Speaker 1: Chapter twelve of Considerations on Representative Government. This LibriVox recording
Speaker 1: is in the public domain. Considerations on Representative Government by
Speaker 1: John Stuart Mill, Chapter twelve ought pledges to be required
Speaker 1: from members of Parliament. Should a member of the legislature
Speaker 1: be bound by the instructions of his constituents. Should he
Speaker 1: be the organ of their sentiments or of his own,
Speaker 1: their ambassador to a Congress, or their professional agent, empowered
Speaker 1: not only to act for them, but to judge for
Speaker 1: them what ought to be done. These two theories of
Speaker 1: the duty of a legislator in a representative government have
Speaker 1: each its supporters, and each is the recognized doctrine of
Speaker 1: some representative governments. In the Dutch United Provinces, the members
Speaker 1: of the States General were mere delegates, and to such
Speaker 1: a length was the doctrine carried that when any important
Speaker 1: question arose which had not been provided for in their instruction,
Speaker 1: they had to refer back to their constituents, exactly as
Speaker 1: an ambassador does to the government from which he is accredited.
Speaker 1: In this and most other countries which possess representative constitutions,
Speaker 1: law and custom warrant a member of parliament in voting
Speaker 1: according to his opinion of right, however, different from that
Speaker 1: of his constituents. But there is a floating notion of
Speaker 1: the opposite kind, which has considerable practical operation on many minds,
Speaker 1: even of members of Parliament, and often makes them, independently
Speaker 1: of desire for popularity or concern for their re election,
Speaker 1: feel bound in conscience to let their conduct on questions
Speaker 1: on which their constituents have a decided opinion be the
Speaker 1: expression of that opinion, rather than of their own. Abstractedly
Speaker 1: from positive law and from the historical traditions of any
Speaker 1: particular people, which of these notions of the duty of
Speaker 1: a representative is the true one? Unlike the questions which
Speaker 1: we have hitherto treated. This is not a question of
Speaker 1: constitutional legislation, but of what may more properly be called
Speaker 1: constitutional morality, the ethics of representative government. It does not
Speaker 1: so much concern institutions as the temper of mind which
Speaker 1: the electors ought to bring to the discharge of their functions,
Speaker 1: the ideas which should prevail as to the moral duties
Speaker 1: of an elector. For let the system of representation be
Speaker 1: what it may, it will be converted into one of
Speaker 1: mere delegation. If the electors so choose. As long as
Speaker 1: they are free not to vote, and free to vote
Speaker 1: as they like, they cannot be prevented from making their
Speaker 1: vote depend on any condition they think fit to annex
Speaker 1: to it, by refusing to elect any one who will
Speaker 1: not pledge himself to all their opinions, and even if
Speaker 1: they please to consult with them before voting on any
Speaker 1: important subject, not foreseen, they can reduce their representative to
Speaker 1: their mere mouthpiece, or to compel him in honor, when
Speaker 1: no longer willing to act in that capacity, to resign
Speaker 1: his seat. And since they have the power of doing this,
Speaker 1: the theory of the constitution ought to suppose that they
Speaker 1: will wish to do it, since the very principle of
Speaker 1: constitutional government requires it to be assumed that political power
Speaker 1: will be abused to promote the particular purposes of the holder,
Speaker 1: not because it always is so, but because such is
Speaker 1: the natural tendency of things to guard against, which is
Speaker 1: the especial use of free institutions. However wrong therefore, or
Speaker 1: however foolish, we may think it in the electors to
Speaker 1: convert their representative into a delegate, that stretch of the
Speaker 1: electoral privilege being a natural and not an improbable one,
Speaker 1: the same precautions ought to be taken as if it
Speaker 1: were certain. We may hope that the electors will not
Speaker 1: act on this notion of the use of the suffrage.
Speaker 1: But a representative government needs to be so framed that
Speaker 1: even if they do, they shall not be able to
Speaker 1: effect what ought not to be in the power of
Speaker 1: any body of persons class legislation for their own benefit.
Speaker 1: When it is said that the question is only one
Speaker 1: of political morality, this does not extenuate its importance. Questions
Speaker 1: of constitutional morality are of no less practical moment than
Speaker 1: those relating to the Constitution itself. The very existence of
Speaker 1: some governments and all that renders others endurable, rests on
Speaker 1: the practical observance of doctrines of constitutional morality, traditional notions
Speaker 1: in the minds of the several constituted authorities, which modify
Speaker 1: the use that might otherwise be made of their powers.
