The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, MAY 28, 187.

sought to deceive and entrap the house into a step which
it was most desirable should not be taken. The clause
that had been brought forward by Government was with
the view of fulfilling an engagement made with the House
of Commons originating with the proposition of the hon.
member for Newark. The policy before the house was the
policy of the House of Commons, and not that of her Ma-
jesty's Government. If the house did not approve of the
propositions of the hon. members for Newark, Pomfret, and
South Lancashire, the house objected to their policy, and
not the policy of her Majesty's Government. With re-
spect to the county franchise, the Government could
not adopt the proposition of the honourable mem-
ber for Bridgewater ; and in the adoption of £l5 as the
qualification for the county franchise, the Government only
adopted that figure because they thought it gave a real
and substantial basis for resting such qualification. With
respect to the proposition of the hon. member for Kent, a
£l2 county qualification, the Government feeling that it
was desirable that mutual concession would only enable
them to make a good and efficient measure would if it was
consistent with the general feeling offer it no opposition.
([Tear, hear.)
Mr. MILL said if any one had on the occasion referred
to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer charged the right
hon. gentleman with having broken faith with the house
and the country—charges which no man made, and of
which he (Mr. Mill) most explicitly acquitted him—the
right hon. gentleman would now have rebutted them. He
was well aware that the shaft used by the right hon. gen-
tleman was taken from their (the Liberal) quiver—(hear,
hear)—that it was the amendment of the member for
Pontefract ; and from the first he felt and said if it was
carried it would compel them to begin all over again.
(Hear, hear.) It had not been in his mind that the mem-
ber for Newark expressed his concurrence ; and, though
he was now aware of it, he remembered that the hon. gen-
tleman afterwards completely withdrew it by bringing in
a fresh amendment. (Hear, hear.) As the Chancellor of
the Exchequer did him (Mr. Mill) the honour to refer to
what he said, the right hon. gentleman was doubtless
aware of the reasons why he thought the third and fourth
clauses are inadmissible. (Hear, hear.) He made these
remarks to set himself right with the right hon. gentle-
man, against whom he had always endeavoured to say
nothing personally offensive.
Mr. CHILDERS said he had fully understood that the
policy of the Government as to the abolition of the com-
pound householder was the original policy of the Govern-
ment--(cheers)—and therefore thought the original provi-
sions of the measure should be consulted rather than the
suggestions of an independent member. But when he put
his amendment on the paper ho had no idea the abolition
would receive any general support, and regarded it as a
sort of forlorn hope. Thinking abolition would be at-
tended with difficulty, he thought he should not do wrong
in attempting to remove some of the difficulties. His an-
ticipations were pleasurably disappointed ; and under the
circumstances he thought it unnecessary to take any course
with respect to his amendment. The right hon. gentle-
man must have forgotten that he told the house he had
an original policy, and that he promised to bring down
clauses to carry it out. (Cheers.) The clause now on the
paper differs most materially from that which he (Mr.
Childers) proposed. It enables the compound householder
system to be carried on in all parishes in parliamentary
boroughs; and that whereas the latter took it for granted
that the first general election after the passing of the Act
would take place on the votes of all householders, leaving
them the power afterwards to accept the compound
system if they chose and disfranchise themselves, the pre-
sent amendment has a proviso, the effect of which will be
that the first general election will take place on a register
which does not include the compound householders. He
trusted that proviso will not be pressed. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. lIODGKINSON explained that he from the first,
and still, disapproved of the amendment of the hon. mem-
ber for Pontefract.
Mr. GLADSTONE said ho did not think any charge
of breach of faith could be brought against the right hon.
gentleman. He understood that the provision accepted by the
Government was the proposal of the hon. member for New-
ark without any regard to the rider, as it had been called by
the hon. member for Pomfret. He hoped that some pro
posal would be made which would relieve them from the
difficult question of the compound householder—(hear,
hear) ; and that, he thought, could only be effected by
separating the matter of compounding altogether from the
franchise.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dodson) explained the position
of the question, and said that the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer having availed himself, of the indulgence of the
House to make a statement and take a retrospect, and
members alluded to by him having given explanations, it
would not be convenient to confine the discussion to the
subject-matter of the clause. The question was, " That
the words or tenement' stand part of the clause."
Mr. AYRTON thought the words "land or tenement "
aro not sufficiently definite. He had proposed to negative
