[figure description] Page 076.[end figure description]

A VOTE in a community in proportion to the stake,
would seem at first sight reasonable. But what is the
stake? The foot of earth that one holds merely? Can
soil be valued by the foot, without regard to quality, and
situation? Is the improvement made upon it to pass for
nothing? Quantity, and quality of soil cannot be the
measure. Labour expended may be more than quantity,
or quality.

The adscripti glebis, or attachment to the soil, may
give some security against external enemies; but what
security for internal peace, and equal liberty? On the
contrary, he that has much will covet more, until an
aristocracy is established; and aristocracy leads to monarchy,
and tyranny. Put it on the footing of desert—
Does the accumulation of riches imply virtuous action?
Must he be considered to be possessed of a great mind who
has been fortunate? Is it not oftener evidence of a low
mind to have acquired riches? I say oftener, because I
admit that it is not a general rule. Has the dictum of
philosophers passed for truth, that there is nothing great
to despise which is great; and shall wealth in a commonwealth
be accounted great, and entitling to honour
and immunities? But the presumption is, that a man
regardless of his own means will not be likely to adopt
wise measures in affairs of the republic. I will admit
that a presumption lies against him who has no property,
that he might have had it, if he had been industrious,
or prudent. But the moralist truly says that “riches are
not to men of understanding.” That is not always so.
I lay it down in general, that a moderate degree of wealth
is “to men of understanding.” But there are exceptions
that defy chance and time. A special providence, or
chance, if you would chuse to have it so, has something
to do in the affairs of men. “He that is born to the
plack will never win to the babee,” is a proverb in the
old Saxon language. But I hold it that in general the
fact is that “the hand of the diligent maketh rich.” And
a man that is faithful in his own affairs, affords a

[figure description] Page 077.[end figure description]

reasonable presumption, that he will be faithful in the affairs
of the public. But selfishness, and disregard of the
public is a symptom of a groveling mind. And there
are heroic souls, that seem born not for themselves
but for the public. And there is a Latin maxim, “non
nobis metipsis, nascimur;” we are not born for ourselves
alone.

There was a poor man, and yet that “poor man saved
the city.” You cannot exclude the unestated man without
at the same time excluding the wise and the virtuous
that are without estates. There can be no good enjoyed
without an alloy of evil. Liberty of the tongue,
liberty of the press, or any other species of liberty and
equality will have its drawbacks. It is doubtless a great
evil that Tag-rag and Bob-tail, and who are so by their own
indolence, should come to the polls with an equal voice,
in the constitution of the government, with those who
have a greater stake in matters of property; but it cannot
be avoided without losing the principle that money is
not virtue. If you carry it out that property must be
represented according to property, the voter must have
votes in proportion as he is wealthy; and wealth in soil
only cannot be regarded. The establishment of manufactures,
the encouragement of commerce, would oppose
this. If he that is without property of any kind can
have no vote, he that has much must have many; and
this brings it to an inequality of votes, which require a
continual census to regulate the number. If paying tax
is a criterion, he that pays more tax, ought to have more
votes. I see nothing simple, and like truth in the matter,
and approaching the practicable, but that the poll
should poll; and every one that brings a snout of full age,
to the election ground, should have a vote. Indigence
is in its nature dependent; and will rally round candidates
of some standing in society from their degree of
independence; and the votes being thus amalgamated,
will balance parties in a commonwealth. A government
of liberty is the most delicate of all structures, and
there is no preserving it, if the love of money is encouraged,
and made the sole evidence of patriotism. If a
difference in suffrage could be made, I would make it
in favour of those who have invented useful arts, and
made discoveries in mechanics; or who have in fact in
some way benefited society. There would seem nothing

[figure description] Page 078.[end figure description]

unreasonable in the indulging him with privileges who
had brought up a large family of children; or introduced
a new breed of cattle; or grown a better sort of
grass. But a usurer, or one enjoying rents from the
lands that his ancestor has left him, cannot be said to deserve
well of his country; or at least not so much. The
New-England man that comes with his machine, for
which he has obtained a patent, is of peculiar respectability
compared with these. I say New-England, because
that part of the United States has been most fruitful
in inventions, from Phips, of Massachusetts, who invented
the diving bell, down to the present time. Whether
it is that poverty has produced the necessity of recurring
to their wits, having a greater stock of population,
and the means of livelihood being less within their
reach—Ingenii largitor venter; or whether it is in the
soil, or the air, and water of the climate; for natural, as
well as moral causes may produce this difference in the
capacities of men.

I can see no reason in giving a field a vote, much less
a piece of woodland; nor one to the owner of beasts
in proportion to his stock; unless those beasts could
speak and give a viva voce vote.

