to vote contrary to his conscientious conviction, even when that conviction happens to be disapproved by his electors. A certain distinguished member from the west of Pennsylvania, if I have been correctly informed, once voted in decided opposition to his received instructions; and when called to account for his conduct, at the risk of being thrown out, he boldly said, that he could only promise for the future as in the past, to consider every question attentively and candidly, to weigh duly the wishes of his constituents, but never to vote in decided opposition to his own opinions; adding, that his fellow-citizens were perfectly right to transfer their voices to the man who might more thoroughly agree with them in sentiment than he had done. His electors received his declaration with applause. As his political life had been consistent, they considered this one instance of dissent as additional proof of his integrity, and accordingly re-elected him. Now I condemn neither the member nor his constituents. In his case, I should probably have considered it my duty to follow my own private conviction of what was best; and in theirs, to re-elect the man who was honest enough to do what he judged right, at the risk of his popularity.

But our approval or disapproval of the Pennsylvanian's conduct under these peculiar circumstances, does not affect the main question. He himself, in the given instance, might be considered as a legislator, or a guardian, or it may be a disinterested friend of the people; their representative he was not. He gave his opinion, not theirs; followed his wishes, not theirs: the power, which they had delegated to him, he employed to oppose what they had desired to support. The people, therefore, in so far as his decision was concerned, were not represented at all. They virtually lost, for the time, their rights of citizens, as completely as if they had been by force deprived of the elective franchise. If that which happened in this particular instance were to happen generally, the people would be as much at the mercy of their governors as are the serfs of Russia or the slaves of the Turkish dynasty.

Now, where is the remedy for evils, which, though trifling perhaps in the case of honest disinterested men, yet involve, in principle, the total loss of political liberty? Shall we expect from those whom we elect a sacrifice of their opinions to ours? The more honest and better portion of them may not choose to make the sacrifice. Or shall we expect from our chosen representatives a sacrifice of their interest to ours? The less honest and upright portion of them (and alas! how large the majority!)

will not deliberately sacrifice what they deem their own, to what they deem the public good.

Where then is the remedy? How shall the people be represented? not lorded over and governed, but represented? By choosing those men only whose opinions on all great points are in accordance with the opinions of their constituents; but, above all, in choosing those only whose INTERESTs are the same as the interest of the people,

་

Let us not "lead into temptation." Let us not elect men to a situation where interest tells them one thing and duty another. They ought not, indeed, to yield to the temptation; but that does not mend the matter; they will yield to it, if not in all cases, at least in the majority. An immoral situation produces, in the mass of mankind, immorality; and he whose duty and interest point different ways is immorally situated.

The real interests of the working classes are not the same as the apparent and immediate interests of what are called the privileged classes. Yet in five cases out of six, the representa tives of the people are chosen from among lawyers, bankers, large landed proprietors, and rich merchants. In five cases out of six, then, our representatives (as they are inaccurately called) are tempted to do wrong; and if they do right, it is in spite of the temptation.

The people ought to search for those whose personal interests coincide with their own; and ought, for that reason, to choose representatives from among their own body, whenever they can find among themselves men of plain good sense, of firmness, and of practical experience. The working classes, in consequence of the injustice which has meted inordinate labour for their portion, have hitherto had but little time to improve their minds or form their manners. In consequence, there are few eloquent, and not a great many fluent speakers among them. This is to be regretted; for eloquence is a giant power in a commonwealth like this But we must take things as we find them, and make the best of them. The manner is indeed important, but it is much less important than the matter. An indifferent speaker is better than a dishonest man. If, therefore, we cannot find eloquence and honesty combined, let us take the honesty and leave the eloquence; for, thus, if we have less brilliant debates, we shall have more useful laws.

I said that it behoved the people to choose those men for their representatives whose opinions were in accordance with their own; and I shall probably be told, that this is impossible; first because we cannot easily ascertain the general opinion of

the body of electors; and then because, even if we could, it might be difficult to find a man conscientiously holding all these, and otherwise capable of fulfilling the duties of a legislator.

If

But if we cannot do all, let us at least do what we can. we cannot find representatives who will support every measure which their electors desire to carry, let us take those who will support the essentials. And, above all, let us not quarrel about the non-essentials.

There are certain great measures which are indispensable to the welfare of the people; there are certain master- abuses that must be remedied, ere common justice can accrue to the producing classes TO CARRY THESE let the people first unite. Let them elect mẹn, not because they are of Jackson's or of Adams or of Clay's party, or of any party whatever: but because they will support and vote for the great measures which can alone relieve the country from its present distress.

And let the people seek until they find, what these great measures are. Having found them, let them vote, not to carry men, but to carry these measures; not to serve the interests of any political party, but to serve the great interests of themselves, the people.

They have the power in their own hands. Let them seek the knowledge and the union of purpose and of plan, which can alone make that power effective.

