members of an Executive body, the mode of their selection offers a considerable security for their special fitness, and, consequently, for rectitude of decision by the majority. In cases, however, where the members of a supreme assembly are determined by the choice of a popular constituency, the chances against a selection of fit persons are more numerous.

The principle of decision by a majority is requisite, as well for the choice of a representative by a constituent body, as for the acts of an executive board or a legislative assembly. The same reasons apply in this case as in the case of smaller bodies, only with more force. Unanimity, in a body which may consist of several thousand persons, is plainly impossible; decision by a majority is therefore necessary. But many of the securities for guiding the majority to a sound judgment, which exist in a legislative assembly, are here wanting; joint deliberation is nearly impossible, and the vote of each elector is frequently determined by accidental considerations, affecting his individual position. The decision is accordingly formed by an imperfect process.1

1 Cicero describes in strong terms the inconstancy of the people in the choice of magistrates, and the uncertainty of the event of an election in the comitia: 'Non enim comitiis judicat semper populus, sed movetur plerumque gratia: cedit precibus: facit eos a quibus est maxime ambitus. Denique, si judicat, non delectu aliquo aut sapientia ducitur ad judicandum, sed impetu nonnunquam, et quadam etiam temeritate. Non est enim consilium in vulgo, non ratio, non discrimen, non diligentia: semperque sapientes ea, quæ populus fecisset, ferenda, non semper laudanda duxerunt.'—Pro Plancio, c. 4.

Again, in the oration Pro Murenâ, c. 17, he dwells on the uncertain event of the popular choice: Quod enim fretum, quem euripum tot motus, tantas, tam varias habere putatis agitationes fluctuum; quantas perturbationes et quantos æstus habet ratio comitiorum? Dies intermissus unus, aut nox interposita, sæpe perturbat omnia; et totam opinionem parva nonnunquam commutat aura rumoris. Sæpe etiam sine ulla aperta causa fit aliud atque existimamus, ut nonnunquam ita factum esse etiam populus admiretur: quasi vero non ipse fecerit. Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione totâ comitiorum.' Compare also Seneca, de Vit. Beat. c. 1, cited above; c. 6, § 3. Non ego ventosæ plebis suffragia venor,' says Horace, Ep. I. 19, 37, who, in his first ode, speaks of the mobiles Quirites. Our word mob was abbreviated from the Latin, mobile vulgus, in the reign of Charles the Second, as we learn from North's Examen. The expression seems to have been borrowed from the verse of Claudian: 'Mobile mutatur semper cum principe vulgus,' De IV. Cons. Honor. 302, which certainly is a singular origin for a saying upon popular instability.

For a curious illustration of the arts practised in canvassing a numerous constituency in ancient times, see the monitory tract De Petitione Consulatus, addressed by Q. Cicero to his brother, when about to come forward as a candidate for the consulship. On the election of magistrates by the senate under the empire, see Pliny, Epist. III. 20.

Mr. Macaulay says that the common people are constant to their favourites, but almost always choose them ill.-Hist. of Engl. vol. I. p. 631.

The choice of a candidate by the majority of a popular constituency is thus subject to the same remark as the decision of a question by the majority of a popular assembly. It solves the practical problem, but leaves the question as to the real comparative merits of the candidates undecided. This imperfection is, however, inseparable from popular election, and it is counterbalanced by the advantages which result from the representation of apparent interests, and from the deference to the numerical principle in government. Moreover, in a popular constituency, the majority is practically influenced by the opinions and wishes of a minority, although this influence operates in a different manner from that in which a legislative assembly is acted upon.

There is, again, another serious difficulty in the way of an enlightened choice of representatives by a popular constituency, a difficulty, it may be observed, which extends to every mode of selection, and equally besets the choice of members of a house of peers by the Crown.

