an action, and recover damages for it; but in the present case the plaintiff sought large damages for the infliction of a great wrong. The defendant should show that the cattle were all sound, as warranted. The plaintiff would prove that they were not sound; and the case would eventuate in an inquiry as to the amount of damages. The plaintiff resided in the county Carlow; he held several grass farms in the county Kildare. Ile possessed 1,500 acres of feeding land. The defendant, Mr. Walter M'Donough, lived near Ballinasloe, county Galway. He was one of the most extensive stock farmers in the county. He held vast tracts of land in Galway, Roscommon, Mayo, and the King's County. In a great degree he confined himself to the rearing of stock. Upon the 4th of October the fair of Ballinasloe began. Upon the 2nd of October, 1857, the plaintiff was at the fair of Moate, and purchased from a Mr. Hudson ten large bullocks. Upon the 8th of October, the day of the sale of black cattle at Ballinasloe, he purchased the heifers of the defeudant. It was desirable to purchase cattle from one person whose respectability was a guarantee for the soundness of the animals which he sold. The defendant had his cattle separate and apart from others, under the great wall of Lord Clancarty's demesne, in lots of 30 each. The plaintiff had previously suffered in consequence of having purchased unsound cattle, and on this occasion he adopted the wise and prudent course of making particular inquiries of the vendors, and in every instance insisting upon engagements. Accordingly, he proceeded to the lots of the defendant and made particular inquiries whether they were sound. He was informed that he might rest satisfied, as he (defendant) had reared every one of them from calves, and he had not a single case of distemper or disease amongst his various lands for the last two or three years. He was asked for an engagement, and he undertook and did give an undoubted warranty. The plaintiff purchased two of the lots, No. 7 and No. 8, each consisting of 30 heifers, at £12 153. per head. With these lots he did not find fault, because he considered that the disease was confiued to lot No. 11. The plaintiff was afterwards solicited to inspect lots Nos. 10 and 11. The defendant pledged himself to their quality; as he said every one of them had been reared by himself, he (plaintiff) need not be afraid, as he would engage every one of them, and if he would consent to take the cat le he might pay him in any way he thought proper. The plaintiff was, accordingly, induced to buy lot No. 10 at the rate of £12 158. per head, and to purchase eventually the remaining lot, No. 11. He likewise purchased ten bullocks from Lord Ashtown. These heifers were brought to Carlow; they stopped at intervals along the road, and were taken care of by a trustworthy servant. Upon the 12th October they stopped at Mr. Johnson's, of Miltown, near Athy, where they were permitted to remain for the night. Mr. Johnson observed that two of the heilers laboured under the disease; one o them being considerably worse than the other, and he considered that the lot was distempered. The cattle were removed to a farm of the plaintiff's, which was situate a few miles from Carlow (Garryhindon). The plaintiff saw the cattle in the mora ing, and he perceived that one of them was distempered. He separated the diseased beast from the rest. She was so bad that he sent her to Smithfield at once; and instead of selling her, they were at once obliged to slaughter her. In a few days another heifer in lot No. 11 exhibited symptoms of distemper : 170 beasts in all became infected with and displayed symptoms of this latent infirmity and disease. It appeared that the disease, which first exhibited itself upon the continent, was in the year 1842 or 1843 introduced into Ireland. A postmortem examination of the animal plainly demonstrated that it was a disease which grew upon it day after day. The affection was this-the lungs adhered to the side, fastened, as it were, by ligatures; it was difficult to tear the lung from the side, and became necessary, in fact, to tear them asunder. The period of development ranged from three to six weeks, and this fact coincided remarkably with the present case. The learned counsel then read several letters which passed between the plaintiff and the defendant. In reply to a communication from the plaintiff to the defendant, written on the 20th of October, 1857, he (defendant) stated "that he had no sickness amongst his cattle for two or three years; that lot No. 11 were not fed upon the same farm as the others had been; that the latter, which he had since, were yearlings, and had been fed in Roscommon, where no sickness had been for three years; that lot No. 11 had been bought last April with others which had been sold only in September to the butchers at Ballinasloe, and that

