part of persons in the actual receipt of relief, appears to be everywhere prohibited, and the marriage of those who are not likely to possess the means of independent support, is allowed by very few. Another means by which the extension of pauperism is opposed in the countries which we have described, is the care taken by the government to provide for the education of the labouring classes. Among all the Continental communities which recognize in the poor the right to relief, the only one which does not appear to provide the means of education, and to enforce their being made use of, is that in which pauperism has become absolutely intolerable, viz. the Canton de Berne; and even there, any aubain (or person not entitled to bourgeoisie in the parish in which he resides) may be summarily ejected (unless possessed of landed property in it) if it can be proved that he does not either send his children to school or provide otherwise for their education. Lastly, in most of the countries which have been considered, the local administration of the laws for the relief of the poor is controlled by a central superintending authority. The only countries, the reports from which state that this is not the case, are Sweden, Denmark and Berne; and these are the three countries in which the poor laws are the worst administered, and in all of them the mal-administration which the reporters deplore is mainly attributed by them to the absence of a central control.

One of the most striking circumstances connected with the countries which do not recognize a legal claim to relief, is the accuracy with which the population seems to be regulated with reference to the demand for labour. In the ill-administered parts of England, there is, in general, no approach to any such regulation. That sort of population which has acquired the technical name of a surplus population, not only continues stagnant in places where its services are no longer required, but often springs up and increases without any increase of the means of profitable employment. The parochial returns are full of complaints of a want labourers in one parish, and of an over-supply in another, without any tendency of the redundancy to supply the deficiency. In time, of course, the deficient parish is filled up by natural increase; but meanwhile the population of the redundant parish does not seem to diminish. In general, indeed, it goes on increasing with unchecked rapidity, until, in the worst administered portions of the kingdom, a state of things has arisen of which the cure is so difficult, that nothing but the certainty of absolute and almost immediate ruin from its increase, or even from its continuance, would have induced the proprietors to encounter the dangers of the remedy. Nothing like this, indeed, exists in any of the countries affording compulsory relief, except Berne. But they provide against its occurrence by subjecting the labouring classes, indeed all classes except the opulent, to strict regulation and control, by restraining their marriages, forcing them to take service, and prohibiting their change of abode, unless they have the consent of the commune in which they wish to settle. By a vigilant exertion of these means, the population of the north of Europe, and Germany, seems in general to be proportioned to the means of employment and subsistence; but in the countries which have not adopted the compulsory system the same results are produced, without interference or restriction.

Another, and a very interesting portion of the information, respects the comparative condition of English and foreign labourers. On com-paring the statements respecting the wages, subsistence, and mortality of those portions of continental Europe which have furnished returns, with the corresponding statements respecting this country, it appears that in every point England stands in the most favourable, or nearly the most favourable position. With respect to money wages, the superiority of the English agricultural labourer is very marked. His wages are nearly double the average of agricultural wages on the Continent. And as fuel is generally cheaper in England than on the Continent, and clothing is universally so, his relative advantage with respect to these important articles of consumption is still greater. On the other hand, as food is dearer in England than in any part of Europe, the English labourer, especially if he have a large family, loses on this part of his expenditure some of the benefit of his higher wages, and if the relative dearness of food were very great, he might lose the whole. On a comparison, however, it appears probable that even in this respect the English family has an advantage, though less than in any other. Of the 687 English parishes which have given an answer from which the diet of the family can be inferred, 491, or about fivesevenths, state that it could obtain meat; and of the 196 which give answers implying that it could not get meat, 43 are comprised in Essex and Sussex, two of the most pauperised districts in the kingdom. But in the foreign answers meat is the exception, not the rule. In the north of Europe the usual food seems to be potatoes and oatmeal, or rye bread, accompanied frequently by fish, but only occasionally by meat.

In Germany and Holland the principal food appears to be rye bread, vegetables, the produce of the dairy, and meat once or twice a week. In Belgium, potatoes, rye bread, milk, butter and cheese, and occasionally pork.