Speaker 1: In unbalanced governments pure monarchy, pure aristocracy, pure democracy, such
Speaker 1: maxims are the only barrier which restrains the government from
Speaker 1: the utmost excesses in the direction of its characteristic tendency.
Speaker 1: In imperfectly balanced governments, where tempt is made to set
Speaker 1: constitutional limits to the impulses of the strongest power, but
Speaker 1: where that power is strong enough to overstep them with
Speaker 1: at least temporary impunity. It is only by doctrines of
Speaker 1: constitutional morality recognized and sustained by opinion, that any regard
Speaker 1: at all is preserved for the checks and limitations of
Speaker 1: the Constitution. In well balanced governments in which the supreme
Speaker 1: power is divided, and each sharer is protected against the
Speaker 1: usurpations of the others in the only manner possible, namely
Speaker 1: by being armed for defense with weapons as strong as
Speaker 1: the others can wield for attack, the government can only
Speaker 1: be carried on by forbearance on all sides to exercise
Speaker 1: those extreme powers, unless provoked by conduct equally extreme on
Speaker 1: the part of some other sharer of power. And in
Speaker 1: this case we may truly say that only by the
Speaker 1: regard paid to maxims of constitutional morality is the constant
Speaker 1: institution kept in existence. The question of pledges is not
Speaker 1: one of those which vitally concern the existence of representative governments,
Speaker 1: but it is very material to their beneficial operation. The
Speaker 1: laws cannot prescribe to the electors the principles by which
Speaker 1: they shall direct their choice, but it makes a great
Speaker 1: practical difference by what principles they think they ought to
Speaker 1: direct it. And the whole of that great question is
Speaker 1: involved in the inquiry whether they should make it a
Speaker 1: condition that the representatives shall adhere to certain opinions laid
Speaker 1: down for him by his constituents. No reader of this
Speaker 1: treatise can doubt what conclusion as to this matter results
Speaker 1: from the general principles which it professes. We have, from
Speaker 1: the first affirmed and unvaryingly kept in view the coequal
Speaker 1: importance of two great requisites of government, responsibility to those
Speaker 1: for whose benefit political power ought to be and always
Speaker 1: professes to be, and lloyd and jointly, therewith to obtain,
Speaker 1: in the greatest measure possible for the function of government,
Speaker 1: the benefits of superior intellect, trained by long meditation and
Speaker 1: practical discipline, to that special task. If this second purpose
Speaker 1: is worth attaining, it is worth the necessary price. Superior
Speaker 1: powers of mind and profound study are of no use
Speaker 1: if they do not sometimes lead a person to different
Speaker 1: conclusions from those which are formed by ordinary powers of
Speaker 1: mind without study. And if it be an object to
Speaker 1: possess representatives in any intellectual respects superior to average electors.
Speaker 1: It must be counted upon that the representative will sometimes
Speaker 1: differ in opinion from the majority of his constituents, and
Speaker 1: that when he does, his opinion will be the oftenest
Speaker 1: right of the two. It follows that the electors will
Speaker 1: not do wisely if they insist on absolute conformity to
Speaker 1: their opinions as the condition of his retaining his head seat.
Speaker 1: The principle is thus far obvious, but there are real
Speaker 1: difficulties in its application, and we will begin by stating
Speaker 1: them in their greatest force. If it is important that
Speaker 1: the electors should choose a representative more highly instructed than themselves,
Speaker 1: it is no less necessary that this wiser man should
Speaker 1: be responsible to them. In other words, they are the
Speaker 1: judges of the manner in which he fulfills his trust.
Speaker 1: And how are they to judge except by the standard
Speaker 1: of their own opinions? How are they even to select
Speaker 1: him in the first instance. But by the same standard
Speaker 1: it will not do to choose by mere brilliancy, by
Speaker 1: superiority of showy talent. The tests by which an ordinary
Speaker 1: man can judge beforehand of mere ability are very imperfect.
