Our observations have already extended to such a length that we are glad to feel that to FOREIGN TOPICS we need devote but a few lines. The stability of M. Guizot's Government in France we cannot but feel endangered by various financial defeats it has sustained. M. Thiers is always ready, with his war-song and his grasping policy, to volunteer his aid. The love of conquest lately displayed by the French Government in the Pacific is a cause of unquestionable annoyance to the English Government. The Ashburton treaty with America already gives rise to a double interpretation as to the right of visit; and other questions present themselves in so unsatisfactory a shape as to render it more than probable that a denouement with the United States will one day occur. Greece is unable to pay the dividends on the loan to her creditors, and England is compelled to contribute to the support of a Greek Government, the most imbecile and worthless. The battle of Navarino was indeed, and most truly, "an untoward event." The conquest of Scinde entails new difficulties, responsibilities, and anxieties, and we can scarcely congratulate Lord Aberdeen on the announcement. China is a most embarrassing and still unsettled subject, and the Opium-trade question is one which the Government seems not to know how to meet, so encompassed is it with difficulty on every side. The present state of Spain is far from satisfactory. As the period draws nearer when the youthful Queen Isabella II. will assume the reins of Government and the direction of the vessel of the State, party spirit becomes more violent and faction more vehement. In the short space of a month two new Ministries have been formed, and the demon of "revolt" has shown himself in more than one city and province. Portugal continues to keep at arm's length our diplomatic agents in their endeavours to obtain true commercial reciprocity in our relations with that country; and France is as obstinate as ever in refusing to sign a commercial treaty. Russia has triumphed in her settlement of the Servian question, and Turkey is once more degraded, by her submission to the terms dictated to her by the Emperor. There have been earthquakes in the West Indies; a revolution at Hayti; and there are apprehensions that the Chinese mean to violate their solemn promises and engagements when a suitable opportunity shall offer. This is an abridgment of an essay on our foreign relations. The well-instructed reader will, however, perceive, in the subjects referred to, the germs of many discussions, and of a host of difficulties.

In thus presenting to our readers the Prospects of Ireland, and the Difficulties of the Government, we have had two distinct objects in view; and we do not hesitate to avow them. Our

first object has been to open the eyes of some, who are liable to be deceived by the false lights and allurements held out by a portion of the London press, as to the real state of Ireland. It is rotten at the core, and strong measures must be applied. Our second object has been to seek to prevail on all classes of the Conservatives in this country to rally, without distinction and shade, round a Government which has so many difficulties to meet and so many foes to withstand. We ought, however, to have another object in view, and we trust that to it we are not indifferent, and that is-to prevail on all our readers, whether clerical or lay, to make the subject of national afflictions, sorrows, and difficulties, matter for private prayer, that "the high court of Parliament" may be so directed by God in all their deliberations and decisions, and that "all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all

tions!"

genera

Ecclesiastical Report.

THE important Government measures of Church Extension and Education in Factories having been discussed in two separate articles, we shall not allude to them under this head, but pass on to that of

THE SCOTCH SECESSION.

A considerable body of the Scottish clergy have at last separated themselves from the National Church, setting up what they choose to designate a Free Protesting Church. The separatists profess to adhere to Presbyterian principles, and to have no quarrel with the Church of Scotland, except on the question of patronage. This question, however, is one of considerable importance, and it affects England as much as Scotland. If the Legislature had interfered to abolish the old law, in accordance with the wishes of the Non-Intrusionists, there would have been persons in England who would have clamoured for a similar change in this country. The effect of the change would have been this, namely, that the appointment of ministers would have been vested in the people. But the Government continued firm, and refused to change the laws at the bidding of a faction. Had such a change been introduced, the Church of Scotland must have been ruined; for nothing but confusion could have

resulted from the measures of the Non-Intrusion party. To us it is surprising that any men should be so enamoured of the Dissenting system, respecting the choice and appointment of ministers, as to wish to introduce it into a Church. Look at the working of Dissent in England. A preacher dies, and what are the consequences? Confusion, discord, hatred, malice, and all the evil passions are immediately called into existence by the proceedings in the choice of a successor. After wrangling and jangling for a time, the two parties separate, the larger retaining the old chapel, and the smaller going off to erect a new one. But does the mischief end here? On the contrary, the same scene is again repeated whenever one of the ministers dies. There is no principle in Dissent to check this evil: it flows as a natural consequence from the system. Let us then suppose that the Non-Intrusionists had succeeded, and that the appointment of the clergy had been vested in a majority of the parish. Under such a system the Church of Scotland could not exist for a single generation. Every removal of a clergyman would leave the parish a prey to the evil passions of the multitude. The same consequences would arise also in England if the appointment of the clergy were vested in the people. We have a practical illustration of the working of the system in the proceedings of Dissenters; yet we have been told that some few English clergymen sympathize with the Scottish Non-Intrusionists, and that they have been so rash as to communicate their views in writing.

