from the vast increase of our manufacturing population. Crowded together in great numbers, ignorant except of what they learn through the daily press, incessantly stimulated by abuse of their superiors, such men will always be inclined to democracy. From their vast numbers, any journals which they support must necessarily have ten times the circulation which those enjoy who support the aristocratic side of the question. Hence the prodigious increase of the revolutionary journals of the present day, and the alarming fact, that with few exceptions the whole press is on the popular side. It is to no purpose to say they do not influence the thinking part of the people: true, they do not; but how many of the readers of newspapers are capable of thinking? Not one in fifty.

Thus the boasted and long-wished-for Reform will amount only to a change of masters. We shall unhorse the aristocracy of rank and station, and place that of adventurers and money-lenders in its stead; we shall be governed by a domination more fierce and unbending than that of family or possessions; we shall overthrow the hereditary influence of the peers and proprietors of England, and fall under the government of the conductors of reviews and the editors of newspapers. Lord Brougham's bill will destroy that wholesome state of the representation which he has so well described as characterising the English legislature; and commence, in its stead, that ruinous rule of adventurers and demagogues which, he has so clearly shown, brought on the horrors of the French Revolution.

By passing the present bill, it is said, you will secure the numerous body of the new voters on the side of order; full reliance may be placed on them in any future contests with the inferior and unrepresented classes, and the pyramid of society placed on a broad and stable basis. It is hard to say whether this argument, which at first sight appears most plausible, is, in reality, worse founded in precedent or principle.

In France, after the Restoration in 1815, the qualification of an elector was fixed at the payment of 300 francs a-year of direct taxes, which, making allowance for the difference in the value of money, is equal to about £20 a-year here. Certainly this was a very high qualification; imply

ing, as it did, at least £400 a-year of income to each elector. Yet, high as it was, it furnished no security against the demand for an extension of the elective franchise, by the very exclusive and limited class who alone enjoyed it. The Chamber of Deputies, at each successive dissolution, became more and more democratical; until it became so hostile to the Throne, that the government could no longer be conducted, and a dissolution ensued, under circumstances which brought about the Revolution of 1830.

But we need not resort to foreign countries for proof of this truth. What is the boast of the Reformers at the present day? That the electors of England would return a great majority of Reforming members; that, on a dissolution, no man would be able to stand up on the hustings but those who would pledge themselves to support the present bill, which makes so great an addition to the electors of the empire. If this position be well founded-and that it is so, to a great extent, no one can doubt-what comes of the argument that the new electors will immediately close the door against all new entrants, and resolutely range themselves with Government in all future contests with the people? Why are the new and more extended electors to be so totally different from the present and more restricted? Human nature will be the same in future years as in the present; the same passions and desires will mislead mankind then as at this time; and the same causes which now make the existing electors clamour for a duplication of their class, will make the Reformed electors demand universal suffrage and vote by ballot.

The reason is obvious, and will remain the same in all ages. The people, after obtaining the elective franchise, will soon discover that they have been deluded into the acquisition of a privilege of no practical value. The million of electors who, under the new constitution, are to return the Parliament of Great Britain, will, ere long, find that their condition is no ways ameliorated by the new privilege they have acquired: wages are as low, taxes as heavy, tithes as vexatious, poor-rates as burdensome, as under the old constitution. If their representatives in Parliament are sufficiently strong to secure the abolition of these burdens

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.*

* MIGNET, vol. i. p. 239.