the infinitude of their variety, confuse and confound the reporter. At one and the same time, during seasons not widely apart, spectacles of the most various character are presented at different sections of the House, and we have no doubt that if an attempt should be made to portray them together, the same confusion would result which follows from the simultaneous sliding of several of the painted glasses of a magic lantern within the vision of the lens. We shall supply the deficiency, as far as is in our power, by taking from contemporaneous reporters sketches of scenes similar to those to which we have already adverted. Lord Brougham has several times called the House a menagerie, and we have been told by a cautious observer, that a blind man, ta

ken into it during one of its periodical convulsions, would suppose himself in a zoological establishment. Of a debate which occurred in the late parliament, the Morning Post, the organ of a large and then a dominant party, thus speaks the day following:

"The most confused sounds, mysteriously blended, issued from all corners of the House. One honorable member near the bar repeatedly called out read,' (to the member endeavoring to address the House,) in an exceedingly bass and hoarse sound of voice. At repeated intervals a sort of drone-like humming, having almost the sound of a distant hand-organ or bagpipes, issued from the back benches; coughing, sneezing, and ingeniously extended yawning, blended with the other sounds, and produced a tout ensemble which we have never heard excelled in the House. A single voice from the ministerial benches imitated very accurately the yelp of a kenneled hound."

Another authority, equally respectable, thus reports a speech whose reception, we trust, presents features not often equalled:

"I rise, sir, (ironical cheers, mingled with all sorts of zoological sounds,) I rise, sir, for the purpose of stating that I have (Oh! Oh! Bah!' and sounds resembling the bleating of a sheep mingled with loud laughter). Honorable gentlemen may endeavor to put me down by their unmannerly interruptions, but I have a duty to perform to my con- (ironical cheers, loud coughing, sneezing, and yawning, extending to an incredible length, followed by bursts of laughter). I say, sir, I have

constituents who on this occasion expect that I- (cries of should sit down,' and shouts of laughter). They expect, sir, that on a question of such importance (0-0-a-a-u-' and loud laughter, followed by cries of Order! Order!' from the who choose to conduct themselves in such Speaker). I tell honorable gentlemen a way, that I will not be put down by(Groans, coughs, sneezings, hems, and various animal sounds, some of which closely imitated the yelping of a dog, and the squeaking of a pig, interspersed with peals of laughter). I appeal -('Cocke leuri-o-co!) The imitation, in this case, of the crowing of the cock was so remarkably good, that not even the most staid and orderly members of the house could preserve their gravity. The laughter which followed drowned the Speaker's cries of 'Order! Order !'). I say, sir, this is most

unbecoming conduct on the part of an assembly calling itself de (Bow-wowwow,' and bursts of laughter) Sir, may I ask honorable gentlemen who can (mew-mew,' and renewed laughter). Sir, Ì claim the protection of the chair. (The Speaker here again rose, and called out "Order! Order!' in a loud and angry tone, on which the uproar in some measure subsided.) If honorable gentlemen will only allow me to make one observation, I will not trespass further on their attention, but sit down at once. (This was followed by the most tremendous cheering in earnest.) I only beg to say, sir, that I think this is a most dangerous and unconstitutional measure, and will therefore vote against it.' The honorable gentleman then resumed his seat amid deafening applause.”—Grant's House of Commons, 45.

Into the House of Lords has the spirit of disorder penetrated less deeply. Its members, by the operation of the chief feature in their tenure, are relieved from the ordeal of corruption through which the members of the lower house must pass. The lords spiritual and temporal obtain their seats either by the appointment of the crown or by descent, and though there is a great field laid open, under the first head, for intrigue, we question whether they would become qualified for the arduous office to which they succeed, as superintendants of a majority of the close boroughs of the realm, were it not for the apprenticeship which most of them undergo, during the period of their pupilage in the House of Commons.