Now the least we can say of such individuals is, that they are pursuing a most inconsistent part. What are the Non-Intrusionists but Dissenters? There is no single point on which they differ from English Independents; as well, therefore, might a clergyman support Independency in England as Non-Intrusionism in Scotland. We remind such clergymen that, in their support of the Scottish schismatics, they admit a principle, which, if acted upon, would ruin the Church to which they profess to belong, and to which they have declared their attachment. The principles of the Non-Intrusionists would turn every parish in England into a Dissenting or Independent body. No man, we think, should adopt principles, or lend them his support, which he is not prepared to carry into practice. Either, therefore, those clergymen of the Church of England, who approve of the course of the Non-Intrusionists, should quit their posts in this country and join the Dissenters, or go over to Scotland and enrol themselves among the separatists. If the Non-Intrusionists are right in their principle, then the Church of England is in error; and if a clergyman adhere to the former, he cannot, as an honest man, remain in the latter.

Before we quit the present subject, we would suggest whether our bishops, in their examination for holy orders, and in granting licenses, might not make a point of presenting to the minds of the parties the subject of Church government. Many young men are ordained without troubling themselves on the subject; the consequence is, that in various instances they become lax in their opinions, and inconsistent in their practice. For example, what must be the inference from the fact, that certain English clergymen approve of the course of the Non-Intrusionists? Undoubtedly it is this, that in their estimation the question at issue is of no importance. If the subject of Church government were brought prominently before the candidates at, or prior to, ordination, those who entertained unsound views would be kept from entering the Church, and others would be strengthened in their attachment to her doctrines and discipline. We should not then see so many instances of clergymen actually joining and acting with Dissenters.

With respect to the Church of Scotland we would remark, that she is much more likely to prosper now than she was, while so many refractory ministers remained within her pale. By the Non-Intrusion party she is denounced; but when the places of the separatists are supplied by suitable individuals, the Church will flourish as before. In all probability the present schism will not be able to linger on for many years. Judging from the practices of our Dissenters, we may infer that the Non-Intrusionists will soon be divided into a variety of sections, all of them influenced by the bitterest feelings of hostility against each other. That such consequences will ensue, is, in our opinion, certain; and the people will then become sensible that there is no security, no sure ground, to rest upon in Dissent.

We cannot, however, believe that such an extensive schism could have taken place if the Church of Scotland had been Episcopal in her government and discipline. It appears to us that Episcopacy is not only scriptural and apostolical, but that it is better calculated to prevent divisions than any other system. Still, as the Church of Scotland is recognized by the laws, we cannot but sympathize with her on the present occasion.

CHRISTIAN UNION.

Christian union! The Dissenters of England have actually invited the public, even the members of the Church of England, to unite with them, in what they term a bond of Christian union. For what purpose the union was proposed we have not been able to ascertain. We only know that a meeting to further the object was held in May. Into the proceedings of this body we

do not intend to enter. We merely wish to point out the absurdity of the thing, as well as the inconsistency of those few clergymen, who gave their countenance to the strange design.

Now with respect to the thing itself. How absurd for Dissenters to invite the clergy of the Church of England to unite with them! How is it possible that they should? Or for what purpose could they unite? These questions are, as we think, inexplicable. The only principle on which an union could be effected with Dissenters is that of submission. Churchmen must come down to the level of Dissent, and merge all their own principles, or there can be no union with Dissenters. They were not unreasonable enough to expect such a result, though they were unprincipled enough to send out the invitation. Their want of principle in the business is evident, from their conduct on the Factory Education Bill. The Church and the clergy were denounced at their meetings. The Church catechism and Episcopacy were branded as worse than heresy. Yet these same men could, at the very same time, use the cant of Christian union! It is scarcely possible for hypocrisy to assume a more disgusting form.

Then with respect to the conduct of some few of the clergy, we are told (but we rejoice to find that the number was very small) that certain clergymen were so far allured by the Dissenting bait as to countenance the design. Yes! some few clergymen actually listened to the invitation of Dissenters for Christian union! They must have been very weak men, or else very unsound Churchmen, to listen to the proposal. We deem the act to be traitorous towards their own Church. To unite with men who denounce the Church, who stigmatize Episcopacy as heresy, who denounce the catechism as a tissue of lies, is most dishonest. We are happy to find, however, that several clergymen drew back, assigning as their reason the conduct of Dissenters respecting the Education Bill. So far they acted well; but what must be the opinion of sound Churchmen on such conduct? Dissenters have not acted more nefariously respecting this bill, than they had often acted before; and the clergy ought, from the beginning, to have stood aloof from men, whose only object, in forming a Christian union was to unite them against their own Church.

According to the newspapers, two clergymen only, Mr. Baptist Noel and Mr. Thomas Mortimer, attended with the motley band of unionists in Exeter Hall. We would not speak harshly of any man; but we must contend, that to support such an object, is to act in opposition to the Church. The countenance of clergymen encourages the Dissenters to imagine that their