of common honesty, they would pen it with a heart and will, as if their gardener or their ploughman were "Aristides the Just" in a state of transmigration. They keep their houses in a full, hearty, oldfashioned way, and never allow a lock on the dairy, or a padlock on a beer vault. Their own domestics are as honest as steel, and the only difficulty with them is, that they will not believe in honesty as an extremely common rule of life-beneath other people's roofs. A more disagreeable set exist. They are the clever family men, who have an interest in the maintenance of the present system. They take the place of the patriarchs of old, without an ounce of their guileless simpleheartedness; or the sheiks of the present day, without their frank, straightforward way of robbing unbelievers. They were born and brought into the world for the pursuit of one tradepublic management in all its branches. Generally, the upper classes among them have sons competent to take anything in the army, the church, or diplomatic engagements. They look upon the nation and all its possessions as preserves for their special use; yet they do not manage them even to permanent profit. The hostility of these people to any great improvement always goes into the reckoning of probabilities against or for its success. They are, however, infusoriæ found in nearly all parties, but especially in the two more aristocratic factions of the state; and, as their appearance is expected, their influence declines with years. An idea prevails still that they are part of " the old nobility," elaborate in pitching at Aunt Salley's tobacco pipe; backers of boxers, and hangers-on at great stands-but that idea is erroneous, for they spring from all classes, and are as frequently moral fungi the mushrooms of a year or two -as rooted vegetables. These fungi are often very minute, and the prizes sought by them are often small mercies. They sell themselves, and such heads and souls as they have, not very valuable certainly, for messes of pottage, often expectant, as often thin as waterish when they are realised. They hang upon the customs and the excise when there is no hope for them in the army or the church; and they are found criticising and sneering at any man indiscreet enough to be disinterested, and any proposal cursed with the taint of honesty, in what they consider to be "official" Whig or Tory newspapers-" official," save the mark!-especially in large, provincial towns. The old nobility have no more connection with the production of this diseased class than any other "stratum" in our race. They might be named, and it might be good and useful to name some of these man-haters, because selfseekers, who have waded through political corruption, which a man "half-upright" would not face, to slight rewards. The opposition of this numerous class may be expected; not that they will be exterminated totally by Reform, but that they are contented to live upon present hopes without risking a new system; willing to keep the ills they have, rather than risk the good they know not. The four parties who have anything explicit to say upon this agitation are the Government and their friends-the Whigs who were, and would again, be the Government and their friends, the advanced Liberals, and the Radicals. We regret to name four parties, or to record any division between the advanced Liberals and the Radicals; but the statement is an acknowledgment only of the truth.The differences between them are one step or two; but all differences on the suffrage are merely steps in one sense, although not in another. The two latter parties may act together soon or ultimately; but it will be after, perhaps, the advanced Liberals find themselves powerless without the Radicals, and the latter, strong in numbers, stronger in truth,have succeeded in impressing their strength upon the movement. this is to be The Government and their friends keep their own secret. They are to do something, but the red box is locked still, and We could the contents are unknown. guess out a scheme, and say their plan, or something very like it; but there is no secret in the case, there is nothing to hide. The Government have not decided upon a measure. The Earl of Derby's colleagues have not kept any secrets, except that yet there exists none to be kept. He has still a month before saying anything. That short month may produce many changes. Even if it changes nothing that can affect Reform, are there not two months from Candlemas to Easter? A sentence in the speech from the Throne is a reprieve until past the holidays of spring. The Government scheme is not due until three months after date. Even then, by good management, the bill need not be produced before Whitsuntide, and the discussion on preliminaries could be tided on and past the dog-days, until the corn be ripe, and the members of both Houses find it inconvenient to pass a bill in 1859 which will do equally well in 1860. The course within will depend on the course without the walls of Parliament. If the pressure without be great and serious, the rulers within will be more earnest, energetic, and successful in the performance of their work. The Government and their friends are in no haste. They are not to be blamed. They have never professed an ardent love for further Reform. The present House of Commons may answer their purpose for a time-one more session -one mercy more-another year. The Government and their friends will keep their lead until it can be kept no longer. The Whigs have shown their cards, although they do not seek to use them. Viscount Palmerston might, indeed, do something