him during the closing years of life with the necessary comforts. Since that time, Mrs. Gisburne has had to struggle with difficulties and most painful disappointments. Four of her children have, after long periods of sickness, died. One of them, a young man of great worth and promise, had, at considerable cost, been educated as a surgeon. Had his life been spared, Mrs. Gisburne would have had a home for the rest of her days. But, after successfully establishing a practice in the neighbourhood of London, Mr. Theophilus Gisburne fell into a consumption, and died at Hastings at the close of the year 1838. By this distressing event, all the plans and hopes of Mrs. Gisburne's friends were frustrated. After providing for the support of the family since 1822, and furnishing the means of an expensive professional education to her son Theophilus, little of the fund remained. The whole of it is exhausted, and had it not been for large advances made by the late Rev. Robert Aspland (not far short of £300), Mrs. Gisburne must have before this suffered want. It was, probably, Mr. Aspland's intention to make a fresh appeal to the Unitarian body in behalf of the destitute widow of his friend. But this purpose (if entertained) was, through Mr. Aspland's long and severe illness, not effected. The executors of Mr. Aspland give up every claim they may have on Mrs. Gisburne for sums advanced by him. This is stated, in order that the public may know that whatever contributions are given will be applied exclusively to Mrs. Gisburne's support. She is now 64 years of age, and in a very bad state of health. Not one of her four surviving children is in circumstances to undertake her support. Without the immediate aid of friends, she must be exposed to the miseries of penury as well as sickness in her old age. A comparatively small sum (say two hundred pounds) would purchase for her an annuity on which she could decently subsist. The aid of individuals, and of charitable societies and fellowship funds, is earnestly implored. Whatever subscriptions are received, will be acknowledged in this work. They may be paid to any one of the following gentlemen:

Mr. HORWOOD, Unitarian Association
Rooms, London.

Mr. SYDNEY ASPLAND, Lamb Build-
ings, Temple.

Mr. RICHARD ASPDEN, Mosley St.,
Manchester.

Rev. W. CLACK, Soham.
Rev. R. BROOK ASPLAND, Dukinfield,

near Ashton-under-Lyne.

The produce of this appeal will be expended or invested in such way as

may appear most conducive to the welfare of Mrs. Gisburne, under the direction of Rev. William Clack and Rev. R. Brook Aspland.

Manchester New College.

It is with very great regret we announce the intended resignation, at the close of the present session, by Professor Wallace, of the Chair of Theology. At a meeting of the General Committee of the College, held subsequently to the announcement of Mr. Wallace's intention, the following resolution was unanimously passed:

"That the Committee receive with deep regret the announcement of Mr. Wallace's intention to resign the office of Professor of Theology and Principal of the Theological Department, at the close of the present session, and sincerely lament that the state of his health should be the cause.

"The Committee beg leave to bear their willing and grateful testimony to the most efficient and admirable manner in which the duties of his office have been discharged by Mr. Wallace, and would respectfully convey their earnest wishes for his future happiness and usefulness."

A Special Committee was at the same time appointed, to whom was confided the task of considering and reporting how this important Chair could, under the circumstances, be best filled. They have recently sent in their report, which was taken into consideration, and the Committee, by an unanimous vote, agreed to act upon it. The Rev. Geo. Vance Smith, B.A., now of Macclesfield, and the minister-elect of Bath, was in consequence invited to become the future Theological Professor. The Bath congregation, though regretting their own disappointment, have very handsomely set Mr. Smith at liberty, and he, we understand, has intimated his acceptance of the Professorship. It is hoped that by Mr. Smith's aid the Committee will now be able to carry into effect a plan they have long thought desirable, and will be authorized to announce that lay students can be received into the house of a Professor. Although every friend of the College will regret the loss of Professor Wallace's varied learning and matured

judgment, it is most satisfactory to know that the election of Mr. Smith has received the deliberate sanction of both Mr. Wellbeloved and Professor Wallace.

Oxford Popery.