The French returns almost exclude fresh meat, and indicate a small portion of salted meat. Thus we are told that in Havre they live on bread and vegetables-never animal food, or very rarely. In Brittany, on buck-wheat, barley bread, potatoes, cabbages, and about six pounds of pork, weekly. Their food in Piedmont is said to be the simplest and coarsest; no meat, and twice as much maize flour as wheat flour. In Portugal, salt fish, vegetable soup, with oil or lard and maize bread.

Further evidence as to the relative state of the bulk of the population of England is afforded by the ratio of its mortality.

The only countries in which the mortality appears to be so small as in England, are Norway, in which it is one in fifty-four, and the Basses Pyrenées, in which it is one in fifty. In all the other countries which have given returns, it exceeds the English proportion sometimes by doubling it, and in the majority of instances by more than one-fourth. Thus, in England deaths are as one in forty-nine, in New York one in thirty, in Russia one in twenty-five, in Saxony one in thirty-four and a half, in Belgium one in twenty-eight and a half.

While, however, the English labourer appears to be in a better condition than the Continental, the American has a far better portion than either. The command a man has over food is a better criterion than the rate of wages, and we find statements which show indisputably the

superiority of the Transatlantic labourer. Thus we read that in Massachusetts, There are very few who do not eat meat, poultry, or fish, twice or three times a day.' Of New York it is reported, A family united could subsist well on their aggregate earnings have tea, coffee, and meat, twice a day.' In Urugay (South America), A family may subsist on the labour of the husband alone, and have a meal, with meat, three times a day.'

So far as the state of morals may be inferred from the proportion of legitimate to illegitimate children, England stands well-the number being nineteen to one; whereas in Denmark it is nine to one, in Hamburgh four to one, in France about nine to one.

ADMISSION OF DISSENTERS TO THE UNIVERSITIES.

A Letter to the Rev. Thomas Turton, &c. on the Admission of Dissenters to Academical Degrees; by Connop Thirlwall, M. A. Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Thoughts on the Admission of Dissenters to the University of Oxford, &c. in a Letter to a Dissenter; by the Rev. W. Sewell, M.A. Fellow and Tutor of Exeter College, Oxford.

MR. Connop Thirlwall and Mr. W. Sewell are both Fellows of Colleges, but they have no fellow-feeling on the subject of the admission of Dissenters to the Universities; and, having no common principles, they differ extremely both in style and argument. The former excels in dispassionate reasoning-the latter in wordy declamation; the one exhibits the calmness of the philosopher and the charity of the Christian-the other the narrow-minded prejudices and intemperate zeal of the bigotted Churchman; the one is an able and honourable representative of the wisdom and liberality of Cambridge-the other is a fiery advocate of the intolerant principles and exclusive articles of Oxford.

I DENY THE RIGHT OF ANY SECT TO DEPART ONE ATOM FROM THE STANDARD WHICH I hold to be the truth of Christianity. And I deny the right of any legislative power, of any minister of God, of any individual on earth, to sanction or permit it, without using every means in their power to controul and bring them back from their errors. When it shall be right in any man wilfully to lead others into wrong, then I will allow the right of conscience, and never before.'-Sewell's 'Thoughts,' p. 96.

It was our original intention to have entered pretty largely into an analysis of Mr. Sewell's Letter, making such observations on his arguments as they seemed to require; but when we came to the passage just quoted, we at once dropped our design. It would be worse than folly to argue with a writer who assumes to himself infallibility, who is the express personification of the character described by Shakespeare:

I am Sir Oracle'-THE REV. W.

SEWELL, M.A., FELLOW AND TUTOR OF
EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD.-

And, when I ope my mouth, let no dog bark.'

