The fact is, Dunshunner, that we are in a devil of a scrape. Matters

have not turned out exactly as we anticipated; and, although we are

endeavouring to maintain the attitude of perfect confidence, I need

not disguise from you my conviction that Free Trade has proved an

utter failure. Of course you will keep this to yourself. We cannot

venture to let it be publicly known that we have lost faith in our own

nostrums; and we are doing all we can, by means of mitigating the tenor

of the trade circulars, to keep the great body of the manufacturers,

who of late have shown certain symptoms of revolt, at least neutral

and reasonably quiet. Our friend Skinflint of the _Importationist_

is fighting a most praiseworthy battle, and every one must admire

the pluck which he has exhibited under extraordinarily difficult

circumstances. He has had not only to defend the general policy of Free

Trade, but to maintain that his own predictions have been fulfilled to

the very letter--a task which most men would have considered rather

arduous, seeing that figures are entirely against him, and that all the

facts which have occurred are directly in the teeth of his prophecies.

But Skinflint is an invaluable fellow to lead a forlorn-hope. He can

prove to you that an unfulfilled prophecy is quite as good as one

which has been accomplished, and he is truly superb upon the subject

of the natural limits of capital. Political economy, as you know, has

long been my favourite study; but I fairly confess to you that, with

all my reading and acquired knowledge, I cannot cope with Skinflint.

He has gone so deep into the science--he has dived so profoundly not

only through the water but the mud, that to follow him is absolutely

impossible; and--to pursue the metaphor--you can only ascertain the

whereabouts of this unrivalled professor of the art of sinking, by

the dirt which ascends to the surface, and the rising of the fetid

bubbles. At present he has as much work on his hands as might stagger

the stoutest Stagyrite. The farmers, the millers, the sugar-refiners,

the shipowners--yea, the very delegates of the working-men--all are at

him! You may conceive what a breadth of buckler and how many folds of

brass are necessary to shelter him against such a multitude of weapons;

yet still Skinflint combats on. I wonder if he is descended from the

Berserkars, who, in consequence of abstaining from ablutions, succeeded

at length in rendering their hides invulnerable?

The farmers--poor devils!--are entirely up the spout. I will admit that

I am sorry for that; but my sorrow arises from no maudlin compassion

for their misfortunes. You are aware that I never had any sympathy with

things bucolic. I always considered the towns as the proper habitations

for mankind, and have maintained the opinion that the sooner we could

get rid of the country the better. What man of common sense cares one

farthing for cows, or buttercups, or sheep? Are we in the nineteenth

century to pin our faith to the Georgics, or to babble in senile

imbecility about green fields? What care I about purling brooks? They

may be useful for a dye-work, or as the means of motive power, but

otherwise they are entirely superfluous; and we may thank those idiots,

the poets--who, by the way, are perfectly useless, for not one of them

pays Income Tax--for having created a false impression about them. I

cordially agreed with Cobden, that the sooner we could lay Manchester

side by side with the valley of the Mississippi, the better; and,

had it not been for the obtuseness of those pig-headed scoundrels,

the Yankees, who, forsooth, have got a crotchet in their heads about

maintaining their own miserable industry, the job would have been done

long ago. Had Jonathan acted by us fairly, as he was in honour bound to

do--had he demolished his mills, blown out his furnaces, shut up his

mines, and passed an Act of Congress to inflict the penalty of death

upon any presumptuous loafer who should attempt to manufacture a single

article in the United States, my life upon it that at the present

moment we should have been driving a roaring trade! But the infatuated

blockhead wont have our goods, and is actually heightening his tariffs

to restrict their admission still further! The German ninny-hammers and

pragmatical Spaniards are doing the same thing; and, in consequence,

our whole anticipations have been violently frustrated. Perhaps you see

now why I am sorry for the farmers. My regret is, that their power of

purchase has decreased--that they can't buy from us as formerly--and

that, in short, the home market is going to the mischief. Personally,

I am connected with an exporting house; and yet I must acknowledge

candidly that business is anything but brisk. We have overdone the

thing in trying to get up an enormous increase of exportations; and

the consequence is, that we have caused a glut in many of the foreign

markets. It is not impossible that, before a healthy demand is

restored, new competitors may step in, and our grand staple of calico,

upon which the prosperity of Britain entirely depends, go down to a

further discount. These are gloomy anticipations, but I cannot quite

banish them from my mind. I look forward with considerable apprehension

to the time when we shall fairly have eaten up the farmers. Of course,

when that arrives, we must look out for another class to devour; and,

according to my view, the Fundholder is the next in order. He will make

a hideous row when he finds himself marked out for general mastication,

but no doubt we shall, somehow or other, contrive to stifle his cries.

His fate is perfectly natural. In all cases of shipwreck, when the

supplies of provisions are exhausted, the fattest individual of the

crew is selected for the sustenance of the rest. It would be absurd

to pitch upon a lean victim; for the amount of suffering is the same

in either case, and the economical principle is to secure the largest

amount of supply. Of course he must be dealt with gently. We have the

high authority of Seneca for supposing that gradual phlebotomy is an

easy manner of death; and we shall not put an end to him in a hurry. He

is unquestionably a full-blooded animal; and, when tapped, will yield

as readily as a barrel of October.

All this, however, is mere anticipation; and doubtless you have already

in your own mind maturely considered our prospects. What presses

upon us most immediately, is the chance of a speedy dissolution of

Parliament, and a new general election. I strongly suspect that the

Whigs cannot hope to remain in office long. With all my regard for

that party, I must admit that they are a shocking bad set, in so far

as business is concerned, and their exclusiveness is really quite

insufferable. Had they reconstructed the Cabinet upon a liberal

footing, by taking in half-a-dozen of us original Free-Traders, there

might have been no occasion for any dissolution until the expiry of the

seven years. Our demands were not extravagant. Cobden would have done

the business of the War-Office in a highly creditable manner. Bright

would have been too happy to go out as Governor-General of India, and

look after the growth of cotton. Joseph Hume is at least as fitted for

the situation of Chancellor of the Exchequer as Sir Charles Wood; or

if Joseph is rather too ancient, why not our undaunted M'Gregor? He is

the only man alive who can improvise a budget at a quarter of an hour's

notice. I myself should have been happy to have served in a subordinate

capacity. Williams, Walmsley, or Kershaw, would gladly have relieved

Earl Grey from the trouble of looking after the colonies; and I really

think that, with such an infusion of new talent, the Government might

have gone on swimmingly. Of course, we should have put an end at once

to that ridiculous Protestant howl about Papal aggression, which is

directly opposed to the spirit of Free Trade, and to the liberal

tendencies of the age. Black cattle are admitted duty free; and I can

see no reason why a cardinal should be considered contraband, merely

on account of a slight peculiarity in the colour of his legs. Let him

call himself anything he pleases--what need we care? Protestantism, my

dear Dunshunner, is about the only obstacle in the way of our becoming

perfect cosmopolitans. Why should we, of all people on the earth,

affect eccentric distinctions? Luther was a sad fool. If he had played

his cards properly, he might have been a bishop or a cardinal, or

anything else he chose, and we should have been spared the trouble of

this hubbub about a matter which seems to me of no earthly consequence.

But our friend Lord John is, as you know, as obstinate as a whole drove

of pigs, and will always take his own way. And a very nice mess of it

he has made this time, to be sure!

However, the Whigs did not choose to come to us, though they were

glad enough to make overtures to Graham and Gladstone, and the rest

of that lot, who, after all, would have nothing to say to them. In

consequence, they now feel themselves more ricketty than ever. The

Protectionists are making powerful head, and gaining strength daily;

and I cannot look forward to a new general election without feelings

of great anxiety. I quite concur in the sentiments expressed by that

patriotic creature, Colonel Peyronnet Thompson, that he would as lieve

see London occupied by a foreign army, as the Protectionist party in

power. I do believe that, in such an event, the cause of Free Trade

would be desperate. You see we have no party whatever in the country

to fall back upon for support. The artisans are declaring against us;

the small traders have been unmercifully rooked; the shopkeepers are

making no profits; and, as to Ireland, it is more than beginning to

wince under the operation of a system which has destroyed its only

product. We have tried to keep the Irish in good humour for a year or

so by hinting at an immediate influx of English capital. That idea

was mine. It was not by any means a bad dodge while it lasted, and

our friends of the press took care to do it full justice. But, after

all, it was merely a dodge. As for English capital going to Ireland,

where no possible expenditure could insure a penny of rent, the thing

is as preposterous as the notion of applying guano, for agricultural

purposes, to the island of Ichaboe! Notwithstanding, we have done some

good. We have ruined the proprietors, and starved a reasonable portion

of the peasantry; and I am glad to see that the same operation is going

on in the Hebrides. Labour in the towns will, no doubt, be considerably

cheapened in consequence. But we cannot calculate with certainty on the

support of Irish members after a new election. They won't work together

as formerly. We miss our perished Daniel, who, with all his faults, was

a capital ally, if you gave him a sufficient equivalent.

It is no use disguising the truth; the Protectionists are like enough

to beat us. There is a vigour and a perseverance about that party which

I am quite at a loss to understand. Two or three years ago, when they

first began to look really formidable, we took the utmost pains to

write them down; and, if good sheer abuse and hard hitting could have

accomplished that object, we ought to have succeeded. We worked the

old joke about a Protectionist being a spectacle as rare as a mummy

in a glass-case, until it was perfectly threadbare. We sneered at

and scouted their statistics. We questioned their sanity, and talked

with mysterious compassion about Bedlam. We assured them, that to

restore protection to native industry was as hopeless as an attempt

to re-establish the Heptarchy. We used and abused, in every way, that

fine metaphor touching "the winds of heaven and the waves of ocean;"

and we pressed poets into our service to celebrate the cheap loaf in

dithyrambics. We reviled Disraeli, misrepresented Newdegate, lampooned

George Frederick Young, and insinuated that Lord Stanley was a traitor.

Finally, we became affectionate, and warned the besotted Protectionists

of the danger which was hanging, in a heavy cloud, over their devoted

heads. We did everything which ingenuity could suggest to prevent

the mummy from being resuscitated; but Cheops has come again to life

with a vengeance, and has given us a shrewd blow on the skull as he

started full armed from his sarcophagus. We must now deal with him as a

reality, not as a shadow; and, for my own part, I cannot aver that I am

inordinately eager for the encounter.

Still, something must be done; and our first duty, according to my

notion, is to look out for new candidates. To the disgrace of human

nature be it spoken, some of our most esteemed veterans have little

prospect of being again returned by their present constituencies. There

will be changes, and changes too of a most extraordinary kind; and that

circumstance renders it the more necessary for us to prevent, at all

hazards, a dissolution. You may now, my dear Dunshunner, fathom the

real object of this letter. We want you to come into Parliament, on the

independent, Ministerial, or any other interest you please, provided

that, when returned, you give us the benefit of your vote, and the aid

of your powerful eloquence upon any occasion when the cause of Free

Trade may be in jeopardy. I know what your own private leanings are,

but these are not times to be scrupulous. The League expects every man

to go the entire hog. If you want a subscription, or--what would suit

us better--the promise of a place, say so at once, and you shall have

either. But, if you follow my advice, you will content yourself with a

positive promise. We are strong enough to wring anything from the Whigs

in case of emergency; and as in all human probability, judging from

the past, no single week can pass over without the shadow of a crisis,

we shall be able to make terms for you, better and earlier than you

might suppose. Some few pickings there are still left, which are well

worth a gentleman's acceptance; and it will be your own fault if, after

having taken your seat, you do not make your parliamentary position

advantageous in more ways than one.