On the first day of February, Dr. Pusey, the leader of that school of Oxford theologians who have for the most part conformed to the Church of Rome, rendered his return to his sacred duties, after a suspension on the ground of heresy for three years, very notorious by appearing in the pulpit of Christchurch, and preaching before a densely crowded audience a sermon from John xx. 21–23. He referred to and reiterated the sentiments of the discourse which had occasioned his suspension (in which, our readers will remember, he asserted the doctrine of the Real Presence), and then proceeded to assert the right and duty of the Church, by its ordained ministers, to receive the confession of sinners, and upon repentance to grant absolution. Dr. Pusey sustained his positions, as he proceeded, by reference to the words of the Book of Common Prayer, particularly in the Visitation and Communion of the Sick. With singular disregard of his position, he alluded in the language of warning to Michelet's book, exposing and denouncing the abominations of the Confessional, as "the work of an infidel of impure mind in a foreign land," and added, that "our peril lay not in the practice of confession, but rather in the unhindered tide of corruption, sweeping away its tens of thousands, where the heart, unopened to parent or to priest, lay open to Satan's snares.' Thus boldly did Dr. Pusey offer to the assembled members of a Protestant University, those " dregs of Popery," of which the ever-memorable John Hales long ago spoke "as not yet sufficiently washed from the hearts of many men.' So carefully did the Dr. entrench himself, in the most offensive propositions, behind the clear and not to be mistaken words of the Book of Common Prayer, that we know not how those who prefer Rubrics and Articles to Scripture texts and arguments can confute or even blame him. And yet that the doctrine of his discourse was essentially Popish, no sane man who has read the full abstract of it given in the Times newspaper can doubt. The Tablet, a Roman Catholic journal, conducted with great ability, dilates on this

sermon with much satisfaction. The Oxford Doctor's orthodoxy is all but avouched by the zealous son of Rome in the following passage: "The doctrine laid down by Dr. Pusey seems, as far as we can judge, to differ in nothing from the Catholic doctrine, except in the greater or less amount of obligation which in Dr. Pusey's view appertains to the Sacrament of Penance." The writer correctly enough observes, that although Dr. Pusey does not style Penance a Sacrament, yet his description of it evidently brings it within the definition of a Sacrament, even as propounded by the English Church.

It is exactly a hundred years ago since Mr. Micaiah Towgood exposed in his masterly work, entitled A Dissenting Gentleman's Letters, the service in the Book of Common Prayer for the Absolution of the Sick," as too much resembling the solemn tricks of the Church of Rome, by which they pretend to send men to heaven without real amendment and holiness of life." The perversions by which Protestant clergymen explain away the meaning of the PrayerBook in this service, are not less revolting to common sense and honesty, than the system of non-natural interpretation used by Mr. Ward, Mr. Oakley and Mr. Newman, before their secession to Rome. Possibly this sermon of Dr. Pusey (the ingenuity of which is very great) may awaken the understanding of some of the Evangelical clergy to the objectionable character of a portion of the Book of Common Prayer, and induce them to unite in a firm demand for the revisal of that Book, or, in the failure of that scheme (which may assuredly be anticipated), to the withdrawment of that assent and consent which they can no longer regard as compatible with Christian integrity. There are, no doubt, many things in the Prayer-Book which the Heads of the Protestant Church would be glad to be rid of; but that they will now, as their predecessors did last century, resist a demand for its revisal, may be deemed more than probable, by the conscious danger of beginning to repair an aged and very crazy edifice.

The Pope and the Czar.

The Catholic journals give some particulars respecting the recent visit of the Emperor of Russia to his Holiness, which, if correct, are very creditable to the latter. After the ceremonies

of introduction were over, the Emperor began the conversation with a compliment; but the Pope, interrupting him, said, "Let us not lose time; let us speak of serious matters; and speak slowly, that I may understand you. I am very old; in a very short time I shall go hence to account to Jesus Christ for the fulfilment of my pastoral duty; but God may also call you at a moment to demand of you an account of the cruel persecutions that you have caused his Church to undergo, especially in unfortunate Poland." At these words the Emperor was troubled more and more; his countenance flushed with crimson. It is even said he wept, and, kissing the Pope's hand and his robes, he repeated, "I have been calumniated to your Holiness." The Pope specified several acts of persecution, and then placed in the hands of the Czar a paper containing a list of 26 persecuting Ukases and other acts emanating from the Emperor himself-adding, "Take this record of your own acts against God and his Church, which will remind you of what you must do in order to justify yourself." The Emperor repeated that the Holy Father should be satisfied with him, that he would do all that was required. The Holy Father asked him to receive a Nuncio at the Court of Russia, the cessation of all religious persecution, and entire liberty for the Catholic Church in the Russian empire. To these requests the Czar promised to give an early answer. The Emperor left with visible emotion, and afterwards complained to M. Marini, the Governor of Rome, one of the very few Roman dignitaries who offered any civilities to him, that the Holy Father had regarded him as a Nero or a Caligula, adding, that "in so vast a land as that he governed, it was impossible for him to know all that was passing." Marini exhorted him, "in order to prove the falsity of the accusations made against him, to proclaim liberty of conscience.'