them, intending to withdraw the amendment of which ho
had given notice the other night, and to substitute " a
house, with or without land." No one desires to promote
the manufacture of voters fur dependent persons by the
manipulation of land. The only ground for objection
raised the other night was that in some cases farms in one
county had a portion of the land attached to them situated
in an adjoining county. He did not believe this to be the
case with regard to small farms generally —(0 h oh)—
though there may be a few cAscs of this sort, and more
cases of large holdings on the boundaries of two adjoin-
ing counties. But we are to frame a definition
of the franchise to meet such exceptional cases,
while by so doing wo shall leave an opening for the
wholesale manufacture of votes? (Hear, hoar.) He thought
that the opposition to the words " dwelling house" arose
from the misapprehension that some amount of residence
was proposed as a part of the qualification. That was not
intended, and it is hoped to got rid of the difficulty by the
present language, which is to the effect that there shall be
a house, or building, or appurtenances, whatever they may
be, on the land. He proposed to withdraw the amend-
ment which he formerly suggested, and to negative the
amendment of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. G. Hardy),
in order to insert other words.
The hon. gentleman's former amendment was then
withdrawn.
Sir J. TROL LOPE was surprised to hear the hon. mem-
ber for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) propose disfran-
chisement instead of enfranchisement. (Hear, hear.) Ho
will by his amendment not only disfranchise voters situated
on the borders of counties, as already stated, but a larger
class of very respectable dwellers in towns who occupy
small plots of land beyond the borough boundaries. (Hear,
hear.) These men aro as independent as any other class
of voters. Many years ago a gentleman in his own county
(Lincolnshire), a relative of and bearing the same name
as the right hon. member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers),
cut a large farm up into these small plots of land, and let
them to the inhabitants of the town in the neighbourhood
of which they were situated. This gentleman was a
Liberal, and came down to oppose his (Sir J. Trollop0's)
election, but he did not find that the renters of these plots
of land voted in accordance with his principles. They
were men of intelligence and education—{laughter)—and
therefore nine out of ten voted for him (Sir J. Trollope).
(Loud laughter.)
Mr. R. GURNEY said, in his experience as a revising
barrister, he could not remember a case in which votes
wore manufactured in the way which the hon. member
for the Tower Hamlets suggests. That is not the mode
in which votes were manufactured. If a landlord wishes
to manufacture votes he does so by the creation of life rent
charges, and other persons do this by the creation of forty
shilling freeholds. (Hoar, hear.)
Mr. G. Hardy's amendment was then put, and the house
divided:—
For the amendment 25.3
Against 254
Majority for the amendment ... —1
(Laughter).
The words of the amendment wore accordingly added to
the clause.
Sir E. COLEBROOKE moved the addition of the words
"with a house" after " lands or teeements."
The committee divided on the question, that the pro-
posed words be inserted. The numbers were-
-254
Noes ••• "• ••• ••• ... 264
Majority ... —lO
The amendment was, therefore, lost, and the announce-
ment was received with cheers from the Ministerial side.
Mr. LOCKE KING moved -to substitute £lO for £l5
as the limit of the franchise in counties. He urged that
the principle of reduction in counties having been agreed
to, they had simply to determine on the figure ; and that
looking to the democratic change in the character of the
borough franchise, it was impossible to propose a less
liberal limit than that which was offered by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer in the bill of 1859. In that measure it
was proposed to fix the county franchise at £10; it was
a constitutional figure, and if now adopted would prevent
renewed agitation. In proof of the necessity for such a
reduction, the hon. gentleman mentioned that although
the county population was eleven millions as against nine
millions in the boroughs, the number of electors in both
was nearly the came.
Sir T. LLOYD had no fear of the consequences of pass-
ing the bill, for the influence of country gentlemen did not
depend upon the franchise, but upon the identity of inte-
rest between them and the electors. The Government
measure was a large and liberal measure, but it was not
the measure of a party so much as of the house. If it were
the bill of a party he would not have so much confidence
in it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL trusted that after the largo and liberal
concession which had been already made, the house would
hesitate to deprive property of its legitimate influence by
accepting the proposal for reducing the county franchise
to £lO.
Mr. BRIGHT said the hon. member who spoke last
took up some of the phrases which he thought the house
had got rid of. The Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke
last year of the representation of interests, but the House
had passed all that a good way. (A laugh.) They must
all admit that the reduction of the couuey franchise from
£5O to £l5, or £l2, or £lO was a large It duction ; but no