I suppose there is no chance of an immediate vacancy in the Dreepdaily

Burghs? Well, then, you must even make up your mind to come south and

attack a Saxon garrison. I have one or two places in my eye, either

of which you will be sure to carry in a canter, provided some fiery

fanatical fellow does not start up to oppose you. They are cotton

boroughs under the complete control of the millocracy; and I think you

are certain to step in, provided matters are properly managed, at the

expense of a small judicious outlay. And here, I know, you will begin

to object--You cannot afford the expense, &c. My dear friend, you

_must_ afford it, if you wish to cut any figure in life, or to make

yourself accounted worthy of purchase. No parsimony is so ill-judged

as that which boggles at the outlay of an election. No matter how many

firkins of beer may be consumed in the course of the canvass--how many

hundred dozen _goes_ of brandy-and-water may lubricate the throats

of the thirsty potwallopers and freemen who espouse your cause, and

bear your colours--the true principle is to consider these charges as

a debt which a grateful Ministry must refund on the first convenient

opportunity, with such rate of interest as you are fairly entitled to

expect, taking into account the risk which you have run, and the labour

which you have performed on their behalf. Altogether independently of

this, a seat in Parliament is well worth the expense. It gives you a

position in society which is otherwise difficult to attain; and any

man who can talk as you do, glibly and off-hand, is certain, before a

session is over, to push himself forward into notoriety.

I'll tell you why we want you, and I shall do so with the most perfect

frankness and unreserve. Our best men are used up. In the opinion

of the Secret Committee, of whose views I am the humble expositor,

Cobden is no longer worth his weight in oakum for any practical

purpose whatever. We committed a monstrous mistake in subscribing that

unlucky fund. We ought to have remembered the story of the soldier

who carried with desperate gallantry a redoubt the morning after he

had been rooked of his last penny at cribbage, but who invariably

declined to volunteer for any subsequent enterprise, in consequence

of the injudicious douceur awarded him by the commanding officer.

Just so has it been with Cobden. The testimonial turned his head. You

remember the awful exhibition he made of himself, when, in attempting

to lecture the farmers on the best method of cultivating land, he

assumed the character of a country gentleman; and the undying ridicule

which was excited by the immediate publication of a lithographed plan

of his estate, which, in a good year, might pasture a couple of cows,

and afford precarious subsistence besides to a brood of goslings?

Then came his Peace platform tomfoolery, just at the very time when

war was becoming universal on the Continent, and revolutions were

springing like mines under the feet of every government. Then, again,

instead of cajoling the bucolics, he chose openly to defy and insult

them at Leeds; and the result has been that, from that hour, every

man connected in the most remote degree with the landed interest

has drawn off from our body. In the House of Commons he can hardly

command an audience. The Liberal whippers-in say that a speech of his

is equivalent to a dozen votes added to the Opposition minority, and

they never see him crossing the threshold without quaking with terror

lest he should take it into his head to commence a harangue. Bright's

eloquence is usually smothered by cries of "Oh, oh," and derisive

cheering. He is a sturdy chap in his way, but woefully injudicious;

and he has been so exceedingly rude to Lord John Russell, that the

Whigs will have nothing to say to him. Old Joe is rapidly becoming

imbecile. He can no longer fumble with figures as he used to do; and

his perception, in most cases, is not sufficiently clear to enable him

to state the "tottle of the whole" with accuracy. I love and revere

the veteran, but I am afraid his best days are gone by. Milner Gibson

won't do; and of course we have too much respect for our cause to allow

M'Gregor to come down to Westminster without his muzzle. We require,

of all things, a new hand with gentlemanly manners, an easy address,

some flow of language, and a slight dash of humour--one who will not

weary the House with interminable statistics, or get into a passion

because he is contradicted, or fasten upon his opponent with the brute

ferocity of a bull-dog. We want some fellow not fully committed to

Free Trade, who can keep, as it were, on our flanks, and amuse the

enemy at times by suggesting articles of condition. He must have no

one-sided predilections, no abstract preference for the Cottonocracy

over the other interests of Britain. He must appear to be animated by

a fine, generous, patriotic spirit--ever ready to listen to distress,

and always eager to condole with it. Fine words, you are aware, butter

no parsnips, but they are fine words notwithstanding. This is the part

which we wish you to undertake, if you consent to come among us. The

fact is, that we must do something of the kind if we wish to escape

annihilation. I am afraid we have derived no benefit from sneering

at the farmers. The proposals which were made in the public prints

for their wholesale emigration have excited general disgust, and men

are beginning to ask each other what crime the agriculturists have

committed, to justify the infliction of such penalties? The question,

of course, is a foolish one. Every sound economist knows that the

farmers are mere creatures of circumstance, and that their interests

cannot be allowed for one moment to stand in the way of the approaching

supremacy of Manchester. But, unfortunately, all men are not political

economists, and we must, for some time at least, humour their fancies.

I should be the last man in the world to admit that any feelings of

compassion should have weight in the settlement of a great national

question; and you, who know me well, will do me the credit to believe

that I could see every farm-house in England made desolate, and the

inmates transported to the antipodes, without the weakness of shedding

a tear. We cannot, however, expect so much Spartan stoicism from the

masses. They are still by far too much under the influence of the

clergy; and it will be some time before we can eradicate from their

minds the lingering fibres of superstition. I agree in the main with

the sentiments expressed the other night by that trump, Joseph Sandars

of Yarmouth, that all we have or ought to regard, is the interest of

the manufacturers. Did you observe what he said? Excuse me if I quote

the passage. "Look at the fearful consequences which would result to

the commercial classes of the country, if their powers of competition

with foreign nations were weakened or crippled. If that large portion

of the community did not spin and weave for the four quarters of the

globe, the subsistence and happiness of millions of our population

would be destroyed. That competition went on day by day, and year by

year, increasing in force and intelligence, and formed the great social

question of our times. If adequate provision were not made for that

class of the population, there must be danger." Sandars was undeniably

right; but what demon could have possessed Sandars to make him say

so in as many words? It amounts to a pure and unqualified admission

of the real truth, that Free Trade was intended to operate, and must

operate, solely for the benefit of the exporting houses, to the ruin of

all other interests in the country; but was it in any way necessary to

tell the country that? These are the sort of speeches which are playing

the mischief with us. How can we attempt to bamboozle the shopkeepers

who are losing custom, and the artisans who have little or nothing to

do, and the small tradesmen who are verging towards the Gazette, if

members of our own party will have the consummate imprudence to tell

them that they are merely parts of a general holocaust--infinitesimal

faggots of a grand pile of British industry which is to be fired, in

order that the aged phoenix of cotton-spinning may be regenerated,

and soar, triumphant and alone, from the heart of the smouldering

ashes? Our game is to keep all these things in the background. Three

years ago, at one of our private Manchester conferences, I indicated

the course which we should pursue. My advice was--on no account to

break with the farmers. I represented that, when agricultural distress

arrived, as it must do immediately, our first business was to attribute

that entirely to exceptional causes--such as a good harvest, which we

could have little difficulty in doing, considering the deficiency of

agricultural statistics. That, I said, would gain us a year. Next,

we could fall back upon the subject of rent, and sow dissension in

the bucolic ranks, by alleging that the whole loss might be met by a

remission on the part of the landlords, and that they were in fact

the only parties interested. I explained that this line of policy, if

properly and dextrously pursued, could not fail to add enormously to

our strength, since, by radicalising the farmers, we must separate them

entirely from the landlords, and make them ready tools for our grand

final move--which, I need not say, is the repudiation of the National

Debt. My advice was not only applauded, but adopted. We surmounted the

difficulties of the first year pretty well; and, but for the folly

of some of our own men, we should by this time have had the farmers

clamouring on our side. Cobden, however, reviled them in all the terms

which his choice and polished imagination could suggest; others told

them to go to Australia or to the devil, whichever the might think

best; and now Sandars deliberately comes forward, and lets the cat

out of the bag! I ask you, Dunshunner, if it is not enough to make any

man of parts and intellect as rabid as a March hare, when he sees his

finest and best-adjusted schemes utterly ruined by such deplorable

bungling? Our only chance is to gain time. Give me another year, or

eighteen months more, at the utmost, of the present Parliament, and,

I trust, the death-warrant of the Fundholder will be sealed. If we

can extend the suffrage in the mean time, so much the better. We have

managed to get up a tolerable hatred of taxation. The anti-excise

party is very powerful, and, by giving them a lift, we might knock off

several more millions from the revenue. Cardwell, and some of that

soft-headed set, who call themselves Peelites, wish to take the duties

off tea, and they ought by all means to be encouraged. Tobacco follows

next, of course; and as smoking and snuffing are now almost universal,

the repeal of the duties on these articles would be immensely popular.

Malt goes, and so does sugar,--and then, my dear friend, where's your

revenue, and where the means of paying the interest of the national

debt? Don't you see what a beautiful field is open to us, if we can

only keep our own men from making premature disclosures, and pander

properly to the public appetite for getting rid of taxation? By

itself, direct taxation cannot stand six months. That fact in natural

history has been ascertained by so many experiments, and consequent

revolutions, from the days of Wat Tyler downwards, that I need not

fatigue you by recapitulating them. The reimposition of the Income Tax

for three years is an immense point in our favour. I never felt so

nervous in my life as during the Ministerial crisis, when it appeared

possible that Stanley might come in. I knew that, if he succeeded in

forming a Government, the Income Tax was doomed, and then, of course,

we must have had a revision of the tariff; and probably he would have

proposed to levy such duties upon imports as might put the British

artisan, labourer, and grower, on a fair level to compete with the

foreigner, at least in respect of taxation. Had he succeeded, our game

was up. But, most fortunately, we have escaped that danger. I shall

ever regard the glass house in Hyde Park with feelings of peculiar

gratitude; for I am convinced that, but for that sublime erection,

we should have lost the services of Sir Charles Wood, and, with him,

lost all chance of carrying into execution those schemes which we

consider most important for the entire ascendency of Manchester.

Fortunately, Wood is spared to us. He is an excellent confiding

creature--as innocent as a lamb who is tempted into the precincts of

the slaughter-house by the proffer of a bunch of clover; and if we can

manage to keep him in office a little longer, why, between ourselves, I

think, Dunshunner, we may look upon the matter as achieved.