more than Lord John Russell proposed, but he has no intention of thus riding away from his rival. He even appears to be smitten with the notion that there may be a Conservative reaction. He is prepared to be a respectable minister, if the Earl of Derby slips. He sent out Mr. Lowe, of Kidderminster, who was accused of two atrocious crimes in the last session of Parliament. By the first charge he was guilty, if it was true, of writing for the Times. By the second he was equally guilty of keeping fashionable, or what may be termed good, company, in one sense. He contributed papers to the daily organ of his party, performed the duties of an office under Government, spoke in Parliament, and visited in Piccadilly, at the Viscountess Palmerston's soirees. These were the horribilia of the Colonial Radical. He was convicted. The soirees and the Times abolished the patriotism of Mr. Lowe. He got in the ark which is now floating on troubled waters; and the owner, Palmerston, like a patriarch, sent out the dove, Mr. Lowe, in search of dry land. He flew to Kidderminster naturally, and back again, without finding a sign of peace, or a symptom that they had concluded the tempest. The waters and the winds rise still. No Ararat of rest is visible. The deluge floated away the ark, but it has not completed nearly its voyage. The only good done by Mr. Lowe was the official proclamation that there is no great, pressing, urgent call for Reform. Lord John Russell, according to him, sold the pass in 1852, and then over-persuaded the Earl of Aberdeen to adopt his views in 1854. Things work well, according to Mr. Lowe. They did not work well when he was stoned at the last election, and nearly made a martyr of for the Government of Viscount Palmerston. The Liberal Whigs, in conjunction with. the Peelites, are said to resemble the milky way in conjunction with the Pleiades. The Peelites are the latter body, seen without the aid of a telescope. That assistance would change their numbers, and make them a respectable party; while the Russell Whigs cannot be fully resolved without the aid of more expansive instruments than are possessed by the public. The Dean of Faculty, Mr. Moncrieff, as their standing counsel for Scotland, may be supposed to know their opinion; but he supports the Palmerston party with that rare virtue, gratitude for past favours. He attacked bitterly the purposes of Mr. Bright, at a meeting of his constituents in Leith last month. Mr. Bright had recommended his rating qualification to a meeting in Edinburgh. Mr. Moncrieff would not object to a £5 suffrage for boroughs and a £10 franchise in counties. This proposal is more liberal than Lord John Russell's bill, by £1 in boroughs, by £10 in counties. Upon the franchise, therefore, nothing exists to choose upon between Messrs. Bright and Moncrieff. They are equally yoked, and might pull well together. The one says a rating qualification, and the other says, give me a money line-five pounds. Rating is not carried in Scotland usually under five pounds of rental within boroughs; and when it goes lower, the number of appeals and the trouble of collection absorb the proceeds. Both gentlemen say £10 in counties, although either of them would be incapable of giving a reason why a higher qualification than is charged in boroughs should be imposed on counties. As rents are lower generally in the country than in the towns, the qualification to vote should be also lower. The Canadians, while establishing a franchise in that province, made the boroughs one-half higher than the counties; and the country quali fication only two-thirds of the towns. They did not select a very satisfactory suffrage, but it is £7 10s. for the boroughs, and £5 for the country districts; and is more consistent with reason than the plan pursued here of laying a higher qualification on the lower-rented districts than is required from the crowded places in the land where rent forms a large part of a man's outlay, and one-fifth of his revenue is given often for shelter. Politicians of all parties know that this irrational distinction is maintained only to prevent a correct representation of the people in those districts where they desire to maintain the influence territorial. No other cause for the distinction is possible. If they say that a farmer pays rent for his land, and should be placed therefore under a higher qualification than is necessary for a man whose dwelling only is charged in his rent; then the shopkeeper and the tradesman in towns also pay for their places of business, and qualify by the payment; and the Legislature should, in justice, impose a smaller qualification for dwellings in the country villages, where a man may obtain a better cottage for £5 annually than he can possess in towns for double the money. roughs may be taken at £5; and he would Mr. Bright, we think, committed a blunder in Birmingham when he proposed qualification by the payment of poor-rates, which is a local affair, and has nothing to do with the general revenue. He might, with the same propriety, maintain that the shareholders of the Crystal Palace should vote on the qualification of their shares for Surrey. The application of his principle to Scotland is impossible, until a change be effected in the poor-law, for many parishes have no poor-rates, others assess them on earnings, and a far greater number on rental; but they have no fixed rental, and the line is struck here or there, at the pleasure of the Board. His friends surmount this objection by offering any other rate. Thus they shift the qualification from one point to another, always avoiding