The whole of this narrative, which we have abridged from the Tablet, is excellent, and we cannot but remark that the conduct and free speech of the Pope and the Roman nobility contrast well with the servile adulation with which the Russian despot was treated when he visited the Sovereign of our own land of liberty. It was then forgotten on all hands, except that witty and liberal journalist, Punch, that there are higher duties than hospitality. The perpetrator of Siberian cruelties

and the oppressor of Poland ought to have learnt from the looks, if not from the lips, of Englishmen, that his name and character are loathed wherever liberty is cherished. Let us, then, render honour to the Pope and his court for having rebuked and abashed a cruel despot.

Important Movement among the Jews. -A great meeting of Jews from all parts of Europe has recently been held in Frankfort, in which they voted that there is nothing obligatory in the use of Hebrew in their worship, and accordingly that it was best to retain it only in part, as a badge of their nationality and a bond of union. Also, on full discussion, that the Messiah is already come, the present toleration and comfort which they now enjoy being what is meant by the promised Messiah. Also, that there is nothing to forbid their freely blending with the nations among whom they reside.

PARLIAMENTARY.

Before our Magazine is in the hands of our readers, they will probably have learnt the result of the great Debate on the proposed alteration of the Cornlaws. A debate extending through three weeks is, we believe, without precedent in Parliamentary history. The length of the debate may be due to the magnitude of the interests discussed, but it has scarcely been justified either by the wisdom or the novelty of the arguments adduced by the majority of the speakers. The remnant of the once "great Conservative party" have evidently been talking against time. Their object probably has been to increase the number of their minority by votes of the Protectionist delegates just sent up to Parliament by several of the agricultural counties, and also to diminish the number of Sir Robert Peel's majority by protracting the debate until the legal members of the House shall have winged their flight to their several circuits. Some persons imagine that the delay is contrived in the hope that the Conservative Peers may recover from the consternation into which they have been thrown by the bold and righteous policy of the Government, and that a successful opposition may be constructed in the House of Lords. But whatever have been their motives, the Fabian policy of the Conservative party will perhaps expose them to a speedy and a severe retribution. Before the free trade

policy of the Government will be discussed in the Upper House of Parliament, it is now matter of certainty that large districts in Ireland will be involved in all the dreadful horrors of a famine. The courage of the hereditary legislators must be much greater than we are disposed to give them credit for, if they peril their order by throwing themselves between a famished people and the supplies of food which Her Majesty's Ministers, supported by a large majority of the Lower House of Parliament, would provide. Notwithstanding many sinister predictions, we still entertain a cheerful conviction that the Lords will, however reluctantly, pass the Bill. A curious question has to be answered-What will the Bishops do? Oppose or support the Government in its proposed important alteration of the Corn-laws? The Right Rev. Prelates are placed in no very enviable position. They cannot support the measure without manifesting such a disregard of the pecuniary interests of the clergy as it is hardly in the nature of Bishops to anticipate; and they cannot oppose it without exposing themselves to the suspicion of being actuated by the meanest and most mercenary of motives. A proclamation from the Episcopal Bench that, in the supply of "daily bread," the interests of the Church and those of the People are directly opposed, will hardly be quite politic just now; and yet the quiet submission to a probable falling off of income to the extent of 10 or 20 per cent., will be a sore trial for even clerical virtue. The interest which, under the Tithe Commutation Act, the clergy have in the question, will be seen by the following statement of the variations in every £100 of rentcharge, according to the average price of grain during the year: To Christmas 1835..

