influence; and that every different interest of the country should be there faithfully represented. The voice of the multitude should doubtless carry with it great weight; but on no principles to us intelligible, ought that weight to be predominant over all other influences put together. Under the old system of close boroughs, there was a real and effective representation of divers interests, though by means of a machinery which could not be defended. What we complain of is, that under the Reform Bills there has been no attempt to secure a similar result by more satisfactory methods; that, instead of the reformers cherishing and promoting every variety of suffrage, they have established a dull and leaden uniformity of franchise; and that they have thus enacted a scheme which, if left to work freely, is one of pure democracy. We say "pure democracy": because (as has continually been pointed out) the lowest class of those who receive the franchise will always outnumber all the rest put together; and the constituency of 1831 was as mere a "demos" as that of 1867.

Now one of the many evils which have resulted from these disastrous measures, has been the political demoralization to which they have in some sense given a sanction. The Russian Government has been called a despotism tempered by the bowstring; and in like manner, since 1832, the British Constitution may well have been called a democracy tempered by bribery and intimidation. That pure democracy in Great Britain is ruinous in tendency, we must take leave to call the obvious conclusion of common sense: and nothing saves the British Constitution from being a pure democracy, except bribery and intimidation, direct or indirect, explicit or implicit. It has been difficult for many men to see, that practices, which are so necessary, are at the same time so detestable. And it is to our mind the peculiar ignominy of the Reform Bills, that, under their auspices-so far as Great Britain is concerned-every fresh conquest over bribery and intimidation is one further step on the road to political ruin.

Meanwhile there is just one conservative influence,―necessarily indeed short-lived, but on which, while it lasts, the mind can repose with less dissatisfaction. Even to this day-though in a rapidly diminishing degree throughout a large portion of Great Britain, a large proportion of tenant farmers vote for their landlord's candidate with hearty complacency. Nor does this denote such an utter negation of political views as might at first sight appear: because the politics of any given landlord are in general substantially those of his ancestors; and conservative farmers naturally place themselves on a conservative estate, liberals on a liberal. Beyond this broad division however into "conser

vative" and "liberal," it must be admitted that the great majority of British farmers have few definite political convictions of their own; and they are delighted accordingly to follow their landlord's lead. They vote for his candidate, not at all because they are afraid of any punishment with which he could visit them, but because it is their very notion of political virtue that tenants should so vote. And they have an esprit de corps, which makes them delight in the influence of the estate to which they belong.

But it is plain that any individual, who rises above a certain (somewhat low) level of conscientiousness and intelligence, cannot long continue without self-reproach thus blindly to follow the multitude. Suppose I am such a person. I must in due time ask myself the question, why it is reasonable and proper that I should vote for my landlord's candidate rather than for any other. And it is very far easier to ask this question, than to answer it. The reply commonly given is, that my landlord is far more highly educated than I am, and that reasonable modesty should induce me to follow his judgment rather than my own. Now doubtless reasonable modesty should show me, how incompetent I am to decide by my own lights the momentous issues before me; but why on earth should I seek my landlord's illumination, rather than that of some other educated person? I hold a good deal of land from A. B., Esq., and I have always found him a straightforward and honourable man enough; but his neighbour, C. D., Esq., from whom I hold no land at all but with whom circumstances have brought me into contact, impresses me as a person far superior to A. B. in respect both of intelligence and of public spirit. Granting then to the full that reasonable modesty will lead me to seek the advice of one more competent than myself,surely it is C. D. who should be my chosen adviser, rather than A. B.

A much more plausible reason however than the foregoing may be alleged, for my supporting my landlord's candidate. We have already admitted, that this habit of tenants voting with their landlord is about the least unsatisfactory of the conservative elements in the British Constitution. Should I not therefore injure my country more-so far as any one individual can produce either injury or benefit-by discrediting and opposing this habit, than I should do by acquiescing in a candidate, who is not absolutely the best of those who are standing? We incline to think that this consideration has real force. The cases are perhaps not rare in which, by the help of my Mentor C. D. I may fairly arrive at a conclusion, that I should do less harm by opposing C. D.'s favourite candidate, than by weakening the habit which now exists of tenants voting with their land

lord a habit which, under present circumstances, neither burdensome nor degrading to the conscience of the former.

But whether this is so or not-and we would by no means speak confidently on the point-at all events such a consideration cannot apply to cases, in which some momentous issue is involved. Suppose e.g. my landlord's candidate advocates compulsory secular instruction; whereas I am a Catholic, and (after obtaining the best advice of those more competent persons in whom I have confidence) consider that the enforcement of such instruction would be an overwhelming national calamity. Or suppose that my landlord's candidate advocates a measure of some different kind, which I heartily, and after due deliberation with others, regard as frightfully immoral in tendency. Under such circumstances, it is my duty to do all I possibly can within my little sphere, for the purpose of influencing public opinion. I must nail my colours to the mast. I must lift up my voice against public calamity.

Moreover we believe that, in the existing state of opinion, very few landlords would be found in Great Britain to take offence at this, when they rightly understood it; and still fewer, who would dream of visiting my conduct with any kind of penal retribution. Nay, we believe the large majority of British landlords would concur with ourselves, in denouncing any such act of attempted coercion, as an act which deserves severe condemnation from every honest and straightforward man.