In despotic countries where it rests with the autocrat to command, and with his slaves to hear and to obey-in lands where the power of one is supported and the obedience of the many enforced, by lance or bayonet-it is not enough to open the people's eyes to their real situation; they must not only be enlightened, they must be armed also. For their will is but of small weight against his who has an army of mercenaries in his pay and at his beck.

Not so in this commonwealth. Whenever the eyes of the people are opened; whenever they know what they desire to effect, and know how to unite their efforts and make effective their acknowledged power-they may carry what measures they will. THEY HAVE THE POWER. They may be cheated into a belief that they have it not; they may be urged on to jealousies and internal dissentions and party feuds, that waste each others strength and neutralize each others influence: and thus the people may be shorn of their rights, without perceiving how they lose them. But the power they have. They can dictate their own laws, and carry their own measures; can legislate for themselves. And if they be oppressed, if riches

and aristocracy legislate for them, and often legislate against them-it is the people's blindness, not their impotence, that gives their adversaries the day.

It is not the servants oppressed by their masters; it is the master deceived and tricked and governed by his servants. As American citizens, in whom is vested the elective franchise, we are our own masters. Our representatives are our servants, whom we pay to do our business; not our slaves, but our confidential hired servants. If they attend to their own business instead of attending to ours, they presume on our ignorance, and violate the duties of their situation,

Our situation, then, is good, so far as situation goes. It is right and proper that freemen should be their own masters. But that is not enough Mere power, without knowledge, is but a useless bauble; rights unexercised are no rights at all; and a master at the mercy of his servants is no better than a slave.

So long as we cannot agree upon the instructions which we will give to our delegates; so long as we do not see these instructions carried into effect; so long as we are careless and negligent, instead of looking after our own affairs; so long are we masters at the mercy of our servants; and so long are we likely to be deceived and oppressed.

If we will change our situation, let us be up and doing. Let us choose faithful servants; not smooth-spoken rogues, nor unprofitable doers of eye service, but good and faithful servants. Let us retain them in our service so long as they remain faithful; and let us dismiss them when they seek their own emolument, instead of caring for our concerns.

But, above all, let us determine what instruction we will give them. If our instructions be contradictory and confused, we cannot be obeyed; we shall spoil our servants; the best of them will resign their situations, and the rest will cheat us if they can. Let us, then, enquire what are the essentials, which the people, for their own sake, ought, through their representatives, to obtain.

Here is the great difficulty. Here lies our weakness, and our oppressors strength. We know not what we would have. Some of us are tariff, some anti-tariff men; some think the country may be made a paradise by internal improvement; others that our safety can only be insured by the demolition of the banking system; some think the world would be regenerated by communities of common property; others, by labor for labor associations; others, again, by an agrarian law: some think religion only can save the country, others, that religious

influence will ruin it: one takes up one particular abuse, and one another. And the worst of it is, each deems his own plan the only specific for the national disease; and of course exerts all his energies to bring it into notice in preference to every other. Here is the secret of our political degradation. Here the cause why the few can ride the many with impunity, and why the many so tamely suffer themselves to be ridden by the few. We are at variance among ourselves, and we waste in party disputes and petty dissentions, the time and the means that ought to be employed in the great work of national improvement. If this must needs continue, our liberty was but a worthless gift.

But must it continue? Is there no point upon which we can all unite? Is there no great measure to which we can all subscribe? Is there none whose importance all will acknowledge, and by whose adoption all would feel themselves benefitted ?

I believe there is ONE. And if there be, how indispensable to our prosperity as a nation, that we should see it! and, seeing, that we should unite to obtain it!

It is not a measure that, like the tariff question, will divide the North and the South; nor a local proposal, like laying a rail road, or the cutting a canal. It is not a partial reform, like the supression of gambling among bankers; nor an untried remedy like the establishment of social communities. Nor is it a startling innovation like the equal division of property; nor even a subject for which our early prejudices may have been enlisted, like that of theology. It is a measure whose benefits all may see, from Maine to Florida, of whatever state, of whatever party, of whatever religion. It is A NATIONAL

SYSTEM OF EDUCATION.

I would that my voice could extend over our wide republic, that I might repeat in the ears of every citizen, the advice: "Vote for those men only who will support a State Education. Cast aside party feelings. Cast aside favourite schemes. Ask not if your candidate be a mason or an anti-mason, a federalist or a democrat, a friend to national improvement, or an enemy to banking monopolies until ye have first asked, 'Will he assist us to obtain for our children that best of patrimonies, whose possession would have saved us all of which we complain?' Let this be your first question. He is your friend who will honestly answer it in the affirmative; and he your enemy who will say no to it; or, saying yes, who will not hold to his word. Let this be the test of your approbation, this the condition of your support, this the one thing needful that shall