Meanwhile this definition of his right reverend brethren as the real labouring classes of England, comes in
timely aid and illustration of an admirable remark of Mr. Roebuck's on the question of extending the
franchise, so as to bring the most intelligent members of the working classes within its pale. Mr. Hume's
proposal was to make the franchise co-existent with the poor-rate, to take the votes by ballot, and to limit
the duration of parliament to three years; all excellent proposals, though it may be doubtful whether something
better than a uniform franchise, something that would be more likely to include the different conditions
presumptive of education and intelligence, might not be devised. The proposition was opposed, of course,
by the hackneyed cry of property as a necessary basis of the franchise, and by the old conventional distinctions
between property and labour; as if either property or labour could be so strictly defined, as accurately to
measure the guarantees of the one, or the non-restraints of the other. For in regard to property, would any
one dream of asserting that the prudences arising out of its possession were to be rated by its positive
magnitude rather than by its value in the eyes of its possessor, or that the working man with ten or twenty
pounds in a savings' bank might not have an interest in property a thousand times more vivid and intense
than a needy spendthrift with his nominal thousands a-year? And as for labour, if a labouring man is to be
excluded, why should the Bishop of St. Asaph remain? But no wiser thing could be said on this head
than was said by Mr. Roebuck, though without the inspiration of the Bishop of St. Asaph's discovery. Was
not the whole character of the entire country, he asked, as one piece of paper, shaded all over with the shade
of labour; darker here and lighter there, it was true, but still all shaded, except perhaps where the house of
lords (when a bishop didn't happen to be present, he should have interposed) occupied one small spot of light?
Where, on this dark page of work, all occupied with labour, from the lowest operative to the highest
intellectual labour, were we to begin to mark out the labouring class? It was an idle bugbear, he added, this
alarm about the labouring classes; it arose in a great degree from putting under one name classes wholly
various in position, interests, everything; and the sooner we got rid of it the better. True: but yet it will not
be wholly got rid of, till the present deplorable ignorance of a part of the population of labour is first got rid of.
That is the real danger. That is the bar to anything like immediate and general concession of the franchise;
though unquestionable guarantees both of conduct and intelligence already exist, sufficient to warrant its
instant and large increase; and with every step of advance in the latter respect, the country will make so
many advances to its own content, and clearance from the pest of trading agitators.

The work of the agitators for protection, by the way, has been greatly simplified and assisted during the
past month, by the fact of a section of the free-traders giving them unexpected support. To such a pitch of
distress has free-trade brought the country, is now the averment of our farmers' friends, that the country can no
longer support its needful burdens, or keep up its establishments, or pay its servants properly. Everything
must be reduced. Whereupon some score or so of free-traders echo the cry, and consent to play the game of
their enemies by way of spiting their friends into economy. Yet is this an ill reward to men who had
brought on themselves the protectionist clamour about burdens, by no worse miscarriage than that of relieving
the country, for the sake of free-trade, of its greatest burden of all. If they had only done nothing, they
would not now have been asked to do anything. They suffer as the Chancellor of the Exchequer does for a
successful stroke in finance. Poor Sir Charles Wood has been all the month undergoing the troubles and
distresses of a surplus. What is a million and a half amidst claims that would swallow up fifty millions?
Mr. Disraeli would confiscate the whole sum in the shape of a transfer of local burdens to the consolidated
fund. Mr. Drummond would put more of it in the pockets of the landlords by reducing establishments.
Timber carries a motion in its own behalf in the House of Commons. Stamps complain that they will not
be distributed anew, so as to relieve small properties, and draw higher sums from properties that are large.
Malt says it has as good a claim as bricks; hops claim precedence over malt; tea says it has a better claim
than either; the newspaper stamp cries out in the name of knowledge; the advertisement duty has many
poor clients to clamour for; and even bricks, most lucky commodity of clay, complain that their remission is
not accompanied by a drawback, and their bread buttered on both sides. Poor, luckless, prosperous,
Chancellor of the Exchequer! But in what he has done, if he has offended powerful claimants, whom in any case
he could hardly have satisfied, he has at least offered service where there was little power to enforce, and therefore
more need to receive. It is the poor who will be chiefly benefitted by the remission of the duty on
bricks. They will feel it in the improved comfort of their dwellings, where reformation is still so much
required for the sake of morals, not less than for that of cleanliness and health.

NARRATIVE OF PARLIAMENT AND
POLITICS.

On the 4th inst. the house went into committee on the
Party Processions (Ireland) Bill. The Duke of
WELLINGTON objected to the bill, as not going far enough.
He never could understand the reason why the Legislature
should not prevent persons in Ireland from appearing
abroad with arms; a privilege which he ventured to
say does not exist for the people of any other portion of
the civilised world. Why should any person be allowed
to appear with arms, except for sporting, as in this country?
and why not require every man appearing abroad
with arms to produce his certificate, or be deprived of
his arms, and be called to account for possessing them
under such circumstances? He gave notice, that either
on the report or at the third reading, he should propose
a clause, and he hoped the government would not object
to it, to carry out his opinion.

The Marquis of LANSDOWNE observed, that it would
be difficult to introduce such a clause into a "bill to
restrain party processions;" and he questioned the
expediency of converting the bill into an arms bill though
far from saying that it might not be necessary to introduce
one. Lord STANLEY saw the force of this objection,
and suggested, that the penalty of forfeiture of arms
should be imposed on armed appearance in procession,
as well as on refusal to separate after command.

The bill passed through committee, and was reported.

The above bill was read a third time on the 8th. The
Duke of WELLINGTON proposed a clause declaring that
arms borne by persons assembled to the number of three
or more, should be seized and forfeit. The Marquis of
LANDSDOWNE declared, upon information which he should
be happy to show privately to the Duke of Wellington,
that, although the introduction of the clause would not
prevent the passing of the bill in the House of Commons,
it would occasion such delay that it would not be passed
in time to prevent an outrage on the 17th of March;
Ribandmen were making preparations to violate the law
on that day, and to renew the collisions which had so
often ended in bloodshed. The existing Arms Act,
pronounced by Lord Clarendon to be "the best ever passed,"
would have to be renewed this summer, and into that
bill Lord Lansdowne pledged himself to introduce a
clause like that now proposed. The clause was
withdrawn. But after some discussion. Lord MONTEAGLE