don, we should entertain much hope for our country. Some months still remain for preparation,-may not a few such men be

found?

Since the above was written, we have received the most positive assurances, from the lips of one whom we know to be in daily communication with, and to enjoy the confidence of, men in the highest departments of the State,-that, in spite of the assurances of Lord John Russell, the terms of an arrangement are actually settled, and have received the approval of Mr. Daniel O'Connell on the one side, and of Sir Robert Peel on the other,-by which the establishment of the Romish priests in Ireland, mainly out of the revenues of the Establishment, but partly by a new charge upon the land,-is fully determined on. But the whole matter is meant to be kept a profound secret, until the ensuing general election of 1847 shall have given the Government a House of Commons prepared to support such a plan.

Our informant is positive as to the existence of such a compact, and we, on our part, know him to be in a position to be well acquainted with the real views and intentions of the Government.

The danger, then, is no longer a matter of possibility, or distant conjecture. It is immediately before us ;-and, upon re-examining Lord John Russell's late disclaimer, we really find nothing in it, to prevent him from coming forward with such a plan, whenever the country, by returning a liberal house of Commons, shall enable him to assert with a show of truth, that the public voice is no longer opposed to such an arrangement.

66

Hence, we may safely repeat Sir Culling Smith's words, and say, "the Prime Minister tells you distinctly, that his intentions "about Romanism depend upon the feelings of the country. He specifies, indeed, certain ecclesiastical bodies as being generally opposed to his plan, and says that he will wait for their change "of mind. But what will be his test of change. Will he be "influenced by the opinion of the pulpits? Will he listen to the "Christian firesides? Did he not neglect both when Maynooth "was under discussion? No, gentlemen, the hustings is the "only test of which Lord John Russell will take cognizance." But how are we to be prepared to meet him at the hustings, or to return, at the next election, a body of representatives fully prepared to withstand any such attempt.

We frankly avow our conviction, that the Christians of these kingdoms are not so prepared at this moment; and that if the general election shall surprise us in our present state of distraction and division, Lord John will obtain a parliament suited

to his views, and the deed,—now only postponed from fear, will be perpetrated.

Every election that has taken place within the last twelve months, -from that of Southwark down to that of Edinburgh, confirms us in these views. Nowhere has the protest against any and every endowment of Popery, been effectually maintained. Nowhere has there been seen, that union of parties,-that earnestness upon this one point, which is essential to our success. Supposing matters to remain in this state, it is certain that the plan already referred to, as formed and agreed upon, will ultimately be carried

out.

But what is the union of parties which we desiderate, and by which, and by which only, the intentions of the Government may be defeated?

It is such an union as would bring all the Church Protestants of Edinburgh to aid in the election of Sir Culling Smith, and all the Dissenting Protestants of Liverpool to aid in the election of the candidate started by the Liverpool Protestant Association. Shall we be told, that this is unreasonable, and not to be expected. We reply, that whether is to be expected or not, we cannot tell,but that we are quite sure that it is reasonable, and ought to be adopted by both parties.

We begin with the Churchmen: and we ask them,-why, in Edinburgh, or in Finsbury, or in any other constituency of liberal character, and where the candidate elected must be liberal,-why should they not throw all their weight into that scale which may return a Christian Protestant, like Sir Culling Smith, and exclude a latitudinarian like Mr. Macaulay?

The Edinburgh Churchmen generally stood aloof, because they disagreed with Sir Culling Smith, on the necessity and lawfulness of establishments. Thus, on account of differences which affect no question now at issue,-they withheld their support from one who agreed with them on that question which is at issue. As to the standing of the Church Establishments of these kingdoms, that would not be affected in the slightest degree by the return of a score of Voluntaries like Sir Culling Smith. The tendency of public men, at the present moment, is so strongly opposed to Voluntaryism, that they are far more likely to give us a dozen new Establishments, than to pull down the old ones. Hence, Churchmen can well afford to be tolerant on these points. They may look leniently on Sir Culling Smith's Voluntaryism believing that it will do little harm, and preferring it to Mr. Macaulay's friendship for Popery, which may do much harm.

And now we turn to the Dissenters, and we say to them, are

you ready to vote for a Sir Robert Inglis, in preference to a Sir William Molesworth, and if not, why not?

Some of you will say, there is a world of difference between our views and those of Sir Robert Inglis,-while between our principles and those of Sir William Molesworth, there is a general agreement.

But we must urge upon you the same practical consideration, which we just now pressed upon the notice of men holding our own opinions. Are you not placing matters which are not now under discussion, irrationally before questions which are urgent. Say that Sir William Molesworth is "liberal,"--of what practical import is that phrase at the present moment? You have a "liberal" Government at the present moment;-and what are the first measures which you may expect from it? In all probability, Endowment of Popery will be the first, and a State Education, the second. Surely it is abundantly evident that all the old questions are at an end, the old names and phrases worn out. You have obtained "Reform" and "Free Trade." There is no contest on any of these points. Church matters are now coming into the first place, and surely you may perceive, without much difficulty, that the "liberal" opinions now fashionable in Parliament, are opinions tending to a general endowment,-not to the abolition. of endowments altogether.

In this state of the case, surely it is unreasonable in the last degree, to be governed by names and phrases belonging to a bygone state of things. The one question which is rapidly coming on, is, the endowment of Popery. Oppose that, when you can, by your own candidates, and on your own principles. But when this is not possible, do not be deluded into supporting a man who is disposed to establish and endow Popery, merely because he passes by the name of "liberal.”

