PROPERTY, MORE THAN ABILITY, REPRESENTED IN PARLIAMENT.

Nothing is a due and adequate representation of a state that does not

represent its ability, as well as its property. But as ability is a

vigorous and active principle, and as property is sluggish, inert, and

timid, it never can be safe from the invasions of ability, unless it

be, out of all proportion, predominant in the representation. It must

be represented too in great masses of accumulation, or it is not rightly

protected. The characteristic essence of property, formed out of the

combined principles of its acquisition and conservation, is to be

UNEQUAL. The great masses, therefore, which excite envy, and tempt

rapacity, must be put out of the possibility of danger. Then they form a

natural rampart about the lesser properties in all their gradations.

The same quantity of property, which is by the natural course of things

divided among many, has not the same operation. Its defensive power is

weakened as it is diffused. In this diffusion each man's portion is less

than what, in the eagerness of his desires, he may flatter himself to

obtain by dissipating the accumulations of others. The plunder of

the few would, indeed, give but a share inconceivably small in the

distribution to the many. But the many are not capable of making

this calculation; and those who lead them to rapine never intend this

distribution.

The power of perpetuating our property in our families is one of the

most valuable and interesting circumstances belonging to it, and that

which tends the most to the perpetuation of society itself. It makes

our weakness subservient to our virtue; it grafts benevolence even upon

avarice. The possessors of family wealth, and of the distinction which

attends hereditary possession (as most concerned in it), are the natural

securities for this transmission. With us the House of Peers is formed

upon this principle. It is wholly composed of hereditary property

and hereditary distinction; and made, therefore, the third of the

legislature; and, in the last event, the sole judge of all property in

all its subdivisions. The House of Commons, too, though not necessarily,

yet in fact, is always so composed, in the far greater part. Let those

large proprietors be what they will, and they have their chance of being

among the best, they are, at the very worst, the ballast in the vessel

of the commonwealth. For though hereditary wealth, and the rank which

goes with it, are too much idolized by creeping sycophants, and the

blind, abject admirers of power, they are too rashly slighted in shallow

speculations of the petulant, assuming, short-sighted coxcombs of

philosophy. Some decent, regulated pre-eminence, some preference (not

exclusive appropriation) given to birth, is neither unnatural, nor

unjust, nor impolitic. It is said, that twenty-four millions ought

to prevail over two hundred thousand. True; if the constitution of a

kingdom be a problem of arithmetic. This sort of discourse does well

enough with the lamp-post for its second: to men who MAY reason calmly,

it is ridiculous. The will of the many, and their interest, must very

often differ; and great will be the difference when they make an evil

choice.

Selections from the Speeches and Writings of Edmund Burke · 第 176 / 361 题