one need be frightened at that, because they had 80011 such
a wonderful change with regard to th boroughs that it
was quite impossible for any member t get up and alarm

the House with regard to any change in the counties. It
was quite clear that unless hon. gentlemen opposite were
absolutely alarmed at the course they were taking with
regard to boroughs, there could be no impropriety or dan-
ger in the proposition of the hon. member for East Surrey.
It was worth while to consider whether by keeping up a
higher figure for counties they would like to have the
question of the county franchise discussed again at no very
distant period. (Oh, oh.) There was no value prescribed
in boroughs. The man who paid a rent of £3 in boroughs,
if his rato were paid, and it was not a composition rate,
would have a vote. In the borough of East Retford, which
ran nearly to the walls of Doncaster, the agricultural
labourer paying £3, £4, or £5 for his house, if he paid his
rate, would have a vote ; while the householder in Don-
caster would not have a vote unless his house was rated
at £l5, which would be about a rental of £2O. He put it
to the hon. gentlemen opposite whether it would not be
better to accept the lower proposition of £lO, with the
view of removing from county voters the sense of in-
equality and injustice which they might otherwise feel.
He was free to admit that the difference between the £lO
and the £l2, which he understood the Chancellor of the
Exchequer was willing to concede as a compromise, would
have no appreciable effect upon the condition of the re-
presentation ; he only advised the adoption of the lower
figure as offering the surest grounds for a permanent set-
tlement. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. EGERTON did not suppose, whatever figure
was adopted, that agitators would relinquish the occupa-
tion ; but, although they might continue to call spirits
from the vasty deep, tho spirits might not come. He
thought that £l2 would be a just and reasonable conces-
sion, and if the forms of the House permitted him he
should propose that amount.
Lord GALWAY submitted that East Retford could not
be taken as a fair instance of the disparity between the
borough and county franchise, inasmuch as it contained
a large agricultural area.
Mr. PEASE would support the proposition of the hon.
member for East Surrey, because it offered the largest
measure of enfranchisement to the inhabitants of the large
unrepresented towns in his county (Durham).
Mr. PUGH said that as he had voted on a former occa-
sion for a £lO county franchise, he should not turn his
back upon it now, more especially as the Government
were proposing an unexampled extension of the borough
franchise. (Hear, hear.) In Parliament and out of Par-
liament Lord Derby and the Chancellor of the Exchequer
said they wished for no triumph over any party, but invited
the Liberal party to assist them, and it would be a gracious
concession to agree to the proposal of the hon. member for
East Surrey. (Opposition cheers.) There was no man in
the country who did not wish to see the right hon. gentle-
man the member for South Lancashire to retain the posi-
tion he was so eminently qualified to fill. (Ministerial
murmurs.) They knew that the right hon. gentleman
lost his seat for Oxford, which was punishment enough.
(Renewed murmurs.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped there
had been no mistake as to the statement he had made at an
earlier part of the evening, when he stated that the Go-
vernment were prepared to support the amendment of the
hon. member for Kent (Sir E. Dering), and to substitute
£l2 for £l5. There is good reason for adopting that pro-
position, which is a compromise between opposite opinions.
(Hear, hear.) The hon. member (Mr. Locke King) ex-
pressed an opinion that he (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer) would be inconsistent in opposing the proposition of
£lO, because ho proposed a £lO franchise in 1859. if the
hon. member is willing to accept the coaditions under
which that was proposed, that would be another ground
for a compromise—(laughter)—but if he is not willing to
agree to them, there is no ground whatever for the taunts
which ho utters. He hoped that the committee would
agree to a £l2 franchise.
Mr. GLADSTONE said tho question technically before
the committee is not whether we should have a £l2 or a
£lO franchise, but whether we should have a £l5 franchise
or not. But from what the right hon. gentleman said ho
assumed that the £l5 franchise is virtually negatived, and
that the question is between the two other alternatives
proposed. He agreed with the hon. member for Birming-
ham, and preferred the £lO franchise, because it affords a
greater promise of durability. He was not prepared to
accept the proposition that it does not much matter which
franchise you adopt because you will always have agita-
oapTAa ratesxwiheyvc Tnreeropthvor
agita-
tion and agitators. It depends upon the judgment with
which the House adopts its measures. Discontent and