Speaker 1: Such as they are, they have almost exclusive reference to
Speaker 1: the arts of expression, and little or none to the
Speaker 1: worth of what is expressed. Latter cannot be inferred from
Speaker 1: the former. And if the electors are to put their
Speaker 1: own opinions in abeyance, what criterion remains to them of
Speaker 1: the ability to govern well? Neither if they could ascertain,
Speaker 1: even infallibly, the ablest man ought they to allow him
Speaker 1: altogether to judge for them, without any reference to their
Speaker 1: own opinions. The ablest candidate may be a Tory and
Speaker 1: the electors liberals, or a Liberal, and they may be Tories.
Speaker 1: The political questions of the day may be church questions,
Speaker 1: and he may be a high churchman or a rationalist,
Speaker 1: while they may be dissenters or evangelicals, and vice versa.
Speaker 1: His abilities in these cases might only enable him to
Speaker 1: go greater lengths and act with greater effect in what
Speaker 1: they may conscientiously believe to be a wrong course. And
Speaker 1: they may be bound by their sincere convictions to think
Speaker 1: it more important that their representative should be kept on
Speaker 1: the use points to what they deem the dictate of duty,
Speaker 1: than that they should be represented by a person of
Speaker 1: more than average abilities. They may also have to consider,
Speaker 1: not solely how they can be most ably represented, but
Speaker 1: how their particular moral position and mental point of view
Speaker 1: shall be represented at all. The influence of every mode
Speaker 1: of thinking which is shared by numbers ought to be
Speaker 1: felt in the legislature, and the Constitution being supposed to
Speaker 1: have made due provision that other and conflicting modes of
Speaker 1: thinking shall be represented likewise, To secure the proper representation
Speaker 1: for their own mode may be the most important matter
Speaker 1: which the electors, on the particular occasion have to attend to.
Speaker 1: In some cases, too, it may be necessary that the
Speaker 1: representatives should have his hands tied to keep him true
Speaker 1: to their interest, or rather to the public interest, as
Speaker 1: they conceive it. This would not be needful under a
Speaker 1: political system which assured them an indefinite choice of other
Speaker 1: honest and unprejudiced candidates, but under the existing system, in
Speaker 1: which the electors are almost always obliged by the expenses
Speaker 1: of election and the general circumstances of society, to select
Speaker 1: their representative from persons of a station in life widely
Speaker 1: different from theirs and having a different class interest, who
Speaker 1: will affirm that they ought to abandon themselves to his discretion.
Speaker 1: Can we blame an elector of the poorer classes, who
Speaker 1: has only the choice among two or three rich men
Speaker 1: for requiring from the one he votes for a pledge
Speaker 1: to those measures which he considers as a test of
Speaker 1: emancipation from the class interests of the rich. It will,
Speaker 1: moreover always happen to some members of the electoral body
Speaker 1: to be obliged to accept the representatives selected by a
Speaker 1: majority of their own side. But though a candidate of
Speaker 1: their own choosing would have no chance, their votes may
Speaker 1: be necessary to the success of the one chosen for them,
Speaker 1: and their only means of exerting their share of influence
Speaker 1: on his subsequent conduct may be to make their support
Speaker 1: of him dependent on his pledging himself to certain conditions.
Speaker 1: These considerations and counter considerations are so intimately interwoven with
Speaker 1: one another. It is so important that the electors should
Speaker 1: choose as their representatives wiser men than themselves, and should
Speaker 1: consent to be governed according to that superior wisdom. While
Speaker 1: it is impossible that conformity to their own opinions, when
Speaker 1: they have opinions, should not enter largely into their judgment
Speaker 1: as to who possesses the wisdom and how far its
Speaker 1: presumed possessor has verified the presumption by his conduct, that
Speaker 1: it seems quite impracticable to lay down for the elector
Speaker 1: any positive rule of duty, and the result will depend
Speaker 1: less on any exact prescription or authoritative doctrine of political
Speaker 1: morality than on the general tone of mind of the
Speaker 1: electoral body. In respect of the important requisite of deference
