Established Clergy.

"They are not in trouble like other men, neither are they plagued like other men, Their eyes stand out with fatness, they have more than heart could wish. They are corrupt and speak wickedly, concerning oppression they speak softly. They oppress a man's house, even a man's heritage.”— Anon.

The character of the clergy has not improved since the days of Mr. Locke: we still find them more the ministers of the government than the ministers of the gospel. Perhaps the two greatest extremes in nature are a real gospel minister and a church of England priest; there is scarcely one point of resemblance; the former an humble inoffensive character, despising wealth, and wholly absorbed in his spiritual duties; the latter, a furious political demon, rapacious, insolent, and luxurious; having no fear of God before his eyes; neglectful of his spiritual concerns; waging unceasing war against liberty, knowledge, and humanity; exerting all his influence to promote tyranny, and enslave and debase his fellow creatures.

This, we believe, with a few exceptions, is the general character of the éstablished clergy. Late events have tended still more to lower this body in the estimation of the people. They have beheld them the most violent assailants of their liberties, and foremost in every measure of severity, blood, and violence. It were useless to quote instances now, when so many are fresh in the public mind, of spiritual tyranny, ferocity, and turbulence. We allude, of course, to what has occurred at Manchester, where men in holy orders, who had sworn they had felt themselves called by the Holy Ghost to the cure of souls, directed the barbarous outrage. This, it may be said, is a particular instance, and that the Rev. Mr. Hay, and the Rev. Mr. Ethelstone, are not fair samples of their brethren. We wish to God it were not so, but unfortunately the same blood-thirsty spirit seems to pervade the whole body. They are all for coercion; no attempt to alleviate distress,—to sympathise or diminish the burdens of the people. They are all for the bayonet, the sabre, the dungeon, and the field-piece. In the county of Chester, in the list of subscribers to raise an armed force, one-tenth of the number are clergymen. At the Staffordshire meeting, the Rev. Mr. Hadon, in addition to a troop of yeomanry, recommended that they should also raise a regiment of infantry. It were useless to ask if this be Christianity?

We shall now leave the Established Clergy, Among the different classes opposed to the welfare of the community, we consider them by far the most iniquitous while they render the least service to society, they devour the largest proportion of the produce of industry. They are ungrateful to those who

Aristocracy.

feed and clothe them, and prostitute the religion they profess, but the pre cepts of which they never practise, to support a political system by which they are protected in vice and indolence.

32

Our next article is the ARISTOCRACY. Before we enter upon this subject, we shall devote a page or two to the consideration of the measures about to be adapted to stop the progress of Reform, and the exposition of abuse. Five bills have been introduced, all of which, at the period we are writing, seem likely soon to form a part of the law of the land, or more correctly the law of the Oligarchy. Two objects appear principally in view by these coercive enactments: First, to prevent the diffusion of knowledge; secondly, to deprive the people of all means of effectual resistance to oppression. Our observations will be confined to the Seditious Meeting Bill, and the Press Restriction Bills. The former destroys the oldest, and the latter the most invaluable right of the people.

Before the right of meeting to deliberate on públic grievances is destroyed, it seems fair that some great abuse should be proved to have resulted from its exercise. Nothing of the kind, however, has been attempted; and, apparently, for this reason, because no such position could be established. The people have met,, deliberated, and resolved, but they met legally and separated peaceably; no tumult, violence, nor outrage, of any kind. Under what pretence then, we may ask, is this right to be annihilated? It has not been abused; it has been constitutionally exercised, and for a constitutional object. It is no objection against public meetings, that they are numerously attended, provided they are not tumultuous. Lord Eldon indeed says, that numbers constitute force, force terror, and terror illegality. But we will tell his Lordship of another climax quite as good: taxation produces discontent, discontent sedition, and sedition illegality: therefore, according to such logic, both taxation and numbers are illegal.

A great deal has been said about the terror caused by the meetings of the people. Now, according to our conception, this is the very effect intended,

Aristocracy.

and which it is desirable to produce. What is the use of meeting to resolve and deliberate, unless our resolutions and deliberations inspire some degree of terror? How are bad measures to be prevented, or how are wicked ministers to be acted upon except by terror? Experience has shown, that reason, justice, and humanity, might plead in vain; and that it was only by the numbers, unanimity, and spirited proceedings c public meetings, that the Machiavelian projects of our Rulers could be stayed; that a salutary feeling could be impressed, that the voice of the people ere long must be too loud and general to be disregarded; and that an opposition must be ultimately organized, that would be irresistible.

This we submit is the only advantage that can accrue from public assemblies. Against bad men, resolutions, speeches, and declarations are unavailing, unless accompanied by such indications as denote, that they are supported, not only by the opinion, but the strength of the community. Had the meetings of the Reformers been neither numerous nor energetic, they would have been despised, and deservedly so: but now, when their immense multitudes appal the hearts of the corruptionists; when they show a firmness and perseverance which nothing can subdue; a wisdom in their proceedings, which shows they are qualified for the exercise of their rights, and a patience under their privations, which is unparalleled; a wretched Oligarchy, instead of timely yielding to their demands, which policy no less than justice dictates, resort to the pitiable expedient of putting them down.