there had not been any complaint from any quarter in reference to them. The plaintiff examined more closely lot No. 11, and discovered that they could not have been reared by the defendant. Some of them had different brands, and some were not branded at all. This lot he separated from the others. He kept lot No. 11 at the farm to which they had first gone, and he scattered the rest among his other farms. The result, however, was that the infection spread. On the 1st of November, 1857, the plaintiff wrote to the defendant, stating that he was sorry at being obliged to inform him that he had four of the heifers of lot No. 11 very bad with the lung distemperthat there must have been some disease in that lot for a considerable time, although he (defendant) might not have been aware of the fact, and that he was preparing to send them by a float, as the railway company would not take sick cattle in their trucks. The defendant did not answer these or other letters. There was a complete examination of lot No. 11. A Mr. Shaughnessy acted on behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff said that there must have been some disease amongst the cattle. Shaughnessy was rather reserved in his manner, but he said he was certain the defendant could have warranted every lot from No. 1 to No. 10. It would seem that lot No. 11 was a mixed lot, which had been collected for the purpose of rapid sale. It was arranged that the cattle should be shipped to Liverpool, and disposed of there. A proposition was made to leave the matter to the arbitration of two respectable and experienced gentlemen; but this was not carried into effect. On the 27th of November, 1857, a letter was written by the plaintiff to Mr. Shaughnessy, telling him that he had been obliged to ship six of the heifers that day, and three of them on the previous day, in all eleven; and that "it was surely madness in the defendant not to give instructions to him in reference to what he desired to be done with the remainder, as the loss would and must eventually fall upon him" (defendant). On the 28th November, 1857, another letter was written by the plaintiff to the defendant, to which there was not any reply. Upou the 30th of November another letter followed, complaining that six more of the cattle were ill, and informing him that he should send them off that very night, requiring instructions as to what he should do with the cattle, and expressing his drm conviction that all of them would die. After this the plaintiff announced that three more of the beasts were sick of the distemper, and that prompt measures were required on the part of the defendant, otherwise they could not be rescued from the disease, and the loss consequent upon the distemper could not be averted.

The plaintiff deposed as follows:-He is an extensive grazier, holding about 1,500 acres of land, chiefly in Carlow and Kildare; he had known the defendant nearly three years; he was a large stock proprietor; on the 2nd of August he bought about ten bullocks from Mr. J. Hudson, at his place, near Athlone; these were síterwards sent home along with the cattle purchased from the defendant; the 8th of October was the black cattle fair day at Ballinasloe; the defendant had a particular stand by the boundary wall of the fair ground, in lots of thirty, so that they were completely separated from the rest of the cattle; the warranty given by the defendant was to this effect; he said, "By my honour, my dear fellow, I have not had a case of distemper or disease amongst my cattle for the last two years; I have had them almost from the time they were calves, and I can warrant every heifer which I have in the fair as sound," and putting his hand upon his shoulder, he said "Now buy a few lots from me," witness purchased lots Nos. 7 and 8, for £12 159. per head; required the cattle with the view of selling them in the following summer; after he had made this purchase from the defendant, he went through the fair and looked at several lots; he bought lot No. 10 at the same price; subsequently bought lot No. 11, and with these also the same warranty or engagement was given; sent lots of the cattle to his different farms, which were separate and far apart in the county of Carlow; the disease broke out amongst the cattle in every instance; the nearest farm to Dublin upon which he had the cattle, except one farm, was forty-four miles.

Cross-examined by Mr. Battersby, Q.C.-One of the heifers had slipped her shoulder, and she died upon the road; wrote to the defendant in reference to this, and he in a very handsome manner sent him a £5 note; he considered that it was a very handsome thing to do, as there was no warranty given, and the defendant was not bound to act as he had done; and this he would say, he very much regretted having had any

