point of very inferior importance. It assists us in no degree in determining how far we should enlarge our electoral bounds. What we have to do, if we resolve to go forward at all, is to follow out the principle of the Act of 1832, and decide, as men of practical experience, to what extent it may be reasonable, for the present, that these bounds should be enlarged.

It is said, and said with a great deal of truth, that a gradual extension of the franchise has been in progress since 1832; that the rise in the value of house property, and the fall in the value of money, has, in point of fact, admitted to the franchise a large class of those who were excluded at the time of the Reform Bill. It is said also, that the position of the artisan is now such that, with economy, sobriety and industry, the franchise is within his reach, if he chooses to avail himself of his opportunities. It is impossible to deny the importance of this observation. That it is true to a certain extent has not been disputed, nor can the artisan complain, as far as he has any interest in this matter, that the consideration is used to his prejudice. But then the extension of the franchise is for the public benefit, not for the individual. The artisan is to be admitted, if admitted at all, not from any peculiar benefit to be derived by himself, but because the benefit of the Commonwealth demands that he too shall have a share in voting for the representatives of the people; and this is the only ground upon which the proposal can be defended. It is not the proper function of the franchise to be an incentive to exertion. That which the Commonwealth is concerned with is, to have within the constituency those who are capable of exercising the public duty which the franchise imposes upon them, and the Legislature is bound to see to this, whatever be the individual position of those on whom the privilege is conferred. On the other hand, we are far from saying that this consideration is not one entitled to weight in the ultimate adjustment of this somewhat difficult question; because the probability is, as far as we can judge by appearances, and looking to the rapid strides by which the progress of this country is marked year by year, that this element will continue to operate. It is much too exceptional, and varies too much in different localities to afford anything like an argument against extending the suffrage; but when the question is at what point the new franchise ought to be fixed, it is a consideration not undeserving of attention.

We take for granted, that before Parliament is again called upon to consider this question in the shape of a Bill, the probable results of any proposal for lowering the franchise will

have been reasonably ascertained. Whether the Government will think it right to adopt the suggestion made by Lord Elcho last Session, of a Commission to inquire into these details, or will satisfy themselves by their own inquiries into the necessary statistics, of course cannot be known until their intentions are declared in Parliament. Whatever is done in this respect will probably be so thorough and authentic as to place beyond doubt, as far as inquiry can accomplish that object, the probable result of any measure of extension that may be submitted to the consideration of Parliament. We have the strongest impression that the result of such an inquiry will be to confirm to a very large extent the view which we have endeavoured to illustrate, viz., that this question of electoral extension is purely a matter of detail; that it is not fraught on either side with the evils or the advantages which the extremes of the Liberal party attribute to it; that it is a matter that may be safely undertaken without the apprehension of its resulting in any violent changes; and that all experience has taught us that the principle on which it will necessarily be based is sound and salutary in itself, and is likely to operate, as it has operated, to confirm and increase the stability of our institutions.

The second practical question we suggested above was, 'What chance has any proposal for an extension of the suffrage of being supported and passed in Parliament?' Of all the topics we have considered, none are nearly so important as this one, either for the Government or the Liberal party. The more abstract questions were settled by the Liberal party for itself as far back as 1852; and they may be safely left to the harmless manipulations of speculators. That which has hitherto baffled. successive Governments has not been what to propose, but how to carry any proposal; and the causes which have led to this difficulty we have endeavoured to shadow forth. It is, however, of the last importance to the Liberal party how it is to be solved. It is disparaging to the position of the leaders of affairs that a question such as this should be used as a political shuttlecock, and allowed to drop between the players when their arms are tired. If we are again to buckle on our armour and fight this battle of the representation, it must be in earnest, and once for all. It would be better, undoubtedly, that the suffrage should be adjusted anew with the consent of both sides. If the Liberals have hitherto gained little in a party sense by supporting the extension of the suffrage, the Conservatives have gained and can gain nothing by resisting it. But of this we see no symptoms, and therefore we must accoutre ourselves for the combat.

