one vote only, the same as any other member. The
council, if it is to be independent, must represent men and not
land in the shape of landowners, or money in the shape of
tenant-farmers. Shrewd people will have no difficulty in
explaining the meaning of this to the village voters, because they
can quote so many familiar instances. There is the Education Act in
part defeated by the combination of property, landowners and
farmers paying to escape a school-board--a plan temporarily
advantageous to them, but of doubtful benefit, possibly injurious,
to the parish at large. Leaving that question alone, the fact is
patent that the cottager has no share in the government of his
school, because land and money have combined. It may be governed
very well; still it is not _his_ government, and will serve to
illustrate the meaning. There is the board of guardians, nominally
elected, really selected, and almost self-appointed. The board of
guardians is land and money simply, and in no way whatever
represents the people. A favourite principle continually enunciated
at the present day is that the persons chiefly concerned should
have the management. But the lower classes who are chiefly
concerned with poor relief, as a matter of fact, have not the
slightest control over that management. Besides the guardians,
there is still an upper row, and here the rulers are not even
invested with the semblance of representation, for magistrates are
not elected, and they are guardians by virtue of their being
magistrates. The machinery is thus complete for the defeat of
representation and for the despotic control of those who, being
principally concerned, ought by all rule and analogy to have the
main share of the management. We have seen working men's
representatives sit in the House of Commons; did anyone ever see a
cottage labourer sit as administrator at the board before which the
wretched poor of his own neighbourhood appear for relief?

But it may be asked, Is the village council, then, composed of small
proprietors, to sit down and vote away the farmer's or landowner's
money without farmer or landowner having so much as a voice in the
matter? Certainly not. The idea of village self-government supposes
a distinct and separate existence, as it were; the village apart
from the farmer or landowner, and the latter apart from the village.
At present the money drawn in rates from farmer or landowner is
chiefly expended on poor-law purposes. But, a