something in which the members possess unequal shares, it is just that the weight of each person in the common councils should bear a relation and proportion to his interest. Such is the sentiment of Grotius, and he refers, in support of it, to several institutions among the ancient states.

Those authors who have written more particularly on the subject of political institutions have, many of them, maintained similar sentiments. Not, indeed, that every man's power should be in exact proportion to his property, but that, in a general sense, and in a general form, property, as such, should have its weight and influence in political arrangement. Montesquieu speaks with approbation of the early Roman regulation, made by Servius Tullius, by which the people were distributed into classes, according to their property, and the public burdens apportioned to each individual according to the degree of power which he possessed in the government. By this regulation, he observes, some bore with the greatness of their tax because of their proportionable participation in power and credit; others consoled themselves for the smallness of their power and credit by the smallness of their tax. One of the most ingenious of political writers is Mr. Harrington, an author not now read so much as he deserves. It is his leading object, in his Oceana, to prove, that power naturally and necessarily follows property. He maintains that a government founded on property is legiti mately founded; and that a government founded on the disregard of property is founded in injustice, and can only be maintained by military force. "If one man," says he, "be sole landlord, like the Grand Seignior, his empire is absolute. If a few possess the land, this makes the Gothic or feudal constitution. If the whole people be landlords, then is it a commonwealth." "It is strange," says an ingenious person in the last century, "that Harrington should be the first man to find out so evident and demonstrable a truth as that of property being the true basis and measure of power." In truth, he was not the first. The idea is as old as political science itself. It may be found in Aristotle, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh, and other writers. Harrington seems, however, to be the first writer who has illustrated and expanded the principle, and given to it the

*Spence's Anecdotes of Books and Men, p. 75.

effect and prominence which justly belong to it. To this sentiment, Sir, I entirely agree. It seems to me to be plain, that, in the absence of military force, political power naturally and necessarily goes into the hands which hold the property. In my judgment, therefore, a republican form of government rests, not more on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmission of property.

If the nature of our institutions be to found government on property, and that it should look to those who hold property for its protection, it is entirely just that property should have its due weight and consideration in political arrangements. Life and personal liberty are no doubt to be protected by law; but property is also to be protected by law, and is the fund out of which the means for protecting life and liberty are usually furnished. We have no experience that teaches us that any other rights are safe where property is not safe. Confiscation and plunder are generally, in revolutionary commotions, not far before banishment, imprisonment, and death. It would be monstrous to give even the name of government to any association in which the rights of property should not be completely secured. The disas trous revolutions which the world has witnessed, those political thunder-storms and earthquakes which have shaken the pillars of society to their very deepest foundations, have been revolutions against property. Since the honorable member from Quincy has alluded on this occasion to the history of the ancient states, it would be presumption in me to dwell upon it. It may be truly said, however, I think, that Rome herself is an example of the mischievous influence of the popular power when disconnected with property and in a corrupt age. It is true the arm of Cæsar prostrated her liberty; but Cæsar found his support within her very walls. Those who were profligate and necessitous, and factious and desperate, and capable, therefore, of being influenced by bribes and largesses, which were distributed with the utmost prodigality, outnumbered and outvoted, in the tribes and centuries, the substantial, sober, prudent, and faithful citizens. Property was in the hands of one description of men, and power in those of another; and the balance of the constitution was destroyed. Let it never be

*President Adams.

something in which the members possess unequal shares, it is just that the weight of each person in the common councils should bear a relation and proportion to his interest. Such is the sentiment of Grotius, and he refers, in support of it, to several institutions among the ancient states.

Those authors who have written more particularly on the sul ject of political institutions have, many of them, maintaine similar sentiments. Not, indeed, that every man's power shou be in exact proportion to his property, but that, in a gener sense, and in a general form, property, as such, should have weight and influence in political arrangement. Montesqu speaks with approbation of the early Roman regulation, m by Servius Tullius, by which the people were distributed i classes, according to their property, and the public burdens portioned to each individual according to the degree of p which he possessed in the government. By this regula he observes, some bore with the greatness of their tax bec of their proportionable participation in power and credit; c consoled themselves for the smallness of their power and by the smallness of their tax. One of the most ingenio political writers is Mr. Harrington, an author not now re much as he deserves. It is his leading object, in his Ocea prove, that power naturally and necessarily follows pro He maintains that a government founded on property is mately founded; and that a government founded on the gard of property is founded in injustice, and can only be tained by military force. "If one man," says he, "be so lord, like the Grand Seignior, his empire is absolute. J possess the land, this makes the Gothic or feudal cons If the whole people be landlords, then is it a common "It is strange," says an ingenious person in the last "that Harrington should be the first man to find ou dent and demonstrable a truth as that of property true basis and measure of power." In truth, he wa first. The idea is as old as political science itself. found in Aristotle, Lord Bacon, Sir Walter Raleigh. writers. Harrington seems, however, to b has illustrated and expanded the princi

BASIS OF THE BENATE

and prominence which justly belong to a. 1o the sin Sir, I entirely agree.

sence of military force, poolenaras

y goes into the hand. v 1. es therefore, a reprolemn form a y

15

t )

is,

aid

ern

I the

Not 1 gov1 early lic use;

> power struction,

pect and

espect, it ber from

ere popu1 us, that nity. He

rable gen. at intelli

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