There is no doubt that the young Duke of Leeds, to whom we

paid a brief tribute at the opening of this paper, would have been bewildered at the great mass of parliamentary influence thrown upon him by his father's death, had he not already taken part in the Sheffield contested elections. With most of the members of the upper house, however, the taste for debate is so small, as to make the temptation to personal collision very moderate. It is a fact which requires some explanation, that the chief interruptions extended to the discipline of the House of Lords, arise from the bearings of the lords who owe their elevation to their eminence in the legal profession. We insert a few extracts, taken somewhat carelessly from the volumes before us, which will go some way to illustrate the demeanor of noblemen whose great ability and whose consummate learning have placed them in the highest rank, both at the bar and in the senate. On a late occasion, according to the Spectator, when a decision of the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench was under discussion:

"As Lord Campbell was speaking, there was a loud talking between the Lord Chancellor, Lord Denman, and Lord Brougham. The Marquis of Lansdowne's voice, in a loud tone, cried, 'order,' 'order!' Lord Brougham suddenly started up from the woolsack, and with great warmth, addressing Lord Lansdowne, cried out, 'I should like to know where the disorder is. I am not aware of any disorder. He was answered by renewed cries of 'order,'' order,' with hear,' 'hear!' Lord Lansdowne said, he had not called order till the four noble lords on the wool sack talked so loud that he could not hear what was passing.' Lord Brougham said, Ay, but the noble marquis did not call order till the talking was all over.' Lord Campbell proceeded to assert that all the lawyers in the House of Commons, some of them now members of government, were against the judgment. Lord Brougham remarked that each time Lord Campbell had addressed himself to the House, he had not improved his argument. Lord Campbell-How often have you spoken?' Lord Brougham-How often have you spoken ?" "

In a debate on the penitentiary system, Lord Melbourne, (Hansard, xli. 87,) in the course of a long and animated reply to a previous argument of Lord Lyndhurst, remarks:

"The noble lord well knew that the effect of a calm and artful statement was not afterwards very easily done away with."

"Lord Lyndhurst.-I hope the statement I made was calm, but I assure your ble viscount, and the members of the govlordship it was not artful. That the noernment who sit near him, should be ignorant of the facts contained in the

statement I have made, shows that they are as ignorant of their domestic duties as they are incapable of managing the colonial government and foreign relations of the country."

Before Lord Melbourne could catch the floor in reply, Lord Brougham, in accordance to one of his most prominent though least fortunate instincts, stepped in as a mediator. That his interposition only made matters worse, appears from what follows:

"Lord Melbourne.-I wish the noble duke (Wellington) had been here. The noble duke would rather have cut off his right hand than have taken such a course as that taken by the noble and learned and a man of honor." lord. The noble duke is a gentleman

We had marked for insertion nearly a page of the personal controversy that follows-a controversy which is as reluctantly read by the just admirers of Lord Lyndhurst's judicial and professional merits as it is reluctantly recorded by the reporter-but we believe that it amounts to but little more than that Lord Melbourne refused for a time to acknowledge Lord Lyndhurst to be a gentleman or man of honor, and that Lord Lyndhurst rose to leave the house -a premonitory to a challenge-but was held back by Lord Brougham. A page more follows, in which the combatants, by a series of alternate conditional retractions, managed to descend in safety from the unlucky eminence on which on a sudden they had jumped ; but we confess that neither the quarrel nor the reconciliation have gone a great way to remove the impression-an impression strengthened by the subsequent still more disreputable altercation between Lord Brougham and Lord Melbourne-that the tone of the upper house is by no means improved by the presence of the law-lords.

We have heard of an English gentleman, more remarkable for his humor

than for his humanity, who invited to dinner, on an election celebration, all the parish beadles in the neighborhood. The disturbance which ensued might have been anticipated, when it was remembered that the personages thus brought together had each been supreme in his little previously allotted sphere of authority, had each established a peculiar scheme of discipline which had been as rigidly enforced as it had been authoritatively enunciated, and that each had been accustomed to make unrestrained use of such instruments of physical defence or annoyance as had been bestowed by nature. The objection that existed against such a gathering exists against the grouping together in one legislative assembly of men who have been accustomed to be supreme in their own specific spheres. Every judge who has presided for any period of time on the bench, has acquired habits of authority which are as obnoxious when introduced into a senate of equals as they are necessary when adapted to a position in which no equal exists. Very few men can pass a day in the undisturbed supremacy of a chief justiceship, without becoming unfit by evening for the courtesies of parliamentary discussion. Splendid, indeed, have been the services of the English law-lords, and yet, even putting aside the objection we have made as belonging only to later days, there is not one among the tenants of the woolsack and of the chief justiceships, who has augmented his professional reputation by his parliamentary performances. Lord Mansfield, fearless as he was on the King's Bench, was timid in the House of Lords and irresolute in council. When attacked by Lord Camden, much his inferior in legal abilities, and by Lord Chatham, his only rival in oratorical power, on points on which he knew he was right, and which he had supported on the bench with that admirable logic and consummate grace which belonged to him, he was accustomed to shiver in his seat, and either to withdraw from the discussion or enter into his own defence with such great reluctance as to prejudice his

