he towns have at present far too many members, and the ounties too few ;-a topic which Mr. D'Israeli has already roached. Hence the reforming party does not dare seriusly to stir the question of re-distributing the seats, lest he result simply be to hand them over to the Tories. What hope then can you have of any changes in legislaion acceptable to yourselves by extension of the suffrage, even if accompanied by a re-distribution of seats?

་

But let me suppose for a moment that some out-and-out lemocratic measures (though I am not aware what they night be) which you vehemently desire--such as cannot possibly be carried in the present House of Commonsshould be carried there after a reform; what will happen hen? Surely they will be stopped by the House of Lords. That house is, in my belief, of the utmost importince to the future of England. I do not intend to speak disrespectfully of it, when I say that on several fundamental questions it is behind the age, and far less liberal than the Commons' House. Look at their treatment of the Jews and of the Irish Church. The Peers being already less liberal than the Commons, it is a fundamental mistake of reformers to suppose that the cure of the stoppage is to be found in reconstructing the Commons. There is no use in altering the Lower House, unless you can bring the Upper into harmony with it. The two pieces of the machine must go on together, or there will be nothing but collision and obstruction. Surely Lord John Russell (now Earl Russell) never intended--nor did the Tories intend-any change of measures when they brought in their Reform Bills. They meant only to humour the people; they treated you as spoiled children who wanted a toy. Some difference in the voting was to be made, which should flatter you; but the same, or nearly the same, men were to be elected; the balance of Whigs and Tories against Radicals would be as before (except that the Whigs might hope yo win a little by Lord John's Bill, and the Tories by Mr. fo Israeli's Bill), and the least possible result was to follow th the spirit and action of Parliament. But I check myclaf here: for one may present the Whig and Tory Reform thols in a somewhat more honourable light. Neither party haveres a real change of Parliament; but each believes that Let without this, one can somewhat enlarge the basis on allich Parliament rests, it adds to national stability, and

is, in so far, a gain. Hence they proposed their extended franchise. It is not my place to censure it; I only say, that I find nothing in it to deserve enthusiasm and earnest desire from me or from you. In my belief, the first reform needed in the mode of selecting legislators, is a reform of the House of Lords, from the side which Lord Palmerston attempted clumsily and stealthily. He used the powers of the "Crown" (that is, of the Prime Minister) to make Lord Wensleydale a Peer for life; the House of Peers resisted, and the Premier gave way. But if he had proposed that no one hereafter shall be ennobled, except by a vote of the Commons declaring the honour to be deserved, and that such vote shall recommend the person to the Crown, either for a life peerage or for hereditary peerage, the country and the Lower House would have supported him, and the result have been different. So soon as the country resolves on truly ennobling the House of Lords, it will be surprised at the increase of spirit and energy which it will see in the Commons.

I do not expect any organic reforms of deep import ever to come forth from Whig or Tory ministers. The expectation seems to me intensely unreasonable. In 1830 the case was peculiar: the Whigs had been out of office for 24 years. Lord Grey carried a Reform Bill which was to make it possible for Whigs, and hard for Tories, to keep their places as ministers; and when that was done, Lord John Russell pronounced the measure to be final. If I remember, he plaintively asked-- Whether a man could be always pulling down and rebuilding his house? or if he did not say it, I will say it for him. Ministers have enough and too much to do without such work. For myself, I exceedingly deplore the enormous legislative power which they wield, and should rejoice if the two houses, in giving to ministers facilities for bringing in bills concerning the executive government, were to stipulate that no minister should bring in a bill of any other character. Then Parliament would regain its dignity as a legislative organ no longer dependent on the executive. But to expect an exe cutive which moves in routine, and is enormously pre-occupied, to originate organic reforms which are not for its own convenience or ambition, is in my belief quite vain. All such reforms must come from the heart of the people; and in order that this may be, the nation must learn to take a

broader view of the political franchise; and no man should imagine that he is excluded from it, merely because he is not called upon at distant occasions to exercise a certain suffrage. The good working, for universal benefit, of any particular institution, as Parliament, or a town council, or a jury, depends immensely more on its being fairly tasked and honourably regulated, than perhaps on anything else. You have heard of the proverbial appeal from Philip drunk to Philip sober: so one might wish to appeal from an overworked, worn-out Parliament to the same assembly when fresh and untired. The excessive business imposed upon Parliament seems to me to make it almost impossible that it should legislate much better than it does, however it be constituted.