It has seemed to me that the ancients, and some of
the moderns, have carried the fiction beyond all probability,
of beasts speaking; because a dialogue of this
kind exists but in books of fables. It is much more
within bounds, to put at least for one of the speakers,
a person that can speak. This we have done, and have
not put a single syllable into the mouth of a beast at all.
It is the man that we make speak; the beast only listens.
Yet it is ten to one but some will call out against the
going even so far, as to represent beasts listening; because
it is to music only, that they have heretofore been
made to listen, and not to the dry precepts of didactic
art, or moral reason. But certainly the introducing men
speaking, and beasts listening, is not so extravagant, as
beasts speaking, and men listening. The instances of
beasts actually speaking are so few; in fact there is not
a single instance within my knowledge, so that I thought
it the more prudent part, in order to avoid the having
the truth of my history called in question, to confine
them to listening altogether. What these beasts would
have said, had they spoken, every man may imagine

[figure description] Page 079.[end figure description]

for himself. In this case there is the less danger of
giving offence, every one having it in his power, to
mould his sentiments, a son gre, or according to his
own mind.

But had I been so inclined, how could I have made them
speak? For just as they were going to open a mouth, or
at least as the occasion had arrived when it would have
been proper to have done it, the dogs were set upon
them, or the dogs did set upon them. For this would
appear to be the safer expression, as the bar assert that
they as a profession, whatever some individuals might
have done, had nothing to do with it.

It has been stated that the proper articulately speaking
beasts have not been pitched upon. It is sufficient
to answer to this, that we had not the chusing them;
or, if we had, can it be said that all beasts are not equally
made to speak; that is, are represented equally capable
of speaking in the history of Reynard the fox?
Among the Jews, the ass seems to have been the principal
speaker; and though an ass at the bar, or on the
bench either, would be no new thing; yet vulgar opinion
is against it; and if an ass had been introduced, the force
of prejudice is such that any disappointment that might
have occurred, would have been attributed to the choice
made. Amongst the Romans, the feathered creation
seem to have been the most loquacious, as they are to this
day, in their own way.

“Annosa ab ilice cornix.”

Ornithologists are not so attentive as they ought to be
to the language of birds. The plumage seems to be
most their object in delineation; and it must be acknowledged,
that it is in the article of fine feathers, like some
fine ladies that I have known, that they are most distinguished;
red, green, blue, vermilion, and all the colours
of the rain-bow. It is in this point of view that I take
the liberty of recommending the Ornithology of Wilson,
lately published in Philadelphia,* with fine drawings of
our American birds: and which every man that can

[figure description] Page 080.[end figure description]

afford it, ought to encourage by his subscription. Not
that he makes them say any thing, ore humano; but he
gives a clear and full note of their notes, under the figure
of each bird; this though perhaps not so useful, is
at least as amusing, as a dissertation shewing to which
of the articulations of the human species, they approach
nearest in their respective sounds: Arabic, Samaritan,
Shawanese, or Creek. The language of beasts and birds
has been much studied by the Orientalists; but none of
them have given us a vocabulary, much less a dictionary,
of any of those multitudinous dialects which exist
amongst them. And yet in their tales of the geni, and
other compilations, we have abundance of the conversation
of the inhabitants of the air; which proves that the
people of the east must be a good deal in the habit of
hearing birds converse. The story of Mahomet's pigeons,
I take to be a fiction of the monkish writers; but
we have in the scripture, if it is not a figure, and a
strong way of expressing what is meant, “Curse not
the thing; no, not in thy thought, and curse not the rich
in thy bed-chambers, for a bird of the air shall carry the
voice; and that which hath wings, shall tell the matter.”
Hence the language of mothers to their children, when
they mean to say that they have got the information
from a source they do not mean to explain, “a little bird
told me of it.”

It will be said that in all this ribaldry of beasts and
birds speaking, I have it in view to burlesque lawyers:
not at all; it is to burlesque their defects; and under
the guise of allegory to slur a truth; for an able counsellor,
an advocate of a good head, and heart, of which I
know many, are with me amongst the first of characters.
I have no such vulgar prejudice against lawyers,
as some people have; there are good and bad of them
as of other professions. And this I will say, that of all
professions, it cannot be but that the study and practice
of the law, leads most to discern the value of honesty; for
the study consists in tracing the rules of justice, and the
practice in the application of them. It is the man that
is no lawyer, but calls himself so, that is the knave.
The nature of law is liberal; and gives understanding;
and wherever there is sound sense, there will be honesty.
But I have such a contempt of chattering in speech,
and blustering, and bullying in manners; and of

[figure description] Page 081.[end figure description]

quibbling, and catching in practice where it occurs, that I
feel no compunction in designating it under the masque
of irrational noises, or quadrupedal affections.

If any thinks the cap will fit him, let him put it on.
In the mean time, I will put on my considering cap,
and see what it is that I have to say in the next chapter.

eaf801n2

* It must appear that this had been written years ago.

Previous section

Next section