traditions of an unhallowed faith. Again we ask, what is the conformation of that eye which can discover a resemblance between things so directly opposite? We confess that we are surprised to find an administration constituted like that of Lords Melbourne, Russell, and Co. not keeping clear of any reference to the era of the Reformation. However, it is manifest they cannot avoid rubbing themselves against the subject of ecclesiastical taxation, as if to gratify a certain pruriency of holy confiscation, that seems to infect the very lifeblood of their government. Yet bad as were the provisions of the bill under consideration, they are far from coming up to the mark contemplated and insisted upon by the rampant faction in Ireland.

At a meeting of the inhabitants of the united parishes of Kilcomen and Robin, held at the Roman Catholic church of St. Michael, Roundfort, on the 7th of May, it was resolved, that, “ Considering the principles by which the present administration

ught into power, and their own repeated declarations since they came into power, we have no hesitation in declaring, that they have abandoned their principles, and have, on this occasion, forfeited their claims to the support of the liberal representation of the people, by abandoning the appropriation clause; and we pray the representatives of the people, who are advocates for the total annihilation of tithes, and a fair and useful system of education, to oppose this bill.” We needed not this resolution to convince us, that nothing short of the total extinction of tithes, so far as they are applicable to the reformed church in Ireland, will ever satisfy the Roman Catholic priesthood in that country.

O'Connell, who is their leader, has over and over again protested as much. “ The people of Ireland join me," he not long since exclaimed, “in this contemptuous disclaimer of longer supporting out of our means that protestant church. So long as any pecuniary ascendancy, so long as any power remains to a protestant minister to put his hands into the pockets of the catholics, so long dissension, dissatisfaction, and turmoil shall reign paramount in Ireland.”

Surely this single declaration of the member for all Ireland ought to have taught ministers a little caution; they ought to have begun to doubt whether their line of policy can be exactly that which Englishmen in their position, who would do their duty to king and country, should follow. To transfer an idea of military to civil prudence, we should have thought they would have known how critical it is to make an alteration of your position in the face of a determined enemy. But no; in this particular they turn a deaf ear to the voice of their task-master. They will go their own destructive course ; they will stick to their own opinion, despite the reiterated assertions of those men who are their main support in the lower house, and the indignant warnings of the most valuable portion-the natural strength of


the British empire—the vast majority of the peers--of all educated, professional, and intellectual men,-of the leading landed gentry, the opulent merchants and manufacturers, the substantial yeomanry, and the actual majority of the English members of the House of Commons. If ministers, fancying themselves more sagacious at once than their adherents and their opponents, will persist in urging on the country to ruin, we have at least left us the stern consolation that the hour of retribution will, sooner or later, arrive. We conceive it must be at hand, since they have done very near as much mischief as they can do to a constitution so robust as that of England. Soured in temper, often disappointed by the frustration of their ends, and again more disappointed by their very attainment, in some incautious moment it is likely they will incur the displeasure of the junto, upon whom they have rendered their government dependent. Then, indeed, they will feel perierunt tempora longi servitii, and may protest with the Satirist,

“Non est Romano cuiquam locus hic, ubi regnat

Daniel O'Connell !" May God, in mercy to this land, favoured heretofore beyond all the kingdoms of the earth, expedite that happy consummation !


SABBATH. SINCE our last Number the Bishop of Exeter has drawn the attention of the Christian community, by certain observations in . that house to which he is so great an ornament, to the crying evil of the Church of England poor being prohibited, because their misfortunes may have reduced them to a workhouse, from attending places of public worship. This climax to the paupers' suffering in this world—this last drop of gall in their cup of bitterness, is spared such inmates of the workhouse, as happen to be members of dissenting congregations.* If such an exception

* PAUPERS' ATTENDANCE AT CHAPELS.—Copy of order relative to paupers in Worcester union workhouse, presented to the House of Lords, agreeably to order of May 26 :

“ Worcester Union Workhouse, May 24, 1837. Sir,–In compliance with an order of the House of Lords, I enclose a copy of an order made by the Board of Guardians of the Worcester poor law union, made 16th March, 1837.-I am, Sir, most respectfully yours,

“ William THOMASON, “ T. W. Birch, Esq. Parliament Office. "Clerk to the Board of Guardians."

Worcester Poor Law Union.–At a Board of Guardians, held 16th March, 1837, it was ordered as follows :- That Elizabeth Gorway be



be not to put a premium upon infidelity and schism amongst the lower classes, we know not what is. Such a mark of distinction and favour holds out to every pauper a strong inducement to abandon the Establishment, and join some sect. It was contended, that the only difference between divine service, as performed in a workhouse, and in a church, consisted in a less or greater degree of pomp and circumstance. Never was there a greater mistake. The service performed by a chaplain in a workhouse cannot be called public worship. Public worship infers and implies individuals joining in divine service with the parochial congregation to which they belong. “ The great object" (to quote the words of the Bishop of Exeter) “why paupers should attend their parish churches was, that they might return thanks with their superiors to their common God and Father.” The excellent prelate truly and wisely defined that great object. In the house of God the humblest pauper stands on an equality with the proudest noble in the land. The decayed sensibility that habit hath induced, is repaired by that very circumstance. His heart is opened, and, in consequence, the understanding is more readily convinced, and the will more easily persuaded. The intrinsic value of a discourse delivered in the poor man's workhouse and the poor man's church may be the same, but the impression on an individual, who is so unfortunate as to require parochial relief, must be very different. In the one case his attendance is constrained, in the other he brings his disposition to the service. He experiences the warmth, the consolation, the virtuous energy which every act of true devotion communicates to the heart. These effects are not merely heightened, they are induced by consent and sympathy. The pauper who unites with his pastor and the squire in acts of social homage to their common Maker, insensibly learns to love his neighbour, the twin precept whereon hangs “all the law and the prophets." Can this benevolence penetrate the dark atmosphere of a prison workhouse? No, the wretched man looks around him, and abhors his miserable equality. Wife, children, and all familiar faces, are far away; and he obstinately closes every avenue whereby the voice of the preacher might reach the recesses of his bosom's solitude. The effect of this in the offices of religion is utterly to destroy their religious quality ; to rob them of that which gives to them their life, their spirituality, their nature. It is impossible, we think, to add another consideration which can be equal or second to that we have adduced; but we may suggest to our readers a motive not to let this sub