agitation may not be absolutely extinguished, but they
may be so insignificant that we may fairly overlook them.
He thought it likely' that this question of Reform may re-
ceive a settlement this year, and did not think any one
would wish for a disturbance of it at a very early date.
But the unsettled part of the scheme of 1832 was the county
occupation franchise, between which and the borough I
occupation franchise there was a broad interval. Therefore
to prevent a revival of the agitation on that point, it would
be wiser if we gave a general support to the proposition of
the hon. member for East Surrey (Mr. Locke King). My
hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Egerton), in supporting a
£l2 franchise, paid us the compliment of founding himself
on the fact that such a proposal was made in our bill last
ear. But it must be remembered that we took our ground
y •
upon a £l4 rental with reference to the borough franchise
which wo proposed, namely, £7 rental. If there is to be a
distinction between counties and boroughs, it should not
be less than that ; but the house has gone far below that
£7 franchise, and therefore, a considerable enlargement of
the interval between the occupation franchise in boroughs
and in counties. lie was, therefore, sure that it would bo
wiser to accept the £lO proposal, and would support his
hon. friend if he went to a division ; but at the same time
would venture to propose to his hon. friend that he should
accept the proposal of the right hon. gentleman, as the
difference is not such as to justify him in insisting on a
division. (Cheers.)
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Mr. L. KING said he would accept the proposal of the
right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer ;
but he felt that if ho had not proposed the £lo' franchise,
the right hon. gentleman would not have made this con-
cession. (Laughter.)
The figure £l2 was then substituted for £l5.
The proviso moved by Mr.H.BAILLIE to the effect that
one-half the occupation should be in land, was briefly dis-
cussed, but withdrawn, and Mr. Kinglake's amendment
which had been referred to by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer on going into committee was postponed.
Clause 4, as amended, was then agreed to.
As previously arranged, the committee next proceeded
to consider the 34th clause, relating to the compound house-
holder, when, by mutual consent, Mr. Hodgkinson with-
drew his amendment, on tho understanding that the third
and fourth sections of the new clause proposed by the Go-
vernment should also be withdrawn. The first and second
sections, abolishing the liability of owners to bo rated in
Parliamentary boroughs, and enacting that hereafter no
e
a
rst,
rate
aeedwur
permitting we
tnde o.
fl
Rfl i
ntn thehg te dwelling-house,
poundueroaus eltpve,
owners
payable
book,
,soy otherkbat
übo ltme
providingc, seboer3mpe, apart compound
uter one tene-
ment,eoddot
ehftuoao-rt.
ettewsan:ashlafihinwtomsrottodbeduaa
sou lweeeebedcbi thereafter ratedt o to the tphr provided, doerd insteadn d that f
thean occupierfull
rate-
able
no compound oevtftecbiulecorYldnnunl pier in such cases should be entitled to
setcotisounbswa
taus t corollary a
provisiont o th o third,
that anwdbMerre.
the tenement was lot to an occupier for less than a year
the owner as well as occupier should be rated ; but the
occupier's liability to pay the rate should not thereby be
affected, and in case the occupier should not pay the rate
within two months after demand the owner should pay it.
This amendment was subjected to some debate, and
negatived without a division.
Mr. AYRTON next moved to enact, as an amendment to
the same section, that where the tenement should be wholly
let out in separate apartments or lodgings the owner should
be rated, and the proposal was agreed to.
Several verbal amendments were subsequently intro-
duced into the new clause, which was then read from the
chair, and, amid loud cheers, ordered to stani part of the
bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER announced
that in consequence of the adoption of the new clause it
immediately
prepared
a n
sbueccacemeedinnegc, e sts ah
er y3tsot
hr. e c
Ho nes t rhuacdt the
rclause
,
amended clause, and the right hon. gentleman placed it on
tho table accordingly.
Progress was then reported, and the chairman obtained
loave to sit again this day at 2 o'clock.
In committee of ways and means, a vote of £1,700,000
was taken for Exchequer Bonds, and a further sum of
£14,000,000 out of the Consolidated Fund for the service
of the current year.
passed through com-
miTttheee,Rasailwwaasy
aClsoom
ptahnoieLsoßcaill Glwoaysernment Supplemental
Bill.
The Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation Bill was
read a third time and passed.
The Masters and Workmen Bill, from the Lords, was
read a second time.
Leave was given to Mr. Secretary HARDY to bring in
a bill for amending the law with respect to the accounts of
the receiver for the metropolitan police diArict and for
other purposes.
The house then adjourned.