the plain fact that payment to one local rate cannot confer a right to manage a general revenue, or to vote for representatives who are to act for all general purposes. Some other cause than the suffrage explains the violence of Mr. Moncrieff's attack on the member for Birmingham's plans, and it is found in the ballot, and the idea of equitable electoral districts-for both measures are abhorred by the "Li- The London Parliamentary Reform beral Whigs" of the official school, who Committee are self-elected. They adopted are ever saying to their neighbours, "Oh, the name; held meetings of themselves; be grateful." "For what ?" "That subscribed money; and evinced an earnest which we have done for you." The pre- desire to propagate their principles. They cious, small, official souls will never believe deputed Mr. Bright to draw and to move that the debt of gratitude has been dis- a new Reform Bill. He was to ascertain charged long ago, with compound interest. the opinion of the public, to be guided by We revert to our enumeration. The the views of the majority of Reformers, so Earl of Derby, his Cabinet, and friends far as they could be reconciled with his have not pronounced. Viscount Palmer-own principles, and these were favourable ston and his immediate friends watch tide and wind to go with the breeze on the current. Lord John Russell and his followers have been transformed from finalities to gradualities, and at present they stand at £6 for boroughs and £20 for counties. Mr. Moncrieff has improved upon that plan, and makes the even half of a reduction in boroughs, or to £5, while he takes one-half from the Russell scheme for counties, and will say £10. Mr. Bright is for a rating qualification, which in bo to manhood suffrage; but he feared that the country would not adopt that scheme. The opinions of Reformers are not fairly taken on the subject. Something very like suppression exists. One most respectable daily journal, which may be taken as an organ of the advanced Liberals, lately expressed doubts whether there were any Radicals left now. They appeared to be extinguished and snuffed out of its * Daily News. Their influence has been felt in the surrounding towns. At Paisley, a meeting was called, presided over by the Provost, and addressed by the member for the borough. Resolutions were proposed in favour of this new qualification; but they were rejected, and manhood suffrage, on the basis of the Glasgow plan, were adopted in an amendment by Mr. Brewster one of the ministers of the High Church. In several of the smaller boroughs around Glasgow, meetings have been called in the most regular manner, by the provosts, addressed by the magistrates, and the same or corresponding resolutions have been adopted unanimously. The Radicals show symptoms of existence and vitality in that quarter of the world, if they are invisible from Bouverie-street. columns. These doubts were expressed in some remarks respecting Mr. Bright's meeting in Glasgow-the oddest event in the agitation yet by which they could have been suggested. The member for Birmingham visited Glasgow at the request of a number of Reformers, made some time previously. He was remarkably well received, as he amply deserves to be in any place. He delivered an address in the City Hall, exactly as any other gentleman may do who can command an audience. It is probable that very few will collect a similar audience in the same place. During the day he had a conference with a number of Reformers there. They were selected by his friends with an honest desire to elicit the opinion of those who are interested on this question. The result did not show the abandonment of their principles by the Mr. Bright must have found Edinburgh Radicals. They were there prepared to divided into ruts; for every man must hear the views of the new school; but they tramp, tramp, there in line. The legal inwould not budge from the principle of man- fluence is strong, and it has been exercised hood suffrage; with one rational exception usefully in bye-gone times. The constraint or qualification, Mr. Bright approached in society is of course intellectual and them, but they made no advance, or retreat moral, but it is very powerful. Mr. Bright rather, towards his position. He confessed was supposed to represent the party of his that an arrangement is desirable for the relative, Mr. McLaren, a gentleman of qualification of lodgers. That comprises great moral worth and intelligence. Still, everything. If the arrangement be good, the members for the city could not attend that is all which can be required; for all his meeting, as both members did in Glasmen must lodge somehow or somewhere gow, for "the rut and tramp" reason. before they can claim to vote. The home-Messrs. Black and Cowan, very excellent less poor are objects of pity and sympathy, but we do not say they should be voters. Two weeks previous to Mr. Bright's visit there, a meeting had been called by the Lord Provost, in the same hall, upon a requisition. The Glasgow Parliamentary Reform Association was formed then, after several preliminary meetings, and at one of the largest meetings that has yet occurred on the subject. Its basis is manhood suffrage, with a residental qualification within the electoral district, equitable electoral districts, ballot, and triennial parliaments. The principles were adopted unanimously at this meeting, presided over by one of the city magistrates, attended and addressed by one of the membersanother was absent from illness-and that association proceeded, and proceeds, with the enrolment of members, and the organisation of the