But there is another topic of so vast importance that I cannot be satisfied without dwelling a little upon it, since the welfare of the millions is pre-eminently bound up with it. I allude to the unceremonious mode in which war is undertaken. This I cannot but regard as a huge immorality. War is a great, a necessary, but a terrible agency. Rightly conceived of, it is, in its only justifiable form, the police of nations. No officer of law can be sent to seize my goods, much less to scourge me or hang me, until after a solemn trial, in which I am accused and have right of defence, and my judges are sworn to deliver a true verdict. Yet an army or fleet may be sent to bombard a city, to fire into ships, to wound and kill innocent persons and capture property, without a single legal or religious formality, without public debate, without warning, without accusation or defence. An executioner who should hang a man at the order of a judge, when he knew there had been no sworn jury and no religious verdict, would be called a murderer; yet soldiers and sailors are expected to obey orders, and kill and rob at the bidding of a secret cabinet, which is not sworn to do the Just, and does not, like a jury, decide unanimously, but in which two or three strong-willed men may enforce their decision on reluctant colleagues. No one now defends the Affghan war. It has been said that two men made that war. I must not trust myself here to get into details; but I say that our present practice and principle are unjust, not only to the nation against which we make war, but to the English nation, which is not. consulted. Most of our wars for a long time have been

made by executive officers. Now, if war is undertaken unjustly and frequently, none of the institutions of the country can go on aright. If there are expensive wars, there must be heavy taxation; and large sums of money, which should be spent on the welfare of the people, will be thrown away in bloodshed, while widows and mothers and orphans are left to mourn. Nay, and even the fear of war and preparing against it when it is needless, is a heavy burden, and standing armies themselves are at once a demoralising and a dangerous institution. They are the agents by which the freest nations of the world have been reduced into political slavery. Two hundred or a hundred years ago our forefathers would never have sanctioned the putting of large armies into the hands of the King's ministers for an indefinite purpose. Earl Russell, the other day, in reply to Lord Stratheden, and meaning to say something gracious and proper, avowed that at any moment circumstances might arise which would induce the Queen's ministry to depart from their neutrality in the American quarrel: in other words, the ministry feel themselves competent "at any moment" to plunge into war with the United States at their own discretion, without solemn preliminaries, previous public deliberation, and religious verdict. I am not blaming him, but the system, which seems to me simply atrocious-unjust alike to foreign nations and to ourselves. I do not speak from the Quaker point of view; nor am I blaming all our wars. I regard the Russian war as having been at last highly necessary, and in result highly beneficial;-necessary under the circumstances, though probably entailed on us by our own errors: but even in that war the Parliament was not allowed by the ministry to debate, so we "drifted" into it. What is the cure of this, it is not my present business to say; yet I have no objection to add, that I claim a juror's verdict (say, from the House of Lords after it has formed itself into a jury) that a war is just, and a vote from the Commons that it is expedient, and a public declaration of war by the Crown, before soldiers and sailors can be exempted' from the penalties which attach to civilians when they use deadly weapons. Unless the use of such weapons be reduced to the laws of morality, no administration can be other than wasteful whatever attempts you make at Reform. I have already remarked that our Parliament has too

much to do; too much for any man's intellect, too much for bodily strength. England has not quite as much population as that of the United States, taking North and South together. We have but one Parliament for our thirty millions; America has thirty-four Parliaments and one Congress for her thirty-one millions. Our ministers wield at once Executive and Legislative power. They too are overworked; and their position is contradictory-is really demoralising. As members of Parliament, it is their duty to speak sincerely from their heart; while as ministers, it is not allowed them; but they must advocate in public, and affect to approve, the measures against which they may have pleaded in secret. In my belief, nothing will come right unless you get the moral points right. Morality will aid to mend machinery, but machinery will never repair morality.

You have of late become more familiar with American political phraseology, and understand what they mean by a Territory. It is a district which has no special Parliament of its own, but is governed by the laws which Congress makes for it. Thus the whole of the United Kingdom consists of "Territories." Some of our newspapers have of late been much shocked at the idea of the North "subjugating" South Carolina, and reducing it to a "mere territory!" They have treated such a condition as a humiliating vassalage: but it is precisely the condition in which all the English counties are. And this remark opens to me a vista of the future; it suggests a possible way in which, without great general change all at once, the business of Parliament may be lessened, centralisation modified, and the "provinces" (as we have come to call them) may assume metropolitan dignity. Why should not Lancashire and Yorkshire petition to be no longer a mere territory, but to be constituted into a state, having full legislative power for internal purposes? (I am presuming that this district is peculiarly ripe for such an institution: for other parts of England it would be quite unsuited at present.) Your social welfare, of course, cannot be independent of the national and general welfare; nevertheless, in proportion as local rule is developed, it becomes of greater and greater importance than any central institutions. You must all be aware how vital to Massachusetts or Rhode Island are its state-laws, although each state is under definite rela