—the greatest number that can agree together,—in the work of electing their local member. Without such a power, it would be commonly useless, and even absurd, for an ordinary elector to propose a new candidate against the nominee of the clique or caucus of the borough; but this power, which vindicates his individual right, most of our politicians shrink from giving him. It would, they fear, make the voter too free. He is not to be trusted without the bridle and the bit. Extend the suffrage,—make the constituency more numerous,—but do not trust them out of harness. “All our schemes of election management may be defeated, if every voter had such extensive means of comparison and choice, and if no small cabal could affect the general result.”
With the integral political rights of counties, cities, boroughs, and corporate bodies, the constitution of this kingdom, and the public life and habits of its people, are inseparably interwoven. This method of election contains very much which would promote the development of such centres of action, and impart to them a purer and nobler spirit,—nothing that would weaken their force. Can it be supposed that the moment the electors are allowed a freedom of choice they will all immediately be seized with a desire to vote for some distant candidates with whom they are unacquainted, rather than for those whom they know,—who are near to them, whose addresses they have heard, and who have personal recommendations to the favour and respect of the town and neighbourhood? Local and corporate associations are highly and justly prized. From them the state derives benefits analogous to those which the close fellowship and community of the domestic and family relation afford to the individual. These natural ties are not so fragile that they disappear as soon as they cease to be forcibly kept alive by positive law. It argues but a small belief in the regard of our people for local action to suppose that they must be imprisoned within their constituency to be kept true to it.