district. The committee did not interrupt their business on account of Mr. Bright's visit, or his admirable and moderate exposition of the reasons which make Reform requisite. members and men although they be, are of their own party, and not of the Mc Laren party, and so they could not support Mr. Bright's views. Mr. Moncrieff, who makes out the triumvirate for Edinburgh and Leith, could oppose them, because such a horrid and shocking difference exists between five pounds rating and five pounds rental-that sad distinction between six and a half dozen. This agitation has not extended rapidly to other districts of Scotland, because the people do not know what to make of this new element thrown amongst them. They say, rather wait for a full change than have this perpetual peddling with principles. They feel that sales were made of them long ago, and they will not be sold again. They do not enjoy the confidence which we have, that a mistake has been made, but only a mistake, from an excellent purpose. In London, we should suppose from the authority referred to, that the Radicals, a party, were out of sight; and yet as qualification in Edinburgh, as resembling the distinction between the Canongate, or the Cowgate, and Cumberland-street or Northumberland-street. The one franchise will give 1,700 electors, it is said; the other should give nearly 30,000, certainly 25,000. there has not been a public meeting of a metropolitan borough in which the principles of manhood suffrage has not been carried, and without any division usually. The same result has occurred in all the large English towns, we believe, in which any difference of this kind has led to division. It is the suffrage adopted at Rochdale, Mr. Bright's own town, at Newcastle, at Nottingham, at Manchester, and it would have been adopted in Sheffield, except for Mr. Roebuck's explanation, that a rating qualification included lodgers in houses rated for the poor;" which seems to be a long name for manhood suf-less competent to decide great questions, frage. The reasons for preferring the one scheme to the other, are numerous. Mr. Bright says correctly that the United Kingdom has one million of electors, and six millions of male inhabitants over twenty-one years of age. The rating qualification would raise the electors of Edinburgh from 8,000 to 17,000. It would make a smaller change in London, and perhaps a greater change in Glasgow; but this only doubles the number of electors--now they are one in six, then they would be one in three; although, as the change would not be so great in counties --and one-half of our population live in counties-one-third of the higher number named would, perhaps, not reach the register. The rating qualification includes a greater per centage of inferior elements than the manhood suffrage bound up with residence. One gentleman, one of the representatives of Glasgow, and the principal partner in a very old house, told Mr. Bright that they had twenty-nine persons in their office, of whom twelve were rated householders, and seventeen were lodgers. Of the former all, or four-fifths, are probably now electors, and the remaining seventeen cannot be particularly desirous of a reform for excluding them from the franchise. Yet this house is very old, with old book-keepers and clerks, we presume-older, as a class, than the average, and this is a valuable class. The addition of lodgers in Edinburgh would be almost, if not entirely, equivalent to the addition of ratepayers under the proposed scheme; but they would be necessarily a more intellectual class, and we have no hesitation in describing the difference between a manhood and a rating We do not advocate compromises, because we must in that case advocate exclusion, which we cannot do without good reasons. Nobody can say to an artisan or clerk, living in lodgings, paying perhaps £15 or £20 annually for shelter, irrespective of attendance, or furniture, "You are or to say who among a few public men is, in your opinion, more likely to represent your borough well in their decision than the porter who carries your letters and parcels, or the cabman who drives you to the steamer when you are behind time, and who lives in a house of one room and kitchen, for which he pays £5 of yearly rent, and 5s. of yearly rates-an industrious worthy man, perhaps, but likely to be more intelligent than the skilled artisan or the confidential clerk." We cannot go to the inhabitants of rural parishes, and say, "You are less worthy, because you breathe a freer air, to name men to represent you, than we who live in boroughs, and come to you occasionally in search of health, of mental and physical renovation." We can be no parties to this urban egotism, and we cannot advocate the exclusion of the rural population from equal privileges with their countrymen in towns, only because they plough the land and reap the harvests, or aid and labour in and for agricultural operations. Many persons advocate a great exclusion from, when they imagine that they promote a small extension of, the suffrage. Their meaning is easily comprehended who say that the people are too ignorant to guide themselves. That may be true of some people at some periods; but it comes to an end When and where is to be the end? We cannot wait until every individual be as learned as every other person. They accuse us of equality levelling, and so on, who never dreamed that equality was either desirable or practicable. Men are not made equal in body or in mind, and they never will be equal in circumstances Is it equality of morals that these parties scek? That is impracticable, or |