.about. Mr Arrwood very justly ridicules the idea that a civil war could be excited in this country; but his statistics are not quite correct, when he places 200 Lords against 20,000,000 of other men: there are only between 4 and 5,000,000 of adult males in the kingdom, against a part of whom, if there were a brutal contest, the Lords would hire another part to fight.

Mr ATTWOOD thinks" a Reform of the House of Lords is absolutely necessary," but he says that "He felt deep respect for those ancient and noble branches of the Peerage, who had fought the battles of the People and Liberty, and he would not hurt a hair of their heads." Nor would he, I trust, hurt a hair of the head of any man, merely because he happened to be a Peer. But what have "ancient branches" to do with the just estimation of men's characters? A teacher of the People insults them when he offers for their adoption any other standard of esteem than that of intrinsic excellence. If forty ancestors had each been a philanthropist, with a gifted and cultivated mind, bestowing numberless blessings upon society, and the selfish, blockish, ignorant descendant stalked forth doing harm, he should be esteemed and treated as he himself deserved; just as a great and benevolent man should receive his just esteem, though his father, his grandfather, and a long line of progeni tors, had been the veriest scoundrels on earth. It appears a little strange to hear such superstitions from a man who glories, as Mr ATTWOOD does, in being a friend and a leader of the Labouring Classes. That there are men amongst the Peers whose excellence of character entitles them to high estimation, there can be no doubt; but the having a forefather or two of equivocal distinction, according to present modes of thinking, is hardly a valid claim to our regard.

That Mr ATTWOOD is sincerely the friend of the Labouring Classes, I firmly believe, and I respect him for being so-especially as wealth has not made him less their friend; and that, therefore, he means well to them, I am perfectly certain; but no man does the Industrious Classes a service by strengthening their prejudices, or teaching them violent and erroneous doctrines. And it is because my sympathies and daily exertions are for the Labouring Classes, that I regret to see them injured by foe or friend. I would, if I could, have every man to labour so much with his body as to keep it healthy and vigorous; so much with his mind as to develope all its powers, that the greatest possible sum of human happiness should be attained by every fellow being. To progress towards this state, I would teach every man, however humble, that he was just as good as any other man, however cidentally exalted, except as one or the other should possess more intrinsic excellence; I would teach every man to strive to obtain a voice in the affairs of his country; but, above all, I would teach him to love knowledge and truth, by which only the Industrious Classes can ever elevate themselves.

ac

In the petition of this meeting to the House of Commons there is this passage,The House of Lords may, if they please, continue long an integral, an useful, and important part of the constitution of the country-that great and glorious constitution which their ancestors cemented with their blood; but never again can either open violence or secret fraud recover to the Right Honourable House a domineering influence in the councils of the nation." This seems to me written wholly for effect, as a sort of bait to the Lords to yield with a good grace what is now demanded; they are promised the preservation of their House, that is, their

hereditary privileges; they are attempted to be flattered by the allusion to the blood of their ancestors cementing what nobody has any distinct. notion about "that great and glorious constitution;" but they are made to understand that it is expected they will be content, as they will have to be, with playing a second part to the democratic branch of the Government. Now, why do men thus avoid the open, manly declaration of their sentiments and intentions. It would be better for both sides, there would be less recrimination, and the settlement of difficulties would much sooner take place. As it regards the Peers,

they ought to know, and if they do not, they soon will know, that they cannot oppose successfully the House of Commons; that, consequently, as the Commons House becomes daily more democratic, they must surrender more and more of their power. They may think it very spirited to resist, and so cause annoyance on all sides; but a little reflection, that it is true bravery to meet becomingly all inevitable changes, and that a prudent affection for their children is a sacred duty, would suit best their present circum

stances.

ROBERTS HAMMERSLEY.

"THIS afternoon (Saturday, 2nd Jan.) I went out, a little after five o'clock, to sell some of CRUIKSHANK's sheets called The Christmas Dinner' to my customers, and to inform them that I could not bring the Newspapers, as there was a set of spies ready to seize me.

"I had not proceeded far, before I observed all the gang-SMITH, HALE, HANDLEY, jun., BIRCHELL, DEAN, and three others. HANDLEY followed me into the house of one my customers, named HUTCHINSON, under pretence. of looking at some goods, but when he found that I saw him, he walked out. Another followed me into the Pear Tree Wine Vaults; he had half-a-pint of beer. I said to a customer of mine, 'Don't you want an Unstamped Paper to-night?'

