of government to the attainment of the public good, by rendering the men, to whom the powers are confided, responsible to the nation at large. For this end mendacity, or the very chance of it, is to be treated as the most detestable of all conceivable things. We understand this morality; and we understand the men who seek credit upon the strength of it.

Besides the class, of whom we have hitherto spoken, who think that only the farce of voting should exist, there is another class of our public men, who say, that they to whom the suffrage is given ostensibly, in England, exercise it substantially.

These men, of course, hold, that such a portion of the people as, in England, have the shew, should have the reality, of voting; otherwise they would belong to the class of whom we have already treated, and of whom it is not at present necessary to say any thing more.

It is implied in the supposed existence of such a class, that they believe the true, not the pretended, exercise of the power of choosing by the people who vote, to be necessary to good government.

The good arising from the freedom of suffrage being upon this supposition the greatest possible, the evil from corrupted suffrage, corrupted either by hope of reward or dread of punishment, the greatest possible-what would men do, who were in earnest about the attainment of this good, escape from this evil?

1. They would shew a great anxiety about the securities as they are, to know whether they are as complete as they can be made.

2. They would shew a great anxiety about the securities as they ought to be—that is, the means of making them as perfect as possible.

It will be very instructive to take a view, in these two respects, of the conduct of the class, who, assuming that the suffrage is now free, treat the proposition of ballot as contemptible or odious; in which class are comprehended the major part of the public men of England.

First, let us contemplate the pains which they take to make sure that the suffrage is now free; that there is no mistake in a matter of such vast importance; that the men who vote are really secure from any undue influence, and never lend themselves to the election of any but the men whom their innermost thoughts prefer. Did any of us ever observe any such anxiety? Men in earnest about an affair of so much importance would shew great jealousy of every suspicious appearance.

Elections are of two kinds; those for counties and those for

boroughs. Take the first, the county elections. What do we observe in regard to them? Are they perfectly free from suspicion? Does every honourable or right honourable person know with certainty, that no application is ever made to a county voter, which can hang a bias on his mind, and stain his vote with the character of corruption? If this were the case, the absence of all solicitude on this subject, so conspicuous in their conduct, would be perfectly accounted for, without impeachment of their sincerity and truth.

Let us advert to the real matter of fact. A large majority of all those who vote for county members, vote, under such circumstances of dependance, that they cannot vote contrary to what they know to be the inclination of such and such men, without the prospect of serious, often ruinous, consequences to themselves. This is a matter of fact, so notorious, that no man who desires to be treated as a gentleman would venture to deny it, in any other place than an assembly of representatives, chosen according to this impure principle. That, indeed, is a place, where men, under the guidance of a common interest, do make assertions, pleasing to one another, which the rest of the world hear with astonishment; and, when they hear, turn round to one another and say, "If these men were to use words to us for such purposes in private life, after what fashion should we treat them ?"

Is there among those honourable and right honourable persons one, who has either been candidate for a county, or supported a candidate; and who has not, himself, to the utmost of his power, exerted both engines of corruption; both the dread of evil, where that engine was at his command; and the prospect of good, where it was not?

Is this the fact? And do we still witness, in an assembly so chosen, the language and countenance of men, who maintain, that the members of a representative assembly ought to be chosen without corruption-and that the representative system of Great Britain ought to be preserved as it is?

There is a pretext which is employed, and often successfully, to create and to spread delusion upon this subject. It may be necessary to expose this piece of sophistry before we proceed any farther. It is contained in the language which is held about the legitimate influence of property. We are asked if we would destroy the legitimate influence of property? They accuse us of a desire to preclude the legitimate influence of property; and under the shield of an equivocal expression, they vent a quantity of moral indignation. Those are exceedingly wicked people, who

They who

desire to destroy the legitimate influence of property. desire secrecy of voting, desire to destroy the legitimate infinence of property. Can there be a more complete demonstration against them? Can any men be more complete made to appear the proper objects of insult? richly meriting at once the scorn and the hatred of all those to whom property is dear: that is, of all but the most worthiess and detestable of mankind, for how can society exist, or the innumerable benefits of it be preserved, if property is not secure? Thus the friends of the ballot are represented, obliquely at least, as the enemies of property; and then come all the images of spoliation, confiscation, anarchy, bloodshed, to annex odium to the individuals, and discredit to the cause.