A LETTER TO THE REV. W. F. HOOK, D.D., Vicar of Leeds, on his proposed plan for the Education of the People. By the Rev. RICHARD BURGESS, B.D., Rector of Upper Chelsea. London: Hatchards. 1846.

THIS succinct but most conclusive reply to Dr. Hook reached us just as the present number was going to press,-but we cannot allow the opportunity to pass, without snatching a few of the best things in the pamphlet, and transferring them to our pages.

Dr. Hook's Letter, startling and astonishing every one as it did, was, like most of Dr. Hook's productions, rather "overdone." Mr. Burgess plainly tells him,

"In your zeal to make out a crying case for government interference, you have committed two faults; you have sought to depreciate both the number and efficacy of Church schools, and you have very much exaggerated our educational wants."-(p. 4.)

Dr. Hook, in his usual magnificent style, had demanded "eight millions and a half for building schools;-and an annual sum of £1,141, 571, besides voluntary subscriptions, for the support of these schools when built.

Mr. Burgess thus shews him the excessive character of this demand:

"I now come to show how you have, in your zeal for securing Government assistance, exaggerated our educational deficiency. You think it will be admitted on all hands, that there ought to be a school in every district capable of accommodating scholars in proportion of one in six of the population!' and upon this economistical fiction you proceed to found all your estimates and educational statistics. In three little cantons of Switzerland somebody ascertained in 1832, that the proportion of scholars in elementary schools to the whole population was about one in five, and in some of the German states they boasted of one in six, until the calculation reached Austria, and then (in 1832) it was one in ten; in England we were set down at one in eleven and a half, and Russia figured in the last degree of ignorance, as one to three hundred and sixty-seven. These tables have been handed about ever since; and they are the patent materials for periodical attacks upon the comparative ignorance of our population, both in parliamentary debate and in Letters on Education: it turns out, however, upon a more careful inquiry, that one in six must be left to the dreams of the economist, and practical men find that they must be content with one in ten. In Prussia, where all is perfection in these matters, the golden proportion fails. In 1838 it was ascertained that the proportion in Berlin, was one in ten; in Breslau, one in nine; in Cologne, with Deuz, one in eight; in Konigsberg, one in nine; in Danzig, one in eleven; in Magdeburg, one in eight; in Elberfeld, with Barmen, one in seven; in Aix-la-Chapelle; one in thirteen; in Posen, one in thirteen; in Stettin, one in ten,-that is to say, in the large towns in Prussia, taking them of all descriptions, the proportion of children at school to the population, averaged in 1838 nine eight-tenths, and this in a country where the means of giving private education only provide for two out of fifteen children. In our country the number of parents who can provide education for their children

is far greater in proportion than any country on the Continent; and what is more, English parents (it may be a mistaken pride, but let it be their praise) will not avail themselves of elemosynary or public elementary schools, if they can at all afford to educate their children at private schools. I believe it may be shown (and I think I have shown it) that one-third of the children of this country of an age to go to school, are educated at the expense of their parents; and after this to propose to make provision for one in six of our population in elementary or government schools, is almost to throw ridicule upon the whole subject. Indeed you seem to have discovered the fallacy of this estimate before you got through your letter; for, after giving us four or five pages of arithmetic, and frightening the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a demand for £8,312,500, you relieve both your readers and budget by turning over a new leaf, and without losing your balance, you say, Let one in eight be adopted.' But why should not I say as I said in 1842, let one in ten be adopted. Let us take the proportion of the large towns in the model country of Prussia; for, to use the words of the official gentlemen who published the government measures in 1839, The interference with primary instruction in towns, occasioned by the early employment of children in the manufactories, by the less settled habits of the population, and by other causes, is greater than in the country;' and this interference with us occurs in the great majority of our working population. Until you can devise some measures to keep children at school beyond the ages of eleven or even ten years, it is in vain to talk-I do not say of one in six, but one in eight; and however it may serve as a subject for declamation, or for assaults upon societies, or for provoking statesmen to jealousy, no practical man will dream in our country, until there be a complete revolution in our social economy, of seeing more than one-tenth part of our towns' population in our elementary schools at one time. Instead, therefore, of presuming, as you have done, that 2,660,000 children would be in attendance on elementary or public schools, which is theoretical, I would presume to reduce the number by something more than one million. Taking our population of England and Wales at 16,000,000, the number of children for which school accommodation should be provided is 1,600,000; if that number were in actual daily attendance, it would imply that nearly 2,000,000 were under instruction; perhaps a few infant schools might supplement the deficiency. If our population increases at the rate of 365,000 in the year, let that be met by a proportionate increase of schools as the day requires.

"What then, according to this estimate of our educational deficiency, is there yet to be provided? If there be already one million of scholars at the least in connexion with the Church, and 100,000 (I speak of daily scholars only) in dissenters' schools, all we want at present is a provision for an additional half a million, and I am of opinion that such a provision might be made without disturbing the present system either of the National Society or the Committee of Privy Council on Education."-(pp. 8—12.)

Dr. Hook's new notions of high-churchamanship are thus glanced at.

"The opinions you have put forth with respect to the Established Church are not singular, they are propounded in our Senate, and in our public meetings, by men who have advocated them all their lives. But the wonder of all bishops, priests, and deacons, including the lay members of the National Society's committee is, that they should ever have been put forth by a 'high churchman.' I never knew before what a high churchman was; it never occurred to me, who have no pretensions to that designation, that the Church of England ought only to be looked upon as one of the many corporations of the country,' and that it stood, with respect to the State, upon the same footing as the Lord Mayor and Corporation of London! I have always looked upon it as the Church of England, established according to the laws of God

6