London, Tuesday, February 8, 1853 

The Daily News states that the establishment of a defensive 
coast-militia is under the serious consideration of the Government. 

The Bank accounts show a further decrease of bullion to the 
amount of £362,084. There have been shipped, during the last 
fortnight, about £1,000,000 partly for the continent and partly in 
coin, for Australia. As the bullion in the Bank of France continues to 
also decrease, in spite of the large importation of gold from 
England, there has apparently sprung up a system of private 
hoarding, which strongly indicates the general distrust in the stability 
of Napoleonic government. 

At present there is manifested a general demand for higher wages, 
on the part of working-men, especially shipwrights, colliers, 
factory-operatives and mechanics. This demand is owing to the 
prevailing prosperity and cannot be considered as a very particular 
event. A fact which deserves more notice, is a regular strike amongst 
agricultural laborers, a thing which has never taken place before. 
The laborers of South Wilts have struck for an advance of 2 shillings, 
their weekly wages amounting now only to 7s. 

According to the quarterly returns of the registrar-general, 
emigration from Great Britain was going on through the past year, at 
the rate of 1,000 a-day, the increase of population being somewhat 
slower. Simultaneously there was a large increase of marriages. 

The deaths of Viscount Melbourne and the Earl of Tyrconnel, 
with that of the Earl of Oxford, make no less than three peerages, 
that have become extinct within the last fortnight. If there be any 
class exempt from the Malthusian law of procreation in a geometrical 
progression, it is that of the hereditary aristocracy. Take, for instance, 
the peers and baronets of Great Britain. Few, if any, of the Norman 
nobility exist at this time and not much more of the original baronet 
families of King James I. The great majority of the House of Lords 
were created in 1760. The order of baronets commenced in 1611, 

under James I. There are at present only thirteen surviving out of 
the number of baronet families then created, and of those created in 
1625 there remain but 39. The extraordinary decrease of the 
Venitian nobility affords another instance of the prevalence of the 
same law, notwithstanding that all the sons were ennobled by birth. 
Amelot counted in his time 2,500 nobles at Venice, possessing the 
right of voting in the council.* At the commencement of the 18th 
century there remained only 1,500, in spite of a later addition of 
several families. From 1583-1654, the sovereign council of Berne 
admitted into the hereditary patricia 487 families, of which 399 
became extinct within the space of two centuries while in 1783 there 
survived only 108. To recur to remoter periods of history, Tacitus 
informs us that the Emperor Claudius created a new stock of 
patricians, “‘exhaustis etiam quas dictator Caesar lege Cassia et princeps 
Augustus lege Saenia sublegere.”” It is evident from these facts, that 
nature does not like hereditary aristocracy, and it may safely be 
asserted but that for a continual infusion of new blood, and an 
artificial system of propping up, the English House of Lords would 
ere this have died its natural death. Modern physiology has 
ascertained the fact, that fertility decreases among the higher 
animals, inversely with the development of the nervous system, 
especially with the growing bulk of the brain. But no one will venture 
to affirm that the extinction of the English aristocracy has anything 
to do with an exuberance of brain. 

It appears that the “millennium” is already considered as broken 
down by the same parties who predicted and originated it, even 
before the House of Commons has taken place. The Times, in its 
number of Feb. 4, says: 

‘While Manchester has been fulminating her indignation against the Government 
of Lord Aberdeen, ... Irish Popery and Socialism (?) are bestowing their questionable 
praises on Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli.” 

As to the Irish Socialism alluded to in The Times, this term applies, 
of course, to the Tenant-Right agitation. On a future occasion I 
intend to show that the theories of all modern English bourgeois 
economists are in perfect accordance with the principle of Tenant- 
Right.” How little the tenor of The Times article just quoted is 
shared in by other newspapers, may be seen from the following 
contained in The Morning Advertiser. 

“We should despise the Irishmen, could we believe them capable of deserting the 
principle of Tenant-Right.” * 

The wrath of the Aberdeen organ is explained by the fact of the 
Millenarian Ministry being completely disappointed. Messrs. Sad- 
leir and Keogh were the acknowledged leaders of the Brigade—the 
one in the Cabinet, the other in the field. Mr. Sadleir directed and 
managed, while Mr. Keogh made the speeches. It was supposed that 
the purchase of these two would bring over the whole lot. But the 
members of the Brigade were sent to Parliament pledged to stand in 
opposition to, and to remain independent of every Government that 
would not establish perfect religious equality, and realize the 
principle of Sharman Crawford’s bill on the rights of the Irish 
tenants.* The Times, therefore, is indignated at these men being 
unwilling to break their faith. The immediate cause of the outbreak 
of this angry feeling was given by a meeting and banquet at Kells, 
County of Meath. The circular invited those to whom it was 
addressed, to express their indignation at “the recent desertion from 
the Irish Parliamentary party,” and a resolution was passed in that 
sense. 