Mr. Howe, chairman of the American committee
for assisting the Candiotes, has arrived at Athens. Ile has
already forwarded to Syra several hundred breech-loaders
for the insurgents.
Count Bismarck will accompany the King of
Prussia to Paris.
[ADvnuirtsnmE:s-r.]-laolloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Rheumatic and Nervous Pains.—The chilly mornings and
evenings provoke these tortures in constitutions suscep-
tible of such maladies. Nothing affords so much relief as
Holloway's Ointment well rubl,ed upon the skin after re-
peated fomentations. Thousal ids of testimonials bear wit-
ness to the wonderful comfort obtained from the safe and
simple treatment which all can adopt. Holloway's Oint-
ment, assisted by a judicious. use of the Pills, is especially
serviceable in assuaging the sufferings from cramp and
other muscular pains, whether they be acute, chronic, ex-
ternal, or internal. It is earnestly recommended that
every sufferer from these, pains should give Holloway's re-
medies a few days' trial, which will fully convince the inva-
lid that a cure will bei the reward of continued persever-
ance.

Education

d S tatas,

We have received from the Consul at Sheffield'
the speech delivered by JAMES A. GARFIELD, of
Ohio, in the House of Representatives on the Bth
June last, as Chairman of a select committee to
report on. a bill for the establishment of a National
Bureau of Education. The pamphlet is of national
import, involving as it does the subject of the
greatest moment to the American people. Mr.
GARFIELD remarks with truth, that stolid ignorance,
of which there is little among the white population
of the States, is not the most dangerous enemy.
Stolid ignorance, as in Europe and among the late
slaves of the Southern States, produces merely inert
masses, moved upon and controlled by the cultivated
and intelligent aristocracy. There is no great danger
from the unenfranchised class in Europe, where such
ignorance generally, prevails ; but the case is widely
different in the United States, where every man has a
political power for good or evil. " The alternative is
not between education and no education, but shall
the power of the citizen be directed aright towards
industry, liberty, and patriotism, or, under the
baneful influence of false theories and evil influences,
shall it lead him continually downward, and work
out anarchy and ruin both to him and to the Go-
vernment. The census of 1860 showed that there were
1,218,311 inhabitants of the United States over 21
years of age, of whom 871,418 were American born,
who could neither read nor write." Add to this a third
of a million immigrants annually, the greater por-
tion uneducated, and swell the total by four millions
of enfranchised slaves, and it will be conceded that Mr
GARFIELD was justified in urging on Congress with al
his force the necessity of inamedi ate action. " I
the citizen be not educated," said this Representa-
tive, " in the school of virtue and integrity, he will
be educated in the school of vice and iniquity. We
are therefore afloat on the sweeping current—we
must make head against it, or we shall go down
with it to the saddest of destinies."
Mr. GARFIELD was advocating the establishment
of a department of education at Washington for
the purpose of collecting such statistics and facts
as shall show the condition and progress of educa-
tion in the several States and territories, and which,
by an annual report to Congress, might diffuse
the fullest information on school systems, which
would tend to promote the cause of education
throughout the United States. It is held in
America that it would be unconstitutional to
make education compulsory. It is, we believe, ob-
ligatory in Rhode Island for every child within its
borders to attend school, and Mr. SUMNER lately
urged the introduction of a clause establishing a
public School system for both white and black
when the Reconstruction Bill was debated in the
HOLM. Although Mr. GARFIELD did not urge
compulsory
education, he maintained that the col-
lection of the educational statistics of each State,
published side by side with the authority of such a
bureau, would shame the States that lagged behind
into the education of their children. The four
States that have led the way in this important ob-
ject are Massachusetts, New York, Pennsyl-
vania, and Ohio. The last annual report of
the Board of Education of Massachusetts shows
that about 5,000 pupils were added to the
public schools during the year, and a thousand
more by the enforcement of the Truant Law,
an act which in itself proves that there is some
compulsion in Massachusetts also. There are
now 7,598 teachers employed in the schools of this
State, of which 6,512 are women. In spite, how-
ever, of the encouraging nature of this report an
