neric, assembled on the forum, and there deprived of their right hands and their tongues. "But the holy confessors," he proceeds to say, "continued to speak without tongues; and this miracle is attested by Victor, an African bishop, who published a history of the persecution within two years after the event." Victor sums up his account thus:-"If any one should doubt of the truth, let him repair to Constantinople, and listen to the clear and perfect language of Restitutus, the sub-deacon, one of these glorious sufferers, who is now lodged in the palace of the Emperor Zeno."

Creas, of Gaza, a Platonic philosopher, has also described his own observations on these " African sufferers." "I saw them myself; I heard them speak; I diligently inquired by what means such an articulate voice could be formed without any organ of speech; I used my eyes to examine the report of my ears; I opened their mouths, and saw that the whole tongue had been completely torn away by the roots."

Have we proved our position, that it is possible, under certain circumstances, to speak without tongues?

THE NEW ARISTOCRACY.

BY J. BURBIDGE.

"I see a new and noble aristocracy appearing in shops and warehouses, at desks and behind the counter-in workshops and factories-the aristocracy of mind; ready to take the shine' out of the aristocracy of lineage and wealth that has preceded them."-Rev. Dr. Cumming.

A TITLE once could only show

The signs of noble birth,

And men of rank were years ago

The great ones of the earth.

They deemed it just the crowd should shrink

Before the cap and gown;

They thought it wrong the poor should think,

And right to keep them down.

These were the days when books were things
"The People" could not touch;

Made for the use of lords and kings,

And only meant for such.

To work the loom, to till the soil,

To cut the costly gem

To tread the round of daily toil,
Was quite enough for them.

Time was when just to read and write
Were thought a wondrous deal,
For those who wake with morning light
To earn their daily meal.

The man a more submissive slave,

The less his head-piece knew;

And so the mass from habit gave

Their birthright to the few.

A.-I RISE to move that the General Laws be not altered oftener than once in three years, commencing from the present A. M. C.

All present having had some experience as Officers in this great Unity, must be well aware how often members who have not been at their Lodges for some time, are astonished to find the General Laws altered since they last attended. It seems almost impossible for the bulk of the members to know the changes made, for they cannot be at the Lodge every night, and they naturally complain of the trouble and inconvenience they are put to by the frequent alterations, as new laws or amendments are made every year. I have no doubt that from this cause alone we lose many good members.

I believe these continual changes to be quite unnecessary, and I therefore propose to alter the laws only once in three years; for I am sure that as we have good laws, based, I think I may say, upon a sound foundation, some of

which have stood for many years, and are well understood by all the members, we may now try the experiment (which I take it will be a perfectly safe one) of working for three years without any change. All present members, and new ones initiated during that period, will thus have the opportunity of leisurely becoming acquainted with the laws in all their bearings, and be prepared to give proper and deliberate attention to any alterations which may then be proposed; at the same time mature consideration will be bestowed upon all propositions for alterations necessarily arising in the experience of the various Lodges and Districts. Indeed, I have a very strong suspicion that members generally will be less inclined to send in such numbers of propositions, as it is now our lot to discuss every year. Some really seem to be sent simply for the sake of having something to do, and to support which Delegates must be paid who would otherwise not have been appointed.

Delegates cause a large expense to some Districts, and it is time for us to consider whether we cannot save this great outlay. Beyond this there are expenses incurred for the Officers of the Order, rent of rooms, &c., at the lengthened sittings of each A. M. C., which would, on the new plan, be considerably lessened.

We should also save the expenses incurred in registering new laws and alterations, and having to print them as addendas, as well as the new issue of the complete laws to be sent to the various Lodges.

It is well known, too, at the present time, that we have too much to do at our A. M. C.'s to do the business well; the reception of the various reports, and the election of Officers and Directors take up so much time, that we cannot avoid hurrying over the alterations of laws, and it becomes mere chance if some insignificant proposition does not occupy a long time in discussion, whilst a most important one lower down on the sheet will be slurred over somewhat unfairly. It really seems that in consequence of hasty conclusions, any good and necessary attention must be before the A. M. C. for several years before it can became law.

I do not want it to be supposed that any other proposition hangs upon this which I have now the pleasure to move. Although I propose that the laws shall be altered triennially only, I would still maintain the Annual Committee of Delegates for the selection of Officers and Directors, and to proclaim to the world, and especially in the locality of our meeting, the vast moral and social benefits of the Manchester Unity, and its extraordinary progress, as well as to take any general public steps for the good of the Order. The A. M. C. would not thus occupy more than two, or, at the most, three days; for it is quite possible, as I have hinted before, that so many Delegates would not be sent, and there would be less speech-making. In this way my view is further enforced, that various Districts would be enabled to save the expenses of Delegates, and I am sure those not represented would feel satisfied with the choice of Officers and Directors by those Delegates amongst whom there could be no cliques or party views. The fear of the expression of disapprobation through the Order would prevent them doing anything unworthy of its reputation. I am aware that some Delegates attend at their own expense, but I presume they would not be less ambitious to do so, supposing the alteration of laws were only con. sidered once in three years, and the Unity would thus have the benefit of their counsel and advice as at present. Before I conclude I would say that I do not wish to repeat what has been uttered in some Lodges, that there are too many of the old school elected to the A. M. C.'s who are too glad to have a week's holiday at the expense of their Districts, and who will never vote for triennial alterations of laws. I strongly repudiate that reckless assertion, for I do not believe any members of the Order would act so unfairly.