The extreme folly of all this is easy to be made appear. It is only necessary to compel those fair and honourable, opponents, to show what they mean by the legitimate influence of property. We, the friends of the ballot, the piebeian, the democratical, the base, are fully persuaded, that there are two influences of property; one good, moral, beneficent; another bad, immoral, pregnant with the most baneful consequences. The first of these we are so far from desiring to see extinguished, that all our endeavour is to increase it. We can prove to demonstration, —at least before such men as care for evidence upon these subjects, and know how to value it,—that the course we propose to follow is not only calculated to raise the moral influence of property, to its greatest height, but that it is the only course by which it can be so raised. With respect to the immoral, the baneful, influence of property, we confess that we are democratical enough to wish to see it wholly destroyed. The men whose mouths are full of the talk about legitimate influence, did not like to be so explicit. We will explain the reason. Their terms, "the legitimate influence of property," includes both meanings; the moral, and the immoral, influence of property both together. This is exceedingly convenient. In this we see an example of the main artifice by which discourse is rendered the instrument of fraud.-Let two things, one good, and one evil, be confounded under one name; it is not difficult to tranfer the approbation, the attachment, or, on the other hand, the detestation and abhorrence, which they severally deserve, from the one to the other. And this delusion is always most easy, in things which are remote from the familiar knowledge of the senses, things which can be apprehended distinctly only by a certain clearness and force of the intellect. It is worth while to attend to the working of this sophistical machinery. The moral influence of property deserves all the approbation which its eulogizers bestow upon it.

That we may have clear ideas upon the subject, let us think for a little what it is. Riches, to the purpose we are now contemplating, mean, a certain quantity of power: power of bestowing-good more or less extensively and also of inflicting evil on our fellow creatures. It is possible, we all know, for a man who is possessed of this power, to exercise it in such a manner as to become the object of the affection and reverence, not only of all those who come within the sphere of his virtues, but, by sympathy with them, of all those to whom the knowledge of his character is diffused. The opinions, the wishes, of such a man, become a mótive to his fellow creatures. We desire to be able to concur with him in his opinions, we desire to be able to forward the objects of his wishes. If such a man expresses a decided preference of one of two candidates; the opinion of his virtue, that he would not recommend the man whom he did not inwardly prefer; and of his wisdom, that he would not be deceived, together with the unavoidable pleasure of giving him pleasure, would always go far to determine the choice of those who live under the influence of his virtues. This is the legitimate influence of property, in the sense in which it is moral. This is an influence which is as safe under the ballot, as without the ballot. The man who proceeds to the scene of election with that reverence in his heart, which the moral influence of property implies, will not be deserted of that moral impulse, when he places his vote in secrecy. The effect of it is as sure as if it were delivered before an assembled world; because it is the mind of the man that acts. The will, the choice, are his own.

of

Let us next contemplate the other, the immoral influence of property; to which also, by a vile profanation, the term "legitimate influence" is applied. We all know that, commonly, riches are so employed as to create no affection towards the possessor them; to produce no reverence of his wisdom, and no sympathy with his desires, in the mass of the people by whom he is surrounded. This is not to be imputed, with any degree of harshness, as blame to the individuals. The effect cannot be otherwise, in a country, where the social relations are so ill constituted, as to afford no adequate motive to a more virtuous course. On the contrary, praise is to be awarded to those, as often as we find them, who think that one good of riches is to earn the love and esteem of those among whom they live. We are not without examples of persons who so employ their property-of not a few, who so employ it in the lower degrees,—of some, even in the higher. It is notorious, however, that these are not the great body of opulent persons. The rest seek their influence in a different way. That way is so familiar to us all,

-

that nothing more is wanted for the account of it, than the few words which are necessary to suggest it. We see, by daily example, how easy it is, for those who employ little or no part of their fortune to obtain the favourable sentiments of their countrymen, nevertheless to make such a use of it as places a considerable number of persons in their dependence, so to arrange their own permanent position with regard to such and such individuals, as to possess a great power over their happiness; the power of taking from them, or leaving with them, important means of well-being. This power over their happiness is unavoidably attended with a great power over their wills. Men do not choose to act in opposition to the desires of a man who can injure them greatly, when they have great reason to apprehend, that, by so acting, they will ensure whatever evil he can bring upon them.

This we call the immoral influence of property. This is an influence which can be used by the worst of men, as easily as by the best; supposing it for the moment an influence which any good man would consent to use ;-an influence, which can be as easily used for the worst, as for the best of ends. The very opposite is the case with the moral influence of property; the native, inborn tendency in the human breast to promote the wishes of the man who has so employed the means of happiness at his disposal, as to fill our hearts with affection and esteem. This can be exercised only by virtuous men—can be employed only for virtuous purposes.

Let us now ask ourselves, under which of these influences, if we had our choice, should we desire our country to be governed. Suppose we had it in our power to give full scope to the exercise of the moral influence, and suppress entirely the immoral, will any man say that it should not be done?-What we affirm of the ballot is,-that it has this precious quality. It does bestow upon us this invaluable power. This is what we doubt not to be able presently to prove.

To return however for a little to the working of the immoral influence. Let us put before us a case. Let us suppose a country in which the representative system has been long established; and on such a footing that the powers of government are substantially placed in the hands of the representative body. Let us also suppose that portion of the community by whom the representatives are chosen to be so circumstanced that a large majority of them can be placed, and are at last effectually placed, mediately, or immediately, under the immoral influence of the property of a small number of men; in other words, that they vote such men to be representatives, as that small number bid them,