article lately appeared in the American " Presbyterian
and Theological Review," wherein it is urged that
the public school system does not accomplish its
object, and that, as a matter of fact, the majority
leave the common schools before they have
acquired qualifications fitting them to act as
juror, referee, or school director. The Review
certainly demands ahigh standard from the bulk of the
people, and it is perhaps wise that it should do so,
for a more perfect goal should always be kept ahead.
But if Massachusetts falls short of the standard,
what can be said of the
.great mass of the States?
Mr. GARFIELD remarks ou the many good things
that have been said, and the few done by the
national statesman in favour of education. "If
we inquire, what has been done by the Govern-
ments of other countries we are compelled to con-
fess with shame that every government in
Christendom has given a more intelligent and
effective support to schools than has our own."
This certainly is stronger language than the facts
justify, but the Ohio member was speaking for an
object which fairly entitled him to strain a point.
The figures he gave from the census return
in 1860 scarcely bore out his allegation. There
were then in the United States 115,224
common schools, 500,000 school officers, 150,244
teachers, and 5,477,037 scholars, thus show-
ing that more than six millions of the
people of the United States were directly engaged
in the work of education. These figures Mr.
GARFIELD had gathered with great labour from va-
rious resources, but he was satisfied that they were
far below the truth. He estimates that $50,000,000
have been given by private individualS for the sup-
port of schools. To 14 States and Territories Con-
gress had awarded 53 millions of acres of public
lands for their maintenance. In the old ordinance
of 1785 it was provided, that one section of every
township-1-36th of all the public lands of the
United States should be set apart and held forever
sacred to the support of the schools of the country.
From the School Statistics, which could only be
obtained with tolerable accuracy, for 17 States of
the Union, it appeared that $34,000,000 were
annually appropriated by their Legislatures for
this object. Notwithstanding the expenditure
of the Five Years' War, this•
appropriation
was maintained, and it was found in many that
more than 50 per cent. of all the tax imposed for
State purposes was for the support of these schools.
It was under such circumstances that the Represen-
tative urged the formation of the Educational Bureau,
which was carried by a vote of 80 yeas to 44 nays ;
and future members will not be compelled, as Mr.
GARFIELD was, to grope in the dark for reliable
statistics, showing the educational condition of the
whole country.
This is indeed the question of
hinges the whole future of the Union. History has
shown, that ignorance is the enemy to be most
dreaded by
which are so effectively handled by men who trade
alstepublic, generating those false theories
in politics to the detriment of the people, and as
a means of plunder and corruption.
After the above had been sent to press, we learn
that Mr. COLFAX was received by the Union
League Club of New York, at the Club House on
the 6th inst. He alluded pointedly in his speech
on this occasion, to Mr. SUMNER'S proposition to
make the provision of free schools one of the con-
ditions of reconstruction, which he regretted had
not been adopted. It is to be hoped that the
Southern States will do this of their own accord,
and all the more cheerfully that it has been left to
their own action.— Anglo-A nzerican Times.

---
THE UNITED STATES AS REPRESEiV7'ED
IN THE EXHIBITION-

(From the Anglo-American Tinies.)
We propote under this head to refer to all articles
of interest presented by Americans, and shall an-
nounce the prizes so soon as the list is made perfect.
It will, no doubt, be interesting to our readers that
we should at first give a complete list of the United
States Commissioners who have arrived and are
now in Paris :—N. M. Beckwith, Paris ; Samuel
B. Ruggles, New York ; F. A. P. Barnard, New
York ; Charles B. Norton, New York ; Frank
Leslie, New York ; Paran Stevens, New York ;
Wm. W. Budd, New York ; Charles Seymour,
New York ; J. P. Lesley, Pennsylvania ; T. W.
Evans,
Pennsylvania ; W. J. Valentine, Massa-
chusetts ; Charles R. Goodwin, Massachusetts ;
E. R. Mudge, Massachusetts ; James H. Bowen,
Illinois ; Henry
d'Aligny, Wisconsin ; William
Slade, Ohio ; John P. Kennedy, Maryland ; J.
Lawrence Smith, Tennessee ; and R. Rerney,
Paris. Twelve other gentlemen have been
appointed by the President, who have not
yet entered
_upon their duties ; as they arrive
we shall publish their names. In addition the
commission has taken advantage of the privilege

