The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-03-16 00:00:00

7gii%7%.

4!"-:' .17 "7.

!--7"

„

•of self-pse...tration in a choice of Legislators, you
'ought to he wholly deprived thereof.?
. Here. Sir, it may 1w well if yo'a note the distinc-
'tints to be preserved isetwoos• the nature of whet you
cell " propel*" and which is in fact merely ea
-external possession ; Onelthenature of that property
• which, according to Mr. Loam I(11. ISO), t man
kith "iu his own person." ." Tim labour of his
bottly,:' toys " and tiro' wore[ of Ids hands, are
properly his."
• Exteroill property is likeuleolistloit in its nature
from that property and inheritance which every man
-has its the Constitution and Liberty aids infantry
wherefore the personal and .peiftical properties,
which belong'. to a man because fie ft a man, and a
member of the Statel.may be celled ids. Miscued or frt.
•herent property.
Before I proceed, I.t me aUdeuvour, Siry to call
Ina hack into the path of correct reasoning, from
which at your very outset, in the very first step you
look, you went astray, after an knit folunr, which,
dancing before your e 1 es, misled you Into a course by
which it was impos•ible you shooid ever arrive at a
jest conclusion, touching the troth of falsehood of
the doctrine of Universal Suffrage; wherefore you
must not be surprised to find. yourself, at the end of
your pinta! excursion, sticking fast in a quagmire
of sophistry and disappointment, far 'wide of the
point at which you aimed.
You begin thus (p. 4)—" In civil society no man
can kayo any any rights which do not ari.e out of
the common good" But what, my geed Sir, is this
so common good?" Who is authorised to captain it,
or to declare it ? In your whole book I cannot find
11 explained or declared. fa the king to define this

criterion of our 66 rig/Wt.?" Ali S. hit; Minitlert to
put their notion* of tie 4"terifilion: ‘• bits 4,$

good"•
sealed Green Bag, into whieh none e 4 to peep bit
themselves end their minions, and is their report to
decide this question, en whict all oar "eighle are
to depend ? Or shall this deep' qeestion be rather
solved by Parliament, which having within the last
twenty•three years, repeatedly enacted that we have
a " Constitution as by low established'," has theiretin
modestly claimed for itself, aright if giving us, in
exchange for the Constitution of • Rttglend, that of
algiers or Morocco
No, Sir, it is not thus the "common good" is to
be sought; it is not thus our " rights" are In be
ascertained; and when, Sir, we behold the infinite
variety of modes and devices far undermining those
" rights," and confounding the distinctions of right
end wrong, thankful indeed ought we to be to God,
for having in most Legible characters inscribed on our
nature the proof of our rights, and gifted us with
intellect to read the inscription.
There, Sir, in all the self-evidence of principles
written by the finger of infinite wisdom and goodness,
we read that the " common good" of the community
must ever be in *net proportion to the degree in
which the common rights of the People, of the ag-
gregate and the individuals, have been held sacred.
Notwithstanding your reversal of the eternal or-
der of nature between common rights and the com-
mon good, as cause tied effect, I sincerely hope it
Nth proceeded from mere error, in not having dis-
covered the interval of actual separation between the
lines of liberty and property, which lines it is admit-
ted do so border on each other, (hot t• • eereteet.
or not Strong-sighted observer, they often appear as
one; whereas, near as they are ever seen together,
they are two parallel lines which never can meet.
About 30 years ago, as a note to a " declaration of
rights," it was remarked that " the rich and the
poor, being of the same species, are under the same
laws of nature ; end being alike capable of benefit
or injury from their Rulers they necessarily have in
the election of those rulers the same rights. But the
rich, in defence of their liberty and property, have
every advantage which wealth, •knowledge, and the
purchased sortie's of others can afford them ; while
the poor, destitute of all these, hive no security but
in the purity of Legislation ; nor any means of self.
,defence but in retaining their share of the cledioc
Forcer. The poor then, have an equal right, but
FAIL NIORE NEED to elect Representatives than
the rich. lie that is free, possesses that which is far
more to he valued than riches, but robbed of liberty,
he is poor indeed:"
By the very estraordinsry stress you lay upon the'
value of .wealth, as if wealth were the sunimuns bo.
sum of a community of moral and intellectual be.
age, you appear to differ widely from the wisest
Statesmen in the best times of Athens and Rome;

but you are more ;•-,ticularly •t variance with the
Areal lau-givar of Sparta, who, aliheegh no friend
to universal freedom, was yet no meau architect of

national power.
But what is more to the purpose, 'oar views of
political economy are quite opposite to those of the
great legislator of the theocracy of Israel, who, in
the humane and profound law of the Jubilee, etrec-
tualiy counteracted the grasping temper of avarice
and ambition, and prevented, as adverse to the
66 common good," the bowdleas accumulations. of
wealth in the bands of individuals. To a teacher of
religion, who also teaches politics' economy, and
" morality united wills policy," the sound principle
at the bottom of the policy of the Mosaic Jubilee,
may perhaps be recommended as not unworthy of
consideration.
But how, Sir, does this estrsordinsry solicitede
of yours for wealth being made the mein spring of
action in the State, and a. proportion of it made e'en
the very qualification for the emjoymeot of political
liberty ; bow, l ask, does this accord with the send-
saws of him, who authoritatively said nato the rich,
•4 first part with your wealth to the poor, and then
follow me t" And who immediately added, 66 It is
easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle,
than ',r a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.►►
I do not construe this language literally, but
merely to show that, for promoting the 66 common
good," we are not to prefer riches to righteoesness,
nor to oat up W EALTH above RIGHT and JUS-
TICE.
But that author does set op riches above righteous-
ness, and wealth above justice, who positively denies
that a poor man ought to possess suffrage, which is
only another word fqr freedom; or can ever be en-
titled to freedom, until he have previously acquired
a proportion of external property, to be denoted by
a point on the scale of wealth, at which he, the au-
thor, or some man or men equally wise, shall be
pleased to draw a fanciful line.