property being the true basis and measure of power.' In truth he was not the first. The idea is as old as political science itself. It may be found in Aristotle, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and other writers. Harrington, however, seems to be the first writer who has illustrated and expounded the principle, and given to it the effect and prominence which justly belong to it. To this sentiment, sir, I entirely agree. It seems to me to be plain, that, in the absence of military force, political power naturally and necessarily goes into the hands which hold the property. In my judgment, therefore, a republican form of government rests not more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property. Governments, like ours, could not have been maintained,' when property was holden according to the principles of the Feudal System; nor, on the other hand, could the Feudal Constitution possibly exist with us. Our New-England ancestors brought hither no great capitals from Europe. They came to a new country. Their situation demanded a parcelling out and division of the lands; and it may be fairly said, that this necessary act fixed the future frame and form of their government. * The consequence

of all these causes has been, a great subdivision of the soil, and a great equality of condition; the true basis, most certainly, of a popular government. If the people,' says Harrington, hold three parts in four of the territory, it is plain there can neither be any single person nor nobility able to dispute the government with them; in this case, therefore, except force be interposed, they govern themselves. The purest government, if it could exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accumulation of property in a few hands, and to render the great mass of the population dependent and penny less. In such a case, the popular power must break in upon the rights of property, or else the influence of property must limit and control the exercise of popular power. Universal suffrage, for example, could not long exist in a community, where there was great inequality of property.† The holders of estates would be obliged, in such cases, either in some way to restrain the right of suffrage, or else such right of suffrage would, ere long, divide the property. In the nature of things, those who have not property, and see their neighbors possess much more than they think them to need, cannot be favorable to laws made for the protection of property. When this class becomes numerous, it grows clamorous. It looks on property as its prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, at all times, for violence and revolution. It would seem then to be a part of political wisdom to found government on property; and to establish such distribution of property, by the laws which regulate its transmission and alienation, as to interest the great majority of society in the protection of the government. This is, I imagine, the true theory and the actual practice of our republican institutions. This question has been argued as if it were proposed only to give an advantage to a few rich men. I do not so understand it. I consider it as giving property, generally, a representation in the Senate, both because it is just that it should bear such representation, and because it is a convenient mode of providing that check, which the constitution of the legislature requires. I do not say that such check might not be found in some other provision; but this is the provision already established, and it is, in my opinion, a just and proper one. I will beg leave to ask, sir, whether property may not be said to deserve this portion of respect and power in the government? It pays, at this moment, I believe, fivesixths of all the public taxes;-one-sixth only being raised on persons. Not only, sir, do these taxes support those burdens, which all governments require, but we have in New-England, from early times, holden property to be subject to another

With regard to the power of authority, or the blind veneration of, and obedience to the great ones of the past, Mr. Webster might have read a lesson from Bentham, an old living writer at the time this speech was made, and who, though an apologist of monarchy, was, nevertheless, a reformer in many things. He speaks thus pointedly on this subject: "Instead of being guided by their own judgment, the men of the nineteenth century shut their own eyes, and give themselves up to be led, blindfold, by the men of the eighteenth century. The men who have the means of knowing the whole body of the facts, on which the correctness and expediency of the judgment to be formed must turn, give up their own judgment to that of a set of men entirely destitute of any of the requisite knowledge of such facts.".

In our cities and manufacturing towns, where there is great inequality of property among the people, universal suffrage exists in name and de jure, but does not exist de facto, or in practice; as, witness the frequent instances of the monied employer driving the poor employ. ees, like muzzled animals, to the polls to vote his dictation.

I will now proceed to

great public use,-I mean the support of schools. ask, sir, whether we have not seen, and whether we do not at this moment see the advantage and benefit of giving security to property by this and all other reasonable and just provisions? The constitution has stood on its present basis forty years. Let me ask what State has been more distinguished for wise and wholesome legislation? I speak, sir, without the partiality of a nation, and also without intending the compliment of a stranger; and I ask, what example have we had of better legislation? No violent measures, affecting property, have been attempted. Stop laws, suspension laws, tender laws, all the tribe of these arbitrary and tyrannical interferences between creditor and debtor, which, wheresoever practiced, generally end in the ruin of both, are strangers to our statute book."

Again, in establishing the conditions on which the elective franchise could be exercised, Webster said :

"I shall object to giving up all pecuniary qualifications, though I would be content with the smallest tax. There is a great difference between this and universal suffrage."

In the debate of whose spirit the above remarks of Webster are a fair representation-was betrayed a remarkable though common deficiency of one of the brightest virtues, to wit: Faith in man. Confidence in the intellectual and moral capacity of human nature is essential to advancement in social well-being. No one, who denies his species goodness by nature, can put forth a hearty effort for the improvement of humanity. He is a skeptic as to his neighbor, and though he may not be aware of it, is a skeptic also as to his God. Want of confidence in the creature is want of confidence in the Creator. The venerable John Adams, on whose head had slumbered eighty winters, although he is entitled to the undying gratitude of freemen for the great power and zeal he brought to the cause of liberty in her darkest hour, appeared in a very unfavorable light in 1820, while opposing, in this convention, the extension of free principles, on the ground that they would enable the poor to gratify their knavery in "voting us (the rich) out of our houses." Webster and many others, in their arguments, virtually uttered the same sentiment of a darker age-the same slander upon humanity. There is no confidence to be placed in the philosophy of him who permits his distrust of mankind to influence his reasoning.

