forgotten that it was the popular magistrates, elevated to office where the bad outnumbered the good,-where those who had not a stake in the commonwealth, by clamor and noise and numbers, drowned the voice of those who had,—that laid the neck of Rome at the feet of her conqueror. When Cæsar, manifesting a disposition to march his army against the capital, approached that little stream which has become so memorable from its association with his history, a decree was proposed in the Senate declaring him a public enemy if he did not disband his troops. To this decree the popular tribunes, the sworn protectors of the people, interposed their negative; and thus opened the high road to Rome, and the gates of the city herself, to the approach of her conqueror.

The English Revolution of 1688 was a revolution in favor of property, as well as of other rights. It was brought about by the men of property for their security; and our own immortal Revolution was undertaken, not to shake or plunder property, but to protect it. The acts of which the country complained were such as violated rights of property. An immense majority of all those who had an interest in the soil were in favor of the Revolution; and they carried it through, looking to its results for the security of their possessions. It was the property of the frugal yeomanry of New England, hard earned, but freely given, that enabled her to act her proper part and perform her full duty in achieving the independence of the country.

I would not be thought, Mr. Chairman, to be among those who underrate the value of military service. My heart beats, I trust, as responsive as any one's, to a soldier's claim for honor and renown. It has ever been my opinion, however, that while celebrating the military achievements of our countrymen in the Revolutionary contest, we have not always done equal justice to the merits and the sufferings of those who sustained, on their property, and on their means of subsistence, the great burden of the war. Any one, who has had occasion to be acquainted with the records of the New England towns, knows well how to esti mate those merits and those sufferings. Nobler records of patriotism exist nowhere. Nowhere can there be found higher proofs of a spirit that was ready to hazard all, to pledge all, to sacrifice all, in the cause of the country. Instances were not infrequent, in which small freeholders parted with their last hoof, and the

last measure of corn from their granaries, to supply provisions for the troops, and hire service for the ranks. The voice of Otis and of Adams in Faneuil Hall found its full and true echo in the little councils of the interior towns; and if within the Continental Congress patriotism shone more conspicuously, it did not there exist more truly, nor burn more fervently; it did not render the day more anxious, or the night more sleepless; it sent up no more ardent prayer to God, for succor; and it put forth in no greater degree the fulness of its effort, and the energy of its whole soul and spirit, in the common cause, than it did in the small assemblies of the towns. I cannot, therefore, Sir, agree that it is in favor of society, or in favor of the people, to constitute government with an entire disregard to those who bear the public burdens in times of great exigency. This question has been argued, as if it were proposed only to give an advantage to a few rich men. I do not so understand it. I consider it as giving property, generally, a representation in the Senate, both because it is just that it should have such representation, and because it is a convenient mode of providing that check which the constitution of the legislature requires. I do not say that such check might not be found in some other provision; but this is the provision already established, and it is, in my opinion, a just and proper one.

I will beg leave to ask, Sir, whether property may not be said to deserve this portion of respect and power in the government? It pays, at this moment, I think, five sixths of all the public taxes; one sixth only being raised on persons. Not only, Sir, do these taxes support those burdens which all governments require, but we have, in New England, from early times held property to be subject to another great public use; I mean the support of schools. Sir, property, and the power which the law exercises over it for the purpose of instruction, are the basis of the system. It is entitled to the respect and protection of government, because, in a very vital respect, it aids and sustains government. The honorable member from Worcester, in contending for the admission of the mere popular principle in all branches of the government, told us, that our system rested on the intelligence of the community. He told us truly. But allow me, Sir, to ask the honorable gen. tleman, what, but property, supplies the means of that intelli

gence? What living fountain feeds this ever-flowing, everrefreshing, ever-fertilizing stream of public instruction and general intelligence? If we take away from the towns the power of assessing taxes on property, will the school-houses remain open? If we deny to the poor the benefit which they now derive from the property of the rich, will their children remain on their forms, or will they not, rather, be in the streets, in idleness and in vice?

