in the exercise of its best intelligence to that end, it would not be easy to state a sound objection to such a mode of government. It is precisely because human nature is not to be trusted with such power, and is so likely to abuse it for selfish and personal ends, that the necessity for representative popular government arises. But if, in the constituency which elects the representatives, for intelligence there is substituted ignorance, for good character vice, or no character at all, for education illiteracy, and for independence the venality which can be purchased in the market, and to these as the controlling element is given the decisive voice and vote in political affairs, what is the value of representative government, and how is it better than an aristocratic or even a despotic one?

The very theory of free government is that it substitutes for the caprice, the selfishness, and the oppression of arbitrary power the exercise of the intelligence, the virtue, and the patriotism of the governed. But this presupposes that these qualities, so essential to its success, shall be applied to it, not withheld from it. The business of government, in these days especially, indeed in all days, will be conceded to demand the best ability, the most far-seeing sagacity, and the purest integrity that the community in which it resides can furnish. The best is not too good; much less than the best cannot long be endured. The Americans have gone on under circumstances more favorable than they can probably continue to be. They have thriven and prospered and advanced with rapid and startling strides in material growth, in spite of these disadvantages. Land has been abundant and cheap. Natural resources and treasures of many

kinds have been enormous. The stimulus of youth and its superabundant vitality have been in full tide. Meanwhile the decay in political and official life has been steady and increasing.

The true need of America was stated by a writer in that country not long ago to be the statesman who could relieve the country of about a quarter of a million of its voters. The number that ought to be got rid of has since considerably increased. Apart from the negro vote, it is probable that the vote of that class incapable of adding any good element to the electorate, and fruitful of mischief and danger, is much larger. Popular government should be, and can be made to be, on the whole, the best government, displaying fewer evils and more advantages than any other. But before that is successfully accomplished the elimination from the constituency of this element must be brought about, not probably with its own consent, but in spite of it. In doing so it will be necessary to exclude no man but by his own fault; to set up no standard that any ordinary man cannot attain if he will, and that he will not be amply repaid in every way for attaining, quite irrespective of acquiring the right of suffrage, and of becoming eligible for public office.

Suppose from every constituency in Great Britain and in the United States there was eliminated every man who could not prove by the testimony of his neighbors the reputation of a decent and respectable character and life, who could not read and write well enough for the necessities of ordinary business, and who had not resided where he proposes to vote long enough to be well known. Will it be contended that

the constituency so diminished has lost any ingredient that could possibly improve it, or render its voice in public affairs more useful? Suppose we go further, and likewise exclude every man who is not the possessor in his own right of property, real or personal, in some form that either produces income, or is employed in a lawful industry or pursuit out of which income is derived, to the amount of say one hundred pounds. Has the constituency been on the whole improved or depreciated in quality? It is quite true that the ownership of property is not necessarily a guarantee of good character, or of high intelligence. But in the majority of instances it affords material evidence of it. It indicates a certain capacity, industry, and thrift to have earned and kept even that moderate sum. In a thousand voters who in mature manhood had not acquired that much property, how many would be found really possessed of those qualities that fit them for the exercise of suffrage? And in a thousand who had earned or accumulated that amount, and could show also the requisite good character, and at least elementary education, how many on the whole would be found destitute of them? A man may undoubtedly be impoverished, and yet be a capable voter. And he may have a competence, and be an incapable or dishonest one. But these cases

Society stands

are the exceptions and not the rule. upon property-not necessarily upon wealth. It is by property that its charities, its humanities, its refinements, its progress are carried on. It is to that end all honest industry is directed, it is by that means that the comforts and necessaries and refinements of life are obtained. A community of the destitute

is usually vicious, idle, and criminal. One that is prosperous is generally the opposite in character. If the stimulus of the acquisition and preservation and enjoyment of property is withdrawn, industry ceases, and idleness and lawlessness take its place. And as it is impossible to determine the personal qualifications of each voter on his merit, and some general rule must be resorted to, there is no other attainable which will give a correct result in so large a majority of cases. It may be added that the possession of property ranges its owner on the side of law and order. His interest and his future hopes are on the side of society, and not against it. If he is likewise made a taxpayer, even to no greater amount than a simple head or poll tax, he becomes interested in the expenditures he votes upon, and in the proper administration of the public service.

The right of suffrage would thus become something to be honestly striven for, with a certainty of success, by the proper exertion. When attained, it would be something to value and be proud of, a certificate not merely of birth, but of a certain character, intelligence, and respectability, at once the stimulus and the reward of a decent and industrious life. The suffrage would no longer contaminate the public service, and it would tend to elevate its possessor.

The demagogue, the charlatan, or the political trickster would loudly object to this. The material thus excluded from the electorate is his stock in trade. Their ignorance and prejudice and venality are the commodities he manipulates and thrives by. Among honest, intelligent, and industrious men there might still remain some few whom he could delude or control,

but not enough to be a commanding force, or to make his vocation profitable. But his loss would be the nation's gain. Representative government would rise, as political handicraft declined. If from every ten voters unfit for the suffrage and only potent for evil, eight, or even five, could be withdrawn, the gain would be immense. Many an election would be better decided, and a fresh stimulus to worthy and patriotic effort would be given.

This is beyond question the chief lesson in politics to be drawn from the results of the first century of American history, as depicted in the observations and criticisms of Mr. Bryce. We are in this country not only extending the suffrage, but increasing the opportunities for its exercise, and the agencies of government that are derived from it. We cannot reasonably hope to escape consequences that have attended it elsewhere. It takes time for the lowest element, and those who handle it, to organize and assert their strength. Old ways and traditions have to be gradually overcome, and new methods introduced; the journeymen in the trade of machine politics have to be educated into master - workmen. The effect upon the character of the House of Commons produced by even our short experience in the indefinite enlargement of the constituency need not be pointed out, for it is conspicuous. When its doors begin to close upon the class that have in recent times controlled it, and when English gentlemen begin to turn their backs upon political life, as American gentlemen have so largely done, what force or virtue exists in British institutions that shall very long prevent the natural sequence of cause and effect