does not satisfy our minds, it at least will prepare us to presume, that there may be an almost infinite diversity in the established right of voting, without any state being able to assert, that its own mode is exclusively founded in natural justice, or is most conformable to sound policy, or is best adapted to the public security. It will teach us, that the question is necessarily complex and intricate in its own nature, and is scarcely susceptible of any simple solution, which shall rigidly apply to the circumstances and conditions, the interests and the feelings, the institutions and the manners of all nations.[1] What may best promote the public weal, and secure the public liberty, and advance the public prosperity in one age or nation, may totally fail of similar results under local, physical, or moral predicaments essentially different.
§ 581. It would carry us too far from the immediate object of these Commentaries to take a general survey of the various modifications, under which the right of suffrage, either in relation to laws, or magistracy, or even judicial controversies, has appeared in different nations in ancient and modern times. The examples of Greece and Rome, in ancient times, and of England in modern times, will be found most instructive.[2] In England, the qualifications of voters, as also the modes of representation, are various, and framed upon no common principle. The counties are represented by knights, elected by the proprietors of lands, who are freeholders;[3] the boroughs and cities are represented- ↑ Dr. Lieber's Encyclopædia Americana, art. Constitution.
- ↑ See 3 Adams's Amer. Constitut. Letter 6, p. 263, &c. p. 440, &c. 1 Black. Comm. 171, 172, 173; Montesquieu's Spirit of Laws, Book 11, ch. 13; id. B. 2, ch. 2.
- ↑ 1 Black. Comm. 172, 173; Paley's Moral Philosophy, B. 6, ch. 7; The Federalist, No. 57.