Speaker 1: to mental superiority, individuals and peoples who are acutely sensible
Speaker 1: of the value of superior wisdom are likely to recognize
Speaker 1: it where it exists by other signs than thinking exactly
Speaker 1: as they do, and even in spite of considerable differences
Speaker 1: of opinion. And when they have recognized it, they will
Speaker 1: be far too desirous to secure it at any admissible cost,
Speaker 1: to be prone to impose their own opinion as a
Speaker 1: law upon persons whom they look up to as wiser
Speaker 1: than themselves. On the other hand, there is a character
Speaker 1: of mind which does not look up to any one,
Speaker 1: which thinks no other person's opinion much better than its own,
Speaker 1: or nearly so good as that of a hundred or
Speaker 1: a thousand persons like itself. Where this is the turn
Speaker 1: of mind of the electors, they will elect no one
Speaker 1: who is not or at least who does not profess
Speaker 1: to be the image of their own sentiments, and will
Speaker 1: continue him no longer than while he reflects those sentiments
Speaker 1: in his conduct, And all aspirants to political honors will endeavor,
Speaker 1: as Plato says in The Gorgeous, to fashion themselves after
Speaker 1: the model of the demos, and make themselves as like
Speaker 1: to it as possible. It cannot be denied that a
Speaker 1: complete democracy has a strong tendency to cast the sentiments
Speaker 1: of the electors in this mold. Democracy is not favorable
Speaker 1: to the reverential spirit that it destroys. Reverence for a
Speaker 1: mere social position must be counted among the good, not
Speaker 1: the bad, part of its influences, though by doing this
Speaker 1: it closes the principal school of reverence as to merely
Speaker 1: human relations which exists in society. But also democracy, in
Speaker 1: its very essence, insists so much more, forcibly, on the
Speaker 1: things in which all are entitled to be considered equally
Speaker 1: than on those in which one person is entitled to
Speaker 1: more consideration than another, that respect for even personal superiority
Speaker 1: is likely to be below the mark. It is for this,
Speaker 1: among other reasons, I hold it of so much importance
Speaker 1: that the institutions of the country should stamp the opinions
Speaker 1: of persons of a more educated class as entitled to
Speaker 1: greater weight than those of the less educated, And I
Speaker 1: should still contend for assigning plurality of votes to authenticated
Speaker 1: superiority of education, were it only to give the tone
Speaker 1: to public feeling, irrespective of any direct political consequences. When
Speaker 1: there does exist in the electoral body an adequate sense
Speaker 1: of the extraordinary difference in value between one person and another,
Speaker 1: they will not lack signs by which to distinguish the
Speaker 1: persons whose worth, for their purposes is the greatest. Actual
Speaker 1: public services will be naturally the foremost indication. To have
Speaker 1: filled posts of magnitude and done important things in them
Speaker 1: of which the wisdom has been justified by the results.
Speaker 1: To have been the author of measures which appear from
Speaker 1: their effects, to have been wisely planned, to have made
Speaker 1: predictions which have been often verified by the event, seldom
Speaker 1: or never falsified by it. To have given advice which,
Speaker 1: when taken, has been followed by good consequences when neglected
Speaker 1: by bad. There is doubtless a large portion of uncertainty
Speaker 1: in these signs of wisdom, But we are seeking for
Speaker 1: such as can be applied by persons of ordinary discernment.
Speaker 1: They will do well not to rely much on any
Speaker 1: one indication unless corroborated by the arrest, and in their
Speaker 1: estimation of the success or merit of any practical effort,
Speaker 1: to lay great stress on the general opinion of disinterested
Speaker 1: persons conversant with the subject matter. The tests which I
Speaker 1: have spoken of are only applicable to trained men, among
Speaker 1: whom must be reckoned those who, though untried practically, have
Speaker 1: been tried speculatively, who in public speech or in print,
Speaker 1: have discussed public affairs in a manner which proves that
Speaker 1: they have given serious study to them. Such persons may,
Speaker 1: in the mere character of political thinkers, have exhibited a
Speaker 1: considerable amount of the same titles to confidence as those
Speaker 1: who have been proved in the position of practical statesmen.