misunderstanding with the defendant; had several "strippers" on his land in August last; perhaps he had 50 or 60; had no old cows; could not tell how many hundred horned cattle he had on his land in that month; had several hundreds, about 250; had these from the previous October; his man had sold beasts to a butcher named George Hirley; had only two distempered cows on his land before the 1st of October, and these he disposed of at once; in the year 1847 he lost 125 head of cattle; could not tell where he bought these, but could swear positively that he had no distempered cow on his lands for nine months before the fair at Ballinasloe; about nine or ten years ago a man of his made an engagement about a horse he sold to a party, and he (Mr. Battersby) defended him; before he bought the cattle heard that there was a good deal of distemper in the fair; would not consider it safe to put sound cattle upon land where there had been distempered cattle before three months; thought there was great danger from the virus, the saliva, distempered mucous, and droppings from the mouths of diseased cattle remaining upon the land; the disease was not perceptible for one month to six weeks; detailed the By optoms exhibited in the first week after its development; the animal gets off its feed, has a cough and weeping eyes, &c.; the disease is highly contagious, and he believed infectious; the defendant said to him that statements were valueless; he went to a table, took up a book, and said, "So help me God the cattle were sound, and I had not a single distempered cow upon my land."

To Mr. Smythe-The heifers (150) that did not take the d stemper were separated from the defendant's cattle; some of them were forty miles asunder.

| Wicklow; is an extensive grazier; the disease is highly contagious; it did not develope itself earlier than six weeks; had experience of the disease in cattle that had been sold to him. self.

Patrick Maher-Is an extensive grazier in Meath; the disease is contagious; it takes a month or longer to develope the disease; a beast whose lungs were a jelly on the 14th of October must have been infected before the 9th.

To Mr. Ball, Q.C.-Could not say whether the disease was in the air, or was communicated by food or touch, or by all of these; but the general opinion amongst those with whom he associated was that the disease was contagious.

Mr. Battersby, Q.C., stated the defendant's case in an able speech. He knew it would be difficult to counteract the effect that had been made upon their minds by the address of his excellent and most plausible friend, Mr. M'Donough. There was not any doubt that the plaintiff had sustained a loss: the question was, who was to bear that loss? The case for the defendant was, that he had 496 head of cattle, in lots of 30 each, and that not one of them was diseased. The beasts sold to other persons were sound; not a single one of them was unsound. The defendant was not only an honest dealer, but a liberal one also, and it would be a hard case if he were now obliged to pay the plaintiff for cattle that had taken the distemper after they left his hands. There were 98 beasts that had been bought in the month of April. The defendant did not tell the plaintiff that all these had been reared from calves, but he spoke of the first lot at which he looked. On the 21th of August there was one beast that was diseased, but the rest were perfect'y sound. Could it be held that a dealer was responsible for every head of cattle that might happen to die? The warranty was not confined to cattle: it was given as to horses, and even in the case of an insurance upon life. pose a life, insured upon the 24th of August, exhibited on the 14th of October the symptoms of a latent disease, would it be an answer to the widow that there was an invisible germ of dis

Sup

Cross-examined by Mr. Ball, QC.-Had the cattle on the field of the hotel-keeper at Shannon Bridge; there were other cattle on that land which had been sold at Ballinasloe; the cattle remained that night at Shannon Bridge; they slept at Frankfort the next night; on the third night they slept at Tinnahinch; paid for the grass; there were no other cattle there; the cattle day, and the day before that at Ballinasloe, were fine days.

To Mr. Maunsell-Prevented the cattle from mixing with other cattle every night.

Mr. George Johnson examined by Mr. Byrne-The herd brought the cattle to his field after the fair; observed two of them lying down on the field, and expressed the opinion that they had the distemper.

Robert Hickey examined by Mr. H. Smythe, Q.C.-Was of the Dublin firm " Hickey and Hauberry;" on the 19th of October sold a sick beast for the plaintiff for £7; she was bidly affected with "pleuro pneumonia;" considered that the disease was contagious; the beast must have been sick more than a month; sold other sick animals for the plaintiff.

Owen Dunne examined by Mr: Maunsell-On the 14th of October brought a heifer of lot No. 11 to the butcher; on being opened that beast exhibited symptoms of disease; the lungs and other parts were a mass of yellow matter.