The subjects which may be submitted to the decision of a supreme legislative assembly are unlimited, not only in number, but also in kind. It has not, like an administrative board, a special department, but it exercises a general control over all the branches of the administration, and it superintends every function of the government. It is called on to decide questions involving relations with foreign states and dependencies, the management of the army and navy, the defences of the country, its trade, agriculture, and manufactures, its finances and currency, its religious and ecclesiastical concerns, the civil and criminal law, and the judicial procedure, the state of public health, the internal communications, and, in short, all the other interests of life. There is no department of knowledge which may not be put in requisition for guiding the decision of a legislative body. Consequently, no special or professional training to fit a person to be a member of such an assembly is practicable; and the choice of the popular constituency is not directed to any definite class or section of persons, or guided by any obvious and easily recognisable qualifications, such as those of a physician, a soldier, or an architect, in their respective lines.1

The possession of such varied and extensive knowledge and experience as would render a person competent to judge for himself upon all the questions which may be submitted to a legislative

This subject is pursued further in ch. 8, § 2.

assembly being impossible, the next best qualification is, general soundness of judgment and perspicacity of understanding. These will render a person least likely to err in the midst of the heterogeneous multitude of practical questions, to the decision of which he may have to contribute. But the qualities just described are often not easily discerned, and, moreover, do not obtrude themselves upon the public attention. Qualities of a more conspicuous and attractive character, particularly if accompanied with activity and energy, are likely to arrest the attention and obtain the favour of a popular constituency. Mere facility of elocution or impressiveness of manner is likewise often mistaken for wisdom in counsel.1 A large aggregate of persons, acting together casually, and not forming a deliberative body, may likewise be captivated by earnest and often repeated, though insincere, professions of a regard for the public welfare, or their own peculiar interests.2

Notwithstanding these difficulties, the choice of fit representatives is, in itself, easier and less subject to error than the decision upon a long series of public measures; and it must be admitted that a popular constituency is better qualified to discharge the former than the latter duty with success.3 Besides, there are certain circumstances which tend to guide the choice of constituencies in the election of their representatives, and to induce them to give a preference to fit over unfit candidates.

In the first place, no person who has not received a fair educa

1 Plato calls eloquence φαινομένη σοφία.

2 Bodinus, in his treatise De Republicâ, maintains that the best and wisest men can never be chosen as rulers in any commonwealth. 'Quod si populum (he says) ad hæc ipsa virtutis suffragia cieri placeat, sui dissimiles, id est optimos, non seliget; sed quam maximè similes, id est, stultos, improbos, impudentes, cum boni ac sapientes viri, si modo sunt aliqui, minimum efficiant ubique civium numerum. Quid autem turpius, quam sapientium decus ad dignitatem pendere ab insipientium judicio dicam, an temeritate? Demus tamen esse bonos aliquot ac sapientes in civitate viros, conspectum certè fugient improborum ac desipientis multitudinis, nec si ad comitia venient, seipsos sapientes judicabunt.'-II. 6, (p. 340.) The experience of representative governments does not confirm these views.

36

'Le peuple est admirable pour choisir ceux à qui il doit confier quelque partie de son autorité. Il n'a à se déterminer que par les choses qu'il ne peut ignorer, et des faits qui tombent sous les sens. Comme la plupart des citoyens, qui ont assez de suffisance pour élire, n'en ont pas assez pour être élus; de même le peuple, qui a assez de capacité pour se faire rendre compte de la gestion des autres, n'est pas propre à gérer par lui-même.'-MONTESQUIEU, Esprit des Lois, 1. II. ch. 2. The broad distinction is correctly taken in this passage; but the facility of a choice of fit persons for a public trust is stated too strongly. See also a similar passage in 1. XI. ch. 6: ‘Il y avait un grand vice,' &c., where the superiority of the representative principle over the direct voting in the ancient republics is pointed out.

tion can, in the ordinary state of things, present himself as a candidate for the representation of a large popular body. The necessity of addressing the people, and of expounding his opinions orally, excludes any person who is unable, from defect of education or intelligence, to make such a statement as is suited to a tolerably critical audience. In the next place, the members of a legislative assembly, particularly of the more important ones, must make such sacrifices of time and money, as are scarcely compatible with the means of those who do not belong to the educated classes of society. Besides which, there is a disposition prevalent throughout a constituency, to select as their representatives persons who, from their social station, are distinguished from the mass, and are, on that account, better known and more conspicuous than persons of a humbler position in society."

