intelligent, and incorruptible. It matters not that these gentlemen
may and must be totally unacquainted with local peculiarities and
requirements. There may be ward charities, and ward bequests, which
will create confusion and perplexity under any new arrangement.
The inhabitants, too, of one ward may have strong personal objections
to be transferred to another. They may dislike the disrupture of old
family ties and connections, and cling fondly to the traditions and
associations of their youth. Such considerations as these, however,
have no weight with red-tapists, who believe in the infallibility of
precedents, and apply one measure and one standard to all things.

The only plausible objection that can be urged against the existing
distribution of the wards is their inequality as to extent and
population; but even if like portions of territory were set apart for
each ward, the number of the inhabitants and their influence will vary
according to circumstances far beyond the control of any barrister, be
he of twice seven years' standing. Besides, though unequal as to area
and inmates, the wards are fairly enough represented; for, while the
Lime Street Ward returns only four members to the Common Council,
Bishopsgate sends fourteen, and Farringdon Without sixteen. This,
after all, is surely the point most worthy of attention. The object is
not so much to obtain an equality of districts as an equality of
representation. It is of no consequence that Cornhill be twice as
populous as Bassishaw, if it return twice the number of
representatives, for in that case the disparity at once ceases to
exist. Sir George Grey, however, is partial to arithmetical equality.
There must be sixteen wards and ninety-six Common-Councilmen, or six
to each ward. Not that there is anything novel or original in this
suggestion. Sir George merely purposes to revert to the arrangements
which prevailed in the reign of Richard II.--a period few students of