HOUSE OF COMMONS.

---- never makes a figure in quietude. He astounds the vulgar with a

certain enormity of exertion; he takes an acre of canvass, on which he

scrawls every thing. He thinks aloud; every thing in his mind, good, bad,

or indifferent, out it comes; he is like the Newgate gutter, flowing with

garbage, dead dogs, and mud. He is preeminently a man of many thoughts,

with no ideas: hence he is always so lengthy, because he must go through

every thing to see any thing.

* * * * *

It is a melancholy thing to live when there is no vision in the land. Where

are our statesmen to meet this emergency? I see no reformer who asks

himself the question, _What_ is it that I propose to myself to effect in

the result?

Is the House of Commons to be re-constructed on the principle of a

representation of interests, or of a delegation of men? If on the former,

we may, perhaps, see our way; if on the latter, you can never, in reason,

stop short of universal suffrage; and in that case, I am sure that women

have as good a right to vote as men.[1]

[Footnote 1:

In Mr. Coleridge's masterly analysis and confutation of the physiocratic

system of the early French revolutionists, in the Friend, he has the

following passage in the nature of a _reductio ad absurdum_. "Rousseau,

indeed, asserts that there is an inalienable sovereignty inherent in every

human being possessed of reason; and from this the framers of the

Constitution of 1791 deduce, that the people itself is its own sole

rightful legislator, and at most dare only recede so far from its right as

to delegate to chosen deputies the power of representing and declaring the

general will. But this is wholly without proof; for it has been already

fully shown, that, according to the principle out of which this consequence

is attempted to be drawn, it is not the actual man, but the abstract reason

alone, that is the sovereign and rightful lawgiver. The confusion of two

things so different is so gross an error, that the Constituent Assembly

could scarce proceed a step in their declaration of rights, without some

glaring inconsistency. Children are excluded from all political power; are

they not human beings in whom the faculty of reason resides? Yes! but|in

_them_ the faculty is not yet adequately developed. But are not gross

ignorance, inveterate superstition, and the habitual tyranny of passion and

sensuality, equally preventives of the developement, equally impediments to

the rightful exercise, of the reason, as childhood and early youth? Who

would not rely on the judgment of a well-educated English lad, bred in a

virtuous and enlightened family, in preference to that of a brutal Russian,

who believes that he can scourge his wooden idol into good humour, or

attributes to himself the merit of perpetual prayer, when he has fastened

the petitions, which his priest has written for him, on the wings of a

windmill? Again: women are likewise excluded; a full half, and that

assuredly the most innocent, the most amiable half, of the whole human race

is excluded, and this too by a Constitution which boasts to have no other

foundations but those of universal reason! Is reason, then, an affair of

sex? No! but women are commonly in a state of dependence, and are not

likely to exercise their reason with freedom. Well! and does not this

ground of exclusion apply with equal or greater force to the poor, to the

infirm, to men in embarrassed circumstances, to all, in short, whose

maintenance, be it scanty, or be it ample, depends on the will of others?

How far are we to go? Where must we stop? What classes should we admit?

Whom must we disfranchise? The objects concerning whom we are to determine

these questions, are all human beings, and differenced from each other by

_degrees_ only, these degrees, too, oftentimes changing. Yet the principle

on which the whole system rests, is that reason is not susceptible of

degree. Nothing, therefore, which subsists wholly in degrees, the changes

of which do not obey any necessary law, can be the object of pure science,

or determinate by mere reason,"--Vol. i. p. 341, ED.]

_March_ 20. 1831.

Specimens of the Table Talk of Samuel Taylor Coleridge · 第 100 / 270 题