The argument of Webster, that property is the true source of power, and ought to enter into the foundation of every government, can be but lightly regarded by the most primitive minds of the present day. If it was a prevalent doctrine in 1820, twenty-eight years have clearly revealed its absurdity. On this subject Webster, thought by multitudes to be, at least, the son of a prophet, could not have been in the spirit of prophesy, else he could have looked more clearly into the heart of a quarter of a century.

What! is a man to suffer social and political annihilation because he is poor? Shall the benevolent man, who has divided all his substance with the needy, be compelled by law to sit at the footstool of the avaricious man, who has spent his days in oppressing his fellows? The latter wounds, while the former heals; he takes bread from the hungry, while the other feeds the destitute. Which is the most worthy character? And yet Webster supported the constitutional provision that would place the good man at the mercy of the cruel-which would sanction the foul distinction which wealth gives its possessor.

The distinguished lawyer, orator, and statesman, whose opinions we are reviewing, contended for the institution of the Senate on the basis of property, because, as he said, it is just it should have power in the gov

ernment, according to its value to society; because it would be liable to the invasions of the poor, if not enabled by the organic law to protect itself, and because it would thereby furnish an invaluable check upon the power of the House, where men and not money were represented.

The rich man is intrinsically no better than the poor man; and yet this proposition implies and presupposes an increase of merit according to the amount of property possessed. It is giving to money the power which belongs only to intelligence. It virtually confers citizenship upon the beast of the field. It is a tribute to the golden god, which is too generally enshrined in the human heart.

A few facts will show the consequence which Webster proposed to concede and confirm to money at the expense of man. The census of 1810 was made the basis of statistical calculation by the convention. From this it appears that in the counties of Suffolk, Norfolk, &c., the proposition would produce the following inequalities in the political standing of the citizens, to wit: the population of 34,381, in Suffolk, would send 51 members to the House of Representatives, had it been instituted like the Senate, because it paid $21,022 taxes; while Norfolk, with 36,245 inhabitants, would have only 17 representatives, because, forsooth, Norfolk is not so rich in the gifts of nature as Suffolk, and, consequently, the people are unable to pay more than $6,692 taxes; and Worcester, with a population of 64,910, could send only 31 representatives, because she paid only $12,749 taxes; and Berkshire, with 35,907 inhabitants, could have 13 members in the House, because she paid but $5,322 toward the support of government. Contrast Suffolk with Berkshire. The former, with 34,381, and the latter with 35,907 people, while the one could send 51, and the other only 13 members to the House-thus giving to one man in Suffolk about four times the political power that is given to a citizen of Berkshire. Now, notice the people of these respective counties, and see whose sons are best qualified to maintain the dignity and discharge the duties of freemen. Noble Berkshire has, in spite of the law, vindicated herself before the world, and gained an undying fame for producing and sending abroad great men, through whom she is enabled to rule more than a whole state. Berkshire has contributed more to the mental greatness of the nation than any other county of the Pilgrim State -although Webster regarded her citizens as scarcely entitled to onequarter of the consideration which belonged to those of richer Suffolk!

With regard to another reason, to wit: that property is a true source of power, which should be felt in the legislature, it is only necessary to remark, that this power is entirely illegitimate, because mind is the only true source of moral power. The opposite view is carrying the vulgar estimation of wealth into the constitution and laws, which should ever be so framed as to subserve the elevation instead of the degradation of mankind. It would also enable property, which panders to the avarice of man, and thereby brings wretchedness upon the masses, to increase its power ad infinitum, and thus increase the poverty and misery of the people.

In the debate on this subject, the Senate was called the "rich man's citadel," which would be properly checked by the House in which the people are represented. But let it be recollected that a majority of the members of the House would also come from the ranks of the wealthy, and thus property would be omnipotent in both branches.

Daniel Webster is an intellectually great man; but the great will err when they look to authority for opinions, and do not independently trace the truth from first principles. When, therefore, we find ourselves

becoming mute and even thoughtless in the presence of great men, let us awake from the fascination that is creeping upon us, by recollecting that though they may be powerful in some respects, yet they may, by a deficiency in mental equilibrium, be actually inferior to more humble individuals in the perception of Truth.

AN ADVENTURE AT AN OPERA BALL.

I.