Wedderburne, then Attorney General, the riot would have become a rebellion. Lord Mansfield, in the solitude of his judicial majesty, presents a spectacle far more lofty than Lord Mansfield, an inoperative ingredient in the House of Lords; and we believe that with those who followed him, there is scarcely one whose legislative exertions have been creditable. Great legal reforms were made necessary,-reforms which were dictated by humanity and pressed by convenience,-sinecures were to be cut down, penalties civilized, and feudalisms abolished; but we believe that, until the lay-lords took the matter in hand, the only ameliorative measure that surmounted Lord Thurlow's storms and Lord Eldon's scruples, was a bill for the prevention of cruelty to dogs.

A few words in conclusion on the bearings on the people at large of the system of corruption, whose legislative results we have already noticed. Poised as the electoral body in Great Britain is, between the higher and lower classes, it will be found that, when in a state of corruption, it casts a sediment upon the strata below as noxious as the vapors it shoots to the surface. From the evidence advanced in the House of Commons, in the Sudbury disfranchisement question, we extract a few passages, which are so amply sustained by the surrounding testimony, that we adopt them, not only from their parliamentary sanction, but from their indisputable truth:

6

"Mr. John Crisp Gorday, governor of court of guardians, said: My opinion is, that the contested elections have done more to injure the morals of the working people in Sudbury, than all the preaching or precepts of all the ministers of the Gospel have done good. How was that effect produced? One thing only is sufficient-the bribery oath. Men openly receive money, and yet go up and deliberately take the oath and vote. Some seek subterfuges, as, omitting the word not,' kissing the thumb;' while others seek no such solace, but deliberately perjure themselves.""

Again:

"A general system of demoralization is produced by the vices and crimes consequent upon the drunkenness, debauchery, and bribery at the elections in this borough.'-Large sums I (the commissioner) presume are given at elections?' 'At the

general election in 1835, the bribery was much more extensive than at any preceding or subsequent elections. I had the means of making an accurate calculation of the expenses attending that election by all parties, and the result of my knowledge is, that the sums of money expended, if equally divided among all the voters on the register, would have come to from

301. to 351. a man. Of course many respectable men were above taking money, and twenty-five persons did not vote; but, if these voters had no money, the others had so much the more, so that the whole would have come to nearly, if not quite, 351. a-head, as already stated. Is it not a most awful crime in the candidates and their committees, first, to offer miserable and poor men sums which their virtue is unable to resist, and to allow the bribery oath to be tendered to them, knowing, as they do, that the voters on both sides must take it, and that their perjury is certain? I have known nearly 400 voters, out of about 600 on the register, deliberately perjure themselves."-Hansard, LXIII. 347-8.

Slavery, such as the passages we have presented depict, is of a complexion the most noxious and degrading. The man who, by the stress of accident, is compelled to be bound to the soil as a serf, can preserve within his breast a heart upright and uncontaminated; but the man who voluntarily prostitutes himself-who, for a bribe, submits to be chained in a gang and so to be marched to the hustings; who deliberately sells himself, and partici

pates in perjury or submits to intoxication in order more fully to earn the purchase-money-such a man is a slave in soul as well as a slave in body. What the result must be of a system so extended as that of bribery in Great Britain, it requires but slight observation to determine. Nothing but sturdy and consistent honesty can secure a nation under debts so great and oppressions so severe, from those expedients which were suggested by Sir Robert Walpole, when he lessened the interest on the debt then existing, and by Mr. Pitt, when he misappropriated the sinking fund. We fear that if the bribery already established is persevered in much longer, the integrity of the British constituency will be destroyed; and it is on such a ground, therefore, on the ground of immediate interest and not of general justice, that we recommend to the rulers of that great nation, the only measure by which the of corruption may be checked. progress Increase the elective body, not because one man has as much right to vote as another-not because in the people as a mass, and not in a fraction of the people, can the will of the people be found-not because all men are created free and equal-for such maxims you reject as visionary and destructive. Increase the elective body, however, because, by doing so, you will adopt the only method of securing order to your legislature and honesty to your people.

New Bedford, Mass.

R. S. S. ANDROS.