speaking of any thing so insignificant as my own,—but what really is beyond the powers of any one man to accomplish, that may possibly be effected by the joint efforts of many. But a Society, to be worthy of such a cause should be truly comprehensive, should embrace men of all varieties of rank, calling, and political party. Yet we know that in England, although men of different ranks and occupations will work together, yet men of different parties will not, and indeed in some respects cannot. For if my neighbour's truth be to me a falsehood, how can I assist him in propagating it; or how can he help to circulate what I hold to be truth, if to him it seems to be error?

In order to meet this difficulty, and yet to obtain that general co-operation which is on every account so desirable, it would seem desirable that the object of the proposed Society should be merely to collect facts relative to the condition of the labouring classes, and to bring them to the knowledge of the public, without expressing any opinion as to the most effectual remedies for the state of things thus developed. It is obvious that to present a full view of the condition of the labouring classes throughout the kingdom, would be at once a very costly and a very laborious undertaking; that it would find ample employment for the contributions and for the personal exertions of a very numerous and wealthy society. And I conceive that the points of inquiry might be made so definite, as greatly to check, if not altogether to exclude, the exhibition of party feeling in the reports of such a society. For instance, in order to obtain a correct notion of the state of the poor in any given town or parish, we should wish to know,-1st, the total population, and the proportion of mere labourers to shopkeepers, professional men, farmers, or proprietors; 2nd, the rate of wages, and their proportion to the price of provisions, lodging, and fuel; 3rd, the quality of the labouring population, how many of them are strangers, and how many have been born in the

place where they are now working; 4th, the ecclesiastical divisions of the place, and the number and size of places of worship, and the number of ministers, whether of the Established Church or dissenters; 5th, the number and character of the schools, and other places of instruction, including the age at which the children generally go to and are taken away from school; 6th, police details: the amount and character of crime, and, so far as it exists in a noticeable shape, of vice; the number of public houses and beer houses; 6th, wherever it is possible there should be a comparison of the actual state of the country in all these points, and its state ten, twenty, and fifty years ago; for by comparing the present with the past, we find out which way things are tending, whether for the better or for the worse; 7th, the size and situation of labourers' dwellings; how many persons live in cellars under ground; how many sleep in the same room, and the size of rooms; how many have gardens, or any accessible outlet, where they may have fresh air and healthy exercise; 8th, the quality and quantity of food, the comparative use of bread and potatoes; what is the consumption of animal food on the one hand, or of ardent spirits on the other; how many human beings live actually on bread or potatoes, and on tea; 9th, what books, newspapers, tracts, or addresses, circulate amongst them; whether they read much, and what they read; and also the number and character of such clubs, unions, associations, &c., as may exist among them. I might add yet other points, but these which I have given are all tangible matters of fact, and as such might be faithfully reported by men of the most opposite opinions, so long as they agreed in the wish that the real state of the poor in all particulars should be brought before the eyes of the rest of the community.

But to a Society so formed for the exclusive purpose of bringing to light matters of fact, without proposing any remedies to the evils thus made public, much objection has within my own knowledge been made; and it has

been said that before we thus reveal the evil in its tremendous magnitude, we ought to come to some understanding as to the best means of removing or reducing it. I contend, on the contrary, that at present such an understanding is absolutely impossible; and I cannot conceal my conviction that the remedies required will involve sacrifices on the part of the richer classes, which if not willingly made but wrested from them will be wholly useless, and which will not be made voluntarily unless they are first thoroughly impressed with the enormity of the existing evil. I do not say that such sacrifices would be made, even then; it may be that they would not; but I am sure that they will not be made otherwise. There are men who will not deny their appetites in eating and drinking, even if they are aware that the consequences of continued self-indulgence is certain death; but there are thousands and tens of thousands who would undoubtedly refuse to observe a very strict regimen, if they were not aware of any thing in themselves or in the state of the atmosphere which threatened them, unless they were careful, with serious or fatal diseases.

But can it be supposed that there is danger in revealing the evils of our social condition, unless we offer at the same time the hope of a remedy for them? Surely the danger consists not in knowing that our neighbour is in distress, but in his knowing it himself. The rich might safely be ignorant of what the poor suffer, if the poor could be ignorant of it also. If both were ignorant of it equally, there would be safety; if both were clearly aware of it, there would be hope; but for the poor to know and feel it keenly, while the rich are ignorant of or inattentive to it, this is dangerous, this is a state of things almost desperate. Would the most elaborate reports that could be published add to that deep sense of disquiet and privation which prevails amongst the poorer classes, and which is not the less dangerous because it neither understands clearly the causes of its suffering, nor judges rightly

of the remedy? A real knowledge of their own state, and of its causes, would be desirable even for the poor themselves: bad as the truth is when seen wholly, it is not nearly so bad as it seems to be when viewed only partially; but for the richer classes, the fullest knowledge, the liveliest sense of the evils endured by their poorer countrymen, is not danger, but recovery: ignorance in them is not bliss, but inevitable destruction.

Therefore it seems to me that a Society, consisting of men of all parties, might be advantageously formed for the purpose of collecting information, at once comprehensive and minute, respecting the state of the class of labourers, agricultural and manufacturing, throughout the kingdom, and of calling public attention to the facts so collected. This appears to be a step practicable and important; safe, yet leading to great results hereafter. If any of your readers agree with me in this, let them think whether they can do any thing to carry our idea into effect; if they have any better plan to propose, gladly would I adopt it, and, so far as I could, further it. Only let our great object be effected, and it matters little who are the instruments.

XIV. NATIONAL CHURCH ESTABLISHMENTS. [From the Paper dated January 18, 1840.]

SIR, I trust that your correspondent, Sir Culling Eardley Smith, will not accuse me of disrespect if I still address you under my accustomed signature. To say the truth, I am so unknown to the great majority of your readers, and so much a stranger to your county, that I should accuse myself of presumption if I obtruded myself personally by name upon their notice. The character of my letters will I hope be a sufficient voucher that I can have no unworthy motives for not affixing my name to them; there has been, I trust, nothing in any of them which as a

Christian or a gentleman I should be ashamed to avow. This being the case, it seems to me more becoming that I should leave my communications wholly to their own fate, that nothing of a personal nature may affect any one's judgment of their contents, whether for good or for bad.

The question now at issue in the Church of Scotland is doubtless one of considerable importance. I do not feel enough acquainted with the constitution of that Church to enter into the legal points;-but I do not see how the present dispute affects the question of Church Establishments. It is surely perfectly feasible in a Church, as well as in any other society, to provide for the due appointment of the officers of the society: the right of patronage is held subject to such laws as may be required to qualify it. These laws may be at present too lax,that is, they may not sufficiently provide against the appointment of unfit persons; if so, let them be made more stringent: for certain it is that it is the theory of a Church Establishment, as of all other institutions, that unfit persons should not be made its officers ;—and this theory may be reduced to practice as nearly in the appointment of a minister of the Church as of a judge, or a governor of a colony ;—it will never of course be perfectly acted upon owing to the faults of human nature.

Thus far then I should agree with Dr. Chalmers, that if by the actual constitution of the Scotch Church the choice of the individual patron is too unrestrained, so that in spite of the remonstrances of the proper Church authorities he may appoint an unfit and unworthy minister, then that constitution requires amendment, and undoubtedly it may be amended, if it be found expedient, without any injustice to the patrons; for patronage is essentially a trust rather than a property, and as such may be, has been, and is, controlled by law.

But, on the other hand, if the Church of Scotland were to cease to-morrow to be an Establishment, I for one, if I were a member of it, should deprecate carnestly the