the performance, but that experience which makes fools wise is not calculated to render us sanguine. A batch of tailors, whose professional life has consisted in sitting cross-legged pon a board, may, at a short notice, do the work of 'navvies.' The exploit, however, is o improbable to tempt any rational contractor to apply to them. Lord John Russell's nerit has hitherto been to do exceedingly little himself, but to leave a very great deal to be done by those who happen to follow him.

The Colonial-office has succeeded to a miracle in giving dissatisfaction to the colonies. Pillage and murder in New Zealand, discontent in Australia, a quasi rebellion at the Cape, and the pièce de résistance of a Caffre war, are seductive items in its bill of fare. The Administration has disabused the mother country of the mischievous delusion that colonies should be a source of pride and strength to her; and she finds that their real object and utility are to offer a prize to thieves and burglars, an infinity of snug berths to the enfans perdus of the Ministry and aristocracy, a means of employing fleets and armies, which might otherwise be disbanded, or turned to some advantage, and to demonstrate to ourselves and Europe that soldiers, who cost more than any others in the world, are excellent targets but miserable shots. Ministerial agents, emigration societies, and even Australian diggins themselves, struggle in vain to allure the emigrants who flock like autumnal birds of passage from the shores of Ireland and England. They shun the colonial coasts, and fly to the United States. Journalists and legislators, aghast at the phenomenon, affect not to comprehend it. The truth, which is in the breasts of all, rises to the lips of none. A man in America is really a man, and even though he carry a hod upon his shoulders is the political equal of the President; in the colonies he is the associate of felons, and has been little better than a slave.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a riddle. The most popular and efficient member of the Cabinet-the bugbear of Continental despotisms, the enfant terrible of the Peace Society, the trust and mistrust of advanced Liberals, the Cory phæus of diplomacy, and the Prince of Protocols—was suddenly seized with a fit of vertigo, and, forgetting the professions, acts, and convictions of his last 10 years, avowed, or is said to have avowed, his admiration of the perjury, treason, and liberticide of Bonaparte. The Gods surely smote him with judicial blindness, for all attempts to enlist for him the public sympathy have proved abortive in presence of the damning fact that he applauded an execrable tyranny.

Of his successor I can yet say little. He is a young nobleman of great promise, an industrious Vice-President of the Board of Trade, an affable manager of the Exhibition, the guest of the Hôtel de Ville, the speaker of a neat French speech with a neat French accent. His peculiar qualification for Foreign Affairs he has yet to develope.

The Admiralty, whose independent Lords are presided by an independent layman, have shown that they can neither build a ship nor victual her. It remains to be seen if they can fight or man her. They constructed a fleet of iron steamers, and then ascertained, by practice at a target, that iron was unfit to sustain a cannon shot. This remarkable application of the analytical philosophy was succeeded by as remarkable an application of the synthetical. Builders and engine makers were kept in happy ignorance of each other's operations, and the engine and the hull, which they severally produced, though excellent apart, would not work together. The idea was ingenious, but not original. It was borrowed from the Laputan tailors, who cut their coats upon abstract principles, but never succeeded in a fit.

The Horse Guards' has been asleep since 1815, and has only awoke once every June,

to assist at the Waterloo banquet. It is but justice to admit that during this protracted somnolency of the authorities the contractors and jobbers have been wide awake. But England's real defence is in the waters that surround her, not in camps or bastions. Let her assert herregality of the narrow seas,' and defy the world.

And where is our fleet?

It is everywhere but where it ought to be; rotting in the Tagus, sustaining Dona Maria da Gloria, and making insolent 'demonstrations' against the people of Portugal, protecting Malta and Gibraltar, collecting dues and jeopardizing the American alliance for a savage whose title is a joke-blockading, against our own commerce, some hundred leagues of the Bight of Benin-prosecuting an evangelical crusade in favour of the black man, and callously consigning to the graves and the sharks of Sierra Leone innumerable corpses of our countrymen-affronting Brazil, frittering our strength, and squandering our resources. We pay for this navy more than 6,000,0007. yearly. The least we can ask is to have it when we want it.

The right disposition of the naval force is the true defence of the coast. The grass-grown fortifications of Boulogne and our own crumbling martello towers demonstrate the lunacy of providing for a passing object by a permanent and frightful outlay. Even were we fools enough to sink our millions in towers and entrenchments, camps and batteries, we have not the troops to man them now, still less to garrison them afterwards. The railway and electric telegraph explode these costly imbecilities. What we require is a moderate force, so organized that it can be quickly thrown upon a given point, or upon several. We are ignorant where a descent would be effected-assuredly it would not be on our camp; and the idea of fortifying the whole seaboard would be insanity.

Our troops should be efficient, supplied with the best arms, and taught to use them. Rifles and revolvers will play a great part in future war. Our men have neither, and might as well engage with slings and arquebuses as with their Brummagem muskets. Our method of drill makes lay figures of them-our army tailors decorate them with bulls' eyes, cripple their limbs, and give them the livery of Byzantine mercenaries or of Royal footmen; and our system of purchase may furnish us with men of fortune, if it has not previously provided blacklegs-may make the officer a gentleman, but cannot render him a soldier.