This failure in the calculations of the Ministry with regard to the 
Brigade could have been anticipated; but a transformation is now 
going on in the character and position of Irish parties, of the deep 
bearing of which neither they nor the English press appear yet to be 
aware. The bishops and the mass of the clergy approve of the course 
taken by the Catholic members, who have joined the Administration. 
At Carlow, the clergy afforded their entire support to Mr. Sadleir, 
who would not have been defeated but for the efforts of the 
Tenant-Leaguers. In what light this schism is viewed by the true 
Catholic party, may be seen from an article in the French Univers, the 
European organ of Jesuitism. It says: 

“The only reproach which can, with good foundation, be objected to Messrs. 
Keogh and Sadleir, is, that they suffered themselves to be thrown into connection with 

two Associations (the Tenant-League and the Religious Equality Association) which 
have no other object than to make patent the anarchy which consumes Ireland.” 

In its indignation, the Univers betrays its secret: 

“We deeply regret to see the two Associations put themselves in open opposition to 
the bishops and clergy, in a country where the prelates and dignitaries of the Church 
have hitherto been the safest guides of popular and national organization.” 

We may infer that, should the Tenant-Leaguers happen to be in 
France, the Univers would cause them to be transported to Cayenne. 

The Repeal” agitation was a mere political movement, and 
therefore, it was possible for the Catholic clergy to make use of it, for 
extorting concessions from the English Government while the 
people were nothing but the tools of the priests. The Tenant-Right 
agitation is a deep-rooted social movement which, in its course, will 
produce a downright scission between the Church and the Irish 
Revolutionary party, and thus emancipate the people from that 
mental thraldom which has frustrated all their exertions, sacrifices, 
and struggles for centuries past. 

I pass now to the “Reunion” of the leading reformers of the 
County of Lancaster and its representatives, which was held at 
Manchester on the 3d inst.* Mr. George Wilson was in the chair. He 
spoke only of the iniquitous representation of the commercial and 
industrial compared with the agricultural districts, upon which he 
expressed himself in the following terms: 

“In the five Counties of Buckingham, Dorset; Wilts, Northampton, and Salop, 63 
members were returned by 52,921 voters, while only the same number were returned 
by Lancashire and Yorkshire, with 89,669 county and 84,612 borough voters, 
making a total of 174,281. So that, if they returned members in proportion to voters 
alone, those five counties could only claim 19; while, if Lancashire took their 
proportion, it would be entitled to 207. There were twelve large cities or boroughs 
(taking London as a double borough) returning 24 members, with 192,000 voters, and 
a population of 3,268,218, and 383,000 inhabited houses. On the other side, 24 
members were returned by Andover, Buckingham, Chippenham, Cockermouth, 
Totnes, Harwich, Honiton, Thetford, Lymington, Marlborough, Great Marlborough 
and Richmond; but they had only 3,569 voters, 67,434 inhabitants, and 1,373 
inhabited houses.... The most timid reformer and most moderate man would hardly 

object to the disfranchisement of those boroughs which had a population less than 
5,000, and to handing over the 20 members to those large constituencies.” 

Mr. Milner Gibson, M.P., took up the subject of National 
Education, and the Taxes on Knowledge. With regard to the Reform 

Bill, the only passage in his speech deserving notice, is his declaration 
on the point of equal electoral districts: 

“It may be, if you please, a great class-question.” 

Mr. Brotherton, another M. P., said: 

“No Reform Bill would be satisfactory, at this time, which did not propose to 
equalize the distribution of the representation.” 

But by far the most memorable speech was that of Mr. Bright, 
M.P., the real man among the “Manchester men.” He said: 

“The Government is a coalition Government, composed of Whigs and Peelites.... 
There is no great cause for any throwing up of caps, as if we had in the Government 
men of new principles and of a new policy, who are about to take a great start, and 
who would not require to be urged on by all those who are favorable to Reform in 
every part of the country. [Hear.]” 

