“Great Achiever, first in place
    England’s son of Israel’s race! 
    Man whom none could make afraid,
    Self-reliant and self-made,—­
    Potent both by tongue and pen
    In the hearts and mouths of men,
    Wielder in each anxious hour
    Of the mighty people’s power,
    Wise to scheme, and bold to do,
    Who can this be,—­history, who?

    II.

    “Heaper of a new renown
    Even on Victoria’s crown,
    Mightiest friend of blessed peace
    By commanding wars to cease,
    Paralysing faction still,
    Swift in act and strong of will,
    Forcing every foe to cower
    Under Britain’s patient power,
    Like himself, firm, frank, and true,
    Who can this be,—­justice, who?”

For other of my politicals, take this common-sense essay from my pen, hitherto unpublished:—­

* * * * *

IS THE ONE-VOTE SYSTEM RIGHT OR WRONG?

In a nation self-governed through its own representatives, it seems reasonable to admit that each citizen should have a vote; each citizen, we say, simply as such; whether male or female, labourer, pauper, civil, military, naval, or official, every one not convicted of crime nor an attested lunatic, of full age, of sufficient capacity (evidenced by being able to read and write), celibate or married, rich or poor,—­every person in our commonwealth should equitably, it may well be conceded, have his or her single vote in the government of the country.  Poverty is no crime, therefore the Workhouse should not disfranchise; sex is no just disqualification, therefore the woman should have her vote as freely as the man, for surely marriage ought not to suffer derogation and disgrace by denial of the common right of citizenship as its penalty; the soldier, sailor, policeman, government-official, and any other class which may now be deprived of their birthright by law or custom, should certainly be admitted to the poll like other patriotic citizens; in short, manhood suffrage, it may be theoretically argued, is just and wise—­manhood of course including womanhood, as suggested above; for even a wife either sides with her husband or controls him in common cases; and in the less usual instances where he rules, there need be no more tyranny about political matters than about domesticities, and so the home would scarcely be any the worse even for partisan zeal.

However, whilst admitting the theoretical propriety of a one vote for each citizen in the state, there remains to be considered the higher practical justice of many having more than one.  Numbers alone are not the strength of a people; if of inferior quality they are rather its weakness.  For the Parliament of England representation is demanded of all the virtues, talents, and acquirements, not certainly of the vice, ignorance, poverty, and other evils more rife among the lower rungs of the social ladder than to those