What advantage, we may ask, will they derive from this unconstitutional measure? Will it revive trade? Will it reduce the debt or the poor rates? Will it relieve the distresses of the agriculturist, or fill the coffers of the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Unless it will accomplish some of these, it will do nothing. IT WILL NOT STOP THE PROGRESS OF REFORM. That cause must and will triumph. The truths disseminated cannot be rooted out by the hand of power. It is not now a problematical, but a demonstrated truth, that the calamities of the country flow from overwhelming taxation, originating in non-representation; that they are the effect of a shameless waste of the public money, participated in, and supported by a corrupt representation. This is the conviction of at least nine-tenths of the population; and it will not be destroyed by the prevention of public meetings.

Instead of retarding, ministers most assuredly will accelerate reform. The Reformers themselves will now redouble their efforts. Why not?

Aristocracy.

Clearly their labours have not been in vain. They have stricken their enemies with terror. Why else, this dreadful note of preparation? Why these coercion bills? Why throw up new bulwarks? Why add 10,000 men to the army, and build new barracks? Plainly, because they are afraid; plainly, because they find that they are getting WEAK, and the people STRONG. They see Reform gathering like an avalanche; its truths spreading through all ranks; and in their cowardly fears, they can see no safety but in further injustice, and in placing the abuses, which they cannot defend, behind the bayonets of the military. Driven into their last intrenchments, it were folly indeed of the REFORMERS not to follow up their blows, and complete the destruction of the enemy which they have fairly forced from the field. This we are persuaded they will do; they will not relax in their efforts; but they will go on exposing abuse, enlightening the people, and demonstrating to all who are not wilfully blind, that there can be neither peace, prosperity, nor security for England without a radical Reform in the representation.

Had not the injustice of our enemies been without bounds, instead of depriving the people of the right of assembling in public, they would have rendered the exercise of that right unnecessary by extending the elective franchise. The necessity of public meetings originates solely in the want of an adequate representation. Without representatives, the people have no other means of expressing their grievances, and are compelled to do that without the House of Commons, which no doubt would be better performed by representatives chosen by themselves within its walls.

We now come to the Press Restriction Bill. According to the proposed measure, the writing of a libel is to be considered a felony, subjecting the offender to transportation for SEVEN YEARS. We will not attempt to speak of this law as it deserves. Draco's laws, written in blood, or the enactments of the Roman tyrant, who placed them so high that they were illegible, were nothing to this, Libel is an offence which no one can define; it may be unknowingly committed, and the author, according to this savage law, banished from his country and friends, and doomed to herd with burglars and cut-throats. Without, however, expatiating on the sanguinary character of this law, let us examine the pretences on which this attack upon the press has been made.*

With the exception of the transportation law, the penalty of which there is no likelihood they will incur, the daily journals, or as Lord Castlereagh terms them,

Aristocracy.

The principal charge against the weekly publications is their supposed blasphemous and irreligious tendency. The charge of blasphemy has been as serviceable to ministers as the famous "No Popery" cry, and, perhaps, with as little foundation: it has enabled them to destroy the liberty of the press with impunity. Supposing, however, there was some foundation for this imputation, it cannot now be urged as a pretence, after what has happened, for any further restrictions on the press. The supposed blasphemer has been tried, fined, and imprisoned; the law has been found sufficient for the punishment of such offenders. No one, knowingly, we imagine, will again write or publish any thing which a jury is likely to deem blasphemous. We conclude, therefore, that new laws for the pur pose of checking publications of this description are wholly unnecessary.

Another accusation against the c cheap publications, is their immoral tendency. We will not reply to this charge by alluding to the morality taught in the church catechism, nor to the kind of morality which is actually practised in the Universities and Public Schools; but we will mention some of the benefits which we think it must be allowed have resulted from the labours of the Weekly Press.

Among the first of these we shall mention is the change on the subject of Catholic Emancipation. Some years ago the "mob," as they are called, were the great opponents of this salutary measure, but now they are decidedly in its favour. To what we ask is this change to be ascribed ? Certainly not to the effusions of the Edinburgh Review, nor the respectable Press," for they never read them; but solely we think to the calumniated writers and vendors of " sedition and blasphemy." It is this class alone, by diffusing the principles of liberty and justice, that have achieved this great victory over bigotry and intolerance.

the "respectable press;" will not be affected by the new regulations. His lordship feels no apprehension, we dare say, from the labours of these gentlemen. Corruption may be supported, but not endangered, by the mock battles of the Times, the Chronicle, and the Courier. When poor Sir Manasseh Lopez was sentenced to Two YEARS imprisonment, and to pay a fine of £10,000 for an offence which a minister of state could do with impunity, and which had been declared to be as " NOTORIOUS AS THE SUN AT NOON-DAY," not one of the respectable scribes had honesty enough to comment on the hypocrisy and injustice of the transaction. Sir F. Burdett, in the House of Commons, contrasted the punishment of this gentleman, with the -seat-jobbing practices of Castlereagh, but that was the only public notice this impuedent mockery of justice received.