So great is the advantage of being acquainted with the subject upon which one has to write. The American navy employs about 85,000 seamen; of these, 30,000 are Englishmen. It is the English portion of her navy to which alone America has had to trust for the manning of her ships of war in past hostilities; and it is to the same that she would have to trust at present, were hostilities to be renewed to-morrow. Therefore, in a naval war with America, whichever flag may triumph (the red cross or the stars), it is, in the strictest sense of the words, one naturalborn Englishman who beats another. Captain Marryat should know, and he assures us, that there is no character so devoid ' of principle as the British sailor and soldier; if they can get 'higher wages, they never consider the justice of the cause, or 'whom they fight for.' In the last campaign, our soldiers, when in America, went over by picquets. Better pay is at the bottom of all desertions from our national service. With regard to the navy, not a year ought to be lost by the Trinity House, the Admiralty, and the Legislature, in attending to Captain Marryat's judicious suggestions. The duties upon tonnage should be so altered, as to remove the encouragement to bad shipbuilding. Faster and more frequent voyages would give better freights; better freights could afford higher wages. The rate of sailors' pensions ought also to be revised, with the same view. Our suspended negotiations concerning the Right of Search, for the purpose of recovering our subjects from out of American ships; and also our whole practice of impressment, are part of the same considerations. Few questions are more important than the taking away all possible grounds of dissatisfaction between the two countries. For peace between England and America is the interest not only of England and America, but of mankind.

We are afraid Captain Marryat will not think that we are entitled to ask a favour of him. But, as his own fame is as much concerned in it as our personal gratification, we venture, in conclusion, to suggest to him the desirableness of his returning to his ancient track of original and humorous composition. There he must always amuse. But we much question, on considering the lighter parts of the present volumes, whether he could ever write a good book of ordinary travels. The only descriptions of scenery which he has introduced, are of waterfalls: they are poor and tawdry. His descriptions of manners, which in one sense are so much better, are in another worse. Besides being intemperate and capricious, they frequently too much resemble the trifling of a schoolboy, who cannot help running away from his business, to laugh over an idle story, or play with a tricksy

word as a kitten with its tail. A grave and philosophical subject, we are sure, he could never fathom. It is a pity that he should not rest content with the goodly heritage that nature has assigned to him. His lot was marked out by the original diversity of human talents; and its boundary has since been still more strongly drawn by the division of intellectual labour which that diversity creates. It lies in a pleasant land. Smollet has made a sorry figure by continuing the History of England. Hume would probably have made no better, had he yielded to the temptation of continuing Roderick Random. In case the reflection is any comfort to him, 'let Captain Marryat picture to himself M. de Tocqueville engaged upon a second part of Peter Simple.' M. de Tocqueville's mistake in adventuring upon a sea-novel, would, in all likelihood, be as great as that of Captain Marryat in philosophizing upon the democracy of America. Greater, in our opinion, it cannot be.

ART. VI.-1. Recent Measures for the Promotion of Educa tion in England. Sixth Edition. 1839.

2. Speech of HENRY MARQUIS of LANSDOWNE, K. G., in the House of Lords, on the subject of Education.

1839.

3. Thoughts on Education. By SARAH AUSTIN.

Fifth Edition,

1839.

4. Substance of LORD JOHN RUSSELL'S Speech in the House of Commons, June 28th 1839, on the Government Plan for Promoting National Education. Fifth Edition. London: 1839. 5. A letter on National Education to the DUKE of BEDFORD from LORD BROUGHAM. Edinburgh: 1839.

N the spring of 1835, the principles of the British constitution I were brought to a very severe practical test. The Adminis

tration of Lord Melbourne had been unexpectedly dismissed by the act of the Sovereign, without any indication of the loss of the support or confidence of the House of Commons. A new Government was formed, at the head of which, after a short but inevitable delay, the ablest and most cautious of Conservative statesmen was naturally and justly placed. A general election followed. The new Parliament was assembled, and on successive divisions the Ministry were left in continued minorities. The question then to be tried was, whether a Government so circumstanced could continue to administer its functions; or whether the

bills drawn at St James's and Windsor Castle did not require the endorsement of the Commons to give them credit in the market, and to preserve them in circulation. This important question was decided in the affirmative; and the political firm which was unable to obtain this important collateral security stopped payment, and appeared in the list of bankrupts in the Gazette.

It was a short time before this event took place, that a shrewd and active partisan of Sir Robert Peel's government observedWe are beaten, and fairly beaten. One only chance remains; we must appeal to the clergy and the people, and we must raise the CHURCH CRY;-this may avail us yet, but, if this last expe'dient should fail, we are lost as a party for ever.'

We do not deny that this resolution was founded on a correct, though an unprincipled and selfish, view of the state of parties and of public feeling. The Tories or Conservatives-by whichever name they rejoice to be called (and they ever, like other offenders, appears under an alias),—the Ministry of Sir Robert Peel-could not hope to move the people of England by an appeal to their love and veneration for schedule A; Old Sarum and Gatton were not names to conjure with; they were not names that would call into being one popular spirit. The motto of Holy Alliance for ever!' though inscribed on as many election banners as it was impressed upon Tory hearts, would not command the vote even of a Liverpool freeman. A candidate's pledge to re-enact the Test and Corporation Acts, would have been rejected at the Hustings; and even the hopes of a repeal of the Act for Catholic Emancipation, would have been thought by the many as an injustice too monstrous to be attempted; and by the Bishop of Exeter himself as a blessing too great to be attained. But the love of the great majority of the people of England for the Established Church, was relied upon as a sufficient vis motrix—if the people of England could once be persuaded that their Church was in danger, and that it was their duty to rush forward to the

rescue.