Did you ever read old Cobbett's political writings? It is rather funny

to refer to these just now. We are precisely in the state which he

vaticinated some thirty years ago, when viewing prospectively the

effects of Peel's Currency Act of 1819: and I confess that I have

lately conceived a wonderful respect for the prescience and sagacity

of that queer ill-regulated genius. I call him ill-regulated, because

I believe that, were he alive, we should have found him our bitterest

opponent in any scheme which involved, as ours does, the expatriation

of the British yeomanry. The old fool had a heart--that is, the

amount of cellular or medullary tissue, which anatomically answers to

that portion of the human frame, was acted upon by natural impulses,

which it is the duty of the scientific Free-Trader to control. We of

Manchester flatter ourselves that we are above any such deplorable

weakness. But, setting his heart entirely aside, Cobbett had a head,

and it is perhaps as well for us that that head is mouldering in the

grave. He would have broached the grand question too early, and thereby

given our booty time to escape; whereas, now, we have the fundholders

gone to sleep, like pheasants on a tree at sunset. If no untoward

barking--no alarum on the part of our own lurchers unsettles them--they

are safe enough. Granting that they are startled for an instant, a

very little delay will suffice to put each bird's neck beneath its

wing; and then--hey, my fellow countrymen, for the brimstone-match, and

the sack to receive the fallen! Let them kick and spur as they like

afterwards--it is a mere question of the expenditure of feathers.

Of course you are quite aware of the present state of the colonies.

Some of the more enthusiastic of our men were anxious to get rid of

them at once, which they thought might be done by a simultaneous

withdrawal of the troops. I have seen this plan recommended more than

once in respectable quarters, and the arguments in its favour are

not without plausibility; still, I think it better that we should

abstain from active measures, and allow the colonies to drop off, like

blighted fruit, as they must naturally do, without any violent effort

on our part. Under the operation of Free Trade, colonies can be of no

earthly use to us. We do nothing for them, and they do nothing for us;

therefore, the sooner we cut the cable, and let them go, the better.

The Whigs are doing all they can to precipitate the crisis with Canada.

The removal of the seat of Government to Quebec will give such an

impetus to the Annexation party, that the Canadas must go over to the

United States, notwithstanding all the scruples which may be preferred

by those fools who talk of loyalty as if it were something hereditary,

or, indeed, as if loyalty were otherwise than an absolute sham. We know

better. Crowns are usually estimated according to the value of the

jewels which they contain; and, if certain jewels are detached from

their setting, and transferred, it is not difficult to ascertain the

value of the remanent bullion circlet. You take me? This involves a

point which we don't wish to broach at present, though we have long had

it in view. Do you take any interest in the affairs of France? That,

now, is a country worth living in! None of your aristocrats there! Why,

if England were France, you or I, Dunshunner, might be riding in the

royal carriages, with half a squadron of the Guards before and behind

us, receiving that homage which is the due of genius, political wisdom,

and recondite science, instead of tramping, as we do, on foot, at the

perpetual risk of catarrhs. I cannot sufficiently admire the coolness

of our little friend Louis Blanc, who, as he was stepping into one of

old Louis Philippe's vehicles, specially devoted by the Provisional

Government to the service of the Lilliputian patriot, thus addressed,

with a graceful wave of his hand, a group of envying _ouvriers_:--"My

friends! one of these days we shall _all_ of us ride in our carriages!"

There is a sublimity about this which utterly distances our feebler

flights of imagination. We have never been able hitherto to hold out

higher expectations to the people than what are inferred by pictures

of gigantic pots of beer and dropsical loaves; and we have tried these

baits so often that they have now lost something of their freshness,

and much of their original significance. We really must have some new

device for our banners. I wish you would turn your mind to this, and

let me have your opinion what kind of property would be most acceptable

to the million.

What do you think of the Girondists? That is the new name we have

got for Graham and his party, and it seems to me a very happy one.

Hitherto they have played remarkably well into our hands, but they are

clearly not to be trusted. As Watt remarks, in his treatise on the

steam-engine, there are wheels within wheels; and those gentlemen have

been so extremely gyratory in their motions, that it is impossible

with the least certainty to predicate the direction of their course.

One thing, however, seems to me perfectly clear--they never can join

the Protectionists. Two years ago I should have hesitated to say this

authoritatively, but they have thrown away so many excellent chances of

reconciliation, and invariably manifested such rancour and bitterness

towards their former allies, that I do not see how they can possibly

return. There is no hatred equal in intensity to that of a deserter.

Awake or asleep, he has ever before him the awful apparition of the

provost-marshal; his back tingles with the imaginary lash of the

cat-of-nine-tails; and, if you watch him in his slumbers, you will hear

him moaning something about a file of musketry and a coffin. It is

something to be certain of this. You see that the party of the Gironde

is very small, and never can act effectively of itself. It is simply

useful as a make-weight, and as such we consider it. Now, a glance

at the late division-lists will show you that these men, whatever

else they may do, are resolutely determined never to go into the same

lobby with the Protectionists. They have no abstract affection for the

Whigs--which is not wonderful, considering the tenacity and strength

of the family alliance; and though they may occasionally seem to help

them, they would be sorry to lose any chance of giving them a sly dig

with the stiletto. We are by far their most natural allies--indeed, if

they had any sense, they would throw themselves into our arms at once.

But, unfortunately for them, they are tainted with the aristocratic

leaven. They affect to look down upon us, pure democrats, as though

they were something infinitely superior, and they will not fraternise

with that cordiality which we are surely entitled to expect. You may

rely upon it, this will not be forgotten at the proper time. Nothing

is, to my mind, so purely offensive as the demeanour of an aristocratic

Liberal. His look, his language, and the very tone of his voice,

tells you that he considers his support of your principles as an act

of magnificent condescension; and that, if you entertained a proper

feeling of gratitude, you ought to go down upon your knees and thank

him. Now, considering that one-half of the Peelites are little better

than pragmatical coxcombs, and the other half, with a few exceptions,

venerable serving-men of the Taper and Tadpole school, you may easily

conceive that these airs give us infinite disgust, and that we are

keeping an accurate account with a view to a future settlement.

And now, Dunshunner, I must conclude. I have thought it best to state

to you my views without any reservation, because it is always bad

policy to enlist a recruit without making him distinctly aware of the

nature of the service which he is expected to perform. Our Committee

never forms its conclusions, or takes its measures hastily. We have

been long preparing for the great work of national regeneration; and

although we may have been, and certainly are, disappointed with the

results which in some cases have followed our exertions, we are not

less firmly convinced that our cause must progress, and be triumphant.

If we can only prevent a legislative return to indirect taxation--if we

can maintain for a little longer the struggle of unprotected British

industry against foreign competition, we cannot choose but win. The

struggle with the earth-born Antæus has been a very severe one. A

poet, now, would tell you that the old mythical story of the Greeks

had an occult meaning--that Antæus, the son of Terra and Neptune, was

a typification of Agriculture and Navigation, which the manufacturing

Hercules is attempting to destroy, and that, every time the giant is

overthrown, he derives new strength from his contact with his venerable

mother. So be it. Hercules, you know, strangled him at last by lifting

him up into the air; and there is no reason why we should not repeat

the same operation. On second thoughts, you had better not make use of

this illustration, happy as it may appear. On consulting Lemprière, I

observe that Hercules was finally consumed in consequence of putting

on one of his own shirts, and that circumstance might be awkwardly

interpreted by some ungenerous enemy.

The sooner you can make up your mind the better. Let me hear from

you without delay; and if your answer, as I anticipate, should be

affirmative, we shall bring you into the House in time to take part in

the debate on the confiscation of the revenues of the Church.

Believe me alway yours,

ROBERT M'CORKINDALE.

MANCHESTER, 15_th April_ 1851.

THE PAPAL AGGRESSION BILL.

We do not underrate the difficulty in legislating upon the Papal

Aggression; but the acknowledgement of a difficulty is a confession

of a danger. Legislation, therefore, is often the more necessary as

it becomes less apparent what direction it should take; for every

obstacle has its accompanying mischief. Nevertheless, the greater

peril lies in suffering an evil to grow. The nature of the evil, and

the principles from which all its action proceeds, must be examined,

and thoroughly sifted. It is not the present magnitude which is so

much to be considered, as its innate growth--its power of reproducing

itself, even when apparently cut down to the ground. There are

poisonous plants of such an obstinate root, that they will spread

both on the surface and below it: and such is the Papacy. It is hard

to overcome. Its one steady purpose is domination. It must either

be a tyranny or a conspiracy. It is a religion without a religious

obligation, for it professes to be the maker of the world's religion,

and demands obedience to an individual will--the will of one man whom

a superstition sets up--a will that is guided by no fixed rules;

that, however varying and contradictory, claims infallibility. The

inheritance it would assume is Satan's promise, "the kingdoms of

the earth and the glory of them." If the Papacy cannot take full

possession, it is only because it is hindered, not by its own will, but

by external resistance. It never has relaxed its demand of universal

obedience, and, whenever and wherever it has had power, has enforced

it. It would have an absolute jurisdiction over all the affairs of

Christendom, as above all kings and princes, to judge them and depose

them at pleasure. More than this: from being God's Vicar, the Bishop

of Rome would be above his Master, and abrogate Divine laws and

precepts; exercising absolute authority over the Scriptures, even to

annul them, and to set up his own decrees as more divine; taking to

himself the resemblance of him of whom it was said that he "should sit

in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." Yet with all

his presumptuous titles, remembering that it is written that he that

would be greatest among the disciples should be servant to the rest,

he is also "_servus servorum_," that he may himself fill every office,

and enlarge the view of his dignity, from the depth of that affected

humility--measuring up to the highest from the lowest, himself usurping

every space.

From the moment the Bishop of Rome usurped this sovereignty, then

commenced the necessity of maintaining it, _per fas et nefas_. To

abrogate one iota of his power was to abrogate the whole. He took

upon himself and his successors a contention that can never cease,

but with a universal submission. The whole history of the Papacy,

from the day of its assumption, proves this. It does not come within

the scope of our object to enter into the details of that history.

They are well known: the remembrance of many and sore atrocities has

been too deeply engraven on the minds of the people of England to be

easily obliterated. When they hear of the Papal Aggression, they ask,

When was the Papacy not an aggression? Neither are we very desirous

to treat minutely of the Romish corruptions and apostacies, excepting

where they evolve principles that will not amalgamate with any civil

polity, or the laws and governments of nations. It is possible there

may be religions that, being tolerated, would in practice not only

destroy every other, but the very name of liberty. Even Thuggism

professes to be a religion, and secret murder its duty. Would it be

religious liberty to tolerate the Suttees and Juggernauts of India?

We do not mean to make offensive comparisons: we only put the case

strongly, to show how obvious it is that toleration must have its

limits; if not, toleration may become a domination, and the thing be

lost in the name. There must be in every state some agreement between

religion and its social laws. The Mahometan may have his mosque in

a Christian country, but could he be allowed to set at defiance the

decency of Christian morals, on the plea of his religious liberty?

We have "Latter-day Saints," believers in Joe Smith, and interfere

not with them. We trust that they do not infringe the laws, nor break

their civil obligations, or at least we do not know that they do so.