VOL. III.

D

I venture to hope that the reasons I have given will be well considered by you all, and that you will come to a fair decision. I believe the annual alteration of the laws to be quite unnecessary, very expensive, and most annoyingly vexatious to the great mass of members who do not know what the laws are; for no sooner have they got the new ones and read them, than they are told some change is made.

I am sorry to have taken up your time so long, but this is a most important question. I trust after calm and serious deliberation, you will all vote in my favour for a "triennial alteration of the General Laws."

The Negative.

C.D.-I shall vote against the proposition moved for the alteration of the 10th General Law. Nothing whatever has been advanced to show us that the change proposed will be "beneficial to the Unity," and before that grave consideration all other minor matters of personal convenience must bow down.

Every member is supposed to attend his Lodge every meeting night; and every member is supposed to know the laws. If he does not, it is his own fault, and not that of the laws, or any Committee of Delegates. It is not only possible, but easy for him to know all the laws; he is aware when he is initiated that there is an A. M. C.; and he is bound to refer to his General Laws, which show him that it always meets on Whit-Monday to consider alterations of laws. Then, it is his duty to attend his Lodge, some time in July, and learn what has been done. This he can do without expense, by merely reading the Quarterly Report, or, if he wants to possess a copy of the alterations, he purchases them for one half-penny. If he lives twenty-four years, and repeats this process, he will have to spend the enormous sum of one shilling, and spare about one hour every year to peruse and learn the new laws! It is for the lazy, indifferent, and thoughtless few who will not take this trifling trouble that we are pressed to make the sweeping legislation proposed; for those, in fact, who, as some, not very elegantly, but forcibly, express it, are a "sleepy lot." Let us be consistent, if we mean to oblige them. Let us tell them they may not only have three but twenty-one years if they like to learn the new laws, but they shall not alter their District or Lodge laws for the same period, and probably by that time most of them will sleep the sleep of death. In that way, we may probably lose good membersnot by an annual alteration of laws. Will any one give us proof that a single person has left the Unity from the latter cause alone? Is the Manchester Unity decaying? I ask the question because you sat so quietly to be told that the changes made annually are unnecessary. Who is to be the judge of the fact the "sleepy lot," or the body of Delegates at each A. M. C., busy and active for the good of each absent member? I ask you by the majority of your votes to reject the proposition, and so proclaim this change is unnecessary. If you do so, who shall deny you did right?

The proposer says our General Laws are good ones, and we can safely leave them untouched for three years. Why not five, why not seven, or more? The laws of England are said to be the perfection of human reason, and yet, strange to say, no one proposes that the House of Commons shall meet triennially. There, the way is open to propose any alterations; and if the proposition

is good, a new law is made; if unnecessary, or radically bad, it is rejected. So in the Manchester Unity. We must have the way opened. No one knows what events may happen to necessitate alterations, and no one knows what injury the Unity may suffer if we agree to lock up our tongues, and so stultify ourselves for three years. Not the least curious fact is, that the changes annually made are administrative only, that is, such as it becomes officers to know. Since 1853, no laws of importance have been made which particularly affect members.

We are told to look to the question of expense, as Delegates cause the Districts an outlay. Granted: but who ever heard of any business being done without expense? Delegates do not come merely to support their own propositions, but to oppose others, either "unnecessary," or "bad," as they, in their judgment, may think proper to call them; and which, through no fault of theirs, must come before the A. M. C. Suppose some one suggested the propriety of taking away the right of representation from those Districts which do not habitually send Delegates, we should soon hear them offer to send the full number, and pay them without any croaking about expense. It is a pity all do not do so now.

But the proposer tells us he means to let Districts send Delegates or not, as at present; only, if the motion for triennial alteration of laws be carried, either Delegates will not be appointed, or those that are will not make such a long stay, and are therefore more likely to be sent, because the expense will be less. I will supply him with an estimate. Say 300 Delegates are sent each year, and they work three days less in each of two years, the Districts, if they paid 10s. per day, would be saved £900. In the third year, they would necessarily occupy a fortnight to legislate for the Unity, and the excess of six days over the usual A. M. C. would require exactly this £900 to pay them. What, then, is the difference, except in imagination? The same remark applies to officers of the Order and Directors, and to the printing of alterations and laws, for as there must necessarily be an arrear, there must in the third year be a greater quantity of alterations to print, whilst the General Laws supplied must, in numbers, be the same as now, to meet the wants of new members.

Surely, this gets rid of the bugbear "expense," and I think also of the notion, that because we have not time to do our business annually, we are sure to do it if we try once in three years instead. Was there ever such an argument ?

And the Officers and Directors are to be chosen annually. Why? If the laws will last three years for the members, they will also do that time for the chiefs. And if the members sleep, why not the chiefs? The proposer should be honest, and tell us he wants triennial moveable committees, and that his aim is, if not intentionally, at least in effect, to destroy the Order.

And we must sleep while the world outside is busy, nervous, and full of life. The great universe is thorbbing, heaving, moving onward, and yet we must sleep, and perchance die out; the Manchester Unity being numbered with the things that were. "Beautiful is the dream of progression," but only to those who have gained the proper idea of life!

If, after reflection, any one of you can sanction triennial alterations of laws, do so. If I am alone, I vote against it.

E. F., G. H., I. K., and others, took part in the debate.

L. M.-I should like to discuss the whole matter from the beginning— (Divide, divide).

On the motion of N. O., seconded by P. Q., the debate was ultimately adjourned.