God; the duty of maintaining our own responsibility without shifting it to the keeping of any one else; the persuasion that we, all of us, each with some different gift, are the inheritors of the promise to bind and to loose-that is to warn and to console our brethren, as we in like manner hope to be warned and consoled by them.

This is the summary of this question, needlessly complicated by irrelevant discussions. The texts on which the popular theory and practice of absolution are grounded are, as we have seen, altogether beside the purpose. They no more relate to it than the promise to Peter relates to the Popes of Rome, or than Isaiah's description of the fall of the Assyrian King under the figure of Lucifer relates to the fall of the angels, or than the two swords at the Last Supper relate to the spiritual and secular jurisdiction, or than the sun and moon in the first chapter of Genesis relate to the Pope and the Emperor. In all these cases, the misinterpretation has been long and persistent; in all these, it is acknowledged by all scholars, outside the Roman communion, that they are absolutely without foundation." And, as the misinterpretation of the texts on which the theory of Pontifical or Presbyterian absolution rests, will die out before a sound understanding of the Biblical records, so also the theory and practice itself, though with occasional recrudescences, will probably die out with the advance of civilisation. The true power of the clergy will not be diminished but strengthened by the loss of this fictitious attribute. Norna of the Fitful Head was a happier and more useful member of society after she abandoned her magical arts than when she practised them. And for the lay world, the object of all sound education is not to make the scholars dependent on their teachers, but dependent on themselves-not to make the laity lean on the clergy, but to make them walk on their own feet. In proportion as England has become, and in proportion as it will yet more become, a truly free and truly educated people, able of itself to bind what ought to be bound, and to loose what ought to be loosed, in that proportion will the belief in priestly absolution vanish, just as the belief in wizards and necromancers has vanished before the advance of science. As alchemy has disappeared to give place to chemistry, as astrology has given way to astronomy, as monastic celibacy has given way to domestic purity, as bull-fights and bearbaits have given way to innocent and elevating amusements, as scholastic casuistry has bowed before the philosophy of Bacon and Pascal, so will the belief in the magical offices of a sacerdotal caste vanish before the growth of manly Christian independence and generous Christian sympathy.

A. P. STANLEY.

It is gratifying to observe that the correct view of Matthew xvi. 19, xviii. 18, John xx. 23, is substantially given in the useful commentary on the Gospels just pablished by Professor Plumptre and Professor Watkin.

LAST WORDS ON THE COUNTY FRANCHISE.

To close a scene from what is called Parliament out of session,' or at least my own part in that scene, I will now endeavour to sum up the case on the extension of household suffrage to the Counties, as it stands between Mr. Lowe and myself. My arguments' have been as follows.

1. That the question is again in danger of being played with, for the mere purposes of party, like the same question for the Boroughs in the session of 1867. I placed this argument in the foreground of my appeal to Mr. Lowe, with a hope grounded on the proverb that the burnt child dreads the fire.

2. That the mere presumptions against organic change, which were strong until the epoch of the first Reform Act, had then become comparatively weak; and that the acts of 1867 and 1869, which enfranchised the householders in the towns, had created an opposite presumption in favour of the householders in the counties, unless a valid plea in bar could be set up.

3. No such plea can be found in the natural distinction between town and county; now that so many of our Knights of the shire' represent constituencies essentially urban, and that so many of our 'Burgesses' do in fact sit for little counties, in which the town suffrage has been given to populations completely or essentially rural. The present distribution of the vote, then, is capricious; and a capricious law cannot command respect or permanence.

4. No such bar can be found in comparative want of qualification; either as to absence of substantial interest, or as to selfishness, or as to passion. Every class admitted to the franchise improves, in some new respect, the competency of Parliament. The argument in favour of capacity merely intellectual as an exclusive title, urged as it is now urged, logically and really means absolute government; and, among our countrymen, any lack in this respect is amply made up by the trust and deference towards others of the classes less informed, or less endowed with leisure.

5. Passing episodically to a broader ground, my paper argues, that there are some positive reasons for the enfranchisement of persons who contribute to the revenue and to the national wealth; give, through

1 Nineteenth Century, November 1877, p. 537.

the family, ple lges to society; and may also do it serious mischiefs. These persons, as I argue, will be more useful, and less harmful, when associated with its interests, and trained in their degree to its political as well as its local affairs.

6. Inequality in the voters might abstractedly require inequality in the vote. If we admit that this inequality is in part (and in part only) measured by property and station, a scale to determine it would. be both odious and impracticable; and it is attained to some extent, without objection, both by the direct and by the indirect influence which attaches to possessions.

7. To the merely numerical argument, that the rich and educated minority are to be given over to a majority of daily labourers, I reply that it proves too much and too little. Too much; for it would make all our enfranchisements wrong, since each class admitted, in the downward series, has outnumbered the aggregate of classes above it. Too little; for all these enfranchisements have done good, so the mere argument of number does not raise the presumption of harm to follow.

8. The love of political equality may be dangerous; but as distinct from the love of liberty, it does not prevail in this country.

9. The experience of 1848, amidst the shock of European revolutions, showed that the reform of Parliament had immensely strengthened the foundations of our social order.

10. The experience of 1869-77 has shown that the large admission of labour as an element of the constituencies has given us Parliaments more alive to its just interests, but in no respect disposed to trespass on the rights of the non-labouring classes.

11. The independence of the county householder is safe as against intimidation; and we have no reason to suppose he will not duly use for himself the faculty of self-government.