"I had none of the Unstamped Newspapers with me. When I had been into four or five shops, coming out of one, the whole gang pounced upon me, pulling out their staves. SMITH was the first who laid hold of me, saying, 'Now, damn you, we've got you at last.'

They then all surrounded me, dragged me through the streets, robbed me of my sheets of wood-cuts, tore my clothes from off my back, and used me in a most shameful manner. When they had thus dragged me to the stationhouse in Tower street, Waterloo road, they examined my papers, and told me they had no charge to make against me. I then charged them with the assault and robbery, but the Inspector refused to take my charge. I next demanded the names of those who had thus assaulted and robbed me; the Inspector refused to satisfy me, and referred me to the office in Queen square."

The above statement of facts deserves especial consideration. Allowing, as I do most willingly, that the Police Officers are bound to obey the legal orders of their superiors, and allowing, also, that if REEVE had offended, and that the Policemen were ordered to apprehend him, they were in duty bound to do so; allowing all this, still I ask if this be the right way of enforcing the

-

law? Suppose, for example, that the man had sold Unştamped Newspapers, that he at that moment had them in his possession, is he for that reason to be maltreated as well as apprehendedto be forcibly and roughly dragged along the street, as if he were a robber or a murderer, who violently opposed the officers of justice? By this statement it appears that the Officers called out, "Now, damn you, we have got you at last." Why was the man to be "dammed?"—and why do the superiors of these men allow them in the exercise of their powers to exhibit this passion, and this brutal violence? These observations apply, supposing REEVE really to have been in possession of Unstamped Papers-but, as it He was, turned out, he had none. nevertheless, deprived of his property, and all redress refused him by the Inspectors, and by the Magistrate. The man is told, you have your remedy at law. This is a cruel mockery. Mr REEVE is a poor man, he cannot afford to prosecute Policemen who will be defended by the whole power of the Government. It was the duty of the Inspector to have taken REEVE'S charge he, however, refers him to Queen's square; and when REEVE gets there, the Magistrate tells him, we cannot grant warrants against our own officers!

-

This administration of the law does enormous mischief. It sours the minds of the People, and renders it impossible for any one to make them believe that the law is intended to be anything but a means of oppression. It is of infinite importance, as respects the morality of the great mass of the population, that all agents by whom the law is immediately administered, should have their confidence and respect. The contrary of this has always been the case in

England, and the consequence is, that the People seldom aid the administration of the law. Attornies, and Constables, and Police men, for example, are bitterly hated by the People. At all points, at which the law and the People come in contact, there arise hate, jealousy, and suspicion. Thus, at the very point at which public confidence is most needed, there it is always wanting. The difference in the vulgar estimation of the Judges of Westminster Hall and Police Magistrates, the Quarter Sessions Justices and Justices of the Peace, is a striking illustration of this assertion. Attornies are universally and proverbially deemed rogues, while Barristers are often esteemed by the People. Such must always be the case where the law itself is mischievous, or where it is cruelly administered. The ignorant are affected by that which is nearest to them, and their passion and hate are often as unwisely distributed as those of a child. An iguorant man hates a constable more than a magistrate the magistrate more than a judge, and a judge more than a legislator. His feelings are regulated by the distance. The constable he constantly sees, and in his person the law is personified to the poor man- the legislator he seldom ever hears of, and cannot understand or trace his influence upon his well being. For this reason it becomes doubly necessary that the immediate execution of the law should, in all cases, be as gentle and considerate as possible. No passion, no violence should ever be evinced. Unfortunately, the reverse of all this constantly takes place. The Magistrates are coarse, vulgar, violent, and rude: like master like man, the Policemen but too often imitate the conduct of their superiors.

J. A. R.

THE following extract from a letter, recently received from Lower Canada, is especially applicable to questions agitated in this country, and more especially to that of Stopping the Supplies:

"Lord GOSFORD's speech from the throne does not promise us the Reform we have so long demanded; namely, a representative second chamber; our irresponsible life Legislators are still to be permitted to obstruct the course of popular legislation with perfect impunity. Nevertheless, we do not despair. Let me remind you that we have one Legislative Chamber where political virtue reigns triumphant- where the People's opinions and wishes are truly represented and expressed. In our House of Assembly, therefore, do we, the People of Canada, put our firm trust. Whilst they remain true we feel that we are safe. Justice may be delayed; but where it is asked by 80 out of 88 of the People's Representatives it cannot be perpetually denied, especially as the Assembly is determined still to avail itself of its "Constitutional privilege" of stopping supplies, in order to enforce the essential Reform, without which all other Reforms are futile. In short, an Elective Council must be instituted, or the business of Government must continue, as it is now, at a stand.

