the destruction of the church property, the repeal of the corn laws, and the abolition of the national debt, possibly they may be contented with these great victories; but, till they are gained, they will never cease clamouring for an extension of the elective franchise to a still lower class in society. The reason is, that it is thus alone that they can render the triumph of the people complete, and secure the substantial fruits of victory, in the destruction of taxes, church, and funded property. Till these objects are gained, as long as the influence of the higher ranks successfully resists the concession of these practical boons to the lower, the democratic electors will never cease to recruit their forces from the lower classes of society.

Finding that a privilege shared with a million other people is, in effect, worth nothing; that no real benefit is to be gained by siding with the upper classes; and that it is by a vigorous concentration of popular strength, and the extension of the elective franchise to a still more numerous class, that the influence of wealth is to be destroyed, the cry will be incessant for an increase of the constituents. Rank, property, and worth will be buried under the waves of popular ambition.

The Reformers often complain that their opponents do not fairly meet their arguments; that they get up, in their elegant language, "Hole and Corner Petitions; " and that there is a deplorable want of ability on the other side. Now, here is an argument which we call on them, and defy them, to answer. They need not pretend that they do not know of it: there are nearly 9000 copies of this Journal sold every month, and it is read wherever the English language is understood. We call on them to answer this argument, and to point out on what principles they contend, first, that the present electors are nearly unanimous in favour of the extension of the rights to a much more numerous body beneath themselves: and, secondly, that the new electors will be converted by the Magic Wand of Reform into a phalanx determined to resist any future and similar extension of the suffrage.

On what ground of justice can such an extension be resisted hereafter? If the £5 householders raise an outcry that they are unrepresented, how, after this great concession

to their £10 brethren, is it to be refused? If the £1 householders second them, how are they to be staved off? If they are successful, how is universal suffrage to be avoided? If the contest must ultimately come on, why postpone it till the power of the friends of the constitution is broken by repeated defeats ? Each successive concession will only augment the strength of the democratic, and weaken the influence of the conservative party. Extravagant speeches on the hustings, unmeasured professions of zeal for the people in Parliament, will be the only titles to popular favour, and augment the strength of that tide which already is held out as irresistible.

To those who survey, in times past, the delusive and absurd nature of public opinion on subjects which excited the populace, the weakness of yielding to it at the present moment will appear truly deplorable. We subjoin a few examples of these delusions, familiar to every reader of history; but the errors which have overspread the world since the march of intellect began, have thrown schoolboy information into the shade.

Public opinion in Athens was clear for the banishment of Aristides. No good reasons could be assigned for this caprice towards so great and good a man. "We are tired," said they," of hearing him called the Just."

Public opinion in Rome condemned the great Scipio Africanus, the vanquisher of Hannibal, the deliverer of his country. He died forsaken in a foreign land on his tomb was engraved, by his own desire, the mournful inscription," My ungrateful country shall not possess my

bones."

Public opinion in the Roman Republic was unanimous, save among the Patricians, for the Agrarian law of Gracchus. With the contests to which it gave rise, began the civil wars which ended in the despotism of Cæsar.

Public opinion in Italy strongly favoured the aggression of that great man. Pompey in vain strove to stem the torrent: Italy was yielded up to him without a struggle: the empire of the world, amidst the acclamations of the multitude, was the reward of his audacity.

No emperor was the object of more general adulation.

during his life, or more universal execration after his death, than Nero. "Et vulgus," says Tacitus, " eâdem pravitate insectabatur interfectum quâ foverat viventem."

Public opinion in modern Europe first rose universally and vehemently in favour of the Crusades. "Dieu le veut, Dieu le veut," was the universal cry; "Vox populi, vox Dei," the universal maxim. Empires were convulsed; Europe torn up by its roots, and precipitated upon Asia; hundreds of thousands set forth, without guides, on the popular enterprise: millions of men were sacrificed in the holy cause.

Public opinion in Scotland, at the time of the Reformation, was unanimous and violent for the destruction of the cathedrals. Devastation, which subsequent ages have never ceased to deplore, was committed amidst the universal applause of the people.

Public opinion in 1642 was vehement in favour of the Long Parliament :—a contest which brought the King to the scaffold, deluged the nation with blood, unsheathed the sword of Cromwell, and stifled liberty for fifteen years,was commenced with a far more general feeling in its favour than now supports Reform.