We know nothing of mischief in their history, have no record of former

doings, that should lead us to dread their principles. But to return

to the Papacy: it stands apart from every religion, in its abhorrence,

intolerance, and persecution of all that is not of itself. It will

never cease to strive openly if it can, if not secretly, to subvert

every other--to set up its own absolute authority. Persecution is its

law, its creed, its necessity. Where it is quiet, it is undermining;

where it is visibly active, it sows dissensions and rebellions, because

they promote its own supremacy; where it has the smallest chance of

success, it moves onwards. Besides, it has organisations wondrously

adapted to its work. There is not only a large submission to the Pope

throughout territories and kingdoms that are not his, but there is

that especial order of obedience, the Jesuits, who bind themselves to

have no will but that of their "Holy Father;" whose first religion it

is to do his will, whatever it be--to have no conscience, with regard

to what is good and evil, but the Pope's dictation;--a working army

they may be called, that, though they seem dispersed and banished, are

emissaries everywhere, and rise up in multitudes where it was thought

there were none. They are allowed to assume whatever dress they please;

for their better disguise, any occupation: they are in the highest and

the lowest conditions, and have been known to appear as zealous members

in conventicles.

Having constantly in view the firm establishment of its own power, as a

foreign sovereignty the Papacy has communication, league, and intrigue

with all the principal courts in Europe. It is therefore mostly

dangerous to Protestant countries, as it naturally leagues with their

enemies; and it is doubly dangerous in those countries where it has

any large number professing themselves its subjects, organised by its

authority, looking to Rome in preference to their legitimate governors.

We need but instance Ireland, where that authority has borne its fruits

in rebellions, and the sad, the continued degradation of the people.

Are we at war with other nations?--the Pope's aid may be solicited by

them to create distractions in Ireland. _There_ is a sore that is never

allowed to heal: it has paralysed and still paralyses the power of this

great country. Hence it has been the arena of political warfare. For

party purposes, the Church of Ireland has been discouraged, the Romish

priesthood coquetted with, ten bishoprics of our Church annihilated to

please them, and that fatal error Catholic Emancipation perpetrated.

And here we are compelled to add, that one of the professed principles

of Romanism has been made patent--that faith is not to be kept with

heretics; for how ill the oath of doing nothing to the disparagement of

the Church of England was kept by Roman Catholic members is too well

known.

It may not be amiss here to make one remark. We remember the warnings

given when the Emancipation was carried; we now see how just--how

prophetic they were. But the remark we were about to make is this:--How

little trust is to be placed in any prospective promises that

Ministers at any time may make! They too often speak as if they had

a prescriptive right to a perpetuity of office. We remember the Duke

said, that, should the country be disappointed in their hopes of the

peace, amity, and good faith of the Roman Catholics, he would be the

first to come forward to annul the grant. He has been called upon to

fulfil his promise. His reply is, that he is not in office.

It is admitted by the best advocates for leaving this aggression to

itself, that the Roman Catholic religion is dangerous; that, if it

could recover its political ascendency, another Marian persecution

would follow. It is said that, although it never renounces anything

to which it had once committed itself, that times and circumstances

are changed; that the coercion which made it more dangerous has been

relinquished by Governments. Emancipation, if it has not changed

its character, has rendered it innocuous. And it is asked, What has

occurred since emancipation? The question may well create surprise.

What has occurred! Has Ireland acquired the promised peace, the absence

of rebellions, the discontinuance of denunciations from altars, and

murders, which a shamefully palliating press almost excuse by naming

"_agrarian_?"

True, indeed, is it that the Papacy renounces nothing of all it ever

claimed, however it has renounced its creeds. This obstinacy delayed

Roman Catholic Emancipation twenty-five years, because the suggestion

of allowing the Crown a veto in the nomination of bishops was treated

with scorn. Every Popish priest, says Blackstone, renounces his

allegiance to his lawful sovereign upon taking orders. That he may

more substantially, more effectually do so, the attempt is made to

substitute their canon law for the law of the land. And here we see

one great object of the aggression. The so-called Cardinal Wiseman

alleged that the object of the Pope's brief was to introduce the "real

and complete code of the Church; that, for this purpose, the Roman

Catholics must have a hierarchy; that the canon law was inapplicable

under vicars-apostolic; that, besides, there were many points that

required to be synodically adjusted; and that, without a metropolitan

and suffragans, a provincial synod was out of the question." What

are these points to be so adjusted--requiring this extraordinary

organisation, but that this kingdom, in the fustian simile of the

Cardinal, is to be restored as a planet to roll round the centre, the

Pope? But this centre is no fixed sun, disseminating its certain and

seasonable heat. The comparison will not hold with Popery, that is only

the _semper eadem_ in one course--that of perpetual aggression; of

one only law--domination. Are its creeds one and the same consistent

unerring faith from the beginning? Creeds have been thrown off that

implied a submission, or even subscription, to the creeds of the

ancient church, that were built upon the authority of the Scriptures

and the Apostles. All things of doctrine and authority must have

their real origin in, and arise _primo motu_ from, the Papacy. St

Peter himself, from whom the succession is claimed, is discarded;

the inspired dictum of a present Pontiff is all-sufficient. There is

a law now for all this, unknown to the Apostles, not sanctioned in

the Gospels; they call it the law of "development." It is not a new

doctrine this, but is now prominently brought forward, sanctioned,

established. St Peter orders, "If any man speak, let him speak as the

_oracles of God_;" that is, as the Holy Scriptures speak. They say, Let

no man speak but the Pope; he is the only oracle of God. The Scriptures

give the rule of faith. They say--No, the Scriptures are insufficient;

the true faith is locked in the Pope's breast, and he delivers it

out when and in such portions as he pleases. He is neither bound by

antiquity nor Scriptures. Development is in him. It is true, many

eminent divines of the Romish Church--as, for instance, Bossuet--have

strenuously opposed this doctrine of development. But there is another

progress besides Popery. Inquiry has its developments: the old

foundations of Papacy have been shaken; antiquity and apostolic faith,

it has been proved, it has departed from. It must, therefore, change

its foundation. There was no resource but to this law of development.

The Scriptures have failed the Papal doctrines. They have been

hidden--they have been mistranslated--translation set aside for new

translation, each more false--and Pope after Pope have declared their

predecessors, and those who received these Bibles, heretics; till, it

being impossible to remove the Scriptures altogether, a new doctrine

is invented, that at least shall supersede them--and that doctrine

is now in the greatest favour. It is the grateful and acceptable

offering to the Court of Rome by the neophyte author of the _Essay

on Development_--the convert Mr Newman. It is for this he has been

graciously received at Rome, and welcomed on his way by the Archbishop

of Paris, and flatteringly received by the Nuncio of the Apostolic See;

lauded by the most eminent bishop of the French Church and the journals

of France, and honoured by lectures on his essay by the Roman Catholic

Bishop of Edinburgh. It may be worth while to look a little into this

law of development, as declared in this essay of Mr Newman, and put

forth as the doctrine to be received by the faithful of the Papal

Church. It has been well sifted, perhaps by none more ably than by Dr

Wordsworth, Canon of Westminster. And how, with such a comment, will it

be received by the old members of the Roman Catholic Church!

"Mr Newman's conversion to Romanism," says Dr Wordsworth, "was

accompanied, as I have said, by the publication of his _Essay on

Development_, which is intended to declare the grounds of his change.

But it so happens that, in this volume, he has inflicted a severe

wound on the Papacy. Its very name is ominous against it. What is

Development? The explication and evolution of something that was

wrapped up in embryo. St Paul gives us a very pertinent illustration

of this process with respect to doctrine. He speaks of a Mystery. What

is a Mystery? A thing concealed, _undeveloped_. He speaks of a Mystery

of _Iniquity_--or rather, of lawlessness ([Greek:anomia]) He says that

this mystery is already at work, like leaven, secretly fermenting the

mass in which it is; and he adds, that in time it will be developed.

"Let us apply this to the fundamental doctrine of Romanism, viz.,

the Pope's supremacy. 'On this doctrine,' says Cardinal Bellarmine,

'the whole cause of Christianity' (he means Romish Christianity)

'depends.' Let us now turn to the essayist. He allows (indeed, with

his well-stored mind he could not do otherwise) that, in the first

ages of the Church, this doctrine existed only in a seminal form; that

is, it was a _mystery_. 'First the power of the Bishop awoke, then the

power of the Pope,' (p. 165.) 'Apostles are harbingers of Popes,' (p.

124.) Again, (p. 319,) 'Christianity developed in the form first of

a Catholic, then of a Papal Church.' So that, in fact, the primitive

ages of the Church--the purest, the apostolic times--did not hold

_that_ doctrine on which the 'cause of _your_ Christianity depends.'

(Dr Wordsworth is writing to M. Condon, author of _Mouvement Réligieux

en Angleterre_.) And thus you are brought into the company of those

_heretics_ of whom Tertullian writes, 'that they were wont to say

that the Apostles were not acquainted with all Christian doctrine,

or that they did not declare it fully to the world; not perceiving

that, by these assertions, they exposed Christ himself to obloquy, for

having chosen men who were either ill-informed, or else not honest.'

Let me remind you also, my dear sir, of the words of a greater than

Tertullian. Our blessed Lord himself says to his Apostles, '_All_

things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you;' and

that the 'Holy Spirit should _teach them all_ things, and guide them

into all truth, and bring all things to their remembrance, whatever

he had said unto them.' And he orders them to proclaim to the world

what they had heard from him: 'What I tell you in darkness, that

speak ye in light; and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon

the house-tops.' 'Teach all nations _all things_ whatsoever I have

commanded you.' And accordingly, St John witnesses, that Christ's true

disciples 'have an unction from the Holy One, and know _all things_;'

and St Paul, as a faithful steward of his Lord's house, the church,

declares that 'he has kept _nothing_ back from his hearers;' that he

'uses great plainness of speech;' and 'not being rude in knowledge,

has been thoroughly made manifest to them in all things;' and has 'not

shunned to declare unto them _all the counsel of God_;' and he plainly

intimates that he should not have been 'pure from their blood,'--that

is, he would have been guilty of destroying their souls, if he had done

so. And he warns all men against building 'hay and stubble on the only

foundation which is laid;' and says that, 'though an angel from heaven

preached unto them anything _beside_ what he had preached unto them,

and they had received from him, let him be accursed.'"

According to the theory of development, if a doctrine be said to be

evolved from Scripture, it is not from the plain, but the mystic sense,

from "the spiritual or second sense." Thus, any doctrine may be drawn

from Scripture--and there is to be but one interpreter--the "one living

infallible judge." Let us see a specimen of this honest interpreter.

