the slaveholders, who are the descendants of British and French aristocracy, did not put it to the vote; but, as soon as Lincoln and the Republican party were elected, they commenced an agitation for secession. The agitation would have been perfectly legal if they had put it to the vote. But no, seceed they would; and if they could not do so by the vote, they would do so by force of arms, having provided themselves with 30,000,000 dollars out of the national exchequer during the time they were in office. This, then, is an aristocratic revolution-the most wicked, the most diabolical revolution that ever disgraced the history of the world. It is a revolution in order to perpetuate slavery, and also to carry on the African slave trade.

The Southern sympathising journals are trying to bring the people of this country to the belief that it is not a question of slavery. But anyone who has read the speeches of Mr. Stevens, Vice-president of the Southern Confederacy, also the letters and correspondence of Mr. Yancey, which can be seen in the Morning Star of January 7, 9, and 11, will see at once that it is slavery and nothing else.

In a speech delivered by Mr. Seward, at Dubuque, the summer before last, he said, the controversy is between two classes of white men, one having negroes-an aristocratic class who want to extend themselves over the new territories-and the other people who have no negroes, and will not have any, and who mean that the aristocratic section shall not be extended. It is the eternal question between classes; between the few privileged and the many unprivileged; between aristocracy and democracy.

Question 2. Was the act of Captain Wilkes an outrage on the British flag or an insult upon the honour of the British nation? If it was, by whom was it committed? It is said it was contrary to international law. Upon that point there is a difference of opinion, even among lawyers of great eminence, and even Earl Russell had to submit it to the law officers of the Crown to receive their opinion before he would act. The Cabinet of Washington has given up the men, but still it is quite clear there is no definite international law. If Presidents are to be the guide, the English Government has been guilty of ten thousand times worse acts than Commodore Wilkes. But I said by whom (supposing it to be an outrage and an insult) was it committed. Certainly the captain of the San Jacinto intercepted the Trent and arrested Mason and Slidell. But what had the British Government said in its proclamation? It recognised the South as a belligerent Power, and also warned all her Majesty's loyal subjects against conveying officers, soldiers, despatches, and arms for the use of either contending party, or to do so would be at their own peril, and even threatened them with penal consequences under municipal law and the law of nations; Captain Wilkes only carried out the spirit of the proclamation, and as such Earl Russell and Lord Palmerston are the parties who are guilty of what has so excited the public mind for the last six weeks. The Government professes neutrality, and yet throws all the influence it can towards the South. In the South you have a slave-holding aristocracy, who command the sympathy of the kindred aristocracy of this country. They rejoice that the revolution has taken place; they know that it is in the Federal States that the Republican element is to be found, and hence they wish to destroy it. If Lincoln and his Cabinet had not given up those men, how rejoiced would they have been. A war would have materially weakened the Western Republic. But happily they are defeated; and, what is worse than all, they (the Government) knew that Mason and Slidell would be given up a month ago, yet that was kept from the public. What other motive could they have in view but to perpetuate a feeling of hatred in this country against the Americans? for, although this is blowing over, if it is possible they will pick up a quarrel with America, in order to weaken the Northern federation and strengthen the South. Should the Government of England succeed in picking a quarrel so that they can go to war, it will be the working men that will be called upon to fight; they must shed their blood for the honour and dignity of England-the honour and dignity of England means the honour and dignity of

the Court and aristocracy. To preserve that honour and that dignity they (the working men) shed their blood in the Crimea, left wives and orphans to mourn their loss unprovided for, except the provision of the union-house, and that oftentimes is refused. Others came home with loss of limbs and unprovided for, to starve in our streets, or selling matches in order to get a few pence that they might get a bit of bread to satisfy the cravings of nature. That is the honour which working men work and fight for!

In conclusion, let me say that had Mason and Slidell been Kossuth or Calvi, who was put to death for Italian liberty in the prison of Mantua, that there would have been no fuss, no sending soldiers to Canada, no prohibiting of the exportation of saltpetre, no war cry raised from one end of England to another, for the release of these men from Austrian tyranny.