Speaker 1: When it is necessary to choose persons wholly untried, the
Speaker 1: best criteria are reputation for ability among those who personally
Speaker 1: know them, and the confidence placed and recommendations given by
Speaker 1: persons already looked up to by tests like these, Constituencies
Speaker 1: who sufficiently value mental ability and eagerly seek for it,
Speaker 1: will generally succeed in obtaining men beyond mediocrity, and often
Speaker 1: men whom they can trust to carry on public affairs
Speaker 1: according to their unfettered judgment, to whom it would be
Speaker 1: an affront to require that they should give up that
Speaker 1: judgment at the behest of their inferiors in knowledge. If
Speaker 1: such persons, honestly sought are not to be found, then
Speaker 1: indeed the electors are justified in taking other precautions, or
Speaker 1: they cannot be expected to postpone their particular opinions, unless
Speaker 1: in order that they may be served by a person
Speaker 1: of superior knowledge to their own. They would do well, indeed,
Speaker 1: even then, to remember that, when once chosen, the representative,
Speaker 1: if he devotes himself to his duty, has greater opportunities
Speaker 1: of correcting an original false judgment than fall to the
Speaker 1: lot of most of his constituents, a consideration which generally
Speaker 1: ought to prevent them, unless compelled by necessity to choose
Speaker 1: someone whose impartiality they do not fully trust, from exacting
Speaker 1: a pledge not to change his opinion, or if he does,
Speaker 1: to resign his seat. But one an unknown person not
Speaker 1: certified in unmistakable terms by some high authority is elected
Speaker 1: for the first time, the elector cannot be expected to
Speaker 1: make conformity to his own sentiments the primary requisite. It
Speaker 1: is enough if he does not regard a subsequent change
Speaker 1: of those sentiments honestly avowed with its grounds. Undisguisedly stated
Speaker 1: as a peremptory reason for withdrawing his confidence, even supposing
Speaker 1: the most tried ability and acknowledged eminence of character and
Speaker 1: the representative. The private opinions of the electors are not
Speaker 1: to be placed entirely in abeyance. Deference to mental superiority
Speaker 1: is not to go the length of self annihilation abnegation
Speaker 1: of any personal opinion. But when the difference does not
Speaker 1: relate to the fundamentals of politics, however decided the elector
Speaker 1: may be in his own sentiments, he ought to consider
Speaker 1: that when an able man differs from him, there is
Speaker 1: at least a considerable chance of his being in the wrong,
Speaker 1: and that, even if otherwise, it is worthwhile to give
Speaker 1: up his opinion in things not absolutely essential, for the
Speaker 1: sake of the inestimable advantage of having an able man
Speaker 1: to act for him in the many matters in which
Speaker 1: he himself is now qualified to form a judgment. In
Speaker 1: such cases, he often endeavors to reconcile both wishes by
Speaker 1: inducing the able man to sacrifice his own opinion on
Speaker 1: the points of difference. But for the able man to
Speaker 1: lend himself to this compromise his treason against his especial office,
Speaker 1: abdication of the peculiar duties of mental supremacy, of which
Speaker 1: it is one of the most sacred, not to desert
Speaker 1: the cause which has the clamor against it, nor to
Speaker 1: deprive of his services those of his opinions which need
Speaker 1: them the most. A man of conscience and known ability
Speaker 1: should insist on full freedom to act as he, in
Speaker 1: his own judgment, deems best, and should not consent to
Speaker 1: serve on any other terms. But the electors are entitled
Speaker 1: to know how he means to act, What opinions on
Speaker 1: all things which concern his public duty he intends should
Speaker 1: guide his conduct. If some of these are unacceptable to them,
Speaker 1: it is for him to satisfy them that he nevertheless
Speaker 1: deserves to be their representative. And if they are wise,
Speaker 1: they will overlook in favor of his general value, many
Speaker 1: and great differences between his opinions and their own. There
Speaker 1: are some differences, however, which they cannot be expected to overlook.
Speaker 1: Whoever feels the amount of interest in the government of
Speaker 1: his country which befits. A free man has some convictions
Speaker 1: on national affairs which are like his life blood, which
Speaker 1: the strength of his belief in their truth, together with
Speaker 1: the importance he attaches to them, forbid him to make
Speaker 1: a subject of compromise or postpone to the judgment of
Speaker 1: any person, however greatly his superior. Such convictions, when they
Speaker 1: exist in a people, or in any appreciable portion of one,
Speaker 1: are entitled to influence in virtue of their mere existence,
Speaker 1: and not solely in that of the probability of their
Speaker 1: being grounded in truth. A people cannot be well governed
Speaker 1: in opposition to their prime of right, even though these
Speaker 1: may be in some points erroneous. A correct estimate of
Speaker 1: the relation which should subsist between governors and governed does
Speaker 1: not require the electors to consent to be represented by
Speaker 1: one who intends to govern them in opposition to their
Speaker 1: fundamental convictions. If they avail themselves of his capacities of
Speaker 1: useful service in other respects at a time when the
Speaker 1: points on which he is vitally at issue with them
Speaker 1: are not likely to be mooted, they are justified in
Speaker 1: dismissing him at the first moment when a question arises
Speaker 1: involving these and on which there is not so assured
Speaker 1: a majority for what they deem right as to make
Speaker 1: the dissenting voice of that particular individual unimportant. Thus I
Speaker 1: mention names to illustrate my meaning, not for any personal application.
