tions.

To these he has added a selection from his papers, so as to furnish the present volume. His object in all of them is, in some degree to develope "the union of Life and Literature; or, in other words, the devotion of Literature to Social Interests;" and to do this in the course of a few miscellaneous papers, to be read rather in half-hours of leisure, than in hours of study, but which, while furnishing an agreeable relaxation, shall, at the same time, minister to information and improvement. In too much of our lighter miscellaneous literature, very deleterious elements are to be found; so that not only does it not nourish, but it does poison. To this censure Mr. Gostick's papers are far from being liable. In the lightest there is what suggests very serious reflection.

A familiar Explanation of the higher Parts of Arithmetic, comprising Fractions, Decimals, Practice, Proportion, and its Applications, &c., &c. With an Appendix. Designed as an Introduction to Algebra. By the Rev. Frederick Calder, B.A., Head Master of the Grammar-School, Chesterfield. 12mo., pp. xii, 167. Whittaker and Co.The object and end of this unpretending but most useful work are detailed in the preface. It is to supply a want which he, as a Teacher, has experienced, of a

school-book which would explain the more difficult parts of arithmetic, in a manner sufficiently familiar for the comprehension of youth, and yet sufficiently accurate and attentive to principles to be worthy of being considered an explanation. We have paid considerable attention to this volume of Mr. Calder's, and hesitate not to say, that, although the plan of the work is confessedly difficult and novel, he has happily succeeded, and made the connexion between ordinary and algebraic arithmetic at once easy and comprehensible.

A Tale

The Voice of many Waters. for Young People. By Mrs. David Osborne : with Illustrations, by R. Cooper, R.A., and A. W. Cooper. 16mo., square, pp. 184. Effingham Wilson. The object of this elegant though small volume is, we are informed, "to relate a few interesting particulars connected with the various oceans, seas, and rivers, which occupy, at least, threefourths of the surface of the globe." We are pleased with the execution of the work, inasmuch as the language is attractively simple, and a spirit of evangelical piety pervades every page. In our editorial labours, we shall at all times hail with pleasure and cordiality the re-appearance of Mrs. Osborne in the literary world as an author.

Sheffield Town-Hall, before R. Bayley, Esq., Magistrate, Tuesday, September 5th, 1848.

JOHN HEPWORTH, Toll-Collector at Hunter's-gate bar, was summoned on the complaint of Mr. John Unwin, with having illegally taken toll from him, when going to preach, as a Local Preacher in the Wesleyan Connexion. Mr. Dixon for the complainant, and Mr. Chambers for the defence.

Mr. Dixon stated, that by the Act 3 Geo. IV., c. 126, sect. 32, "no toll shall be demanded or taken by virtue of that or any other Act or Acts of Parliament, on any turnpike-road, of or from any person or persons going to or returning from his, her, or their proper parochial church or chapel; or of or from VOL. IV.-FOURTH SERIES.

any other person or persons going to or returning from his, her, or their usual place of religious worship tolerated by law." It was on this latter exemption that he relied, which did not require that the place of worship should be within the town or parish where the person claiming exemption resided. In the old Acts of Parliament, the exemption was only for persons going to their own parish church or chapel. But the Act of the 3d Geo. IV. gave much greater latitude. He should show that Mr. Unwin was going to his usual place of religious worship tolerated by law; and then, he apprehended, the defendant would be liable to a penalty, though the object was not a penalty, but only to decide a question of considerable importance. In the

4 N

Wesleyan system, the country was divided into Districts, each of which contained several Circuits, which had no respect to county or parochial boundaries. There were various rules and regulations; and every Preacher belonging to the body was bound to discharge his duties under the sanction of the Superintendent of his Circuit. Mr. Unwin had been appointed to preach sermons on the 27th of August, on behalf of the Sunday-school at Grindleford-Bridge, with the consent and authority of the Rev. Mr. Farrar, Chairman of the District, and Superintendent of the Sheffield West Circuit, and of the Rev. Mr. Harrison, Superintendent of the Bakewell Circuit, which also belongs to the Sheffield District. GrindlefordBridge is in the Bakewell Circuit. As a Local Preacher, therefore, he was clearly within the words of the Act of Parliament. His (Mr. Dixon's) client had been taken by surprise by the demand of the toll-keeper; for since the bar was erected, he believed no such demand had been made before; and he should call Mr. Longden to prove, that for many years he had been accustomed to go through the bar, on similar occasions, toll-free. He would quote the opinion of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, Q.C. His opinion was, "that the exemption in the Act is not confined to persons attending one place of worship, but extends to all persons going to all places of public worship to which they usually resort, according to the customary forms of their religion; and, consequently, that the Itinerant and Local Preachers abovementioned are entitled to the exemption." Mr. Unwin had been publicly advertised to preach; and he was going to preach in consistency with the rules of the society to which he belonged. This place, to which his duty called him, must be taken to be his usual place. If Mr. Unwin had been intruding himself into another Circuit contrary to rule, it would have been another matter. Sir N. C. Tindal, too, when Solicitor-General, said that "if the Wesleyan Minister attends the chapel according to the usage prescribed and observed by the rules of the particular persuasion to which he belongs, I think such chapel may be considered as, to him, the usual place of religious worship, when he is attending it, on the day so prescribed." That might therefore be considered as being to them their usual place.

