chiefly in the hands of the aristocracy.  The Reform Bill of 1832, which has been sometimes called a “second Revolution,” transferred that power to the middle classes.[317] And what may be called the logical sequence of the later measures is the contrary of that which was designed to flow from the earlier ones.  The changes which were effected in 1688 were intended to promote, and were believed to have insured, stability; to have established institutions of a permanent character, as far as human affairs can be invested with permanency.  And down to the death of George II. the policy of succeeding ministers, of whom Walpole may be taken as the type, as he was unquestionably the most able, aimed chiefly at keeping things as they were. Quieta non movere.  The Peerage Bill, proposed by a Prime-minister thirty years after the Revolution, was but an exaggerated instance of the perseverance with which that object was kept in view.  But the Reform Bill of 1832, like the Emancipation Act which preceded it, on the contrary, contained in itself, in its very principle, the seeds and elements of farther change.

The Emancipation Act, following and combined with the repeal of the Test Act, rendered it almost inevitable that religious toleration would in time be extended to all persuasions, even to those adverse to Christianity.  And the Reform Bill, as has been already pointed out, by the principles on which it based its limitations of the franchise, laid the foundation for farther and repeated revision and modification.[318] The consequence is, that the aim of statesmen of the present day differs from that which was pursued by their predecessors.  The statesman of the present day can no longer hope to avoid farther changes, and must, therefore, be content to direct his energies to the more difficult task of making them moderate and safe, consistent with the preservation of that balance of powers to which the country owes the liberty and happiness which it has hitherto enjoyed.

It is in this point of view that the diffusion of education, beyond the blessing which it confers on the individual, is of especial importance to the state.  Political theorists affirm that all men have an equal right to political power—­to that amount, at least, of political power which is conferred by a vote at elections.  Men of practical common-sense affirm that no one has a right to power of any kind, unless he can be trusted to forbear employing it to the injury of his fellow-creatures or of himself.  And the only safeguard and security for the proper exercise of political power is sound and enlightened education.  It is unnecessary to dwell on this point, because our statesmen of both parties (to their honor) give constant proof of their deep conviction of its importance.