In all the cases hitherto given, it will be seen that the voters act in accordance with their honest conviction; they vote just as they think they ought to vote. Here is the obvious and unmistakable line of demarcation, between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" influence. C. D.'s advice was "legitimate" influence; A. B.'s threat of coercion (supposing it) "illegitimate." To vote according to my own opinion, does not mean "to vote according to the opinion which I should have formed without C. D.'s advice"; but "which I have formed by help of his advice." On the other hand, under the name of "illegitimate influence" is included every kind of pressure, which seeks to influence the vote, without influencing the opinion. And certainly we hold, with the Archbishop of Tuam, that the ballot is simply irreproachable in principle: its tendency is precisely to preserve that influence which is legitimate, and to get rid of that only which is tyrannical and oppressive.

We now cross the Irish Channel; and come at once into the presence of circumstances, which differ (one may say) not less than grotesquely from those of Great Britain. Even on one point which but incidentally affects our argument-the perils of democracy-there is the broadest contrast. The great ma

jority of the Irish (thank God!) are so faithful to their religion, that they are more accessible than almost any other people to the influence of their priests; and Catholic priests are in all countries the most efficacious, because the most intelligent and large-minded, enemies of the Revolution. So far as the characteristics of that movement have been introduced into Ireland at all, it has not been even by the agency of Irish Protestants, but by the stupid and ignorant intermeddling of Englishmen ; of Englishmen, who endeavour to force on Ireland, by measures educational and other, a principle which is utterly uncongenial to Irishmen of every creed. (See our remarks in April, p. 438.) Bribery and intimidation, even in Great Britain, are deplorable and disastrous evils; but in Ireland they are also unmixed evils, productive of no incidental benefit whatever.

Here however we must not be misunderstood. Supposing the legislature had thought fit, both in Great Britain and Ireland, to give direct representation to landed property as such, we should not have a word to say against an arrangement, which (as we have already said) seems to us indefinitely more just and reasonable than that which exists. In what we are going to say, we only assume the obvious and elementary truth, that every one who has received the franchise-be he landowner or be he labourer-should exercise it according to his own conscience, and not that of somebody else.

Let this then be borne in mind. Almost every considerable Parliamentary election in Ireland must be regarded by sincere Catholics as a matter of vital importance; as a matter affecting seriously the position of the Church and the interest of souls. Whichever the wrong side may be, to vote on the wrong side, nay or to abstain from voting on the right, is nothing less-as every Catholic must feel who chooses to think-than to betray the interests of his God, his Faith, and his Country. That he should do this from fear of his landlord's oppression, or even from mere motives of gratitude to that landlord,—is in itself a base and disgraceful act: however much in individual cases the moral fault may be justly extenuated, by considering the circumstances of violent temptation under which it was perhaps committed.

But how will the Catholic voter know, on which side lie the interests of his God, his Faith, and his Country? We have frankly confessed in the earlier part of our article, or rather have heartily maintained, that an uneducated elector of reasonable modesty will look about for persons of superior culture in whom he has confidence, that they may assist him in coming to a conclusion. But an Irish Catholic must really be on the verge of idiocy, who could think that his Protestant landlord

will be his competent guide on such a question. Take e.g. what Judge Keogh (p. 17) calls "the great religious question which, we were told, poisoned the whole of this election conflict"; viz., that of denominational education. I am a Catholic of good intentions, but imperfectly instructed. What possible reason can I have for dreaming, that my Protestant landlord's opinion is worth one straw on such a question as this? I know with absolute certainty, that the religion which he professes is false and a corruption of the Gospel: what do I know in his favour, which can counterbalance this adverse presumption? This applies even to the most favourable case: but if I further find him urging me to vote against my conscience, then I have direct proof that his political morality is rotten to the core. On the other hand, the priests-who are not professors only but authorized teachers of the one true Faith-combine with hardly a dissentient voice in one particular doctrine, on this momentous subject of denominational education. There is no politician in the world who is reasonably more certain of any political doctrine whatever, than I am of this. And similar considerations apply in their degree to the other numerous political questions, on which the priests are almost unanimous on one side and the Protestant landlords on the other.

If Englishmen then allege that an Irish Catholic voter acts unreasonably, in supporting his priests by the full and undivided strength of his political action, what is the principle on which they must ground such an opinion? They must hold, in consistency, that a voter is never to be guided by the opinion of any one else, of any "C. D." in whom he reposes confidence; that he is never in fact to vote according to his own opinion; that he is either to vote according to his landlord's opinion, or else according to what would have been his own opinion if he had had no guide to consult. As applied to England, such a proposition would of course be too preposterous to be gravely expressed; but no proposition is too preposterous, for an Englishman speculating about Ireland.

Judge Keogh's language all through shows, how destitute he is of all sympathy with the very notion of Irish electors voting according to their conscience. He calls the recent Galway election (p. 17) "the most astounding attempt at ecclesiastical tyranny which the whole history of priestly intolerance presents." Yet in what language has this "tyranny" and "in-. tolerance" found expression? He quotes it with hearty reprobation, and we italicize a word or two.

The clergy of the four dioceses, . . . . having determined to support the candidature of Captain Nolan, in conference assembled. . . . request the clergymen of the four dioceses to explain to the electors of the several parishes