liberty to be the only advantage to be gained by British subjects in exchange for the sacrifices which they make as members of society? Or, in other words, are the orderly, peaceable, industrious, moral, religious portions of our population not to be secured from the rioting, strikes, illegal demands, conspiracies, insurrections, rapine, and bloodshed, brought about by Chartism, simply because its suppression_must_lead to an infringement on the fancied right of every Englishman, to meet other Englishmen, and discuss, debate, resolve, and conspire? It cannot be too strongly stated, or too emphatically and generally proclaimed that no such right exists. No man has the right to do wrong. That which is wrong, is that which disturbs the peace, order, and well-being of the community; and Chartism does this. Is it to be allowed to do so with impunity?

And this question naturally leads us to a subject intimately connected with Chartism, and with all these deplorable attempts to substitute physical force for the law, to set the law at defiance, and to erect a Government within a Government, allowing to each member of the community the exercise of his fancied right of being a judge in his own case, and of setting up his will and his decision, against the will and decision of the majority of the nation and of the existing Government. We allude to the deplorable case of MR. DRUMMOND, and of his assassin M'Naughten. Mr. Drummond was murdered in broad day in one of the greatest thoroughfares of the British metropolis. His murderer mistook him for Sir Robert Peel. He had decided to murder the right honourable baronet because he was the chief of the Conservatives. But had Sir Robert Peel injured him personally, either his vanity, his ambition, his pride, or his conceits? Unquestionably not. Then why should M'Naughten seek to murder Sir Robert Peel on the ground of his being the chief of the Conservatives? Had the murderer applied for any Government office, or reward, or promotion which had been refused him, on account of his, M'Naughten, being a Radical or a Chartist, or an Infidel? Nothing of the sort transpired. What then was the cause of this state of irritation on the part of the assassin towards Sir Robert Peel, and which led to this terrible denouement? Some say he was mad. We do not believe it. We also have read with attention, not only the whole of the evidence, but all the accounts of the circumstances which transpired prior to the assassination; and we cannot and do not believe that the murderer was insane. We believe, first, that his political prejudices were Chartist and Republican. We believe, second, that he had no religious principle to restrain him or to keep down his

passions. We believe, third, that he formed a deliberate plan for murder. We believe, fourth, that he reasoned that by killing Sir Robert Peel he would strike at the head and root of Conservatism; though in this he erred, for, thank God! Conservatism does not depend on any one man living. We believe, fifth, that he knew the laws of his country, and that he would, by his illegal and atrocious conduct, expose himself to arrest, imprisonment, trial, and death. We believe, sixth, that when he committed the crime in question, as well as afterwards, he was fully aware of all he did, and of all that was done for him. And, finally, we believe that the plea of insanity, as applicable to his case, was most wickedly pleaded and sustained; and that Bellingham was unjustly hung, or that M'Naughten should have undergone the same punishment. Thus society is exposed, in this country, to the dagger or the pistol of the assassin, who has only to preface his crime by some premeditated and arranged antics or singularities, threats or exclamations in order to secure a verdict of NOT GUILTY, though seized at the `very moment of perpetrating the act itself. The Lord Chancellor has announced his intention to introduce some measure with reference to the general question of monomania, the plea of insanity, and the multiplied and multitudinous, attacks now making ever and anon on the lives of public men and distinguished personages. Of that measure we cannot, of course, pronounce any opinion, but we fear, from the general tone of the observations which accompanied the announcement, that the measure will be of a very general, and by no means decisive character. In fact, we perceive, in all the measures and tendencies of the Government, a want of vigour and decision, a fear of defeat, a postponement of the real questions at issue, instead of their fearless examination, and the probing them to the core, and a deference to the opposition, a wish not to offend, an apprehension lest the Government should not be looked upon as one of progress, and an alarm for place and for power.

And we have been confirmed in our views on this head by the conduct of this same Government with regard to CHURCH EXTENSION. Who would have believed it possible during the ten years of Whig mis-rule, that when the Conservatives should obtain office that they would not only refuse to propose Government grants in favour of Church Extension, as their predecessors also had refused, but that their agent, Dr. Nicholl, would prepare a bill for the falsely-styled reform of the ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS, founded on a report got up clandestinely by WhigRadical Reformers? Yet such is the case. Church Extension is to be encouraged, forsooth, by the better management of

Church lands! The Church is to be kept in a state of wardship, the guardian being the State! And yet it cannot surely be affirmed that Church Extension is not necessary? Will any one who reads the statistics of the immoral state of the country, as given by Lord Ashley, doubt as to the want of religious knowledge and Church instruction? We think not. Because, let it be remembered, that Church Extension implies a greater number of clergymen; a greater number of schools, both Sunday, week day, national, and infant; a greater number of clerical visits to the cottages or to the hovels of the poor; and a greater distribution of charitable relief amongst the suffering and the wretched. Yet the Government looks on at the frightful statistics of moral wretchedness and of physical destitution, and proposes, as a vast remedy, the better management of the Church lands! Can cutting irony or sarcasm go further than this?