.£100 0 0

Sir Robert Peel will be more fortunate than we anticipate, if he be not as bitterly denounced in one House for treachery to the Church, as in the other he has been for his alleged faithlessness towards the Agriculturists.

To return to the Commons' Debate. The discussion has presented some very singular features. Little as we admire the arguments and principles of the opponents of Sir Robert Peel's measure, we frankly admit that their course is intelligible and respectable, when compared with that of some of his habitual supporters. Lord Sandon and some others of the Ministerial party avow that their opinions on the subject of protection to agriculture are unchanged, that they look upon free-trade with dislike and fear, but that they foresee that the consequence of deserting their leader would be to throw the government of the country into the hands of the Whigs-an evil of greater magnitude even than free-trade. A more unblushing avowal of the preference of mere Party claims to individual conscience and the good of the country, we do not remember to have seen.

66

Perish my Country, but save my Party!" is the motto of these miserable politicians. Not much better is the conduct of Lord John Manners, the head of the little clique of men, with very kind hearts but very wrong heads, known by the name of Young England. He says free-trade is good, the Ministerial measure is good, but this Parliament has no right to pass it, because it was elected to preserve agricultural protection. Some importance is given to this unworthy argument by the conduct of several country gentlemen, who, convinced at the twelfth hour of the mischievousness to all parties of protection, instead of avowing and acting upon their new opinions in their places in Parliament, have resigned their trust into the hands of their constituents. Now, on the system of pledges on the part of a representative, we are disposed to look with little favour. Let us have as the Parliament of England free representatives, not bound delegates. Let constituents take care to select wise and honest representatives, of the soundness of whose general principles they are satisfied, and let them go into Parliament to deliberate on the highest interests of the nation, and free to follow whatever course may appear the best. Conjunctures will sometimes arise when Parliament must shew itself in advance of the popular mind, and by

Jan. 19, at Upper Brook-Street chapel, Manchester, by Rev. J. J. Tayler, B.A., Mr. JAMES FRAY, of Middle Hulton, to Miss MARY, daughter of Mr. Richard KIRKHAM, of Gorton, late of Ainsworth, near Bury.

Jan. 25, at the Unitarian chapel, Stockton-on-Tees, by the Rev. J. M'Dowell, Mr. WILLIAM SMITH to Mrs. IMESON, both of Stockton.

Liverpool, Mr. JAMES HYNDFORD RAWLINS, Syddallt Cottage, near Wrexham, to HARRIETTE LOMAX, youngest daughter of G. L. Cox, Esq., of Spring Bank.

Feb. 5, at Gee-Cross chapel, by the Rev. James Brooks, THOMAS BAYLEY

POTTER, Esq., son of the late Sir Thos. Potter, to MARY, daughter of Samuel ASHTON, Esq., of Pole Bank.

Feb. 15, at the Unitarian church, St. Peter's Square, Stockport, JoOSEPH BAILEY to ELIZABETH COCKER.

1846. Jan. 16, SUSANNAH, the wife of Jedediah STRUTT, Esq., of Belper, in the county of Derby.

Jan. 30, at Hackney, after giving birth to her sixth child, which survives, MARTHA, wife of Mr. C. GREEN, in her 43rd year. In the space of about two hours, the cheerful anticipations of the inmates of a happy home were suddenly blighted by the unexpected intrusion of the Angel of Death. But it came as an angel-peaceful and apparently without terror to one whose sensitive nature could not always anticipate its approach without shrinking and dread. Never was Wife or Mother more devoted if she erred at all in these rela

:

tions, it was in an over-solicitude for

the welfare of the objects of her deep affection, with whose happiness her own was so closely linked, that any pain to them re-acted with additional force upon her.

Jan. 31, ANNE, third daughter of Mr. Fenton Robinson ATKINSON, of Oak House, Pendleton, near Manchester.

Feb. 5, aged 69, Mr. EDWARD NeedHAM, Vauxhall Grove, Birmingham.

Feb. 8, at Cheltenham, (whither he had walked from Tewksbury to attend Unitarian worship,) Mr. JOHN FINCHER, confectioner, of Tewksbury, aged 70.