Speaker 1: The opinions supposed to be entertained by mister Cobden and
Speaker 1: mister bright On resistance to foreign aggression might be overlooked
Speaker 1: during the Crimean War, when there was an overwhelming national
Speaker 1: feeling on the contrary side, and might yet very properly
Speaker 1: lead to their rejection by the electors at the time
Speaker 1: of the Chinese quarrel, though in itself a more doubtful question,
Speaker 1: because it was then for some time a moot point,
Speaker 1: whether their view of the case might not prevail as
Speaker 1: the general result of what precedes, we may affirm that
Speaker 1: actual pledges should not be required, unless from unfavorable social
Speaker 1: circumstances or family institutions. The electors are so narrowed in
Speaker 1: their choice as to be compelled to fix it on
Speaker 1: a person presumptively under the influence of partialities hostile to
Speaker 1: their interest, that they are entitled to a full knowledge
Speaker 1: of the political opinions and sentiments of the candidate, and
Speaker 1: not only entitled, but often bound to reject one who
Speaker 1: differs from themselves on the few articles which are the
Speaker 1: foundation of their political belief. That in proportion to the
Speaker 1: opinion they entertain of the mental superiority of a candidate,
Speaker 1: they ought to put up with his expressing and acting
Speaker 1: on opinions different from theirs on any number of things
Speaker 1: not included in their fundamental articles of belief. That they
Speaker 1: ought to be unremitting in their search for a representative
Speaker 1: of such caliber as to be entrusted with full power
Speaker 1: of obeying the dictates of his own judgment, that they
Speaker 1: should consider it a duty which they owe to their
Speaker 1: fellow countrymen to do their utmost toward placing men of
Speaker 1: this quality in the legislature, And that it is of
Speaker 1: much greater importance to themselves to be represented by such
Speaker 1: a man than by one who professes agreement in a
Speaker 1: greater number of their opinions, For the benefits of his
Speaker 1: ability are certain, while the hypothesis of his being wrong
Speaker 1: and their being right on the points of difference is
Speaker 1: a very doubtful one. I have discussed this question on
Speaker 1: the assumption that the electoral system in all that depends
Speaker 1: on positive institution, conforms to the principles laid down in
Speaker 1: the preceding chapters. Even on this hypothet phthesis, the delegation
Speaker 1: theory of representation seems to me false and its practical
Speaker 1: operation hurtful, though the mischief would in that case be
Speaker 1: confined within certain bounds. But if the securities by which
Speaker 1: I have endeavored to guard the representative principle are not
Speaker 1: recognized by the Constitution, if provision is not made for
Speaker 1: the representation of minorities, nor any difference admitted in the
Speaker 1: numerical value of votes according to some criterion of the
Speaker 1: amount of education possessed by the voters. In that case,
Speaker 1: no words can exaggerate the importance in principle of leaving
Speaker 1: an unfettered discretion to the representative, for it would then
Speaker 1: be the only chance, under universal suffrage for any other
Speaker 1: opinions than those of the majority to be heard in
Speaker 1: parliament in that falsely called democracy, which is really the
Speaker 1: exclusive rule of the operative classes, all others being unrepresented
Speaker 1: and unheard. The only escape from class legislation in its
Speaker 1: and political ignorance in its most dangerous form would lie
Speaker 1: in such disposition as the uneducated might have to choose
Speaker 1: educated representatives and to defer to their opinions. Some willingness
Speaker 1: to do this might reasonably be expected, and everything would
Speaker 1: depend upon cultivating it to the highest point. But once
Speaker 1: invested with political omnipotence, if the operative classes voluntarily concurred
Speaker 1: in imposing, in this or any other manner, any considerable
Speaker 1: limitation upon their self opinion and self will, they would
Speaker 1: prove themselves wiser than any class possessed of absolute power
Speaker 1: has shown itself, or we may venture to say, is
Speaker 1: ever likely to show itself under that corrupting influence. End
Speaker 1: of Chapter twelve, Recording by Bill Burst