THE PROBLEM OF UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE. 197 



point where divergences arise, and conflicts of opinions, interests, and 

 rights. What are the means, when we come to divide at this point, of 

 still securing the greatest agreement of liberties, and, in consequence, 

 the highest degree of justice ? 



The points on which opinions are divided may be not incompatible 

 with each one following his own choice, or they may be irreconcilable. 

 In the former case there need be no difficulty in arriving at practical 

 solutions, the scope of which should be extended as much as possible. 

 By an intelligent decentralization, society may be broken up into 

 groups, smaller and smaller, one after the other, without ceasing to be 

 united at the common points. But who is to control -in these circum- 

 stances, when the different wills are absolutely incompatible ? Parti- 

 sans of aristocracy say, those who have reason and right on their side. 

 But how are we to ascertain who they are ? We have no criterion for 

 recognizing the bad and incapable as we have for distinguishing the 

 infirm, the lame, and the diseased. Education is not a sufficient crite- 

 rion of political capacity, for it does not do away with prejudices or 

 with selfishness. Restricted suffrage, according to the lessons of ex- 

 perience, has exhibited the same vices as the suffrages of the greater 

 number — corruptibility, prejudice, vanity, ignorance, distrust of liberty, 

 and dependence. The middle and upper classes have no right to con- 

 sider themselves better than the populace. Like the populace, they 

 have their egotistical — or, as Bentham styles them, their " sinister" — in- 

 terests, in opposition to the general interest. Wicked and incapable 

 persons are as often met with in oligarchies as in the mass of the 

 nation. History shows that all aristocracies have perished by their 

 vices and incapacities, and that those who are assumed to be the best 

 are frequently the worst. In calling all the citizens to power, under 

 suitable conditions of capacity, we are doubtless exposed to the danger 

 of calling in some worthless men, but we are still more exposed to it if 

 we confer a privilege upon particular classes. The only difference is 

 that, if the evil element exists in a close aristocracy, it soon corrupts 

 the whole body ; while, if it is scattered in a mass always open and 

 mobile, it suffers dilution, and finally elimination. We are obliged, 

 therefore, in the question of suffrage, to consider solely the quality of 

 man and citizen aside from mental and moral qualities. As we can 

 not weigh heads, we must count them. It is logical, when there is 

 conflict, for numbers to decide, not because they are numbers, but 

 because they represent the preponderance of rights and wills : "We 

 unanimously agree to be governed by the majority." Those who do 

 not approve this decision must submit, or step down and out. That 

 is the principle on which the recognized right of majorities rests. 

 But, although a necessary convention rules here, there is nothing in it 

 to justify the pride of triumphant majorities, and the pretense that 

 they represent, by the mere fact of their numbers, the national sover- 

 eignty. Majorities should be taught to comprehend that they are only 