In reference to Parliamentary Reform he said: 

“If Louis Napoleon had started with a Representation like ours, in France; if he 
had given all the Members to the rural districts, where the Bonaparte family are so 
popular, and had not allowed Members to be returned from Paris, and Lyons, and 
Marseilles, all the Press of England would have denounced the sham Representation 
which he was establishing in that country. [Hear! hear!] ... We have one-eighth of the 
population of England here in Lancashire; we have one-tenth of its rateable property, 
and we have one-tenth of the whole number of houses.... We begin to know where we 
are now. [Loud cheers.]... There is another little difficulty, which is the difficulty of 
the ballot. [Hear! hear!] I read Lord John Russell’s speech at his election, and really 
these London electors were in capital humor or they would not have allowed such an 
argument to pass without saying something against it. ‘He was against secrecy 
everywhere’; and when I read the paragraph, I said to myself ‘Very well; if I had been 
one of your supporters, I should have recommended you to take a reporter from The 
Times office to the next Cabinet-meeting with you.’” [Hear! laughter.) Now we come 
to Sir James Graham’s argument: ‘He did not think secret voting could be made 
compulsory.’ Why can it not be made compulsory? Open voting is made compulsory, 
and secret voting could be made compulsory. It is compulsory, at any rate, in the State 
of Massachusetts, if not in the other States of North America; and Sir James Graham 
knows perfectly well that there was no force in what he was saying to 2,000 or 3,000 of 
the people of Carlisle, on a rainy day, when, I suppose, people did not weigh matters 
under their umbrellas very carefully. 

“We must not forget,” concluded Mr. Bright, “that everything the country has 
gained since the Revolution of 1688—and especially everything of late years—has 
been gained in a manly contest of the industrial and commercial classes against the aristocratic 
and privileged classes of this country. We must carry on the same conflict; there are great 
things yet to be done. [Hear! hear! and cheers.]’’ 

The resolution unanimously agreed to was: 

“That this meeting requests the Liberal Members connected with the County of 
Lancaster to consider themselves a committee for the purpose of aiding in any 
proceedings with reference to Parliamentary Reform, with a view to secure such 
additional representation for this County, as its population, industry, wealth and 
intelligence require.” 

The Manchester School have repeated at this meeting their battle 
cry: the industrial Bourgeoisie against the Aristocracy; but, on the 
other hand, they have also betrayed the secret of their policy, viz.: 
the exclusion of the people from the representation of the country, 
and the strict maintenance of their particular class-interest. All that 
was said with regard to the ballot, national education, taxes on 
knowledge, &c., is nothing but rhetorical flourishes; the only serious 
object being the equalization of Electoral Districts—at least the only 
one upon which a resolution was passed and a pledge taken by the 

members. Why this? With equal electoral districts the town interest 
would become the commander of the country interest—the 
bourgeoisie would become master of the House of Commons. If it 
were given to the Manchester men to obtain equal electoral districts, 
without a necessity of making serious concessions to the Chartists, 
the latter would find instead of two enemies, mutually trying to 
outbid each other in their appeals to them, one compact army of 
foes, who would concentrate all their forces to resist the people’s 
demands. There would be, for a while, the unrestricted rule of 
capital, not only industrially but also politically. 

A bad omen for the coalition Ministry may be found in the 
eulogiums bestowed at Kells and at Manchester on the fallen 
Administration. Mr. Lucas, M.P., said at Kells: 

“There were nq greater enemies to Tenant Right than the Marquis of Lansdowne, 
Lord Palmerston, Sidney Herbert, &c. ... Had they not had the Whig Ministry and the 
Grahamites nibbling at the Tenant question? They had on the other hand the Tory 
officials; and he would leave it to the conscience of any man, who read the 
propositions that emanated from the various parties, to say whether the treatment of 
the subject on the side of the Derby Government was not a thousand times more 
honest than that of the Whigs.” 

At the Manchester Reunion, Milner Gibson said: 

“Although the Budget of the late Ministry, as a whole, was bad, still there were 
good indications of future policy in that budget.—[Hear! hear!] At least the late 
Chancellor of the Exchequer* has broken the ice. I mean with regard to the Tea 
Duties. I have heard from good authority that it was the intention of the late 
Government to repeal the Advertisement Duty.” 

Mr. Bright went still further in his eulogium: 

“The late Government did a bold thing with regard to the Income Tax. For the 
country gentlemen of England, themselves the owners of a vast portion of the fixed 
landed property of the country, for them to come forward and support a proposition 
which made a distinction in the rate charged on fixed property, and that on income 
derived from trade and other precarious sources, was a step that we ought not to lose 
sight of, and that we, in this district, are bound to applaud. But there was another 
point to which Mr. Disraeli referred, and for which I must say I feel grateful to him. In 
the speech introducing his budget, and in the speech in which he contended for three 
hours with that mass of power opposed to him, on the night of his final defeat, he 
referred to the tax on successions, which is what we understand by the legacy and 
probate duties, and he admitted that it required to be adjusted. [Loud cheers.]” 

Written on February 8, 1853 Reproduced from the New-York