The first symptom of earnestness and coming success which we hope to see is honest, loyal, and hearty support, from the more advanced ranks of the Liberal party, to any proposition which may be made in the direction which they profess to desire. It is needless to say, for the country, the constituencies, and the House of Commons know it well, that nothing has so much tended to discredit this question and retard its progress, as the endeavour which some politicians of that school have made to identify its success with objects entirely foreign to it, and in the main distasteful to the country. While these pages are passing through the press Mr. Bright's speech at Rochdale has indicated that the lessons of the past have not been thrown away upon him, and that he now recognises the absolute necessity of moderation, concert, and union. Had he never spoken otherwise on the question of the Franchise than he did at Rochdale, his present support would have been more effective, and perhaps the past history of the question might have been altered. But any assistance hitherto which he has rendered to efforts in this direction has been so marred by conditions, prophecies, and doubts, so full of grudging praise and implied censure, and so linked with his peculiar views, as to have had far more effect in cooling friends, alarming the timid, and alienating the moderate, than in conciliating the elements of

success.

He cannot, of course, undo the past, or unspeak his spoken. words. The progress which he made through the country in 1858 is not yet forgotten, and will meet him when he least desires it, and both he and the Government to which he tenders his support will suffer by the recollection of it. He has now learnt, and manfully avows it, that to insist on discrediting a measure for the Extension of the Franchise, because it does not deal with the Ballot, is not the way to promote the cause he has at heart; and has given to his party very earnest, sensible, and well-meant advice as the only means by which such a measure as he hopes for can be carried. To ensure success will require all the moderation and all the cordiality with which he can inspire his friends. They are not more numerous in this Parliament than they were in the last. They may be strong enough to upset a government, but are far from being in a position to prescribe a policy, and can only be strong for action by hearty and united co-operation with the Government.

Mr. Bright's speech at Rochdale would have been more useful, although we appreciate the difficulties of his position, had he not held out the prospect of future agitation. It is not the

way to induce a man to co-operate with you in what he wishes or consents to, to tell him that you will use the act when accomplished to help you to do what he dislikes and dissents from. The bugbear of the Ballot, it is true, is no very awful phantom now. Familiarity has robbed it of its terrors, and has bred the proverbial contempt. The sooner it is discarded from any position in the Liberal creed the better. It was a mistake from the first, and nothing will now inspire it with animation. The redistribution of seats is a very different question; but it stands entirely apart from the Extension of the Suffrage, and may very properly wait for its period of solution.

Meanwhile let us hope that the reason and moderation of one extreme of the Liberal ranks, and liberality and love of the people on the part of the other, may render Earl Russell's supporters a compact phalanx on the meeting of Parliament. The difficulties which we have indicated cannot be concealed. They lie on the surface of political society, and in one shape or other they must be met and surmounted. Any proposal on the part of Government may exceed or may fall short of what either section would desire. But the object to be attained is great; it is truly a question in which individual opinion may fitly bend to harmonious action. Without this, the Liberal party will simply invite another failure, and throw away benefit which the recent election has bestowed on them.

the

The question could not be in more appropriate hands than those of Earl Russell. We shall watch with anxiety and interest the declaration of the policy of the Government. The crisis is far from presenting the elements of danger which prevailed in 1832; but with a desire to accept what is practicable on the one side, and reasonable confidence in the people on the other, we trust that the ensuing Session may see the problem of the Extension of the Suffrage happily solved.

No. CCLII. will be published in April next.

THE

EDINBURGH REVIEW,

APRIL, 1866.

No. CCLII.

ART. I. Plato and the other Companions of Sokrates. By George GrotE, F.R.S., &c. 8vo. 3 vols. London: 1865.

THE

HE readers of Mr. Grote's History of Greece' were not likely to forget the hope held out in its concluding volume, that he who had so well interpreted the political life of Hellas would delineate and judge that great outburst of speculative thought, by which, as much as by her freedom, Greece has been to the world what Athens according to Pericles was to Greece, a course of education. It might have been safely predicted, that the same conscientious research, the same skilful discrimination of authenticated fact from traditional misapprehension or uncertified conjecture, and the same rare power of realising different intellectual and moral points of view, which were conspicuous in the History, and nowhere more than in the memorable chapters on the Sophists and on Sokrates, would find congenial occupation in tracing out the genuine lineaments of Plato, Aristotle, and their compeers. But the present work does more than merely keep the promise of Mr. Grote's previous achievements-it reveals new powers: had it not been written the world at large might never have known, except on trust, the whole range of his capacities and endowments. Though intellects exercised in the higher philosophy might well perceive that such a book as the History of 'Greece' could not have been produced but by a mind similarly disciplined, the instruction which lay on the surface of that great work was chiefly civic and political; while the speculations of the Grecian philosophers, and emphatically of Plato, range over the whole domain of human thought and curiosity, from etymology up to cosmogony, and from the discipline of the music-school and the gymnasium to the most

VOL. CXXIII. NO. CCLII.

6

X