Pope Innocent III. (who dethroned our King John) thus explains the text

of Genesis i. 14,--"God made two great lights." "These words" (says

that Pope) "signify that God made two dignities, the Pontifical and

the Royal; but the dignity which rules the day--that is, the spiritual

power--is the greater light; and that which rules the night, or the

temporal, is the lesser. So that it may be understood that there is

as much difference between Popes and Kings as between the sun and the

moon." Pope Boniface VIII. thus applies to himself the tenth verse of

the first chapter of the Prophet Jeremiah--"See I have this day set

thee over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out, to pull

down, and to destroy." "Here," says the Pope, "the Almighty is speaking

of the power of the Church, to create and to judge the temporal power;

and, if the temporal power swerves from its duty, it shall be condemned

by the spiritual; and since Peter said to Christ, 'Ecce duo gladii,'

('Lord, behold here are _two_ swords,') therefore the Pope has _both_

the temporal and spiritual swords at his command; and since also Moses

writes--'In _principio_ Deus creavit coelum et terram,' and not _in

principiis_, therefore there is only one princedom, and that is the

Papacy." Be it remembered the Papacy has never receded from any claim

of power.

If such be the interpretations from Scripture, the Fathers and Councils

of the ancient Church are handled according to pleasure. Whatever they

say in opposition to the Papacy is of no authority; and the power of

"correcting them" is assumed. Directions are given for the "Index

Expurgatorius," that passages shall be expunged; nay, the Fathers of

the Church, it is said, should be grateful for the correction--for

the Fathers of the Church are the children of the Pope, and when "the

Pope revises the lucubrations of his children, and corrects them when

it is necessary, he discharges an office gratifying to the writers,

and useful to posterity, and, in good truth, he then performs a work

of mercy to his sons." Neither Scripture nor ancient Church must

stand in the way of the Pope's will. In them the mystery was in a

"seminal state" undeveloped. There is, according to this theory of

development, but one real authentic inspiration, and that in the breast

of the present Pope. Nay, it is asserted, that though the Pope for

the time being should decree that which his successor contradicts and

interdicts, the falsehood was true at the time, and for the time, as is

the new developed truth. Thus--dreadful blasphemy!--God may be false;

but man, one man, must be infallible. To support this infallibility

the development theory is necessary. Now, it is this theory reduced

to practice which at once makes the Papacy dangerous and hard to deal

with. We have no security as to what it shall decree--as to what it

shall establish as Christian doctrine, built upon no really Christian

foundation. It is possible it may retain the name, and forsake

Christianity altogether. We can be sure but of one thing, that it

will never cease to proclaim, and to endeavour to enforce, its own

supremacy. It has two capacities, mutually involved, each brought into

play as occasion serves; and each serving, subtending to the other.

It is both political and spiritual. But times and circumstances, we

are told, are changed. True, but is the Popedom changed? It only wants

the power. Pius V., who pretended to depose our Queen Elizabeth,

and ordered her subjects to rise in rebellion against her, is now

_worshipped as a saint_. Gregory VII., who deposed the Emperor Henry

IV., has still his festival-day; and these words are in the second

Lesson (not taken from Scripture)--"He" (St Gregory) "stood like a

fearless wrestler against the impious attempts of Henry the Emperor,

and deprived him of the communion of the faithful and of his crown,

and released all his subjects from their allegiance to him." Roman

Catholic sovereigns have prohibited the printing this second lesson;

but is it withdrawn? "As far as the Roman Pontiffs are concerned, it is

read in every Church at this day." But, more than this; though formerly

suppressed by the Parliament of France, 1729, it has found its way into

the Paris and Lyons edition of the Roman Breviary of the year 1842. The

Church of Rome, by eulogising these acts in her Liturgy, "shows her

desire that they may be repeated."

But let us look to that which comes still nearer to us. The Church of

Rome requires the oath of Pius IV., as declared in the Canon Law, to be

taken by _all_ her ecclesiastics. In the "Roman Pontifical," printed

at Rome _by authority_, in the year 1818, the oath is thus given as

required from the bishops:--"To be faithful and obedient to his Lord

the Pope, and his successors; to assist them in maintaining the _Roman

Papacy and the royalties of St Peter against all men_; to preserve,

defend, augment, and promote its rights, honours, and privileges; to

_persecute and impugn, with all his might, heretics and schismatics,

and rebels against his said Lord_; to come when summoned to a Roman

council; to visit the threshold of the Apostles (the city of Rome)

once in every three years, to render an account to his Lord the Pope

of all the state of his diocese, and to receive his Apostolic mandates

with humility; and if he is unable, through any lawful impediment, to

attend in person, to provide a sufficient deputy in his stead." Let us

ask who are "rebels against his said Lord." Is it without design that

the Papacy, which weighs nicely the force of words, in the recent brief

speaks, not of the British Empire, but the "Kingdom of England?" Is no

recognition intended of his claim to the disposal of the Kingdom of

England, once surrendered to him? Does he not look upon all the Queen's

subjects in England as rebels to him, "their Lord?" Can, we ask, a

bishop taking this oath, and obeying its imperial mandates, and going

to the "Roman Council," be said to owe any allegiance to his own lawful

sovereign in England? Put the case, that it shall appear advisable to

the "Roman Council" at which such bishop shall be summoned--either

at the instigation of some foreign power, or with a view to promote

the Pope's interests--that the Queen of England's council shall be

thwarted, and that a rebellious spirit shall be encouraged and fostered

in Ireland: to which sovereign shall the said bishop pay obedience?

Will it not be that one whose "mandates" he has sworn to "receive with

humility?" Is there any one at all acquainted with our politics of

the last half-century who will doubt that mandates injurious to the

interests of England have been received, and have been obeyed? Need we

refer to the Irish Rebellion of 1795? We shall there find an account

of one Dr Hussey, an Irish priest, who had been bred at Seville, and

was recommended by Burke to superintend the recently erected College

of Maynooth, how he frequented the camp at Schaunstown, and tampered

with the soldiers. We need not refer to the notorious fact of priests

in active rebellion. "Bartholomew massacres" are thought old wives'

tales, and impossible in modern times. Impossible!--is human nature

so changed, and in so few years? Many of us remember the first French

Revolution, to say nothing of very recent most cruel revolutions. By

the Report of the Secret Committee of the House of Lords in 1797,

it appears that it was decided by the conspirators that all persons

who, from their principles or situation, may be deemed inimicable to

the conspiracy, should be massacred; and the first proscribed list

was calculated by one of their leaders at 30,000 persons. We would

not dwell upon these atrocities; but we entreat those who speak so

confidently of altered "times and circumstances" to consider for a

moment what times they have lived in, and are living in. It is true

we in England have been mercifully spared; but while even we were

boasting of peace, cruel revolutions were commencing throughout Europe,

brutal assassinations performed, for a fanaticism which belongs to

human nature, and may readily be called into action either by religion

or politics. Nay, we say more, that, according to the "development"

theory, we know not how much of religion political fanaticism

may take up, nor how much of revolutionary politics religion may

assume. The Roman Pontiff has had to fly for his life. Their boasted

threshold of St Peter has been deluged with blood. We do not mean

here to charge our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects with any of these

diabolical intentions--far from it; but we must say that we do not

see, in countries where their teaching has prevailed, any remarkable

abhorrence of them. And we gather from the tenor of history that such

atrocities grow out of events--and events of great importance grow out

of creeds--and a struggle for religious supremacy (and the Papacy must

ever strive to that end) always tends to persecution; and what shall we

say, when persecution is a duty of obedience, and the consciences of

the many are merged in the infallibility of a Pope? The history of the

Popes shows a frightful list of these claimants of infallibility.

Few who speak or who write on this Papal Aggression approach the

principle of toleration with any doubt; but surely toleration has its

limits. "Civil and religious liberty:" under that banner we may have

strange armies--destroyers.

Religious development is going on beyond the Popedom. The assumption

of a kind of religion, or more properly a cant of religion, is the

homage vice pays to virtue. The subverters of all social order are

propagandists of a new religion. What are St Simonites? Even Red

Republicans associate themselves to a kind of creed; and perhaps many

take up one, purposely that they may demand a civil and religious

liberty. We do not subscribe to the doctrine that "full and complete

liberty" is to be given to every society that proclaims itself of a

civil polity, or of a religious agreement. The principles of creeds

should be ascertained, before full scope be given to them--and the

principles of civil communities, before a state is justified in arming

them with power. There are societies that can, and societies that

cannot, live together peaceably, with equal power. There is a strong

conviction in the public mind, (and certainly justified,) that if

Popery can once reach an equality in visible power with the Church of

England, or even with Protestant Dissenters, a system of persecution

would commence.

The present aggression is of a two-fold character. It is against the

Church, which it ignores; and the sovereignty of England, which it both

insults and defies. It sets up bishop against bishop--altar against

altar. It takes up a position of authority, and impudently declares

that it neither can nor will recede one step. Hear the "Bishop of

Birmingham" so styled, Dr Ullathorne. He thus writes to Lord John

Russell:--"There is one point for your Lordship to consider--the

hierarchy is established; therefore it cannot be abolished. How will

you deal with the fact? Is it to force a large body of her Majesty's

subjects to put the principle of the Divine law in opposition to

such an enactment?" Here is obstinate defiance; but there is more.

He proclaims that the Pope's brief is a "_Divine law_." Is not this

the Pope's supremacy over the supremacy of England's sovereign? And

if England's sovereignty maintains its own, what kind of warfare are

we to have from Rome? Of course, the first step will be an Irish

rebellion, or the attempt to raise one. Then is our Queen to be

excommunicated--the old game played--the interdict, the absolving from

allegiance, and the curse? Is the Pope, the foolish man, who has been

driven from his Popedom, and just kept in it again by French bayonets,

in his disappointment to enact the spite of a witch turned out of

doors, and look back and spit, and take a revengeful pleasure in seeing

the Canidian venom take effect? And of a truth it may be said Lord John

Russell, Earl Grey, and some others of the Government, grow somewhat

pallid from the poison; it has at any rate reached them. Lord John

Russell thought it absurd to deny titles, which he now brings in a bill

to interdict; Earl Grey would have the Roman Catholic Bishops sit in

the House of Peers--and has given strange encouragement to them in the

Colonies. Their titles have been smuggled into a Charitable Bequest

Bill. It is a hard thing for a Minister to eat his own words, tainted

too by the Pope's venom. But, besides this, there appears to have been

a connivance with this aggression, or an unpardonable ignorance, on

the part of the Ministry. Whence is the suddenly conceived indignation

that breaks forth in the Durham Letter? The event had actually

taken place long before. Dr Wiseman was gazetted, as Archbishop of

Westminster, at Rome on the 22d January 1848; in the _Gazette_ he is

called, "His Eminence the most Reverend Monsignore the Vicar-Apostolic,

Archbishop of Westminster." What was Lord John Russell doing then? Was

he practising "mummeries" that, in his after mind, bore similitude

to those of Rome? He had not then been exorcised by Dr Cumming! He

has now, however, been tutored to make mighty preparations, to doings

of large professions for little ends. If he has not done worse, he

has made a burlesque for the page of history, and the age of his

Administration ridiculous to posterity.