Joseph Kilbe examined by Mr. Byrne-Is a salemaster in Liverpool and a grazier in Ireland; several of the cattle were seut to him which had the lung disease; his experience was considerable; the disease was latent about six weeks before it exhibited itself; was examined as a witness before the House of Commons relative to the disease; witness made the sales for the plaintiff; the cattle, if sound, would have brought £6 per head more than they did.

To Mr. Battersby-Saw the cattle in the fair; did not observe them much, but thought at the time that they were sold at a cheap rate; considered that in a fat market, not a store market, both buyer and seller could know that disease existed in cattle if they were thin; Liverpool was a fat market-a town market; Ballinasloe a store or fair market; cattle were often sold as sound that were unsound; adhered to the evidence which he had given before the committee.

Mr. Anthony Allen examined-Is a salemaster; lives in

When disease did arise it was perceptible from the first moment of its existence. The disease was, in fact, an inflammation of the lungs, and could that disease in a horse be distinguished from the same disease in a cow? There was no law of science or art to show the rapidity with which such a disease progressed, but it was palpable that when it existed it developed itself. The fair of Ballinasloe was full of diseased beasts, and as the disease was contagious or infections, there was an abundant opportunity for contracting it at the fair, even if the cattle had not been for several days travelling along the road to the farm of the plaintiff. What security was there if a man could be held responsible for the breaking out of any imper ceptible "gerin"? The effect of such a stringent rule would be, that every seller in Ballinasloe would have a board displayed near his cattle with these printed words, "These cattle are not warranted sound." Were they to trust to such a warranty as that relied upon by the plaintiff, it would be a prolific source of litigation." Germ, virus, warranty," would be three most magical, most potent words, to put money into the pockets of the bar of Ireland. If they sold a horse, and warranted him as sound, any man who understood the subject could pronounce an opinion as to its soundness; but here was a case where confessedly there was no appearance of disease when the cattle were sold; and because they afterwards got distempered, the defendant was to be held responsible. It was a strange and most dangerous proposition. The learned counsel then called evidence for the defence.

Walter F. M'Donough, defendant, examined by Mr. Ball, Q C.-Resided near Ballinasloe; grazed about 1,100 head of cattle in the year; sold three lots to the plaintiff at the fair; they had been brought from his farm; 27 of the lot of No. 11 had been grazed upon the island of Innisshank, in the King's County; that lot consisted of 30; three of the lot were fed in Roscommon; there were two cases of distemper on the island, one in July, the other in August; sold two at the fair of Eyrecourt to a butcher for £25; that butcher, whose name was Barrett, had gone to America; never had a sick beast since that day anywhere; sold at Banagher 60 that had been grazing on the island; they were perfectly sound; sold 30 to Mr. Eyre, and 30 to Mr. Malone.

Mr. M'Donough, Q.C., objected to this evidence. Would Dycer in Dublin be permitted to give evidence that he sold 60 horses that were sound as an answer to an alleged breach of warranty in the case of an unsound horse?

Mr. Battersby, Q.C., pressed the question. The Lord Chief Justice ruled that the evidence was not admissible.

Mr Battersby, Q.C., asked his lordship to take a note that he offered to give evidence that every head of cattle on the island was sound, and that he refused to admit that evidence.

His lordship said that the plaintiff could not be expected to meet the case of the sales to other parties, but it was open to the defendant to give evidence to prove that all the cattle grazed on the island which were sold to the plaintiff were sound, and to give general evidence that the cattle grazed on the land were sound.

The defendant then said that all the cattle sold at Ballinasloe were sound; had seen the lots before the fair; was present at the drawing and lotting of them; there were four lots; all were sound; had not the slightest doubt of it; there was no question about his telling the plaintiff that the cattle were sound; when be bought the first lot, defendant told him that he had reared them from calves; it was not true that he had said this in reference to lot No. 11; since the 24th of August no beast had exhibited disease; ninety head of cattle were sent to the island, and mixed with lot No. 11, in the month of September, and remained till December; all of these were as sound as a bell; a book happened, unfortunately, to be near him on the occasion of the fair; he put his hand upon it, and said he had not given him an unsound beast at Ballinasloe; disease might appear suddenly; could not say whether the disease was communicated through the air.