Let our ships be at once disposed where they should be, and I more than doubt if these invaders will a appear. But there is another question: Is England to look on with folded arms at a new partition of Europe? Is Savoy to be annexed or is Belgium to become a province of France, and the Rhine her boundary? Men whom I respect say, or seem to say, that that is no concern of ours. The Treaty of 1815 is waste paper; each party has broken it in turn, and Cracow, Hungary, Italy, and Germany have found it an insulting mockery. Granted. What then? There is a law antecedent to all treaties, and above them-the law of self-preservation. It is England's right and duty to mantain her independence, her high place among the nations, the legacy our fathers left, the heritage we owe our sons. I am yet to be convinced that policy and prudence, or even mere economy, counsel us to remain passive, and to wait till despotism has closed its ranks, mustered its forces, intrenched its camp, and organized its blockade against our commerce and our principles, its razzias against our coasts.

AN ENGLISHMAN.

d Army and Ships are well enough, yet our best defence is not there, but in an armed people. But an armed people must be a free people. What say'st thou? Englishman!

J. Watson, 3, Queen's Head Passage, Paternoster Row, London. No. 9, February 23.

THE TINKERS.

The old bill is to be mended, pieced, filled up, and adapted to '-Whig Conveniences 'Vulpine knowingness sits yet at its hopeless problem, "Given a world of Knaves, to educe an Honesty from their joint action.""

FTER twenty years watching of events, after maturest consideration, and (if any one might believe him) not upon the spur of the moment nor in any way influenced by a disgraceful want of popularity, Lord John Russel has been delivered of his New Reform Bill: an infinitesmal addendum to his original final measure. Here is an abstract of his first draft.

1—67 English boroughs with each less than 500 electors are to be enlarged.

2-Sudbury is to be disfranchised; and instead Birkenhead and Burnley will return each a member.

3- If St. Albans should be disfranchised, there would be two other members to dispose of.'

4-Parliament is to allow itself to make occasional inquiries, such as that at St. Albans, even without the petition of a disappointed candidate. 'By this mode'-his Lordship conceives-We should obtain sufficient evidence to enable us to disfranchise corrupt boroughs. It would then be possible to enfranchise large towns.'

5-In boroughs the franchise qualification is to be lowered from £10 to £5.

6-In counties, instead of a £50 rental the qualification is to be a rental of £20; and the qualification of copyholders and 'long leaseholders' is to be reduced from £10 to £3. 7—A new class of voters is to be created: 'persons paying direct taxes in the shape of ́assessed taxes or income tax to the amount of forty-shillings a year.' 8-The property-qualification for members is to be abolished. 9-Jews are to be admissible without the oath of a Christian.

This is all. Let us examine its worth.

The value of the first proposition may be estimated by aid of the Report of the St. Alban's Commission, which-in the words of the Times-proved that 'everybody always was bribed, always had been bribed, and always expected to be bribed.' Lord John proposes to admit the next neighbours of such honest electors to a wholesome competition: so that every enlarged borough may have its two Edwards instead of only one Edwards, or its two noble patrons instead of only one patron. The avarice of opposing agents will possibly pull down the price of votes; the two patrons will be likely to arrange, to nominate in turn. But Lord John's own mouth may best condemn him. My belief is that, 'while in many of the small boroughs bribery and corruption do exist, the same thing may 'be said of many of the larger boroughs,' Wherefore he thinks it only necessary to

enlarge a few of the smaller boroughs.

a

Birkenhead and Burnley are to have members in consequence of Sudbury's disfranchise

February 9th. How innocently expressed after Mr. Coppoch's confession.

ment. Is 658 then a charmed number? Or is Birkenhead only worth representing because Sudbury is not? Power of Whig logie! And if St. Albans should be dis'franchised there would be two other members to dispose of': which might be awarded to two of the '627 large towns now unrepresented, though assessed to the Income-tax to the amount of 15,300,000.' The 627 large towns may remain unrepresented till the House shall disfranchise so many small boroughs as will give them 627 members to dispose of. It would then be possible to enfranchise the large towns.' For 'all we propose 'to do is to disfranchise only in cases of proved guilt.' The proof being specially provided for by the proposition to adopt some mode of getting suflicient evidence of notoriously corrupt practices. How anxious to adopt it, the Solicitor-general can tell, who was satisfied, with honest Jacob Bell, that there was 'no evidence-not the slightest suggestion,' of bribery at St. Albans.

All this portion of the new Bill is most transparent humbug. Let us turn to the more important clauses.