In like manner we hold the Government responsible for the continuance of the conflicts relative to CHURCH RATES. The returns moved for by Sir John Easthope ought to have been refused. That was a proper moment for the Government to have declared that it was resolved to stand by the law—that Church-rates were as just as the land-tax, as necessary as the poor-rate, as legal and constitutional as any tax could be-and that it was determined not to make any change, or to consent to any, even the slightest alteration. And what is the consequence of the Government not taking this step? Why the Dissenting leaders, both the teachers and preachers, and the laymen, all believe that Sir Robert Peel intends to make some concession to their unrighteous and unprincipled demand. Therefore they go on opposing, putting to the vote, and even polling whole parishes, respecting this question of Church-rates, convinced that in the end they shall frighten Sir Robert Peel to

submission.

The friends of the Cabinet sometimes urge that the Church cannot gain by these conflicts, and that the State must suffer. But what do they mean by the Church not gaining by these conflicts? Do they expect that Dissenters would become Churchmen as the result of Church-rate concession? Do they believe that if Church-rates were abandoned to-morrow, some new ground for complaint and opposition would not be brought forward immediately afterwards against the "State" or "National" religion? If Church-rates are necessary, legal, constitutional taxes, wisely and properly charged upon property, why should any change be made in their manner of imposition or mode of levying? It is surely time, then, that these parochial conflicts, which lead to broils and feuds, agitation, and bad neighbourhood, should be put a

stop to by the declaration of a powerful Conservative Government, that it will oppose with decision any proposal for the alteration of Church-rates.

Now what does all this show, and to what sad result does it conduct us? To this, that the Government is sadly deficient in fixed principles. We say this more in sorrow than in anger; but we mean every letter we have written to the very letter. The fear of offending the Dissenters keeps the Government from doing its duty to the Church. Thus it refuses grants for Church Extension; thus it dares not speak out on the question of Churchrates; thus it brings in a bill for the education of pauper and of factory children, which abandons the established religion of the country to the caprice and individual opinions and judgments of the paupers themselves; thus it answers to the demands of the Dissenters, for "reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts," by the preparation of the bill of Dr. Nicholl; and thus it concurs in the proposed union of the sees of St. Asaph and Bangor, because by that desecration it would get rid of the difficulty of applying for funds with which to endow the see of Manchester.

If we turn from religious to civil subjects, we shall perceive the same want of fixed principles. What means this continued existence of "the League?" If ever an association insulted and bearded both the Government and the laws, this society does so. And yet it is both allowed to pursue its course, and to remain unprosecuted and unpunished. And what means the continuance of CHARTISM? And what also the Irish Association for the repeal of the union of the two countries? Why has Mr. O'Connell abstained from taking his place in Parliament, and confined himself to political organization, and political manoeuvering in Ireland? Because the repeal of the union is being pursued by him with redoubled zeal and indefatigable anxiety.

And then what means this indecision relative to two systems of protection and non-protection, in regard to commercial questions? Is it not a fact that the two great interests of the country are in a state of most anxious uncertainty as to the future prospects of the owners of the soil on the one hand, and of the mill-owners and factory proprietors on the other hand? Does the Government know itself that to this point it will go but no further? No it does not. And why? Because it is swayed by ephemeral circumstances, influenced by momentary events, and afraid of declaring that it will remain firm and steadfast to the system which raised this country to the proud and glorious rank it held amongst the nations of the earth, when, after a war of twenty-five years, it could dictate the terms of peace to the

whole of Christendom. And at the same time it cannot conscientiously follow in the steps of Lords Melbourne and Russell, and carry out the whole principle of non-protection.

We thank God, most fervently, that the condition of EUROPE is, on the whole, satisfactory, and that M. Guizot has, of late, gained a signal triumph over the combined factions of the antiEnglish party, the war party, the French trading party, the republican party, and the ultra-Romanist party. We think we are not mistaken when we say that the opposition raised by DE LAMARTINE, the poet and the philosopher, resulted less from his political, than from his Romanist tendencies. He is one of the most decided anti-Protestants in France, and to him it is most repugnant to behold that country governed by a Protestant Premier. To that great man we are, under Providence, indebted for the preservation of peace. But why? Because M. Guizot, like his master and sovereign, Louis Philippe, not only possesses, but puts into practice, FIXED PRINCIPLES. It is one thing to possess-it is another to assert them. He does both; and he is entitled to our gratitude and respect. We do not live in times when man is to be governed with an olive branch, Those days will come, no doubt, and it is a blessed thought to indulge in-that the leopard shall lie down with the lamb, and that peace and righteousness shall reign on the earth. But those times have not yet arrived. The Churches of England and of Scotland, give, by their divisions and secessions, too many melancholy proofs of the truth of this assertion, whilst the Government looks on and provides no remedies, offers no suggestions, and remain, if not unconcerned, at least, doubtful or paralyzed.

In conclusion-the Government must bestir itself, and the Government must take a decided, and a most certain course, on all the great questions which are now agitating man, or the Government will be deserted, defeated, and overthrown. This would be undoubtedly an universal disaster-but even a greater evil than this might arise, if the present state of apathy, or of want of energy and of fixed principle on its part, should continue, and that is, that by degrees the mind of the country should become weak, torpid, indifferent, and should cease to take a breathless and undying interest in all that relates to the moral and religious condition of our people. May the press, then, do its duty! May the Conservative press never forget its glorious and important mission! and may it not cease to sound in the ears of those who govern us, that the first and the greatest characteristic of true statesmen, and enlightened and Christian Conservatives, is the possession of FIXED PRINCIPLES