Chief Justice-He would be a wise man who could. Cross-examination of defendant-Looked at the lots generally; did not examine their heads or feel their fat; whose brand but his would be on the cattle? bought the cattle (30 of them) at Eyrecourt upon the 24th of April, and the others on the 7th of May, at Ballinasloe; could not say in which of these places the lot was bought; the two distempered heifers sold in July and August were of those bought in April or May; made the sale to Barrett; positively said that he did not swear in the arbitration room that he had no distemper on his lands for two years; looked into his books, and found that nineteen months before the fair of Ballinasloe there was a case of distemper in a cow; in 1857 there were two cases of distemper on the land.

Mr. Samuel Garnett examined by Mr. F. Johnson-Saw the stock, and was of opinion that they were sound, and did not know from whence the disease came, no more than the captain

of a vessel could say how the tempest arose; had known cattle said to have been unsound turn out to be perfectly sound. Mr. Peter Aungier-Is a salemaster; cattle which he had seen well at night, were in the morning reported as being ill; had known cattle when slaughtered exhibit disease, of which the seller had no idea.

Mr. Patrick Leonard Heard the defendant say to the plaintiff, taking up a book (a registry of his), “As sure as that is a Bible, the cattle I sold at Ballinasloe were sound;" always thought a herd could at once detect the disease; was of opinion that the beasts were sound.

The Lord Chief Justice charged the jury. He said it was not necessary for him to do more than occupy their time for a few minutes, in stating the rights of the plaintiff and the liability of the defendant. The question was, whether the heifers that were sold were at the time of the sale all sound, or whether any of them were affected with any disorder? There was another issue-whether, if some of the cattle were affected, they did not affect others? If this were so, the party was liable, not alone for the original damage, but also for the consequences of that original damage. It was a case in which the defendant had warranted that all the cattle were sound; it was in vain to say that the warranty was a puff. It was admitted that the defendant had warranted them. The question was, were the cattle sound agreeably to the warranty? The effect of a warranty was this-it made a man responsible for all defects known or unknown to the seller; and it was no defence for him to say that in his conscience he believed that the cattle were sound. He had given his warranty-he had induced the buyer to purchase upon the faith of the engagement that the cattle were sound, and he had guaranteed him against any loss which might result from the purchase. It had been said that if this were to be the consequence of a warranty, every man at a cattle fair should put up a placard intimating that he did not warrant the cattle. All that he had to do was to hold his tongue and give no warranty at all; besides this, there were insurance offices that would willingly insure cattle and protect the buyer from any loss consequent upon the sale. In conclusion, his lordship said that the jury should look to the gradual development of the disease in the cattle of the plaintiff himself after they became mixed with the cattle sold by the defendant, and consider whether, under all the circumstances, the plaintiff was entitled to their verdict. The jury retired, and in a few minutes returned with a verdict for the plaintiff upon all the counts-Damages £1,000 sterling.

Wages vary in different trades considerably, and where the work is equally laborious. How is this; is it an accident, or is there any law which influences the rate of pay? I think there is. Why should an oak sell for more than a willow or a fir, or even than elm and ash? Simply because it costs more to produce: an oak takes generations to come to maturity, therefore several lots of fir trees could be grown and sold on the space occupied by the oak. I said before that the cost of production rules the price of all commodities; and as labour is a commodity, it rules that also. How so? Why, any awkward fellow can sift gravel and very soon shoulder a hod, but to be able to build a good wall, or turn a nice arch, requires the labour of a practised bricklayer. It costs, therefore, more in time and money to produce a good bricklayer than to make a slab-to produce a good smith than a hammer-mana good engineer than a stoker. An engineer obtains better wages than a bricklayer or a carpenter; for the same reasons, the bricklayer gets better wages than the slab, ie, it costs more in time and money to make a youth a proficient engineer

