, which no one person can possess, is in some degree supplied by the presence in the assembly of members belonging to different professions and pursuits, and familiar with dif ferent branches of knowledge. In this manner, attention to each separate subject is insured, and some immediate professional advice. But it is to be borne in mind, that there is no security that the professional persons who become members of the assembly will be the most eminent in their respective professions; and, after all, it will probably be necessary to consult professional men not members of the assembly. It may, moreover, happen, that a professional man of unsound judgment in an assembly, (particularly if he has a power of persuasive address,) may lead it to an erroneous decision, by in

for a superior in station, which enhances and exalts all his good qualities, gives more grace to his movements, more force to his expressions, more beauty to his thoughts, more wisdom to his opinions, more weight to his judgment, more excellence to his virtues. . . . . Hence the elevated men of society will always maintain an ascendancy, which, without any direct exertion of influence, will affect the result of popular elections; and when to this are added, the capabilities which they possess, or ought to possess, from their superior intelligence, of impressing their own opinions on other classes, it will be seen that, if any sort of despotic control were justifiable, it would be superfluous for any good purpose."BAYLEY'S Rationale of Represent. Government, p. 269-70. It should not, however, be overlooked, that the feeling of deference to superior social rank (described in the above extract) is liable to be counteracted by a variety of political influences.

し

ducing it to reject the advice of more competent judges, who, not being members of the assembly, cannot attend it in order to support their own views.

§ 16. The objections to decision by a mere numerical majority, without reference to the competency or qualifications of the voter, have naturally presented themselves to politicians, both speculative and practical; and various contrivances have been devised to modify and mitigate its operation, retaining, however, the corporate principle. One of these is the method of voting by composite units. Thus, when the Roman people were in Comitia Tributa, the votes of each tribe, which consisted of several thousand citizens, were taken separately, and the decision of the tribe was thus formed.

The votes of

the several tribes, considered as units, were then taken, and the ultimate decision depended on the majority of the tribes. Now, if some of the tribes were considerably smaller than others, and if the members of a particular order or section of the people were predominant in the small tribes, they would have a greater legal influence on the decision than the citizens included in the larger tribes. The influence of the Italians, when admitted to Roman citizenship by the Julian law, was at first neutralized by this contrivance.

In the constitution of Servius, a similar result had been produced by the distribution of the people into centuries: the centuries of the rich contained fewer persons than the centuries of the poor; but the vote of each century (determined by a majority within its own body) reckoned as one. By this contrivance it was provided, (according to Cicero's expression), "Ne plurimum

* On this mode of voting, see Bodinus, De Rep. II. 7, p. 360.

valeant plurimi."* The absolute numerical majority of the people did not prevail in counting the votes.

A system of voting, founded upon the same principle, was adopted in some of the councils of the church. Inasmuch as the bishops from distant provinces did not attend a council in so large a number as those who came from the neighbouring provinces, a rule was established that the vote should be taken by nations-that is to say, the bishops of each nation first decided the vote of the nation by a majority of voices; and then the general decision was made by a majority of nations. This mode of voting was observed at the councils of Constance and Basle.†

The votes of independent nations in a federal council have generally been regulated in the same manner. Each nation has been taken as a unit, and has exercised one vote, whatever might be its power and importance as compared with others. In the Amphictyonic League, for example, the confederate States were all on an equality, so that Sparta and Athens had not more votes than the smallest town which was a member of the league.

In the American confederation of 1781, each State was to be represented in Congress by not less than two nor more than seven members, but to have only one vote. But in the constitution which was ultimately

* De Rep. II. 22. Compare Livy, I. 43: "Non viritim suffragium eadem vi eodemque jure promiscue omnibus datum est; sed gradus facti, ut neque exclusus quisquam suffragio videretur, et vis omnis penes primores civitatis esset."

し

adopted, a compromise between the national and federal principles was introduced. The members of the House of Representatives were determined by the population of each State; but each State, whatever its size, returned two members to the senate. A similar principle has been established in the Pacte Federal of the Swiss Cantons, as recently remodelled.

The structure of the English House of Commons, and of other representative chambers, is partly arranged upon an analogous principle, in so far as each member is considered as exclusively representing his own constituents. For in apportioning the members to the several constituencies, a preference is given to certain classes of the people, or to certain parts of the country. § 17. Another contrivance for obviating the evils of a simple enumeration of the voters is the giving a plurality of votes to certain members of the body. This mode of voting was sometimes employed in the ancient Greek republics; and it is called by Aristotle the timocratic principle-that is, the government according to the riunua, or assessment of property. Sometimes

likewise, a federation of independent States was formed upon this principle. Thus, in a league between the city of Cibyra and three neighbouring towns, it was arranged

* See Eth. Nic. VIII. 12. Hermann, Pol. Ant. § 59. n. 8. Aristotle says that the democratic principle was, that the majority of all the citizens should decide; the oligarchical principle, that the citizens having the largest valuation should decide. He proceeds to illustrate his meaning, as to the latter principle, thus:-There are ten rich and twenty poor; six of the rich and five of the poor vote on one side; four of the rich and fifteen of the poor on the other; then, if the valuations of each are added on both sides, that side is to prevail whose aggregate valuation is highest.— (Pol. VI. 3.)