These safeguards for the discreet exercise of the power of selection by a popular constituency, may be expected to produce an assembly containing an amount of intelligence and wisdom beyond the average of the educated classes, in the country over which it presides. Besides, the variety of experience and information, which no one person can possess, is in some degree supplied by the presence in the assembly of members belonging to different professions and pursuits, and familiar with different branches of knowledge. In this manner, attention to each separate subject is insured, and some immediate professional advice. But it is to be borne in mind, that there is no security that the professional persons who become members of the assembly will be the most eminent in their respective professions; and, after all, it will probably be necessary to consult professional men not members of the

There is an unconquerable, and to a certain extent (in the present state of society at least) a beneficial proneness in man, to rely on the judgment and authority of those who are elevated above himself in rank and riches. From the irresistible associations of the human mind, a feeling of respect and deference is entertained for a superior in station, which enhances and exalts all his good qualities, gives more grace to his movements, more force to his expressions, more beauty to his thoughts, more wisdom to his opinions, more weight to his judgment, more excellence to his virtues. ... Hence the elevated men of society will always maintain an ascendancy, which, without any direct exertion of influence, will affect the result of popular elections; and when to this are added, the capabilities which they possess, or ought to possess, from their superior intelligence, of impressing their own opinions on other classes, it will be seen that, if any sort of despotic control were justifiable, it would be superfluous for any good purpose.'-BAYLEY'S Rationale of Represent. Government, p. 269–70. It should not, however, be overlooked, that the feeling of deference to superior social rank (described in the above extract) is liable to be counteracted by a variety of political influences.

assembly. It may, moreover, happen, that a professional man of unsound judgment in an assembly, (particularly if he has a power of persuasive address,) may lead it to an erroneous decision, by inducing it to reject the advice of more competent judges, who, not being members of the assembly, cannot attend it in order to support their own views.

§ 16. The objections to decision by a mere numerical majority, without reference to the competency or qualifications of the voter, have naturally presented themselves to politicians, both speculative and practical; and various contrivances have been devised to modify and mitigate its operation, retaining, however, the corporate principle.

One of these is the method of voting by composite units.1 Thus, when the Roman people were in Comitia Tributa, the votes of each tribe, which consisted of several thousand citizens, were taken separately, and the decision of the tribe was thus formed. The votes of the several tribes, considered as units, were then taken, and the ultimate decision depended on the majority of the tribes. Now, if some of the tribes were considerably smaller than others, and if the members of a particular order or section of the people were predominant in the small tribes, they would have a greater legal influence on the decision than the citizens included in the larger tribes. The influence of the Italians, when admitted to Roman citizenship by the Julian law, was at first neutralised by this contrivance.

In the constitution of Servius, a similar result had been produced by the distribution of the people into centuries: the centuries of the rich contained fewer persons than the centuries of the poor; but the vote of each century (determined by a majority within its own body) reckoned as one. By this contrivance it was provided, (according to Cicero's expression), 'Ne plurimum valeant plurimi.'2 The absolute numerical majority of the people did not prevail in counting the votes.

A system of voting, founded upon the same principle, was adopted in some of the councils of the church. Inasmuch as the bishops from distant provinces did not attend a council in so large a number as those who came from the neighbouring provinces, a

On this mode of voting, see Bodinus, De Rep. II. 7, p. 360.

2 De Rep. II. 22. Compare Livy, I. 43: 'Non viritim suffragium eadem vi eodemque jure promiscue omnibus datum est; sed gradus facti, ut neque exclusus quisquam suffragio videretur, et vis omnis penes primores civitatis esset.'