given by Government to elect twenty new members,
and several gentlemen of science and skill have been
already elected. As soon as we can secure a list of
these names we sh dl not fail to make them known.
An official catalogue has been published by the
Commissioner- Goneral, which from a partial exami-
nation we find to contain somewhat less than 1,000
articles, represented by about 600 exhibitors. We
give herewith the distribution amongt, States as a
matter of interest :—New York, 291; Mama-
cliusetts, 121 ; Pennsylvania, 59 ; Louisiana, 35 ;
California, 33 ; Illinois, 28 ; Connectiout,, 25 ;
Missouri, 20 ; New Jersey, 19 ; Ohio, 19 ; Dis-
trict of Columbia, 14 ; Maryland, 10 ; Michigan,
11 ; Wisconsin, 10 ; lowa, 9 ; Indiana, 7 ; Maine,
8 ; Vermont, 6 ; Kansas, 5 ; Rhode Island,
1 ; Virginia, 4 ; New Hampshire, 3 ; Minnesota, 3 ;
Nevada, 3 ; Florida, 2 ; \Vest Virginia, 2; Ala-
bama, 2 ; Kentucky, 2 ; Texas, 1 ; Arkansas, 1 ;
Colorado, 1 ; Georgia, 1 ; Mississippi, 1 ; Nebraska,
1 ; Oregon, 1.
It will thus be seen that every State awl territory
in the Union is represented with the exception of
North and South Carolina, Delawarre, Tennessee,
Dakota, Montano, Idaho, Washington, Arizona,
New Mexico, and Utah.
Should a second and more complete catalogue be
printed we will then make. such corrections as
may be necessary. Through the personal influence
of the Hon. Samuel B. Ruggles, Vice-President of
the Commission and Chairman of the Committee
of the whole, we have been so fortunate as to se-
cure a most admirable representation of the great
mineral wealth of the north-west. • The State Go-
vernments have liberally contributed to this result,
and great credit is due to State Commissioners
Reynolds of Illinois, Hoyt of Wisconsin, Usher of
Massachusetts, Butler of Missouri, and Wilstach of
Indiana, for their active labours both at home and
in Paris to insure success.
The cereals of our country have through the in-
fluence of these gentlemen been well brought for-
ward. It is to be regretted, however, that none of
our Western States, so open for immigration, should
have availed themselves of this opportunity to pre-
sent in a popular form the particular advantages to
immigrants in respect of cost of land, climate,
cheapness of living, &c., &c.
It is in this way that the large sums expended
by our Government could be applied to practical
use and advantages. In the Paris Exhibition of
1855 the United States received in proportion to
the number of articles exhibited a larger number of
prizes than any other nation. The exhibitors were
not assisted at all by the United States, but by the
various State Commissioners organised under the
presidency of Mr. W. J. Valentine, who personally
expended a large sum of money for the success of
our representation.
In future numbers we shall continue our remarks
upon this subject, and commence our special notices
of the various articles exhibited.
At the later meeting of the Commission the fol-
lowing members have been elected by virtue of the
last act of Congress :--Eliot C. Cowdin, New York ;
Wrn. J. Flagg, Ohio ; Professor Win. B. Rogers,
Massachusetts ; Dr. Alex. Thompson, New York ;
George S. Hazard, New York ; L. T. Mellen,
Alabama ; W. S. Auchinclo.ss, New York ; Pro-
fessor S. F. B. Morse, New York ; Professor John
F. Frazer, Philadelphia ; B. F. Nourse, Massachu-
setts ; and the Hon. M. P. Wilder, Massachusetts.
These gentlemen, with those already in Paris, make
a total of 30, this being the number as originally
appointed by the President. Mr. Ruggles, chair-
man of the committee of the whole, has appointed
the following special commissions :-1. On new in-
ventions—Messrs. Barnard, Norton, and Valentine.
2. On the application of advanced science to the
arts—Messrs. Smith, Slade, and Seymour. F. On
mineral and vegetable products and their connec-
tion with ocean transportation—Messrs. Ruggles,
Kennedy, and Hazard. 4. On chemistry and its
application to food and clothing—Messrs. Bowen,
Stevens, and Berney. 5. On nietallurgy—Messrs.
Hewitt, J. P. Lesley, and D'Aligny. 6. On raw
materials and manufactures—Messrs. Mudge, Budd,
and Cowdin. 7. On machines—Messrs. Auchin-
gloss, and Goodwin.
By the appointment of these committees the
first active duties of the Commission are com-
menced. It is to be regretted that the appropria-
tions made by Congress are not sufficient to enable
the commissioners to prepare reports of equal value
with those of other nations, who have already at
work photographers, draughtsmen, and experts,
engaged in preparing such material as shall be of
the most practical use. With such an army of able
men as the United States Commission is now
composed of, we may feel confident that their
report when made will be of great value; but
when it is considered that two-thirds of these gen-
tlemen doing equally their share of work with the
paid commissioners are compelled to pay for such
services as they may require, it does not place our
country in as honourable a position as we could
wish.