I might ask again, Sir, how is it with religious instruction? Do not the towns and parishes raise money by vote of the majority, assessed on property, for the maintenance of religious worship? Are not the poor as well as the rich benefited by the means of attending on public worship, and do they not equally with the rich possess a voice and vote in the choice of the minister, and in all other parish concerns? Does any man, Sir, wish to try the experiment of striking out of the constitution the regard which it has hitherto maintained for property, and of foregoing also the extraordinary benefit which society among us for near two centuries has derived from laying the burden of religious and literary instruction of all classes upon property? Does any man wish to see those only worshipping God who are able to build churches and maintain ministers for themselves, and those children only educated whose parents possess the means of educating them? Sir, it is as unwise as it is unjust to make property an object of jealousy. Instead of being, in any just sense, a popular course, such a course would be most injurious and destructive to the best interests of the people. The nature of our laws sufficiently secures us against any dangerous accumulations; and, used and diffused as we have it, the whole operation of property is in the highest degree useful, both to the rich and to the poor. I rejoice, Sir, that every man in this community may call all property his own, so far as he has occasion for it, to furnish for himself and his children the blessings of religious instruction and the elements of knowledge. This heavenly and this earthly light he is entitled to by the fundamental laws. It is every poor man's undoubted birthright, it is the great blessing which this constitution has secured to him, it is his solace in life, and it may well be his consolation in death, that his country stands pledged, by the faith which it has plighted to all its citizens, to protect his children from ignorance, barbarism, and vice.

I will now proceed to ask, Sir, whether we have not seen, and whether we do not at this moment see, the advantage and benefit of giving security to property, by this and all other reasonable and just provisions. The constitution has stood on its present basis forty years. Let me ask, What State has been more distinguished for wise and wholesome legislation? I speak, Sir, without the partiality of a native, and also without intending the compliment of a stranger; and I ask, What example have we had of better legislation? No violent measures af fecting property have been attempted. Stop laws, suspension laws, tender laws, all the tribe of these arbitrary and tyrannical interferences between creditor and debtor, which, wheresoever practised, generally end in the ruin of both, are strangers to our statute-book. An upright and intelligent judiciary has come in aid of wholesome legislation; and general security for public and private rights has been the result. I do not say that this is peculiar, I do not say that others have not done as well. It is enough that, in these respects, we shall be satisfied that we are not behind our neighbors. No doubt, Sir, there are benefits of every kind, and of great value, in an organization of government, both in legislative and judicial administration, which well secures the rights of property; and we should find it so, by unfortunate experience, should that character be lost. There are millions of personal property now in this Commonwealth which are easily transferable, and would be instantly transferred elsewhere, if any doubt existed of its entire security. I do not know how much of this stability of government, and of the general respect for it, may be fairly imputed to this particular mode of organizing the Senate. It has, no doubt, had some effect. It indicates a respect for the rights of property, and may have operated on opinion as well as upon measures. Now to strike out and obliterate it, as it seems to me, would be in a high degree unwise and improper.

As to the right of apportioning senators upon this principle, I do not understand how there can be a question about it. All government is a modification of general principles and general truths, with a view to practical utility. Personal liberty, for instance, is a clear right, and is to be provided for; but it is not a clearer right than the right of property, though it may be more important. It is, therefore, entitled to protection. But property

is also to be protected; and when it is remembered how great a portion of the people of this State possess property, I cannot understand how its protection or its influence is hostile to their rights and privileges. For these reasons, Sir, I am in favor of maintaining that check, in the constitution of the legislature, which has so long existed there.

I understand the gentleman from Worcester* to be in favor of a check, but it seems to me he would place it in the wrong house. Besides, the sort of check he proposes appears to me to be of a novel nature, as a balance in government. He proposes to choose the senators according to the number of inhabitants; and to choose representatives, not according to that number, but in proportions greatly unequal in the town corporations. It has been stated to result from computation, and I do not understand it to be denied, that, on his system, a majority of the representatives will be chosen by towns not containing one third part of the whole population of the State. I would beg to ask, Sir, on what principle this can stand; especially in the judgment of those who regard population as the only just basis of representation. But, Sir, I have a preliminary objection to this system; which is, that it reverses all our common notions, and constitutes the popular house upon anti-popular principles. We are to have a popular Senate of thirty-six members, and we are to place the check of the system in a House of Representatives of two hundred and fifty members! All money bills are to originate in the House, yet the House is not to be the popular branch. It is to exceed the Senate, seven or eight to one, in point of numbers, yet the Senate is to be chosen on the popular principle, and the House on some other principle.

It is necessary here, Sir, to consider the manner of electing representatives in this Commonwealth, as heretofore practised, the necessity which exists of reducing the present number of representatives, and the propositions which have been submitted for that purpose. Representation by towns or townships (as they might have been originally more properly called) is peculiar to New England. It has existed, however, since the first settlement of the country. These local districts are so small, and of such unequal population, that if every town is to have one rep

* Mr. Lincoln.