We admit, that those who recommended this line of policy were wise in their generation. They staked every thing upon this single remaining card. But they did so to the imminent risk and detriment of that Church which they affected to love, and which they would fain have persuaded the public it was their desire to protect. Like many other belligerents, they planted their standard in holy ground; they made the fabric of the Church their headquarters; they selected it as the key of their position; they raised their batteries in front of the temple; they melted the lead of the roof for the purpose of casting bullets; they rang as the tocsin of war those chimes which ought to have sum

moned peaceful congregations to prayer and to praise; they despoiled the very altars of their plate and ornaments, in order to fill the military chest-to defray the hire of adventurers and of mercenaries, who were regardless of creed or of doctrine. To them it was a matter of indifference whether the sanctuary were violated, provided the battle were won. To avail ourselves of an illustration of Gibbon-they valued the other world chiefly as affording them a platform on which they could place their engines; and they moved this.

From the session of 1835 to the present time, the Tory party have acted steadily upon this principle. It has been the object of all their parliamentary supporters to represent every measure as a Church Question. The church cry has been raised not only by Lord Stanley and Sir Robert Inglis, whose consistent principles on such subjects entitle them to confidence, as far as it can be won by sincerity and zeal ; but by all the other adherents of the party, from Lord Lyndhurst to Colonel Sibthorp. The ancient maxim of the Church, ubi tres ibi ecclesia, was by them interpreted, that two or three should not be gathered together without a discussion of the church controversy. The necessary course of party politics has tended to the same end. The settlement of Irish tithes, the measures for the relief of Dissenters, the question of church rates, could not be debated without necessarily involving the interests of the Establishment. The bills for ecclesiastical reform, though recommended by the Bishops of Canterbury and York, were viewed with great suspicion and alarm. But the Church fever was not confined within these legitimate limits. Canadian politics were not allowed to be discussed without the introduction of the Clergy Reserves as a prominent subject; though that question had been decided, not by Lord Melbourne, but by the Earl of Ripon. The provision for the Roman Catholic clergy in Australia, was represented as being an Avatar of Maynooth at the antipodes; though this was the decision of Lord Aberdeen, and not of Lord Glenelg. A clause in a Prison Bill, providing religious instruction for Dissenters, was designated as subversive of all establishments; though supported by Lord Stanley, one of the most orthodox Conservative leaders. Going still further, the modification of the Usury Laws was objected to by Lord Ashburton in reference to religious scruples; and, to complete the cycle of absurdity, towards the close of the session, the London and Blackwall railway bill was opposed by the Bishop of London as dangerous to ecclesiastical interests! In short, during the last five sessions, we have found within both Houses of Parliament

Church first, Church last, Church midst, Church without end.'

The effect of this has been equally dangerous to religion and to politics. The tendency, if not the consequence, of this selection of the patrimony of the Church for a field of contest, has been 'to degrade religion and to pervert politics.' It has cast false and delusive lights upon every subject, and has deprived Parliament. of much of its powers-of its free agency, and of its ability to pronounce an unbiased opinion. It would be almost as easy for the pedestrians in the Strand and Holborn to keep their sobriety of pace when a cry of mad dog' is raised, as it is for a certain number of her Majesty's lieges to retain their calm reason, when told from authority that the Church is in danger. If an alarm of fire were raised in Lincoln's Inn or the Temple, by the rattling wheels of the engines, and the zeal and rivalry of the ministers of the Sun, the Globe, the Atlas, and the Phoenix, the sable inhabitants of those seats of learning would not quit their unfinished conveyances and wills, their abstracts of title, their drafts of settlements, their bills, answers, declarations, and pleas, in more zealous or eager crowds, than we have seen assembled at Exeter Hall, and at parish vestries, to extinguish those imaginary flames, in which they were taught to believe that all that was valuable and characteristic in the reformed churches was about to be consumed.

This turmoil, and all its evils, were fearfully augmented by some collateral causes. The great achievement of Roman Catholic emancipation, and more especially the principles on which it had been carried, had created alarm and distrust. Those orthodox Tories who considered that they had been betrayed by their leaders, were resolved to resist to the death any concession to their political opponents. The unreasonable demands of the Dissenters, who, in many cases, were unsatisfied with an admission to a full equality of civil privileges, and who declared war against all establishments as inconsistent with the rights of conscience, had exasperated many, and had raised up a spirit of alarm and resistance among all churchmen. The equality granted to the Roman Catholics by the Duke of Wellington's Act of 1829, their consequent capacity for civil office, their appointments as sheriffs, justices of the peace, as well as to other offices of trust, made many persons consider that their numbers were greatly increased, and their powers dangerously augmented. These unwise reasoners never stopped to examine whether power, guaranteed by law, and exercised within the limits of the constitution, was not in itself a safety; whilst power created by exclusion, and fostered by discontent, must not be always pregnant with danger. The first resembles the guiding and salutary flame confined within Sir Humphry Davy's lamp;