allowed to attend Pump-street chapel (of which society she is a member), on Sundays; and that the governor allow such paupers as are members of dissenting churches to attend their own places of worship on Sabbath days, so long as they return in correct time to the house,

ject drop, to which they certainly will not refuse a due regard. It is for all sincere lovers of the church of England to take care, that we justify not the boasts or the sneers of infidelity; that we do not authorize one of the insinuations of scepticism, that which goes to subvert the distinction of the Sabbath, as a day of rest, by leaving it to be inferred that public worship is a conventional duty grounded upon a prejudice, and that its only origin is in the artifice of the wise and the credulity of the multitude. With what consistency, with what face can the clergy preach sermons to the rich upon the solemn and sacred duty of going to church, while the guiltless poor are cut off by certain by-laws, in free and Protestant England, from the congregation of the faithful ? The conclusion is obvious. Either they recommend from the pulpit what they do not in their hearts believe essential, or they connive at an unexampled cruelty. It behoves the Establishment, as it would avoid the horns of this dilemma, to protest against the tyrannical conduct of the Poorlaw commissioners. Our advocacy, at all events, shall not be wanting. The cause is its own warrant; and it is a small matter how feeble the pen that is engaged in defending such a suit. It carries an irresistible appeal to every virtuous bosom; and, “thanks to the human heart by which we live,” he needs but little power of eloquence who stands up to defend against the world” the weary and heavy-laden, to make common cause with the oppressed and the spiritless, and to shield from the last, worst evil which can befall humanity, those worn-out and decrepit beings, who hover on the verge of the grave, and whose sense of suffering can alone be alleviated by that prospect, which, after darkening for them every vista of hope in this life, the Poorlaw commissioners are bent upon shutting out—the prospect of the life to come!


SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, in a letter announcing his intention of accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, incidentally, but characteristically observed—“The fact is, it is they who make the assertion, who have changed, and not I; like men in a ship, who fancy the shore in motion, instead of themselves.” The position which the honourable baronet holds at this hour in the eye of Great Britain, is most interesting, and pregnant with reflection. That since he began his political existence, a marvellous change has come over the spirit of the land, as evidenced in the altered feelings and sentiments of the community, no man of ordinary observation, who can recall the various phases of public opinion in respect to the member for Westminster, will be disposed to deny. The fact might even almost admit of demonstration, and we need only point attention to his anomalous position in the

late election to substantiate our averment. The Radical clique who called upon him to resign, woefully miscalculated their strength. But on that auspicious occasion, the genius of Great Britain was in the ascendant.

The insensibility of Englishmen to a movement obvious to the rest of Europe, arises from its eccentric and irregular precipitance, leaving no leisure to take an observation. But facts will alarm us, however wrapt in happy ignorance; and when we look back and fix our mental gaze upon some fading landmark in the distance, we become fatally assured of the rapidity with which we have been drifted from the shore. But where breathes the navigator in whose prescient eye of genius we dare confide? Where should we look for the political Columbus, who, sending his thoughts over the boundless expanse of that ocean, which the vessel of the State cleaves in her voyage of experiment, and shaping Atalantes in those dubious clouds which lie along the horizon, but always fly before him, can say to the helmsman, “ Hitherto shalt thou come, and no further;" yon speck shall be the terminus of our venture, there will we cast anchor, there “set up our everlasting rest ?” Long enough have our eyes ached over this illimitable prospect; let us turn our view and our choice to the pilot who is destined to guide the vessel into port. Let us not forget, that by the blessing of Providence there does indeed remain to us a statesman, who endowed, as we willingly believe, with every good and great qualification, is competent to our preservation. He will seek to find the haven where we may cast anchor-the spot where we may rest; within whose landmarks are enclosed that building whose corner-stone is immovable. A serene beauty will be spread by true religion upon her tabernacle, and we shall feel, and own--" It is good for us to be here!"

EXCLUSION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM PARLIAMENT. A few weeks since there was a meeting held at Exeter Hall, for the purpose of taking into consideration the propriety of petitioning the legislature for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from both houses of parliament. We are strongly of opinion that a capital error was committed in 1829, and it arose from the country regarding the repeal of the Catholic disabilities as a question purely political

, while it was, to all intents and purposes, mainly a religious one. This is the fountain of those bitter waters of which, through an hundred different conduits, the State has drunk until she is ready to burst; her bosom swells with its freight,

“For 'tis of aspicks' tongues." This is a topic upon which, for obvious reasons, we could wish to be silent. It is most unpleasant to the feelings to have to

« ForrigeFortsett »