his death all property in them would be immediately lost to his family. Now the property which a man cannot secure even to his own immediate children, is surely scarcely to be called property at all.

Nature has herself drawn a marked line which may well guide us in fixing the term of such rights as are not absolutely indefeasible. To our children we are bound by the closest ties; our interest in our children's children is in ordinary circumstances very faint beyond the period of their early childhood. The prosperity of our grandchildren is more a gratification to our family pride and ambition than to our natural affections; but the common feeling of all mankind, in allowing men to dispose of their property after their own death, shows that our own welfare is supposed to be inseparably connected with that of our own children; that wealth must lose half its value if we cannot secure it to them, even after we ourselves are taken away from them.

This seems a clear and intelligible ground for the extension of an author's copyright given by Mr. Serjeant Talfourd's Bill. It will be now secured in ordinary cases to him and his children. This seems the very least that can be granted to him consistently with justice; while, on the other hand, the peculiar character of literary property, the sort of right which we have already acknowledged to exist in the purchaser, and the comparative indifference with which mere natural affection regards our remote posterity, may be reasons why no more should be granted. As for the mere consideration of benefit to the purchaser by restricting the term of copyright, this alone cannot be allowed to determine the question, so long as there is any regard paid to common honesty. It might be very convenient to the purchasers, at least for a time, to be able to get bread and meat at half of the market prices: but few probably would be found who would therefore recommend a law for a maximum. Now the booksellers' argument about the public benefit in getting books cheap,

even if true in fact, which it is not, in any calculable degree, is precisely imposing a maximum upon authors: -It says, you all sell your property at such a price; for if you do not, you cannot afford to await for a better market, because after a certain time we will take your property from you for nothing.

V.-CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS.

[From the Paper dated November 24, 1838.]

SIR,-Your correspondent "Augur" has entered upon a great subject, and he treats it like a man who has thought upon it much and well. No subject can be so important, for, in fact, it includes every other: moral evils are ever at the root of such as are physical and political; and for moral evil I know of only one cure, and that is Christianity, by its double influence, as a Religion and as a Church. This double character of Christianity is continually forgotten: strip it of either of its two essential parts, and you destroy its virtue, although not in an equal degree. The Church without the Religion is, as we all see, worthless. I do not think we enough understand that the Religion without the Church is comparatively powerless-that it benefits comparatively only a few individuals, while for the mass of mankind it produces effects wholly unworthy of the promises which were bestowed on it.

Augur understands the way in which the Priesthood has superseded the Church: he speaks strongly of this evil; but he is mistaken, I think, in connecting the evils of a Priesthood with an Establishment. There is no natural connexion between them; for although where all men. are beset with the heresy of the Priesthood, their Establishment, if they have one, will unavoidably bear the marks of their common error, yet the Church can never exist in its perfection without an Establishment, if men

G G

will but consider what an Establishment properly is, and what principles it involves.

The people of a certain country are, we will suppose, Christians; while at the same time they are politically sovereign; that is, they can impose taxes, make laws, and enforce them if need be by capital punishments. By being a sovereign society their control extends over every part of human life; the education, habits, and principles of the several individuals of their society are matters in which they have a direct concern. But a Christian society with a general control over human life, with a direct interest in the moral welfare of its members, and a sovereign power of affecting this welfare by laws, rewards, and punishments, is already a church. It can only cease to be so by forfeiting, more or less, its Christian character; for it is manifest that a Christian government, acting in the name of a Christian people, is bound to shape its practice and its institutions according to Christian principles, that is, in every thing that relates to moral good; it is bound to do the exact business of a Church, nor can it resign this high duty without being most deeply culpable.

It is bound therefore to provide for the Christian education of the young,-for the Christian instruction of the ignorant, and for the constant and public dissemination of Christian principles amongst all classes of its people. It is as much bound to do this, as it is bound to provide for the external security of society, or for the regular administration of justice.

Now, by the actual law of England, there is a very large portion of the property of the country set apart for these objects; and it has been set apart so long, that it can in no sense be called a tax upon the private property of any single individual. What utter madness would it be to take this public property, and give it away to a certain number of individual landholders! It would be an act of folly unrivalled by the most wanton extravagance

of the worst government on record;-it would be an act of direct robbery also;-for it is a robbery committed against society, when public property is given away to individuals;—it is a robbery against the existing generation and their remotest posterity.

That this portion of public property is not applied in the best manner for the fulfilment of its proper objects, may be, and I think is perfectly true. It may have maintained a priesthood to the injury of the Church,—because the priesthood so long set up an unchristian claim to be the sole representatives of the Church. The rector of every parish was said to be "persona ecclesiæ; "he is in law "a corporation sole," as it is called, because in his single person the rights of the church in that parish are held to be vested. Alter this in its proper measure; --do not let the priest continue alone to represent the Church; -but restore the true and living institution which has been corrupted;-and do not commit the fatal error of extinguishing disease by death of removing the evils which have impaired the excellence of the best of all institutions only by destroying the institution itself.

I therefore hold it to be an especial blessing that we have in England two facilities for reviving the efficiency of the Christian Church throughout the country, such as we most of all desire. 1st. We have an ample portion of public property already devoted by law to the especial objects of the Church, independent of any tax upon indiduals, or any voluntary subscriptions whatever. And 2nd. In the great recognized principle of the King's or Queen's supremacy, which may truly be called the charter of the Church of England, we have the truth clearly established that the Church or Christian society has the complete power of self-government, and is not subject to any privileged caste of priests, whether they may happen to be few or many, or whether their government be called a Presbytery, a Synod, a Convention, a Council, or a Papacy.

VI.-STATE OF THE MANUFACTURING
POPULATION.

[From the Paper dated December 1, 1838.]

SIR,-I am rejoiced to find that your attention has been aroused by the proceedings of the manufacturing population in Lancashire and Yorkshire. I believe that our views on this subject are much the same; but perhaps you will not be sorry to address your readers in two parts of your paper on a question so momentous;-for assuredly it is one on which no one can think too often, or with too deep an interest. Should any acts of open violence take place, it will then be the time for acting, not for writing; for the decision of the Government, not for the counsels of individuals. May that acting and that decision, should any occasion unhappily demand it, be prompt, vigorous, and effectual! In such cases timely severity is the greatest mercy; and never would the utmost severity of the law fall more deservedly than on the men whose wicked passions had excited such an outbreak.

But suppose that the Government do its duty to the uttermost; suppose that the vigour of the civil and military authorities, should any tumult arise, shall prevent a repetition of the disgraceful plunder and conflagration of Bristol. Suppose the profligate incendiaries, who are now urging on the people to deeds of robbery and blood, to have received their just reward,-still in a few years' time there will again be the same danger. It was averted in 1831, it may be again averted in 1838 or 1839, but it will not be so always. Like the first signs of a mortal disease, these fainter shocks do but indicate the nature of the evil which will one day prove fatal.

But do I appeal only to our fears? God forbid! There may be something of courage in despising danger; but there is nothing but selfishness in neglecting to remove the evil. The future danger besides is contingent; the actual evil is certain. Undoubtedly, Sir, there is