Let working men learn this maxim, and act upon it-if Governments will make wars, let Governments fight.

War is a game if subjects were wise
Kings would'nt play at.

Islington, January 12, 1862.

W. P. WALLARGE,

(To the Editor of the "Working Man.")

SIR,-In my last I sent you an account of a working man and his family; in this I send you an account of little John, who was left motherless thirty-four years ago, with a drunken father, so that he underwent great hardships, for he was a neighdour's child who lived by me, and I was an eye-witness of his treatment. As he grew older he went to work with his father, a thatcher, and many a flogging John had to put up with; but he kept on with his father until he was 19 years of age, but could not get any money, as his father spent all he could spare in strong drink; so John left him, and worked for a man of the same calling as journeyman, and was very steady and thoughtful, and saved all he could spare of his earnings, so that in course of time he was very comfortable, well clad, and respectable. He then married a respectable young woman, and their home was as comfortable as his father's was miserable, for his father married a second wife, who bore many children, his home being an abode of misery. John, after he had been married a few years, as he was often short of work, felt a desire to leave England and go to Australia, but his wife was not willing to go for four or five years; but John would not give it up, and still persisted in going, and, as his wife brought herself into trouble by refusing, she at last consented to go; so John applied to the emigration commissioners for a passage to South Australia, and went out in September, 1848, and they arrived at the port of Adelaide quite safe. John being steady and persevering, soon got work, was well rewarded for his labour, and soon began to thrive. He bought a horse and cart and acres of grapes, gathered and took them to market, and sold them, and by so doing accumulated many pounds. He then hired some land on his own account, and throve well for some time; he then sold off and went to the gold mines with a horse and cart, and there he was fortunate, and in about two years accumulated some hundreds of pounds. He then left the gold mines, and again commenced farming, and he is now farming 400 acres of land, and working fourteen horses. His present worth is over £2,000. Some say there is no place like England, and I believe it to some people those who have plenty of capital and a good position; but John knows there is a better place for an industrious son of toil than England. Others say there are no comforts there, but John knows that with money he can have comforts there such as he could not have in England; therefore he does not wish to come back to a place where he fared so badly, for he knows full well that in England the reward of the sons of toil is the union work house after they cannot work any longer. This many a working man has expressed to me, and that was John's view of the matter before he left here.-Wishing you every success, I am, &c., A HUNTINGDONSHIRE WORKING MAN.

Dec, 26, 1861.

(To the Editor of the "Working Man.")

FEW MASTERS AND MANY MEN.

SIR,-The original and just conclusion which a father and son arrived at on the son being apprenticed to a trade was, that the son would eventually become a master on his own account; and indeed this was the son's only ambition, for until then the customs and habits of society, in truth, did, and still do, shut him out from becoming a justly recognised member thereof. The skilled artizan would not consider he was in a proper position to marry and have a family before he attained that object, for he lived (and still lives) from hand to mouth, with the uncertainty of obtaining employment, journeying from one part to another in search of work, and from these circumstances the common saying arose, "that a man ought not to marry until he had a home, a fixed abode to go to, and which, by his own industry, he would with certainty be able to uphold and maintain." Now, though the present system of journeymen remains unaltered, those future prospects of the skilled artizan are gone; journeymen they are, and journeymen they must remain; for at the present time (where in former years were hundreds of little shops, the fixed abodes of hundreds of little families) there is to be seen immense buildings, the owners or capitalists of which, being men of great wealth, carrying on those trades which formerly belonged to hundreds of industrious little tradespeople with their families, so it is useless for the journeyman now-a-days to wait till he has a fixed home of his own before he marries; therefore he marries without one, and goes in search of a lodging in a part of another person's house (a house built for one person only), for such time as his work at the particular place is likely to last; this he manages with great inconvenience till he gets a family, oftentimes a very large one, when moving about then becomes impossible, and he often has to walk miles to his work without his employers paying one farthing in addition to his regular wages; so the working man with a large family is compelled to search street after street for a lodging in another man's house, in which other families are huddled together, as though they had been turned out of their own abodes, and had sought a temporary shelter. They are subjected to all the inconveniences attached to living in a house built for one family only-the tyranny and insults of under-landlords living in the same house, the great difficulty of getting respectable lodgings with so large a family, the danger of fire and consequent utter ruin, the liability of having his hardly-accumulated furniture seized for rent he does not owe, which may be due to the superior landlord, and, above all, the being subject at any time of the year to be turned out of the premises. All these difficulties to contend with might have answered the purpose to act as a stimulant in former times to make a man exert himself to realise a position as a master on his own account; but it is of no use now. The industrious skilled artizan of the present day is a far superior man to what he was many years ago, yet he had a far better prospect then than he has now, as it stands to reason if men of wealth invest their capital in different trades (each establishment representing perhaps a hundred little shops) that those who would otherwise be small masters must remain servants to the great monopolists, thereby increasing the number of servants and decreasing the number of masters. If journeymen are always to remain journeymen, place them in at least the same position in society as they would have been had the large servantholders not have deprived them of their only chance—that of becoming masters on their own account-and brought them to a nearer approach to slavery. Secure to them homes (I don't mean barracks, such as model lodging-houses, but abodes in which they would have all the advantages that they would possess in houses of their own, such as fireproof buildings, with separate and distinct chambers); and give those, above all, the franchise who would have been entitled to it had their rights to become masters on their own account not been taken away from them by the large servant-holders.-Your obedient servant, WILLIAM HENRY PEAKOME.