Dr Wiseman, it has been shown, was gazetted in Rome, January 1848. If

the Government knew that fact, did they know, do they know, the exact

position in which that ecclesiastic is? Mr Newdegate, in the House of

Commons, very clearly shows this position, that "Cardinal Wiseman is a

legate of the Pope--a legate _à latere_, armed with still wider powers

than Dr Cullen, and who, as he (Mr Newdegate) believed, merely delayed

interfering with our social, civil, and temporal affairs, until that

House should have separated for the recess." He showed them "that,

from the earliest periods of our history, it had been contrary to the

constitution and common law of the country that a legate of the Pope,

and especially a cardinal, should come into this country without the

leave of the sovereign, and without an oath taken that he would attempt

nothing against the realm and liberties of the people."--"He found that

there was a meeting of the clergy of the Established Church, a few days

ago, at Zion College, at which Dr M'Caul, quoting from a recognised

authority of the Catholic Church, stated that the order of Cardinals

was literally a part of the Papacy and constitution--the privy council,

which was the body corporate of the Pope; and then gave an account of

how the office and power of the cardinal was wielded throughout. From

that account it appeared that the office of cardinal, when the Pope

assumed the temporal attributes of the Emperor, was converted into that

of privy councillor; and that the cardinals ought not to be absent

from the Papal court, except by reason of being sent out as legates.

Cardinal Wiseman, then, could only be there as legate. Van Espin, whose

works were recognised at Maynooth, also said, that whatever might be

the case with other legates, cardinal legates were called legates _à

latere_, because they were taken from the side of the Pope. He believed

that Cardinal Wiseman had been asked whether he had taken the oath of

privy councillor, and that his answer was that he had not. But he had

taken the oath of archbishop in full, and that would be an excuse for

not taking the oath of privy councillor; but he (Mr Newdegate) could

find no possible authority for the omission. However, the oath of the

archbishop was strictly the oath of privy councillor, binding the party

to discharge temporal functions; and with this remarkable addition,

that for the recovery of such rights and property as had been alienated

from the Romish Church he would do his utmost. He wanted to show that

Cardinal Wiseman, by his own act as cardinal priest, adverted to that

very function, of labouring to the utmost for the recovery of the goods

of the Church. It was a very long time since there had been a cardinal

legate in England; and for this good reason, that it was contrary to

the ancient statute law of this realm that these temporal officers of a

foreign potentate should reside among us. Even Cardinal Beaufort, the

brother of Henry VI., had found it necessary to have a special statute

enacted in his favour, before he could reside in England as cardinal

legate. Cardinal Wolsey was appointed legate at the express instance

of Henry VIII.; and Cardinal Pole, after he had been compelled to

leave England because he resisted Henry VIII.'s proceedings with the

temporalities of the Church, was appointed legate in England, not upon

the motion of the Pope, but at the desire of Queen Mary. In the time

of Elizabeth, the cardinal whom the reigning Pope had sent to England

as nuncio, received in the Netherlands, whence he had sent to request

permission to enter England, a prohibition from entering the realm, on

the distinct ground that the ancient statutes of the realm declared

that no legate from the Papal Court might reside in England. Happy

would it have been for this country, (emphatically adds Mr Newdegate,)

had the advisers of the present Queen emulated the firmness of those of

Queen Elizabeth."

How much better would it have been to put in force an existing and

old law, which can only be said to be obsolete because the offence

against which it provided was obsolete, than to nullify it by a new and

uncertain one, satisfying no one, and such as no one believes will,

and perhaps the framer does not intend should, be obeyed. Sir Edward

Sugden is of that opinion, and can there be a better legal authority?

The people of this country have more confidence in old than new laws:

they were made with more precision; and it was not then the practice

to smuggle into them expressions for ulterior though hidden use. It is

the boast of modern legislation, that a coach may be driven through our

acts of Parliament. Queen Elizabeth, who would not suffer the legate

to touch our shores, right royally said, "I will not have my sheep

marked with the brand of a foreign shepherd." Modern liberality would

be content to see Queen Victoria the Pope's sheriff. Is it to be borne,

that a cardinal legate, whom existing laws exclude, should be allowed

to organise a conspiracy of priests, all, not only virtually, but in

word and deed, abnegating allegiance to their lawful sovereign? It is

their business, it is in their bond, to persecute the majority of their

countrymen as heretics, and to effect in the British dominions as much

evil as shall so weaken their country as to make her unable to resist

the foreign usurpation of their Pope, or even those of our enemies with

whom he may be in league. It is surprising that Mr Gladstone should

palliate the doings of the Synod of Thurles, and seem to justify them

on the right of civil agitation allowed to other leagues. But surely

the difference is great. Political agitators, bad as they often are,

do not bring the authoritative dictum of a religious synod. The Synod

of Thurles denounces with an authority more potent than the law of

the land; they appeal not to reason, to policy, but to obedience. The

law is given out by the legate, and enforced by the Synod. They know

the danger of mooting questions between landlord and tenant; and it

is the very danger which tempts them to it. It is in fact a threat,

and the first move of its action. It is almost a declaration to this

effect:--The Pope, and we in his name, have right to the land, to

dispose of it as we please; and if you in the slightest degree resist

or interfere with us, we will stir up those who shall take it from

you. They know the threat extends to the life as well as property. All

means with them are lawful for the one end. Do we, in all these fruits

of the aggression, and of the Ministerial favour which created it,

see the promised gratitude of the Roman Catholics? Every obstacle to

the free exercise of their religion had been removed; and we were to

have peace, but have it not, because, from the vantage-ground of their

emancipation, a dominant supremacy was to be superadded. The hierarchy

is not for the use of the Queen's Roman Catholic subjects, but for the

Pope and his priesthood's power. Even the time it has been allowed to

be here, while there was a law that might instantly have been put in

force, is a submission to it. It is tampering with illegality and with

insult; neither the one nor the other should be suffered to remain a

day. The dignity of England is deteriorated by delay. And what has

this delay--this sufferance of the evil done, but added to its growth?

It is worse than ridiculous, it is mischievous to be furious against

an enemy, as our Prime Minister was in his Durham Manifesto, and not

to crush his power. All the fury and fierceness is made to appear

cruelty for the time and weakness after; and thus the enemy gets more

than he had before. The difficulties attending the dealing with this

aggression now cannot be denied. They have been greatly enlarged by the

mode of proceeding adopted. Parliament, or the executive, might have

instantly demanded reparation for the insult, and the law have been as

immediately enforced.

The difficulties now must not be denied; and they increase day by

day, and will be sure to increase with _new_ legislation. Suppose we

have in the British dominions a Roman Catholic population of seven or

eight millions. It is too vast a number to ignore, even though the

"Protestant brotherhood" out of the Church should desire so to do.

If we were a strong Government we might, and ought to do this--to

enact that every Romish priest, having sworn obedience to a foreign

potentate, has so far renounced his allegiance to his lawful sovereign,

and therefore should be subject to a registration, and, with some

limitation, be considered an alien.

We might abrogate "Catholic Emancipation," seeing that it was a

compact broken by one of the contracting parties. But although we

believe all this would be just and fair, and safe, and that one day

or other--after, perhaps, frightful rebellions--it will be done, it

is nearly certain we cannot do it now. The whole system of government

is on another principle--it is called a "Liberal" one. It is that of

reconciling to you those of whose dispositions you cannot be certain,

if they will be reconciled; and you renounce the government of fear,

of which you may be certain, and for which you need but consult your

own breast. There is no general liberty where even comparatively a few

evil-doers have no fear. The Government has put itself in the position

in which it can scarcely do anything that is not mischievous; for

if effectual suppression is out of the question, there is only left

a something to do which will satisfy none, and will irritate beyond

measure the Roman Catholics in Ireland. We can only look to a future

day for the registration of the priesthood, and allowing them defined

rights, and the imposing restrictions, by which they shall no longer

denounce from altars and preach rebellion.

There are other evils, likewise, attending this hierarchy introduction,

which require immediate remedy--the evil of their convents and

nunneries. These are the real instruments of the Papal tyranny. How

are they increasing! In 1847 there were in this country thirty-four

convents--in 1848, thirty-eight; and in 1851, fifty-three.

The country is demanding, and well it might, a legal inspection of

these houses. It cannot be borne that young inexperienced women of

the most tender age, with the common feelings of nature undeveloped,

ignorant alike of themselves and the world, should be entrapped,

imprisoned in these so-called religious houses, perhaps for life,

and their properties seized for the benefit of these religious

establishments. Who knows anything of the inmates? If they are

miserable, they are shut out from the notice of the world, which is

ignorant of their lives and of their deaths--how they live or how they

die--in regrets, in a repentance they believe sinful--broken-hearted.

The recent disclosures, coming as they do unexpectedly, not as things

got up, appear providential, offering, as they do a most wholesome

check, as well as creating abhorrence, disgust, and, an active enmity

to the whole system. These disclosures have not been without their

effect on those who have seemed inclined to look upon the Romish Church

not unfavourably.

In the case of Miss Talbot, is there one person concerned in that

affair that does not appear implicated in a plot--from the bigotry of

Lord and Lady Shrewsbury, to the perpetrations of the so-called Bishop

of Clifton? Dr Hendren, unfit as he is to be the bishop of any church,

is also a weak and vulgar-minded man--and from his weakness we learn

something worth remembering. He avows that the Romish Church wants

money; and his own letters show what methods, or rather what arts, are

to be used to obtain it. That case is too well known to need farther

comment now. We wish we could think Miss Talbot still protected. This

is but one case out of many. The case of the two young women of the

Black Rock convent tells the same story. They were, it was given in

evidence, as much compelled to sign away their property as if a pistol

had been held to their heads.

Money must be obtained for the Romish Church, and the end justifies the

means. No sum is too small, and no large sum large enough. In the case

of Carré, the poor man did not even receive that for which he had paid.

The deed signed, he was suffered to die without the last offices. What

does Mr Newdegate say of his own neighbourhood, in his place in the

House?

"In his own neighbourhood there were convents, too many. From

one of them, some years ago, a nun escaped. Unfortunately

she was taken back. What did they know farther of that

woman? Nothing: except that within a week afterwards fifteen

hundredweight of iron stanchions were put up to barricade the

windows, and convert the place into a perfect prison. Women

entered there--they died. There was no account of their illness

or their death. No coroner's inquest was held. They were

utterly shut out from light and life, and, he would add, from

the protection of the law."

We venture to extract a case from a Hereford paper, because the writer

received the narration, as will be seen, from the best testimony:--

"We know a case where a young lady of wealth became an inmate

of one of these 'Religious Houses.' It was here in England. She

had not been so long, ere she began to write home for money for

purposes of charity. Her requests were complied with at first,

not unwillingly; subsequently, as the requests became more

frequent, and in larger sums, with reluctance. At length the

amount became so considerable, that her friends became uneasy,

and felt it right that her guardian and trustee should have an

interview with her, and remonstrate on the extent to which she

was impoverishing herself. He did so, and discovered that not

one shilling of the money had reached her. The applications

were all forgeries. Apparently they were in her hand-writing;

she knew nothing whatever of them! This, of course, led to a

searching inquiry, which every endeavour was made to baffle;

but the trustee was resolute. It turned out that one of the

sisters in the nunnery was an adept at imitating handwriting,

as was another in worming out of all new-comers the amount

and particulars of their property. Between them--it is not

difficult to understand how--the pillage was effected. What

became of the money so obtained we know not. But the worst

remains to be told. In order to save the character(!) of the

superior, and of the establishment, the poor girl was prevailed

upon--how and by whom may be imagined--to _adopt_ the whole.