A new class of £5 householders for towns. But what manoeuvres to prevent the new voters ? On the face of it this would look very like household suffrage. But if townhouseholders, who (as Lord John has just discovered) ‘possess intelligence which will lead 'them to exercise well the power WE propose to place in their hands,'—why not householders in counties on the same terms? The old question recurs:-Is the intelligence gone so soon as the man removes to 'next door': from his £5 house within the town to the first house, say at £19, beyond the boundary? Or is the class which even in the rural districts occupies houses rated at £19 a year, inferior either in intelligence or social position to the £5 householders of towns? It is to be a rated £5 too: so the 'reform' may not go so very low.

Well, there are to be new voters at £5 a year in towns and at £20 a year in counties. Will the £20 be for house and land? If so, what equality between him who pays £20 a year for a house only, and the very small farmer who pays no more for house and land. How these extremely old statesmen delight in complications! There are to be also £5 copyholders, and all the holders of 'long' (how long?) leases at £5 a year. How many does Lord John reckon of these last? As many perhaps as will belong to his bran new class of supplementary voters, not possessed of town-houses at £5, country-honses at £20 or long leases at £5, but who pay forty shillings in the shape of assessed taxes or income'tax': the lowest amount of income-tax paid being £4.7.6, on £150 a year. Will not this great reformer also enfranchise the wearers of ruffs and pigtails, and that large and steadily increasing class-the believers in Whig honesty and capacity. What an almost universal' suffrage that would be: enough to satisfy even stout Sir Joshua himself.

The abolition of the property qualification for members, if carried, we will gratefully acknowledge. So any beggar (place-hunter or not) may be a representative in that Honourable House. But he shall only represent people of property: says Lord John. The elected may be not worth a penny, paying neither assessed taxes nor income-tax, too poor even to be rated to the poor, living by commonest daily labour, in the corner of some house whose whole rental is under £5 a year: and yet he will be eligible to sit in Parlia ment, to be one of the Kings of England. Why not, if simply worthy of the people's trust ? But then, why not the electors on the same footing? Will Lord John, or even his friend the veteran calculator, inform us why? Garret-dwelling Andrew Marvel is at last admitted by this 'Russell' to be quite worthy of the unanimous votes of Westminister; but he is not to be allowed a vote for Westminister.

Nor are these the only absurdities of his Lordship's scheme.

Beside the recipe for

curing corruption by merely enlarging its sphere of action,-in addition to the anomalies of £5 qualifications in boroughs, and £20 in counties, and occasionally £2 in either,--and electors properly qualified to elect the unpropertied,-beyond the contrivance to maintain 67 rotten boroughs by adding some few to their tale of 500 each, in order to render them worthy of returning rogues to Parliament, while €27 large towns are totally unrepresented,' there is to be the farther absurdity (to call it no worse) of the differences between England, Scotland, and Ireland, which Lord John does not propose to rectify. It is true that his own act of last year, fixing the Irish borough franchise at £8, is now to be rescinded but he says not why the Irish farmer should have a vote for £12, and the English farmer none for less than twenty; nor does he propose to give to Ireland and Scotland their fair proportion of representatives.

But let us be thankful, if the bigots will let us, that the Jews have another chance of getting into Parliament.

The whole scheme is an impudent, and as clumsy piece of tinkering; or perhaps making allowance for second childhood, only an imbecile attempt to ascertain with how little salt upon its tail fleet-winged popularity may be caught for a new whig plaything.

But are there no tinkers except the official?

What says Mr. Hume? He, for his part, 'agreed that the present period was properly 'chosen for a measure of reform.' What measure? plain-speaker! Household-suffrage: a six or twelve-months' residence in one place, and being rated to the relief of the poor. He gets no farther. And yet Mr. Hume could say, on the 9th of February, 1852, that he ' denied altogether that the people of this country were not entitled of right to have the 'suffrage.' And so far back as February 25, 1850, that

'Irishmen required moral elevation: and nothing in his opinion would tend more to 'that moral elevation than the giving to every man a stake in the country and a voice in 'the direction of public affairs.' b

Say Englishmen and Scotchmen as well as Irishmen, and print that opinion in letters of gold. And act upon it, honest reformer! instead of tinkering up a rateable residence as a qualification for that to which every man' is 'entitled by right.'

How that rate qualification of the household reformers is calculated to work, let one of their own faction explain to us.

'He bad observed in many places, in Manchester particularly, between 1839 and 1842, 'a period of great manufacturing distress, the parliamentary franchise was greatly dimin'ished, many industrious, hardworking and struggling men whose 'rates were increased, no matter how they struggled to maintain their position, were struck 'out of their right as parliamentary electors.' c

As to residence, what is to prevent the masters from only letting their houses (how commonly their houses around the works) for periods less than that required to qualify for the vote? Or even independently of this, how shall the mass of workmen, drifting in the fluctuations of Trade, comply with a residential condition even of three months? Is a man less worthy to be an elector because it may not be exactly so many months since a master's failure, or any slackness of work, or this or that change of employment, compelled his removal from one electoral district to another? But the power in the masters' hands remains though neither rate nor residence be required. Let one of them speak again! In the northern parts of the kingdom were firms employing from 500 to 5000 persons