(To the Editor of the " Working Man.")

SIR,-In the first place, allow me to wish you a very happy and prosperous Our motto should ever be "Persevere."

new year.

The words "God willeth all men to be happy," of the late Prince Consort, at the Conference on Education, held in Willis's Rooms, in June, 1857, are ever ringing in my ears, nor can I obliterate them from my mind. If the Prince was right, how is it that man's path is so beset with pauperism, poverty, and crime? Some pretended religious people are perpetually harping upon the same string "The poor shall never cease from the land," "That man is born to trouble, as the sparks fly upward," &c.-without the slightest consideration of the context of the book from whence they deduce their pauperising arguments. If studied aright, they would advance that the great Eternal has created this fair world of ours for the enjoyment of his creatures, and that such high behests should be hailed with joy and rapture by all rational and intelligent beings, as a foretaste of that future, celestial, and pure state of existence which even the rudest barbarians, in all ages of the world, have professed to aspire to. I would have such pauperising doctrines exposed to the test of scrutiny, which would embrace a better knowledge of the laws of our being.

I hope that this new year will not become an old one ere the Working Man enlightens the world upon such important subjects. At any rate, you have my best thanks for your generous efforts to emancipate the minds of the working classes from their present state of thraldrom, and more particularly for your intention to publish my humble effusion on "Usury versus Co-operation" in your next number.

You are an unflinching advocate of Manhood Suffrage, and yet those who now possess this right will not exercise it, as you will find by the enclosed letter addressed to you for publication.

If the payment of the rates and taxes by a certain day did not block up the way, at least 40,000 voters' names would appear on the register for Finsbury. This fact alone shows the struggling poverty of the people, and calls loudly for redress. Yours most sincerely, JOHN ROBERT TAYLOR,

PROPOSED FINSBURY LIBERAL ELECTORAL ASSOCIATION.

SIR,-The accompanying tabular statement will afford your numerous readers not only information of the strength of the respective candidates in the late contest in certain districts of the borough of Finsbury, but also of the large number of unpolled votes therein.

I would venture in the first place to suggest that until the present law is altered, which throws the expense of erecting the hustings and polling-booths upon the candidates, the polling should take place in the vestry rooms of the respective parishes in the borough, or at convenient public rooms which might be hired in the vicinity of the present polling-booth localities. Instead of erecting a booth in Lincoln's Inn-fields, Holborn, the polling might take place in the theatre of the London Mechanics' Institution, in Southamptonbuildings. The same would apply to Barnsbury and Myddelton Halls, Highbury Barn, &c.