There was, of course, an end of the investigation, and of the

affair. The young lady became a nun herself, and is so, we

believe, at this moment. Her guardian and trustee is a merchant

of eminence in the city of London. We have given the facts as

narrated by himself."

This case is so like others, that it may be said, without much reserve,

_Ex uno disce omnes_. "Faith is not to be kept with heretics." Even

saints of the Romish Church have declared that a lie may be, and ought

to be, told for the good of the Church. Such maxim may be found in the

works of the canonised Ligouri. We give Cardinal Wiseman credit for

a high moral character, and learn that he is much esteemed; but we

cannot acquit him of a _suppressio veri_, in a statement made recently

by him, that the children of the person who had bequeathed (to him,

we believe) a considerable sum for purposes of the advancement of the

Romish religion, were _in possession of the property_. Now it was not

even quite true, for they were only in possession of a _life-interest_

in the property. Suppose the property to be £3000 per annum, what is

_the property_ of a life-interest, and what of the reversion? Whoever

was in possession of the value of the reversion, was in possession of

the larger amount. The children, therefore, were not in possession

of the property. It is absolutely necessary that Mortmain should be

applied to bequests of this nature. The item of purgatory in the Roman

Catholic creed is too potent upon the fears of the dying, when weakness

of body and of mind aids those fears, in providing, by bequests, a

release from purgatorial pains. But there are legacies, gifts, or

confiscations of another kind that must be looked to. The property of

all who enter monasteries or convents for life should pass, excepting

an annual portion, to the immediate relatives; in case of none, to the

Crown. This would be a merciful provision, for it would be the surest

protection, perhaps the only one. It is the temptation to possess

their property which makes nuns. We are here supposing monasteries and

nunneries still allowed to exist, and vows to be taken. But we confess

we have another view. There are "illegal" oaths, and laws provided to

take severe cognisance of them. It may be doubtful if there is not a

treason against oneself, that ought to be illegal, as there is against

a sovereign or a government. To take the vow of celibacy, of perpetual

virginity, is a treason against nature, and against the first law of

our Creator. It is a suicidal vow, and should be considered a crime;

and we believe it would be sound legislation, though suiting not some

notions of religious liberty, to put a stop at once to these vows in

England. At all events, it is not according to civil liberty that

either parents or guardians, or parties themselves, should be allowed

permanently to bind their conscience down, and to inflict or to submit

to a perpetual imprisonment, from which there is no possible subsequent

escape.

It should be no matter of surprise if Christians, whatever be their

denomination, unite in endeavouring to resist this growth of a power

sworn to put down, to persecute to the utmost, as heretics and rebels,

all who submit not in obedience to the Pope. "Cunningly devised"

indeed must be that system which has, most unfortunately, shown itself

to be a potent charm, working in the minds of too many of the clergy

of the Church of England. We cannot imagine by what arguments they

have been persuaded, either by themselves or others. It would seem

to be impossible that they could bring themselves to forsake _their_

first, and _the_ first, Christianity, as restored at the Reformation,

for the adoption of impostures so transparent, were it not that it

often happens that the mind, bewildered in the fever of controversial

curiosity, and wearied by the multiplicity and oscillation of its own

thoughts, yields itself up, in despair of finding a solution of its

own, to the name of an authority which promises rest from restless

thought, and permanent quiet of conscience.

And yet we know not whether this aggression, even in the mischief it

has done, may not in the end prove our strength. Under Providence,

we may find in it a provocation to watch and guard more jealously

the foundations of our Christian faith. It has led, and will further

lead, to a full exposure of the Romish errors. They cannot escape the

scrutiny of an inquiring world; and thus, even at the moment of its

insolence and boasted triumph, the Popish religion may receive in

this country a blow which may damage it in every part of Europe, and

possibly precipitate it to its downfall. But it must no longer have a

Government encouragement; that which has been given to it has, though

not so intended, sufficed to evidence its character. It can never be

trusted. If there had never been heresies, the pure faith might have

been less a living principle. They have practically led to putting into

effect and practice the divine command to "search the Scriptures." It

is the will of Providence to bring good out of evil. Denial of false

doctrines has been the illustration of the true. Received as Popery

is now in this country, with, to the Papists, an unexpected hatred,

with an undying suspicion, and manifested as it has been in some of

its most offensive doings, it will indeed be our fault if it receive

not more than discouragement--a combativeness which shall shake it

to its foundation. Even now a wondrous change is taking place in all

Roman Catholic countries. The Infallible is derided, some fall into the

Protestant ranks, and, as a natural consequence of a long maintenance

of superstitious errors, multitudes sink into utter infidelity. But in

the British dominions a happier change is being effected. What are the

few converts to Rome, of bewildered and dreaming ecclesiastics, to the

large, the wholesale abandonment in Ireland of the Romish doctrines?

The Pope and his cardinals cannot there any longer keep the Scriptures

from the people, and they are sensible of the bondage in which they

have been held. Perhaps this is one cause of the insolent endeavour to

establish their hierarchy. The priesthood and the Roman Catholic press,

with a double object--the keeping up their religion and rebellion--yet

uniting in one purpose, see that any movement is more safe to them than

peace, which is weakening their hold, and confirming the strength and

power over the people's minds of the religion of the Reformation.

Under these circumstances, in that country particularly, it is most

unadvisable to allow any new position to the Papal power. Let it

have no quasi-State authority, which our Government of late years

has laboured to give it. Allow fully religious liberty, but mark

distinctly where religious liberty terminates, and falls into a civil

incompatibility. Allow not an inch of ground to the anomalous mixture,

a divided allegiance. Exact strictly that allegiance, whole and

undivided, without which civil liberty is endangered. If there be any

doctrine in a religion subversive of that, those who hold it ought to

be content with the liberty of holding it, but they must be content

also with restrictions which civil liberty demands. Popery can only

gain strength two ways--by positive persecution, and by indifference

as to its movements. By the latter it is gaining strength at this

day in France. The Church has been shaken off by the State; the mass

of religionists, therefore, are become thoroughly ultra-montane, and

acknowledge no authority but that of Rome. Persecution, we trust, will

never be the law of England, until, if this shall ever be, Romanism

prevails; and, to prevent so dire a calamity, restriction should be our

law.

We have not, as some do, spoken exultingly of our "Protestantism"

through any doubt of the thing; for as in opposition to Rome we are

thoroughly Protestant, we protest most solemnly against all its

unscriptural tenets--against its worse than tenets, its insidious

doings, and its innate incurable tyranny; but we confess we are shy

of the unnecessary use of a term which gives, and has ever given,

them a handle of advantage. It allows them to ask, "Where was your

religion before Luther?" as if we should admit that Christianity began

with Protestantism, and not with the Scriptures themselves, and the

appointment of our only one infallible Head. Nay, we might fairly

retort upon them, that if they will take the word, which we object

not to in itself, in this sense, we have the best right to throw it

back upon themselves; for theirs is the law of development--a law

of perpetual change, a law of continual protest against themselves,

against their doctrines of yesterday--protest against the doctrines of

the Apostles, protest against the Universal Church's teaching before

Popery was, protest against its own Popery at different times--it is

a protest against what it establishes to-day as that which may be

legitimately uprooted to-morrow. And this is what the "Unchanging" is

doing by his infallibility. "The faith delivered to the saints" is not

with the Papacy one faith; there is but one faith, the dictum of the

one present Infallible--the Pope of Rome. By this they protest against

their own best men, and most learned theologians, who have strenuously

contended against this their law of development. What pen could put

down a historical catalogue of all the "Roman variations," which yet

they are pleased to call "one truth?"

The _Index Expurgatorius_ is a curious document: it shows how the

Infallible deals with authorities; what variations he makes--what

subtractions and what additions. That made known by Zetsner, 1599,

contains some curious specimens. The Roman Church did not _publish_

this, but sent it to the prelates, to be by them distributed to a few

fit--"_quos idoneos judicabunt_"--bibliopoles. Thus the Pope will alter

these words of St Augustine: "Faith only justifies," "Works cannot save

us," "Marriage is allowed to all," "Peter erred in unclean meats," "St

John cautions us against the invocation of saints." The holy Bishop

(says the Church of Rome) must be corrected in all these places. St

Chrysostom teaches that "Christ forbids heretics to be put to death;"

that "to adore martyrs is antichristian;" that "the reading of

Scripture is needful to all;" that "there is no merit but from Christ;"

that it is "a proud thing to detract from or add to Scripture;" that

"bishops and priests are subject to the higher powers;" that the

"prophets had wives." The venerable patriarch must be freed from all

these heretical notions. Epiphanius affirms that "no creature is to

be worshipped;" this is an error, and must be expunged. St Jerome

asserts that "all bishops are equal;" he must be here amended. Such,

and others of subtraction and addition, are the directions _secretly_

and authoritatively given by the Roman Church to the venders and

publishers of books. Nor let any be deluded by the idea that there is

no _Index Expurgatorius_ now. These are doings, not of a time, but of a

continuation, as an inherent necessity of the Roman Church; which must,

to keep its position, thus treat authority, whether of the Primitive

Church, or of the Scriptures themselves. The above passages are taken

by Dr Wordsworth from the _Index Expurgatorius_.

But this ever-variable Infallibility, which discovered purgatory at

the time of the discovery of America, as if practically, by cruel

inflictions, to show what its torments might be; this boasted one, yet

ever-varying Infallibility, has, under Pope Pio Nino, now at length

developed a new doctrine--not new, indeed, in invention, for it was

mooted at the Council of Trent, and set aside as uncertain by that

"certain" council, but new as an established authoritative dogma--the

"immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary." It is no longer true, in

the Roman Catholic belief, that there was but "one sinless." There is

now a new exception; it is now no longer a truth that, Christ excepted,

"the Scripture hath concluded _all_ under sin." The Virgin Mary was,

as the infallible present Pope decrees, born without sin; she was

miraculously, immaculately conceived; and hence, what follows? Awful to

contemplate is this most recently received dogma. She has an altar to

her by the side of that to God the Father. The Roman Catholic Church is

no longer Trinitarian--it is Quaternian; it sets up a Quaternity for

that glorious Trinity, "three persons and one God." And where is all

this development to end? Doubtless, it is in the wisdom above man's,

that, like the serpent that was devoured by his own brood, it should be

ultimately destroyed by its own inventions; for it makes "the Scripture

of none effect" by its traditions and developments.