It is the more unnecessary to enter into any controversy with this Oracular Fellow of Oxford, as the foundation of his whole reasoning is a mere assumption. He draws a highly-coloured picture of a fancied state of things, existing only in his own happy imagination, and most unlike the sad and sober realities of Church and State, as dominant in this country: and then, on this hypothetical basis, assuming the privileges of a poet, and giving to airy nothing a local habitation and a name,' he builds his arguments. His whole pamphlet is a mere begging of the question from beginning to end, all his observations resting for their support on the dictatorial position-contradictory to experience and libellous to Christianity-that religion cannot exist separate from an Establishment. This position, however, as if to hide its weakness, he surrounds with the imposing vestments of pompous diction and rhetorical figures: preserving, at all times, the magisterial air of a collegiate tutor, and the dictatorial tone of one authorized to instruct. With such an air and in such a tone, he lays down self-evident principles, such as none will, in the abstract statement, object to; making, however, a woeful misapplication of them to his favourite Establishments -his church and college-though in their very nature opposed to the spirit of such principles, and destructive of all he is contending for. He professes tolerance, but his own principles, carried out to their full extent, would make him an inveterate persecutor the Laud of the nineteenth century. Immaculate himself-belonging to an immaculate church and an immaculate college, so perfectly pure, so intensely bright, that not a speck or flaw-not the shade of the shadow of an atom can be thrown on it without exciting the warmest, the most violent feelings.'p. 81. The Dissenters may congratulate themselves that this most orthodox Fellow of the most orthodox College possesses not the power to manifest his animosity against them in any more formidable manner than verbal calumny and intemperate abuse. He accuses them, generally, of coldness and irreligion -of utter indifference to the very first principles of Christianity, unless they are actuated by motives of ambition;' and he is particularly charitable to the Unitarians, whose religion he represents as mere ethics,' which are not Christianity-which are scarcely piety' yet he inserts a saving clause for the Wesleyan Methodists (let them be thankful!)-for their attachment in the hour of trial'—an attachment which, with a heart overflowing with gratitude, he assures them the Church will never forget, as it will always return.' On this disinterested attachment he is very pathetic-it calls forth all the tenderness of his nature,

and in the soft effusions of this melting mood, he acknowledges them as brethren in the faith,' and most sentimentally declares, with a voice trembling with agitation, we can scarcely bear to look upon' them as separated!' It is only justice to this tender-hearted controversialist to state, that there is one other subject on which he is still more lachrymose: he weeps at the anticipated possibility of the dismissal of his Church and College 'from the post of guardian and instructor, and warner and spiritual guide, and constituted intercessor for this nation,' and beholding, in prophetic vision, their place supplied by sophists, and babblers, and sordid calculators, and needy spendthrifts, and cold-blooded moralists, and all the tribe of panders and corrupters to a rashly emancipated people,' he weeps again, and, awfully apprehensive lest God himself should be hurled from his throne by this powerful band of wicked mortals; he trembles at the peril of a Being once entrusted to our care!' Let no one suppose all this weeping and trembling is occasioned by a fear of losing the emoluments of an Established religion— the lucrative posts in church and college: let no one profane the sacred grief of this melting Oxford Fellow and his brethren, by comparing it to the effeminate sorrow of the Trojan matrons, clinging to the pillars of their spacious domes, and imprinting them with mournful kisses, on the irruption of the Greeks into their domestic abodes

Tum pavida tectis matres ingentibus errant,

Amplexæque tenent postes, atque oscula figunt:

No; the nervous emotions of these reverend and oracular gentlemen arise from the purest and most disinterested sentiments of patriotism and religion-they weep for the nation, they tremble for the altars of the Deity! The one will be ruined—the other will be overturned, if they cease to be the guardians of the public welfare and the public faith! Hence their patriotic terrors; hence their pious tears! With due respect to their professed sentiments, we should like to see one simple experiment triedremove from the Establishment the loaves and fishes of church and college preferment, and observe the effect of such a change on its most ardent supporters. We cannot but suspect there would shortly be a great diminution in the fervour of their zeal, and a most miraculous opening of their eyes to the clear perception of errors and abuses which they now cannot see. It is, at all events, devoutly to be wished' that their immaculate morals and pure motives were put to this test, were it only to prove the reality of their merits, and to convince an unbelieving public of the perfect disinterestedness of their conduct in crying up, with so much abuse of their fellow-Christians, the absolute necessity of a Church Establishment to the safety and salvation of the State. Till this salutary experiment has been tried, we,