necessarily follow from this that the more important question- the only question, indeed, applicable to the late measure - whether a uniform system of free-trade could be established in this country, shackled as we are by an enormous national debt- and the negative of which many will hold to be as certain as the positive of the other should be so decided. Indeed, one of these questions would in many instances be discussed, and be determined without or independent of the other, and but a very small and insignificant minority would view them both together, which is nevertheless the only satisfactory and correct mode of dealing with the subject. Ought, then, the voice of the majority, who may not have considered this or any other measure in its true light, to bind the opinion of the minority, who have so discussed it? If not, what becomes of the principle that the voice of the multitude ought to be the predominant authority in the State?

It is just possible, indeed, that if the question was to be submitted to the whole body of the nation whether the funded property of the country, and that of the Church, should at once be confiscated, and applied in the discharge of the national debt, or distributed among the populace, a decisive majority of the people, on the nation being polled out, might at some period be found to

vote in the affirmative; and, according to the

2

modern theory of representation, the question would be fairly settled by recourse to this mode.

I hold mobs, with every respect for them, to be remarkably bad tutors as to the first principles of government, though often very useful instructors as to their practical operation. But I am also persuaded that, whatever even Plato may have urged to the contrary, speculative philosophers would make nearly as bad rulers of the State as the august mobility itself. The former would be as deficient in practical knowledge, as the latter would be ignorant of the principles of government.

Nevertheless, I have the greatest respect, nay even regard, for mobs, especially for British mobs. I admire them for their genuine honesty of purpose, and for the hearty resolution with which they support their views. Possibly, they may occasionally be deficient in refined taste; and they are often wanting in courtesy towards those from whom they differ. But this militates nothing against their constitutional value. The great defect in them is their extreme gullibility. They are ever apt to be the dupes of designing agitators; and their very honesty disarms them of suspicion towards others.

But, although I would trust a mob never to elect a statesman who was known to be corrupt, or

who was an avowed supporter of proved abuses, I dare not intrust it with nice matters of legislation. Many an honest cobbler who is an adept in all that appertains to his last, would make a bungling business of mending a watch. So is it with the mob, which is valuable only as an integral part of the State. As such, however, it ought always to be kept in its own proper sphere. A mob is no more fitted to rule the nation (as many of its leaders desire that it should do, or rather that they should do so for it and under its supposed guidance) than a railway porter, though most useful in his way, and very valuable as a portion of the establishment, is qualified to manage the steam-engine which draws the train.

Nor does it by any means necessarily follow that any particular body of the people should be entitled to have in their hands the representative influence, although they may be not only numerous, but also intelligent and industrious. The thieves and pickpockets of London are a very numerous, a most intelligent, and a particularly industrious body of men. No formal complaint, however, has as yet been made to Parliament that they are not adequately represented there. And it is due to them to state that there is no doubt that, if they were so represented, great ameliorations in our criminal code might through their aid be effected.

The principle that numbers and not interests form the only true element of representation, has been applied to the reform of corporations as well as of the House of Commons, and, as might have been expected, with a corresponding degree of success. Interests of various kinds, principally those of property and commerce, were, in what we must conclude to be a very dark period of our history, entrusted to the management of persons only of a certain class. Until recently a vulgar prejudice had infused itself into the national mind that people of education and property were the most fit to administer trusts of a difficult nature where property was concerned. This unfounded and insidious delusion was happily expelled by the Municipal Reform Act, which conferred on numbers, and in many cases on ignorance and indigence, the care of interests which had been usurped by those who had most at stake, and who were of superior intelligence.

The error in this case, doubtless a very grievous one, was not in allowing the people at large to have a voice and a vote in the affairs of, and a proper degree of control over, municipal corporations, to which they were clearly and absolutely constitutionally entitled; but in taking the legislative and judicial functions out of the hands of those who by property and education were most fitted to

discharge them satisfactorily, and conferring them on those who were deficient in these very essential qualifications.

Taxation is also, surely, a very unfair and very unsatisfactory criterion to resort to in the regulation of the general principle of representation, or of electoral suffrage. Taxation is, happily, but a very small part of the duty of a legislator; and even if it was more important, the principle as determined by this is most unjust. The rule is, in fact, adopted, if the truth may be told, not so much for the purpose of enfranchising any, as for the purpose of excluding certain persons from the franchise; while no additional enfranchisement is conferred upon those who pay the most by way of taxes. The people are surely as much interested in the making of laws which they have to obey, and ought consequently to have a voice in the enactment of, as they are in the precise mode of levying taxes, which, unfortunately, must be raised by some device or other, whoever and whatever our representatives may chance to be.

If, however, it could be proved that those only who pay taxes are of right entitled to a share in the suffrage, I would humbly ask who in this happy country are wholly exempt from taxation? Does not every individual in the State, from the highest