111EXICO.

The conduct of MAXIMILLkN in Mexico will shed
a lustre on the ancient family which claims to be

the successors of the C.ESARS. It is seldom that a

Prince has been subjected to so fiery a trial, and
few, when thus tried, have like him stood the test.

Scarcely three years have elapsed since MAXIMILIAN
lauded at Vera Cruz. He had taken long to decide

on the wisdom of accepting the dignity offered, bu

had he been well advised he would have given a
prompt and decided refusal. Unfortunately for
him, that nation to which, above all others, he
should have turned for guidance and counsel, was
absorbed in the struggle that then threatened to
rend it to pieces. Although the United States held
his destiny in the hollow of its hand, that hand was
closed on the hilt of a sword, the point of which
was at a brother's throat. The Union glanced
a scowl of disapproval in his direction while
involved in the fearful difficulties of its own
task. When MAximiLIAN accepted and seated
himself on the throne of Mexico he felt that
he had pledged his honour to uphold the posi-
tion, and to defend, at every hazard, those who
had given him their countenance and support.
From the moment he assumed the reins, to the

time that his dynasty closed in such disaster, he
adhered with a noble tenacity to the cause. Maxi-
milian's fate was in truth decided before Richmond,
and, with the Confederacy, fell every hope of his
success. The establishment of his Monarchy vio-
lated a principle of policy which the American
people have laid down as a guiding rule. How-
ever excellent, therefore, as a chief he might be ;
however brave, firm, judicious, and generous, he
could not be treated by the United States other-
wise than as a usurper. Although his Government
might be temporarily beneficial to the governed,
and would have relieved Mexico from chaotic
anarchy, it was held, and we believe with truth
by the Americans, that nations should work
out their own redemption without the aid
or intervention of foreign bayonets, and that the
Continent should be freed from the violent inter-
position of European States. When the Confede-
racy fell, JUAREZ was all but a fugitive. His foot.
was on the last strip of Mexican territory, and the
war was on the bank of the Rio Grande. So rapid
has been the change brought about by the moral
and material support of the United States to the
so-called Liberal cause that within a year the
position has been wholly reversed. MAXIMILIAN
might have retired with honour from his untenable
post some months ago. lie was a member of an
Imperial family holding the highest rank in Europe
=he was the inheritor of a large fortune—his pre-
vious career, as well as the events of his Govern-
ment in Mexico, added lustre to the adventitious
circumstances of birth and riches, but his chi-
valric nature prevented his choosing the course
which common prudence dictated. What to
him, could have been this barren and profitless
throne ? An alien in a strange country, with no-
thing but the wrecks of civilisation around, amidst
a lawless, degenerate, cowardly, treacherous, and
cruel race, all chat Mexico offered him was a life of
toil, deprived of the pleasures and amenities of civi-
lisation, with every chance of a violent end, and
this to uphold an almost hopeless cause in intrigue
and ingratitude. In one word this wealthy brother
of an Emperor descended to the grade of a Mexican