to the most worthy and competent hands. Even in the rural districts, where the strength of the nation really lies, the people may often be led astray by interested politicians, and with the greater facility because of the unsuspiciousness and sincerity of their nature. Removed from the hotbeds of political intrigue, too much occupied in their daily labours to follow the course of minor events, rarely troubling themselves with the extreme views of either party, they are easily amenable to the arguments and representations of a man who comes before them with a specious embodiment of opinions which he has endeavoured to adapt to their prejudices. But, although constituencies may be misled for a time, the common sense of an eminently practical people will prevent a total subversion of the framework of society. The great body of the working classes have a material stake in the well-being and stability of the commonwealth. The most potent of all motives, self-interest, restrains them from running into extreme excesses. Hence the fears which are entertained of universal suffrage in England are unknown in America. In the latter country, there are physical conditions which render the widest extension of the suffrage comparatively harmless. Unless these conditions could be enjoyed in England, and it is impossible that they should be, it is folly to talk of making the English elective system the counterpart of the American. It would be as reasonable to propose to repeat the feudal

CHAP. VII. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND AMERICA. 137

system in America. The greatest objection of moderate reformers in England to unrestricted suffrage is that the lawful rights of property would be violated. "I entertain no hope," said Lord Macaulay, "that, if we place the government of the kingdom in the hands of the majority of the males of one-and-twenty told by the head, the institution of property will be respected." 24 Such a statement applied to America would be absurd, for there the property is at present distributed among small holders. Not without reason is it contended that a vast revolution would be the ultimate issue of the attempt to engraft Republican theories upon an ancient government. All circumstances must be changed to assure the success of such an experiment. If it were possible to give to England the surplus lands of America, it would be a matter scarcely worth contending for, so far as regards the security of property alone, what form of suffrage should be adopted. In densely populated countries, where periods of distress are liable to recur, the people are apt to turn upon the government and rend it for consequences which no government can avert. Lord Macaulay justly described the conditions which are indispensable to the safe working of unlimited suffrage, when he said, in his speech on Parliamentary Reform in 1831, "If the labourers of England were in that state in which I, from my soul,

24 Speech on the People's Charter. Works (ed. 1866), vol. viii. p. 222.

wish to see them, if employment were always plentiful, wages always high, food always cheap, if a large family were considered not as an encumbrance but a blessing, the principal objections to Universal Suffrage would, I think, be removed." These have been the advantages possessed by the United States, but it is beyond the power of reformers to bestow them upon England.25

The principle of democracy, according to an authority who is never contradicted in America, is that "everybody should be represented, and that everybody should be represented equally." 26 Judged by

25 Those who suppose that in order to remove all causes of discontent in England we have only to adopt the American form of government, would do well to read the debates in the Federal Convention which planned the Constitution. They would there meet with sentiments like the following:-"In his private opinion, he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he was by the opinion of so many of the wise and good, that the British Government was the best in the world, and that he doubted much whether anything short of it would do in America." This was said by Mr. Hamilton. (Madison's 'Reports' (Elliot, v.), p. 202.) Mr. Hamilton represented New York. In the same spirit Mr. Sherman said he thought "the people immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government." Mr. Geary said, "The evils we experience flow from the excess of democracy." Upon the resolution that the House of Representatives should be elected directly by the people instead of by the State Legislatures, as had been proposed, six States voted for, and two (New York and North Carolina) against, while two others (Connecticut and Delaware) were divided. But the principles laid down in the first chapter of this volume were unquestionably those which were held by the majority, and which have ever since governed the country, and derived fresh vitality and force from the lapse of time.

26 Mr. John Stuart Mill, in the House of Commons, May 30th,

CHAP. VII. FAILURE OF THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM. 139

this standard, the American theory of representation is the greatest fallacy by which an intelligent people has ever been deluded. In other systems minorities are at least partially represented, but in the United States they are practically disfranchised. The best educated, highest minded class in America are unrepresented, not only in Congress, but in the Legislatures of their States. The returns of the election for 1866 will best illustrate the injustice which is done to minorities. Thirteen States (excluding those which seceded, and were entirely unrepresented) were left without a single Democratic member in Congress, although the Democratic vote in each State was very large. To give a few instancesthe vote in Iowa was 91,227 Republican and 55,815 Democrat. Had the system worked equitably, the State would have had four Republican members and two Democrats. But the small majority took away the Democratic share, and Iowa was represented by six Republicans. Massachusetts had her entire delegation of ten members Republican, the vote cast being 91,880 to 26,671-and thus the minority ought to have had two members and the majority eight only. In New York the proportionate representation in Congress would have been sixteen Republicans and fifteen Democrats, the vote being 366,315 on the Republican against 352,526 on the Democratic side. The actual representation of the minority was only eleven, the majority gaining twenty members. In Pennsylvania the vote was 307,274 against 290,096,

and the representation was eighteen to six, whereas it should have been thirteen to eleven. In this last case the majority was only 8587 votes-or about one vote in a thousand of the voting population of the State-and by that it gained five members more than it was fairly entitled to. The State of Ohio was represented by three Democrats and sixteen Republicans and yet the Democratic voters numbered 211,690, and the Republicans no more than 254,090. Take another instance: in the thirty-ninth Congress 27 1,600,000 voters in the North and West gained only thirty representatives in Congress, while 2,000,000 voters in the same section of country were represented by 128 members.

These inequalities, and many others which might be cited, have more than once been the subject of discussion in Congress, and various means of redressing the injustice to the minority have been proposed. One of the most recent of these attempts was made in the United States Senate by a member 28 who proposed the adoption of the system of cumulative voting, beginning with the Southern States, which, being absolutely under the control of Congress, are deemed a convenient subject for any experiments. It was urged that the majority in a Congressional district, however small, obtained the whole representation of that district, whereas, if people were allowed to vote upon the cumulative plan, the mino

27 1865-67.

28 Senator Buckalew, on the 11th July, 1867.