From these arguments I passed on to collateral topics, in which I am very much at one with Mr. Lowe; and which, therefore, need not here be further noticed. Let me then consider his Reply.

And first I must point out that those, who form their idea of my argument from his pages, will form an incorrect and misleading idea of it. He states at the outset and repeatedly 2 that I have urged the expediency of creating equal electoral districts. They are once named incidentally, but only as enhancing in the minds of many the horrors of anything like universal suffrage,' and are then forthwith excluded from the argument; 3 which contemplates, as we all do, a redistribution of seats, and says as to this: The reckoning, when it does come, will be but mild.'

4 6

When, passing from a series of narrower and more special to wider arguments, Isuspend for a moment' that series, the Answer says

Fortnightly Review, pp. 733, 735, 742. 4 N. C. p. 539.

3 N. C.
p. 544.
C.

5 N.

P.

543.

'he asks leave to withdraw 6 his conclusion, and he threw up the attempt.'

6

When I say there are some reasons' in favour of enfranchising certain persons,7 this he converts into the proposition that they are 'entitled to a vote.'8

6

When I point out certain conditions previous,' namely contribution to revenue, contribution to national wealth, the pledges of the 'house-father' as such, the mischiefs that the bad citizen may do," the Reply sets forth 10 that these are my only arguments, the four Corinthian pillars which are destined to support the enormous fabric of universal suffrage.' This, it is added, will hardly be believed.' I go farther. I trust it will not be believed at all. The very same paragraph contains an argument perfectly distinct, to which the previous arguments are introductory. It argues that all those who live in a country should take an interest in that country, should love that country;' and that the vote gives that sense of interest, and fosters that love. Mr. Lowe may say, if he likes, that this is a bad argument; but to deny its existence is hardly consistent either with the logic for which he is famous, or with the care which so grave a subject demands.

6

Having given these instances by way of caveat, and having shown how he has separated the four Corinthian pillars from their fellows, I will now inquire with what measure of notice he thinks they severally deserve to be handled.

1. The man, I have urged, is 'a contributor to the public revenue." To this it is answered: The same thing may be said of every dog;' and a man satisfies the qualification by paying for a glass of beer." Now, when the plea on my side is that adult men generally are habitual and large contributors to revenue, it is no answer to urge that a particular person may contribute but slightly and casually. Still less is it an answer, in law or fact, to say that a dog contributes to revenue. In law, a man who chooses to keep a dog pays for leave to keep him. In fact, I had thought Mr. Lowe's own parliamentary experience of the dog-tax had taught him that, while the barking was certainly considerable, they were men, and not dogs, who paid the impost.

2. The man, I have again urged, contributes by his labour (as distinct from capital) to the public wealth. The reply says, that so does the cart-horse. Now suppose a labourer is 'digging in my garden, and a friend says to me 'No doubt you pay him wages.' I do not answer Why should I? Would you pay wages to the spade?' The spade, like the cart-horse, contributes to the result; but neither the spade nor the cart-horse has, as the man has because he is a man, the first elements of capacity to give a vote.

F. R. pp. 737, 742.
N. C. p. 544.

V. C. p. 544. 10 F. R. p. 738.

$ F. R. p. 742.

6

3. The man, I have pleaded, has given pledges to society by constituting himself the head of a family, in which is lodged a large part of his affections.' The answer is: This is the condition of the continuance of the species, which we share with the lower animals.' Here, I must own, is opened to me a new chapter in natural history. I was not aware that the lower animals did constitute families as man does, or that the sires of horses and dogs, for example, did, as man does, invest affections, which are a large and real portion of ourselves, in the being and welfare of their offspring. I use advisedly the term 'invest, and commend it to the consideration of those who may be tempted to think that the affections are after all no more than 'sentiment,' that the human heart is but a shadow, and that property is the only thing which has reality and solidity enough about it for an investment.

4. Every man, I likewise observed, has great powers of mischief. So, says the reply, has almost every animal.' It is most true. Therefore, so far as animal nature gives us the opportunity, we endeavour to Deutralise these powers of mischief, and to convert them into instruments of good, by domestication; a process which is not in its nature penal, but which turns mainly on improved treatment, and gives increased happiness of life. It is my opponent who has established this analogy, in succinct and almost contemptuous terms; but, so far as it subsists at all, it teaches that powers of mischief in mixed natures are best met, not by blind undistinguishing force, not by resistance without remedy, but by developing the faculties, and enlarging to their utmost scope the opportunities for good, of the creature to whom they belong.

We are told, it is well settled' that no one is permitted to say anything against the poor.' If so, it is at least equally well settled that, without any permission, they may be censured and condemned ad libitum; and the Reply itself is the proof. The virtues, capacities,

and talents' imputed to them are imaginary.' 12 Their desires are stronger as their needs are greater, and as the stake which they risk by change is smaller. 13 They are more likely to seek to create by law a property for themselves, than to respect the property of others.14 They will require their wages to be maintained by law, the articles they consume to be relieved from taxation, the articles they produce to be covered against competition.15 The very qualities, which the opponents of liberty might fairly be expected to regard with some favour, are treated with ridicule or vituperation. I had pointed out their notorious tendency to defer to classes and persons superior in station, and favoured with leisure. How absurd, intimates the Reply, that they should confide in those against whom they are to protect themselves! 16 I had pointed out that the English people are lovers 13 Ibid. p. 736. 16 Ibid. p. 736.

11 F.R. P.
739.
14 Ibid. p. 739.

12 F. R. p.
745.
745.

15 Ibid. P.