But to return to the present aspect of things, and the position of

the Papal aggression. It will not do to leave the Roman Catholics

the power of holding synods, and thereby doing such work as the

legate, a member of the Pope's Council, shall dictate; and, at the

same time, to fetter the Church of England, which has her legitimate

Parliaments only as a mockery--to ordain that all religious bodies

shall be free, and the Church of England not free. It is well known

that there is a disposition, not confined to a few, to Germanise her

Liturgy according to the rationalistic principle; and that advantage

is taken of this aggression to promote that end. The movement for this

object is on foot: without doubt, it is joined by many who do not see

these ulterior views, and believe they can put down thereby practices

which seem to lean to Rome, and there stop. They will have no such

power. The majority in this movement are desirous of destroying all

creeds--in fact, of repudiating the Church. It is well known that

there is something very like a conspiracy to bring about this change

in Established religion (originating in Germany) in every country.

It is about five years ago since a great metropolitan municipal body

addressed a memorial to the Sovereign of Prussia upon his throne,

embodying principles which still, under the name of Christianity, are

subversive of all Christian doctrines. They are, in fact, principles

which make every man his own God. His own mind is Christianity--and is

infallible. The divine authority of Scripture is ignored. They speak of

the "Spirit of Christ," but only as a principle within their own minds;

and that principle as the "Church." They, too, adopt the development

theory--

"She finds in her foundation and in her history the clue that

conducts her through the labyrinth of human error, and the

_rule of the development of her doctrine_. Christianity renews

itself in the human heart, and follows the development of the

human mind, and invests itself with new forms of thought and

language, and adopts new systems of church-organisation, to

which it gives expression and life. The _Scriptures_ and the

creeds are the witnesses of _ancient_ Christendom. Being,

however, the _works_ of _men_, they express the faith of _men_;

and their form bears the impress of the time in which they were

made. It is not in _them_ that absolute truth resides, but it

is in the _spirit_ of truth, holiness, and love, which animates

mankind. He who revealed Himself to the world by the authors of

the Scriptures, is _in us_, and _by us_. He interprets the same

Scriptures, and judges of their truth."

Thus, according to this really atheistical disgusting verbiage,

Christianity is a myth, "within us" and "by us." And we ask if

Protestantism--the Protestantism of the Reformation, or the

Protestantism after the Reformation, as it now exists in the Church of

England or Scotland, or in sects of any Christian denomination--would

not shrink with horror from a proposal to substitute this blasphemous

farrago for the creeds, liturgies, and services in established use?

We have ventured upon this, it may be thought, delicate ground,

because we think it intimately connected with this Papal aggression,

and with modes of dealing with it. The Rationalistic aggression would

be the most intolerant. It has a mortal hatred to creeds. It is of

the Philosophy which, in the French Revolution, massacred priests and

demolished churches. It claims its own infallibility, and would make

it subservient to a tyranny. It would be as dominant as the Papacy,

and denounce its heretics. If there be any that have a confidence in

present times and present _liberality_, and believe that none of these

things can come to pass in our country, we would only refer them to a

few lines in the page of our recent history, wherein may be read that a

furious mob centred itself from all parts in one of the most important

cities of the kingdom, attempted to burn down the cathedral, did burn

and tear and trample on the Bible, and burnt to the ground the bishop's

palace, and eagerly sought the bishop's life.

"The _holiness_," and even the "_love_," "within us," that is not

of the Christianity of the Scriptures, is an absolute deceit and

falsehood; and will ever be, in operation, the most selfish cruelty.

It is an audacious impiety in man to claim infallibility: "_humanum est

errare_." Rationalism and Popery are above humanity. What Cicero said

of the smile, when augur meets augur, it may be thought may take place

when the Pope meets his confessor. For the Infallible confesses--what?

There is but one infallible, the one Head of the Church which He made.

He has given an infallible guide--the Holy Scriptures--all-sufficient,

and which require no "development" to interpret them.

Upwards of five centuries ago, the great poet of Italy spared not the

expression of his indignation against Popes, monkeries, and their

mercenary distribution of "blessings," "pardons," and "indulgences,"

that fatten, as he terms them, the "swine of St Anthony." He refers all

true doctrine to the directions given by the only Infallible, and as

taught by the primitive Church.

"Non disse Christo al suo primo convento

Andate, e predicate al mondo ciance.

Ma diede lor verace fondamento."

"Christ said not to his first conventicle

Go forth, and preach impostures to the world,

But gave them sure foundation."

And, a few lines after, he speaks contemptuously of the mummery, and

promises, pardons, and buffooneries of the Popish preachers of those

days; and adds that, if the gaping populace could but see "the dark

bird that nestles in the hood," they would "scarce wait to hear the

blessing said."

THE BOOK OF THE FARM.[8]

[8] _The Book of the Farm._ By HENRY STEPHENS, F.R.S.E. Second Edition.

2 vols. 8vo. Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London: 1851.

There are some things of which a traitorous Parliament cannot deprive

the agriculturist. His is the only industrial occupation that can be

said to possess a literature of its own--a literature at once ancient,

varied, extensive, and curious. In the Augustan era, the Romans could

number upwards of fifty Greek authors who had contributed to illustrate

the practice and science of agriculture; and we know, with much

greater precision, how important a niche agriculture occupies in the

existing library of ancient Rome. The curious and quaint lore of Cato

the elder--the three works of Varro, the ripest scholar of his age,

and evidently the very model of an accomplished Roman gentleman--the

minute details of Columella--and the various but somewhat apocryphal

information scattered throughout the writings of Pliny, with many

lesser luminaries who have written _de re Rusticâ_, abundantly indicate

the importance which the Romans, in the most brilliant era of their

history, attached to the study and practice of agriculture. But in

a literary aspect the poems of Virgil better demonstrate, than the

professional writers just named, how deeply the love of agriculture

was cherished by the finest intellects of classic antiquity. In the

most original productions of his immortal muse, Virgil has embellished

with the charms of divine poesy the arts of rural economy, and the

habits of rural life. What other _toil_ of weary mortals has genius

enshrined in imperishable verse? Nay, what other industrial calling

could wake the inspirations of genius? "The textile fabrics," as they

are somewhat pedantically called, are now in the zenith of their

popularity; but is Jute poetical, or is Calico propitious to the Muses?

The Budge Doctors of the economic school will smile at the question.

Although not embraced in their philosophy, it may nevertheless be an

important feature in the occupation of a people that it furnishes

meet themes to the poet's fancy, and is in harmony with the purer

sympathies of the human soul. In such an avocation it may be inferred

that there can be nothing innately vulgar or mean, nothing ancillary

to low vice and coarse immorality. The ancient Romans seem to have

thought that agriculture was the only profession in which a gentleman

could engage without suffering degradation. The sentiment is still

prevalent; and the professor of the _Literæ Humaniores_ may yet betake

himself to his Sabine farm without sullying the honour of the ancient

dynasty of letters. One Roman writer speaks of husbandry as an art

noble enough to occupy the attention of kings; and to this day we seem

ready to acquiesce in the opinion. The Prince Consort fitly employs a

leisure hour in observing the processes of agriculture carried on at

the home-farm of Windsor; but the national taste would probably not

allow it to be a regal employment to watch the spinning of cotton or

the printing of calico. The Roman authors duly appreciated the moral

influences which the employment of husbandry exerted on the mind.

_Omnium rerum, ex quibus aliquid acquiritur, nihil est Agriculturâ

melius, nihil uberius, nihil dulcius, nihil homine libero dignius._

And Ceres, according to the poet, _prima dedit leges_. This was indeed

the doctrine of the more ancient Greek writers; and the object of the

Eleusinian mysteries seems mainly to have been intended to represent

the importance of agriculture as the handmaid of civilisation. The mind

insensibly catches a hue and complexion from the natural objects with

which it is conversant, and the beautiful in nature may be friendly to

the beautiful in morals.

.... "The soul

At length discloses every tuneful spring,

To that harmonious movement from without

Responsive."

The peaceful employments of the husbandman, and his daily converse with

nature in her gentler as well as more solemn moods, can scarcely fail

to be favourable to devotional feeling, and to the milder and more

amiable virtues. Although this must be a matter of infinitely small

moment to those in whose estimation the _summum bonum_ of human life

consists "in buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest,"

yet a wise statesman might not be uninfluenced by such a consideration

in cherishing a branch of national industry--of vital moment, no doubt,

in its economic results, but so peculiarly propitious to the growth

of the peaceful and patriotic virtues, to the rearing of a virtuous

peasantry, and of brave and loyal yeomen, who in every peril have

proved the thews and sinews of the commonwealth. Although the statesmen

of the Augustan age correctly appreciated the importance of agriculture

as the surest basis of national prosperity, yet the neglect of

husbandry, and the consequent dependence of the people for their daily

food on imported grain, which occurred at an after period, largely

contributed to the decay of the Roman empire. The history of ancient

Attica reads us a similar lesson. The Athenian farmers, anticipating

the recommendation of Sir James Graham, devoted their attention more

to pasturage than agriculture. The necessary result was an immense

importation of corn to provide for the subsistence of a population

unusually numerous and dense. Demosthenes tells us that the quantity

of corn annually imported from the Crimea alone amounted to 400,000

_medimni_--a _medimnus_ containing about four of our bushels; and

the peril of such stipendiary reliance for the staple article of the

people's food on the caprice of neighbouring, or, it may be, hostile

states, was bitterly experienced by the Athenians, and precipitated

the crisis in which Grecian freedom and Grecian glory sank overwhelmed

never to revive. But history has been written in vain for our modern

statesmen, who are infinitely too wise to be instructed by the monitory

lessons in the art of government which may be derived from the decline

and fall of Greek and Roman greatness.

Without stopping to trace the history of British Agriculture, we

venture to offer an opinion which we believe will be acquiesced in

by those most familiar with the subject--that, while modern times

have contributed not a little to our knowledge of the principles and

theory of agriculture, they have done infinitely more to advance the

improvement of the practice of agriculture.[9] We say so, without at

all intending to disparage the discoveries of Chemistry and Vegetable

Physiology. From these sources we expect much more important services,

in advancing the art of husbandry, than certainly they have ever yet

rendered.

[9] Those acquainted with the writings of Tull, Arthur Young, Marshall,

and Elkington, must know that, although not exempt from errors, they

evolved the leading principles of a right agriculture. Indeed, we would

seem almost to be recovering only the lost principles and practices of

the Roman farmers of old. They seem to have known the mode of manuring

ground by penning sheep upon it--nay, what will astonish Mr Mechi,

they practised the plan of feeding them in warm and sheltered places

with sloping and carefully prepared floors, upon barley and leguminous

seeds, hay, bran, and salt. They knew the advantage of a complete

pulverisation of the soil, and the necessity of deep ploughing. Their

drainage was deep, and if Palladius does not mislead us, they seem

in certain cases to have employed earthenware or tile-drains. But

to those who wish to know more of Roman husbandry, and who may not

have leisure or opportunity to consult the originals, we have great

pleasure in recommending Professor Ramsay's (of Glasgow) paper entitled

"Agricultura," in the last edition of _Smith's Dictionary of Greek and

Roman Antiquities_,--an admirable specimen of condensed erudition.