"The present plan of the Commissioners seems to be to give up to the People as many trifling, unimportant points as possible, in order to wheedle the Assembly into a vote of money, Once let this be accomplished, and we shall hear no more of Reform until the officials are once more reduced to a state of distress. Last year the intentions of the Assembly, and, consequently of the People, were completely frustrated by the payment of 31,000l. out of the military chest, under the authority of

Mr RICE. Lord GOSPORT now asks the Assembly to repay this money! asks them in fact to sanction an Act which set at nought their Constitutional powers and privileges. But it will not be voted. Not one shilling will be given, unless as the purchase-money of an Elective Council; unless, indeed, a complete change take place in the tone and temper of the majority of the House of Assembly."

Here, then, is a lesson read to the People of England, by one cf her distant possessions, numbering not more than 700,000 people. The People of Canada put their trust in their House of Commons, because it is elected by themselves. They demand the Reform of their mimic House of Peers, because they consider it the parent of most of the evils which afflict them. If the People of England had, like the People of Canada, a House of Commons in which they could put their trust, it is quite clear that no very grievous political evil could possibly assail them. Ministers would cease to whine about the conduct of the House of Lords, they would pursue the same course as the Canadian Assembly-they would refuse to vote one shilling of supplies until the result of all popular measures before the House had been ascertained..

In England, it is a rare case, indeed, for a proposal to be made to stop supplies. As a proof that the use of this "Constitutional privilege" is totally misunderstood in this country, let it be noted that the supplies are always voted in Committee in the early part of the Session, before the House can possibly know whether the wishes of the People will be at all regarded.

If the power of withholding supplies enjoyed by the House of Commons be really valuable to Englishmen, why is not the question postponed until the Session is considerably advanced? To

be of any use it should clearly be the last act performed.

I may, perhaps, be answered, that the Appropriation Act, without which, according to Blackstone and other "great authorities," the supplies voted cannot be made use of, is so postponed. True; but of what use is this in practice? Let the Reader find an answer in the decision of last Session.

It will be remembered, that Mr HUME proposed to suspend the passing of the Act in question, until the conduct of the House of Lords on the Municipal Corporation Bill should be made known. The House, hereupon, formally decided that the Act in question was a mere matter of form that the vote in Committee of Supply in a manner pledged the House (or something to that effect) to pass the Appropriation Act. Thus, by a mere fiction and an untenable fiction too-this boasted privilege of the House of Commons is rendered useless to the People.

On the occasion above alluded to, when this question was broached, I endeavoured to show the absurdity of giving the force of law to the mere recommendation of a Committee. The object of a Committee is to settle certain details, and bring measures into a more simple state, previous to final discussion. To contend that, on these 'final discussions, the House is not competent to reverse the decisions of its own Committees, would be to render legislation a mockery. It would be to permit a mere Clique of the House of Commons to usurp powers which can only be entrusted with safety to the whole Legislature.

If this decision of the House have the force of a precedent-if the passing of the Appropriation Act at the end of the Session, be a mere form for enregistering the vote of the Committee of Supply, it becomes at once the duty of Liberal Members to refuse their votes

for Supplies until the end of the Session. If something of this kind be not done, both the Committee of Supply and the Appropriation Act become a mere legalized form of spoliation.

I am quite aware, that while the House of Commons is constituted as it is at present, the Member who is bold enough, who dares to propose such a course, will be absolutely hooted by both the Whig and Tory sections. of our Aristocratic House of Commons. Moreover, what is even worse than this, he will be met by a cold and discouraging silence on the part of those from whom he is entitled to expect support. Nevertheless, he will enjoy the approval and the gratitude of the People, and that, above all things, should support him in his painful and difficult position. Though the proposer of such a course. be at first almost alone, we need not despair of seeing him finally prevail. Let it never be forgotten that many questions which are now supported by large and influential minorities, and some, even, which have already been carried, had once-and that, too, at no very distant period-but one or two advocates. In matters of Financial Reform, for instance, let the reader. recollect the unenviable position which that firm and undeviating friend of the People, JOSEPH HUME, once occupied. Other questions, too, which drew down upon him the contempt, and even the insults of an Aristocratic mob, are now listened to with the utmost complacency. Let no one, then, despair of one day or other carrying a question which at first. he may stand alone in proposing. Ten years ago, a man would have been considered mad to have divided the House on the Ballot. Now, that question has, perhaps, 160 supporters in the House. of the land. Such, Reader, will be the In a few years it will be part of the law history of every question affecting the interests of the community.

H. S. CHAPMAN.