Public opinion in 1725 was unanimously and strongly excited in favour of the Mississippi Scheme, and the South Sea Bubble. Thousands were ruined in consequence, and the French and English nations brought to the brink of insolvency.

The Constituent Assembly commenced its labours amidst the unanimous applause of all France. Those rash measures of reform-which Lord Brougham has so well shown brought on the subsequent convulsion of the Revolution-were the theme of universal admiration with ninety-nine out of every hundred in that great kingdom.

When it was put to the Convention to decide whether Louis XVI. was guilty or innocent, not one man ventured to absolve him. Eight hundred of the ablest men in France were unanimous in condemning an innocent monarch. On a subject, says the republican historian, on which posterity will unanimously decide one way, the Convention unanimously decided another.*

When the annexation of Savoy and Piedmont was proposed in the Convention in October 1792, only one voice was raised against an unjustifiable aggression which entailed a dreadful war on Europe, and, for the first time for 400 years, brought an invading army to the French capital.

The whole of France was unanimous in supporting "The youth, Napoleon's expedition to Russia in 1812. says Ségur, "looked upon it as a mere military promenade -a party of pleasure, which would hardly last six months."

Everybody recollects the general delusion in favour of joint-stock companies in 1825. From the Chancellor of the Exchequer downwards, there was but one opinion as to the boundless wealth and inexhaustible resources of the British empire. The public as little anticipated the catastrophe of December 1825, as the Reformers of the present day do the probable consequence of their

measures.

Examples of this sort lead the thoughtful to distrust public opinion, on all occasions when it is violently excited. Education cannot give intellect. Newspapers will not extinguish passion. The great majority of the public are now as incapable of judging on political subjects as they were in the days of Aristides. Printing has extended to the whole people the passions of a mob; it has not given them a larger share of intellect.

If there is one duty more sacred than another, in such periods of excitement, it is the duty of the legislators to moderate the public effervescence, and resolutely withstand those demands which they judge fatal to the balance of the constitution, or perilous to the institutions of the empire. Concession, in such circumstances, is the weakest as well as the basest policy. It was not by yielding to the extravagant demands of the plebeians that the Roman Senate obtained the empire of the world, but by resolutely resisting them, and enduring the last extremities, rather than surrender the constitution of their forefathers. Such conduct was in the end triumphant; the nobles ultimately prevailed in every contest; and the empire, though often endangered, was only overturned when the nobles gave way to popular violence.

Concession and conciliation were tried to their utmost extent by the Britons and other inhabitants of the Roman empire, when exposed to the inroads of the Danes. The weak and timid monarchs of the Heptarchy, proceeding on the principle now urged in support of Reform, sought to buy off their enemies, by giving them sometimes £10,000, sometimes £20,000, on condition that they would depart, and not return. They did depart, accordingly, and returned invariably in six months, in greater force than before, equipped by the spoil of their weak and pusillanimous enemies. Who put an end to this ruinous system of conciliation and concession? Alfred the Great, who from the first refused to yield any payment, and fought his enemies hand to hand, till he expelled them from his shores, and founded the English monarchy.

The case is exactly the same with the concessions now so loudly recommended to the popular demands for power. The more you concede, the more daring and vehement these demands will become. Every successive acquisition will be made the means of a still more extravagant demand, until the last remnants of the monarchy are swept away, and bloody republicanism proclaimed in its stead. There is no evading the danger. Concession must now be stopped, or the nation may make up its mind to republican institutions; and what will then become of the church property, the national debt, the estates of the nobility, or the lives of all the higher orders?

Concession was the principle on which Charles I. acted. He first yielded the Petition of Rights, which, as Mr Hume observes, "was so great a concession to the Commons, that it in truth amounted to a revolution." He gave up tonnage and poundage; he yielded Strafford to their violence; he agreed to triennial Parliaments; he allowed the sheriffs to be invested with the power of summoning them, if not convoked by royal authority; his ministers were chosen exclusively from the popular party; he paid the arrears of his rebellious Scotch troops; he conceded all the demands. of the Scotch Parliament; the famous "Remonstrance" of the Commons was carried, after a vehement debate: and what was the consequence of all these concessions? Encouraged by so much success, the Commons openly declared