idea that one who exhausts his earnings in the grog-shop, should have an influence in elections in proportion to strength of his lungs, or his activity in intrigue, but he is greatly agitated from an apprehension that men who have property to protect, will not promote the well being of society.  A juror who is to decide on the controversies of his neighbours—­an appraiser of land—­a distributor of a deceased persons estate, must be freeholders by a standing law which is the subject of no ensure, and yet it is said that in the important transaction of choosing men to enact laws, and to appoint those who are to decide on, and execute those laws, no qualifications are necessary.

Again, it is insisted by those who oppose universal suffrage, and the reader is desired to notice the remark with attention, that no community can be safe unless the power of elections resides principally with the great body of the landholders.  Such an influence had this principle on those wise men who formed our laws, that a mere trifle in real property gives the right of suffrage, while a man may be excluded who is the proprietor of personal property to a large amount.

Landholders have an enduring interest in the welfare of the community.  They are lords of their own soil, and of course, to a certain degree, independent—­they therefore will resist tyranny—­they will equally oppose anarchy because they are aware that in any storm which may arise they must abide its fury.  The merchant, with his thousands, can seek a shelter—­to the mere bird of passage, who has no “abiding country and who seeks none to come,” it is of little moment whether stability or confusion predominate, but to the former who is enchained to the State, peace and order is of inestimable value.

What, my fellow citizens, is the attempt now making?  What is the language of those who advocate universal suffrage?  It is nothing less than an effort to rest from the farmers of Connecticut that controul over the elections which is their only fortress of safety.  Let men who wish to protect their invaluable rights ponder on these things, and let them at the same time, remember that no nation in which universal suffrage hath been allowed, hath remained free and happy.

Another project urged, with great vehemence, is, to displace all our present rulers—­by those, is meant our legislators in the general and state Government—­our judges and magistrates of every grade.  That such is a darling object with those who seek to revolutionize Connecticut, there is no doubt.  Is such a measure wise?  Who are these rulers?  A candid observer must reply, they are men in whose hands power has been wisely placed by the people, and who have never abused that power, men of unquestionable talents and of spotless fame.  Among them are your Trumbulls, your Ellsworths, your Hillhouses, your Griswolds, your Goodriches and your Cavenports, men tried and approved.  Among them there is one who was side by side with your beloved