This plan is already acted upon in the City of London, and is far more economical than the present system. I know that Mr. Johnson, of Sermonlane, Doctor's commons, lets his assembly-rooms, at a moderate sum, to the Ward authorities for polling purposes, and which is fraught with increased comfort to the Superintendent, Poll, Check, and other clerks, who are thereby not exposed to the inclemency of the weather in an open booth in the winter

season.

I find that Mr. James's (the Returning Officer) charges at the late election will be little less than £800. This tallies with Mr. Cox's statement, that he had paid his share of the Returning Officer and E'ection Auditor'. charges,

amounting to between £300 and £400. The Election Auditor's fee is ten guineas.

I have also ascertained at the Crown Office, in the House of Lords, where the poll-books at the recent election were deposited by the Returning Officer, that under the statute they can be inspected by any elector or other person upon payment of a fee of one shilling for inspecting each poll-book, and these are 89 in number, or an office copy of the whole or part can be obtained upon payment of threepence for every folio of seventy-two words, which, according to a rough estimate I have made, would amount to about 25 guineas for an entire copy of the whole of the poll-books.

Secondly. The large number of 12,800 unpolled votes at the recent election calls loudly for such an association as the above, and which could be supported at a comparatively small expense. Imagine what 1d. per month would produce from ten or fifteen thousand of the Liberal electors of Finsbury; it would not only enable an organised committee to petition Parliament to carry out the above objects, but also to return men of the people's choice to the people's House, free of expense, and keep out those who possess only their well-lined coffers to back their pretensions to fill so high and honourable a position, and leave a handsome surplus in the hands of the committee to meet any special emergency.

This estimate is based on the average number of elections which have taken place in the borough since 1832.

Thirdly. The objects of the proposed association should also embrace measures for the relief of candidates entirely from the payment of the Returning Officer and Election Auditor's charges, which nullifies, to a great extent, the non-property qualification measure passed by Lord Derby's Government, and which, in fact, was the fundamental principle of the People's Charter, whereby the property qualification of members to serve in Parliament was wisely abolished-thus enabling the people, if so minded, to elect discreet men of intellect, and of moral and social worth, to represent their interests in Parliament, in preference to "long-purse" millionaires.

Also the disqualifying clause of the Reform Bill, which Lord St. Leonards so aptly endorsed "A bill for the better payment of the taxes," necessitating the rate and taxpayer to pay up certain rates and taxes by a given day, otherwise he is disentitled to vote for a non-qualification candidate, should be forthwith repealed, as an anomaly which ought not to be allowed any longer to disgrace the statute book.

The register of voters which I have collated to form the accompanying statement will show at one view the extent of the disqualifying clause; for instance, in the parishes of St. Andrew, Holborn-above-Bars, and St. George the Martyr, there are collectively 2,700 houses, and only 1,302 voters' names appear on the register, more than one-half being disfranchised.

Having thrown out these few hints for your consideration,—I am, &c., 13, Brownlow-street, Bedford-row. JOHN ROBERT TAYLOR.

Jan. 2, 1862.

FINSBURY ELECTION.-DECEMBER, 1861.-(From the Poll-books.) Lincoln's Inn-fields, Holborn.-St. Andrew, Holborn-above-Bars, and St. George the Martyr, 1,302; Furnival's Inn, 53; Staple Inn, 43; Gray's Inn, 250; Lincoln's Inn, 302; Liberty of the Rolls, 143-2,093: Cox, 286; Mills, 567-853: unpolled, 1,240.

Queen's-square, Bloomsbury.-St. George, Bloomsbury, 1,156; St. Gilesin-the-Fields, 1,248-2,404: Cox, 416; Mills, 456-872: unpolled, 1,532. Clerkenwell-green.-St. James, Clerkenwell, 3,785; Saffron-hill, Hattongarden, and Ely-rents, 306; St. Sepulchre, 237-4,328: Cox, 1,293; Mills, 1,005-2,298: unpolled, 2,035.

St. Luke's.-St. Luke, Middlesex, 2,412: Glasshouse yard, 68-2,480: Cox, 705; Mills, 529-1,234; unpolled, 1,246,