than it would do to make him a bricklayer. Pleasantness of occupation and freeness from risk are also elements to be taken into account. A man won't go down into a coal mine and work for the same price as he can get in the light of day. Men don't leave pleasant employments for less agreeable ones quiring greater strength or bodily labour than others are also without hoping to better their condition. Occupations rebetter paid. When men mow grass they get better pay than when trimming a hedge. So with furnace tenders and rollers of metal, where, owing to heat and exertion combined, a good deal of sweat is lost, and a good deal of beer poured down to supply the waste; their wages are necessarily higher, for the simple reason, it costs more to keep them up to the mark. We could multiply such reasons at great length, such as continuous employment; but I hope I have said enough to prove that wages do not depend on chance, but are on the main regulated by some general principle. There is one principle I have not alluded to, but which all will do well to bear in mind, for it not only influences wages, but leads to constant employment-I mean a good character. 'Tis said a "rolling stone gathers no moss," and I do not know what is more likely to make a man roll than a bad character. I intended to go into the question of piece-work, but time will not permit. I like the system, as it enables the workmen to earn higher wages, and the master pays for no more and no less than is done. I never had any difficulty in letting a job by the piece. hear there are difficulties in other trades, but I think

FF

they would vanish when the system came into operation. "Tis worthy of remark and consideration, that those trades have made the greatest progress where piece-work has been the rule. It gives the industrious and skilful man a great advantage over the lazy and unskilful one. It also sets the energies of mind to work to find out readier and quicker methods of getting over work; and I hope to see the plan more generally adopted in Bedford. I quite believe it would answer in the building trades. I have no time to enter on overtime. It may do with your slow day-workmen; but 'tis of no advantage to men by the piece. We have hitherto spoken mainly of the labour of the hand: we will now turn to another kind of labour, and this by no means the easiest kind. I mean the labour of the brain, quite as important as the other-to none more so than to the working classes; for it is by the labour of the brain that man's bodily labour is profitably conducted, new branches of industry opened up, new material discovered on which to expend labour. Many of you visited the Great Exhibition, 1851, and were doubtless impressed, as I was, with this idea-What an amount of thought and ingenuity has been expended in bringing our manufactured products to their present high degree of perfection? Why were we before every other nation in the excellence and variety of our manufactures? Simply because we had brought to bear on them more mind, or, in other words, a greater amount of reasoning and intellectual power; and, mark you, 'tis only as we keep in advance of other countries that we shall command the trade. If you could buy as good a saw made in Bedford as in Sheffield, you would not send to the latter place for it. So with the American-if he can buy as good hardware in New York as in Birmingham, he will not send across the Atlantic for it; nor will the French, the Austrians, the Russians, continue to send to England for agricultural machinery, unless we continue to produce better than they can get at home. So excellent as our manufactures doubtless are, we must not stand still, but use every effort, both men and masters, to make something still better. Improved machinery has the effect of saving labour, and therefore was supposed to diminish employment. I am aware that it does so in particular instances; but, as I will attempt to show, the effect is but temporary. There is one very hackneyed but very striking illustration. It is nearly four hundred years since printing was discovered. Great numbers of men were employed in writing and copying books. Owing to the amount of labour, books were very dear. A bible cost £30, 80 very few people had bibles. The immediate effect of this discovery was, that these writers were thrown out of employment. Now suppose, for the sake of keeping these men employed, or for the love of clinging to old methods, the world had destroyed the presses, can you estimate the loss which would have been entailed on the world? At all events, we should not have wanted the army of printers we now employ. Take, again, the cotton and woollen trades, now about the most important branches of our national industry. On the introduction of the power-loom and Arkwright's spinning machinery, great distress resulted to the hand spinners and weavers of Lancashire and Yorkshire. Suppose they had successfully opposed, as they attempted, their introduction, and stuck to the old method, what would have been the result? Why, not a single hand would now have been employed in the cotton trade in those districts; the machinery would have been transplanted to America or the Continent. We need not, however, travel beyond Bedford to prove that although machinery may for a time be injurious to one class of working men, that it is beneficial to the mass. Some of you are aware that at Well-street foundry we have a new system of making castings by machinery. The moulders, of course, looked upon the machines at first with no riendly eye, for with a machine one man can do as much work as two or three could by hand. It did not do the moulders much good, I confess; nor, I think, a great deal of harm; but how did it affect the other branches? In this way. Last year we made 500 more implements than we could have done without the moulding machines; consequently a great number of smiths, fettlers, fitters, painters, and porters were benefited, whilst the machines only affected the interest of some half-dozen moulders. Again, look at railways. Most of us remember their introduction, and what a hue-and-cry was raised about the ruin they would bring upon coachmen, guards, ostlers, innkeepers, proprietors, and even farmers were dragged in, for we