COME! the ball invites, the Opera House opens its doors! Come, thou motley, grinning, boisterous crowd, shake thy tinselled trappings, stretch out thy long arms, utter thy loud shouts, spur on thy tottering limbs! why dost thou linger? The field is open to thee-the saloon is splendid, the gilding sparkles, the lustres pour forth all their rays; the High Priest Musard and his Levites are at their posts! Hurra! the thunder roars, the orchestra has given the signal! In the boxes, in the galleries, ten thousand heads peer out in expectation; formidable rows of dancers range themselves in order of battle; all is ready. The masks are carefully fastened. I perceive in a corner, Public Morality, with a three-cornered hat upon its head. Attention! the comedy begins! Wild cries shake the saloon-they twist, they intertwine, they stamp-limbs are wrenched, eyes flash defiance, human forms meet in violent contact, wine-steaming breaths mingle with each other, a cloud of dust ascends. Courage! seek forgetfulness, happy mortals! Seize, as it passes, the pungent pleasure which is offered you! Leap upon this flitting prey, and devour it quickly! it may escape you! Above all, take good heed that the image of the morrow does not interpose between you and your transports! Alas, the morrow!-for thee, man of toil, it is some detested labor which consumes every hour of thy life; it is some vampire machine, which each day exhausts a portion of thy intellect !-for thee, artist, it is some sombre and chilly garret, whither thou must drag thy wearied limbs! It is the incessant, pitiless struggle-it is discouragement -it is the sacrifice of thy noblest cravings !-for thee, poor Magdalene, it is the continual deceit of thy caresses which must be renewed again; it is the bread which must be purchased by thy shame; it is the body which must be prostituted! Courage, then, one and all! Cast a veil over your wounds, and give vent to your gaiety, lest it stifle you!

Assuredly these gloomy thoughts did not disturb the handsome Gaston de Vargese, who was sauntering in the dressing-room, surrounded by a group of friends. He was a charming young man, although his pale face was already furrowed by wrinkles, which, most certainly, were engendered neither by grief nor by inexorable toil. He had never viewed life but upon one side, the lustrous, silken, gilded side; the reverse of the picture did not exist for him. Young, rich, without ideal aspirations, he might believe himself happy-negatively so, at least. We have just said that he was rich; let us explain; he was deeply in debt, and his entire patrimony had passed into the hands of the syrens of the theatre and of the public balls. This, indeed, is the lot usually reserved for these sultans of civilized society; and the ebb

and flow of that wealth which returns to the daughter of the laborer, might even appear providential, if the purses of these fair sinners were not bottomless. Fortunately for our hero, he possessed an inexhaustible mine of gold, a Pactolus in the shape of an uncle. Consequently, the vexatious condition of his budget gave him but little uneasiness-the age of the worthy soul, (it was thus he designated him,) being quite encouraging for an heir. Thanks to this funereal perspective, he still found complaisant Turcarets, and he was enabled to continue his round of life, that is to say, to taste the various enjoyments reserved for some thousands of the wealthy, by our respected society. Heaven knows, too, with what ardor, with what enthusiasm, he plunged into the vortex of pleasure. On this night, especially, he and his friends had resolved to close the carnival by a master stroke, by a revel, worthy of Sardanapalus. This resolution had already taken a beginning, for they had just eaten an excellent supper, washed down, with a variety of the most exquisite wines. One could easily have divined this fact by their irregular gait, and their incoherent discourse, had not this state of things been in some sort habitual to them,

In order to understand to what a point of degradation young men of family have arrived, it is necessary, in the summer season, for example, to take a seat in front of the Cafe de Paris; there we can see the greatest names of the noblesse and of finance afford a spectacle, gratis, with some young flower girl, and indulge in immoderate laughter, while they utter obscenities at which even the customers of Paul Niquet would blush.

They were lounging then, causing the dressing-room to resound with their cries, calling after the female attendants, and indulging in impromptu jests, when a woman, dressed in a black domino, approached, and placed herself, suddenly, across their path.

There was something so noble and so resolute in her attitude, her eyes shone so brilliantly beneath her mask, that our roues were silenced, and they did not venture to demean themselves towards her with that license, which this bravado seemed to justify.

They soon, however, resumed their effrontery, and were about to crowd eagerly around the unknown, when, pointing to Gaston, she said:

It is you, sir, to whom I wish to speak.'

To me! is it possible!' exclaimed the latter, presenting her his arm. 'He is a lucky fellow, this Gaston!' cried his friends.

'It is a pity that she did not cast her handkerchief to him,' observed one of the number.

Hark, here!' they all cried to him, do not forget that we sup together at the Cafe de Paris; try to bring your beauty with you.'

But Gaston was out of hearing. Hurried onward by the Unknown, he had already left the dressing-room. The two, hastily, descended the stairs, and made their way toward the peristyle. Here, a valet, who seemed to be waiting for them, hastened before them to open the door of a carriage. Gaston was both astonished and delighted.

Where are we going?' he said to the Unknown.

To my house,' replied the latter, briefly.

The valet let down the steps.

I exact from you,' she resumed, the most perfect silence on the way. Do you swear to observe it?' 'I swear it!' said Gaston.

The Unknown entered the carriage first; the young man followed her. They drove away at full speed.

All this had passed so rapidly and unexpectedly, that Gaston, impelled by a blind impulse, had not conceived the slightest suspicion as to the nature of his adventure. But when the first moment of stupor had passed, and