should want no horses, and therefore no horse corn. Well the country has not been ruined, if a few of the class I have named did not do so well as before. We should all be sorry to go back to coach days: 12s. to go to London on the outside of a coach in six hours, &c. Some of us remember the war waged by agricultural labourers against thrashing machines, and how they broke them up and burnt them; but time changes men's ideas, and now these very men refuse to thrash with the flail. Had it not been for the steam thrashing machine after the harvest of 1856, we should have had bread at famine prices, for the old stock of corn was all gone, and we had to live upon the new crop. The demand, therefore, for the new crop was so great, that all the steam thrashing machines were kept in constant work for months. I verily believe, if it had not been for steam thrashers, the 4lbs. loaf would have been at 1s. 4d. Machinery raises man's 'intelligence. I don't believe in man's doing the work of brutes; I look upon man as too noble to be made a machine of. I remember he is made in God's image, and I hope to see the day when every description of labour which taxes the physical powers of man, shakes his frame, blunts his intellect, and such as is only fit for beasts of burden, will be performed by machinery. Surely it will be better, as in the steam thrashing machine, instead of employing man's brute force in exceedingly laborious occupations, to overcome them, his intelligence shall be employed in directing machinery to perform it. It is a startling fact, that until the introduction of machinery, especially the steam engine, the progress and population of the country went on very slowly; but who can measure all the strides it has since taken? In 1780, less than 80 years ago, just at the dawn of the new era, when machinery came to the help of labour, our population was about 8 millions, now it is above 20 millions; while the increase from 1575 to 1750 was not more than about 1 millions. The rapid increase in the number of the people, as well as their improved condition, clearly indicate that the means of employment and subsistence had been materially enlarged; and I think you will agree with me that this advance in population and wealth can ouly be accounted for by the fact that the machinery, which it was feared would diminish employment, has enormously increased it. To oppose machinery, therefore, is to fly in the face of the best friend the working men of England ever had, and is about as wise as it would be to attempt to shut out the light of the sun. Having endeavoured to show the importance of labour, I shall, in bringing my subject to a close, glance at the respectability and dignity of labour. If we turn to sacred writ, we find the praises of industry sounded throughout its pages. We read-"The hand of the diligent shall bear rule." "Seest thou a man diligent in business: he shall stand before princes; he shall not stand before mean men." The patriarchs, the apostles, and even our Saviour himself, by example, showed to their own and all succeeding ages that honest labour was honourable. There can be no question that some occupations are more honourable than others; and every man who endeavours to rise in life does well. Far be it from me to speak lightly of social rank; but I cannot shut my eyes to the fact that in the present day there are amongst us some who set up false standards of respectability-who look down with a stupid, ignorant contempt upon the lower or industrial classes. I am not sure that the ability to produce wealth is not as respectable as its mere possession. I am not sure that honest labour is not as respectable, and as honourable too, as luxurious indolence. I would not confound those who, raised by the industry of their fathers or forefathers above the necessity of toiling for themselves, devote their lives to honourable and useful pursuits; but I mean a class with whom the moving, acting, working world has no sympathy, and which laughs at the miserable, shrivelled gentility which prides itself upon having had nothing to do with trade, and can never embark in any pursuit for the benefit of their fellow-creatures which might bring them in contact with anything so degrading as manual or mercantile industry. These idlers of society are not, however, to be confounded with those of the upper classes who devote their time to honourable and useful pursuits--happily for this country, a class that is becoming more and more numerous. Yes, if you want to find the real "friends of the people," you must not look for them among those who proclaim themselves