Mr. Dixon then called Mr. Unwin, who proved that he was a Local Preacher in the Wesleyan Connexion; that on the 27th of August he was going in a

gig to Grindleford-Bridge, to preach two Sunday-school sermons. He had a per

son with him to assist in driving, in consequence of an infirmity in his arm. At Hunter's-bar, Hepworth demanded toll. He stated the purpose for which he was going, and claimed exemption. Hepworth, however, required him to pay, and he paid 6d. ; but gave notice that he should claim exemption from it. He went with the consent of the Superintendents of the Sheffield and Bakewell Circuits, Mr. Farrar at Sheffield, and Mr. Harrison at Bakewell. He went to preach in conformity with the rules of the Wesleyan society..... Cross-examined by Mr. Chambers. Had passed toll-free through this bar two years ago, when going to preach at Great-Hucklow, in the Bradwell Circuit. Could not say if Hepworth asked his name; but if so, he told it. Hepworth asked to see the Plan. He had it not with him; but told Hepworth that the appointment was not in the Plan. His name was in the Plan of the Sheffield West Circuit, now produced, as an accredited Local Preacher. According to that Plan, he was appointed to several villages about Sheffield, for August, September, and October; but he was appointed to Grindleford-Bridge by special arrangement, in accordance with the rules and usages of the Connexion, in addition to the others. He had two other similar appointments in the Bakewell Circuit, at Beeley and Youlgreave...... Re-examined by Mr. Dixon: In addition to the appointments set down for him in the Plan, he was bound to discharge this duty when appointed by his Superintendent; and where he was bound to go was his usual place.

Mr. Dixon then called Henry Longden, Esq., who has been nearly fifty years a Local Preacher, and is the oldest in the Circuit. He has preached at Grindleford-Bridge since this tollbar was erected. Mr. Longden stated that the evidence of Mr. Unwin was correct as to the practices of the society; and in cross-examination by Mr. Chambers, he said he had never paid toll when going to preach out of the Sheffield Circuit. It is not usual to forward Plans to the toll-keepers. The Plans are published, and the toll-keepers can purchase them if they like.

For the defence, Mr. Chambers put it to the Bench, whether it could, by any fair construction of terms, be held to be Mr. Unwin's usual place when he was going by extraordinary and special arrangement to preach at a distant place.

This Act was designed to relieve a large class of persons from toll in attending their regular places of worship. Under the old Act, persons were exempt only when going to their parish church or chapel. By a subsequent and local Act, the exception was enlarged; and in the case of Lewis v. Hammond, it was held that persons were not exempt when going out of their own parish. But the Act 3d Geo. IV. went further; and now the Dissenter going out of his parish to his usual place of worship, was exempt. But if persons going to preach at extraordinary and unusual places were exempt, persons travelling anywhere about the country had only to state they were going to their place of worship to be exempt from toll. But why should this be believed without some proof? He submitted, that after Mr. Unwin's admission, that he had never been to GrindlefordBridge before as a Preacher or a worshipper, it could not be held to be his usual place.

Mr. Albert Smith, the Magistrate's Clerk, said the case was the same as that of any other person going to preach on a special occasion a charity sermon.

Mr. Chambers: How are toll-keepers to protect themselves? Are they to be at the mercy of every one who says he is a Preacher? If so, what a door is opened for fraud !

The Magistrate: The bar-keeper can demand the person's name; and if he gives his name, he is liable to a very heavy penalty if he has practised fraud.

Mr. Dixon replied: The case of Lewis and Hammond, which was an action for money had and received, was in 1818, while the Act 3 Geo. IV. was 1822. Besides, Lewis v. Hammond was decided under a local Act, and it was held that the word "parochial" applied to the whole clause; but it was obviously intended to be omitted in the enactment under which he claimed exemption. The exemption for members of the Church was when going to their parochial church or chapel; but Dissenters enjoyed it when going to their ordinary place, in whatever parish that might be situated. They therefore had a privilege beyond Churchmen. He submitted, that where the rules of a religious society required its members to go to a particular place at any time, that was the usual place for them.

The Magistrate thought if a Preacher had duties to perform at any place, he was exempt from toll. They could not construe the Act very rigidly: it was evidently designed to be liberal. Toll,

it appeared, had not been demanded in such cases for fifty years. Toll-keepers were protected against fraud by heavy penalties incurred by persons who made a false statement.

The case was then decided in favour of Mr. Unwin. As no penalty was asked for, Hepworth, the bar-keeper, was convicted, and ordered to pay the costs, which were 48. Mr. Unwin subsequently returned the costs to the bar-keeper.

[By this decision, all Wesleyan Preachers are exempt from toll when going to conduct services beyond the bounds of their own Circuits, when such services are properly appointed to be held by them, under the sanction of the Superintendent in whose Circuit they reside, and the Superintendent of the Circuit where the services are held. The rule under which this is permitted is the following:-" Let no Local Preacher be permitted to preach in any other Circuit than his own, without producing a recommendation from the Superintendent of the Circuit in which he lives; nor suffer any invitation to be admitted as a plea, except from men in office, who act in conjunction with the Superintendent of that Circuit which he visits."-See Leaders' Class-book, Rules relating to the Officers.]

ANOTHER CASE.

(From the "Watchman" Newspaper.)

AT the Petty Sessions held at Ampthill, Bedfordshire, on Thursday last, John Higgs, the bar-keeper at Houghton gate, was summoned for illegally exacting a toll of the Rev. James Clapham, Wesleyan Minister, on Sunday, August 27th. Mr. Edward Handscomb appeared as Attorney for the complainant; and Mr. John Greene, as Attorney for the gate-keeper. It appeared that the complainant had resided at Ampthill, as a Wesleyan Minister, upwards of two years; that on every third Sunday he had to conduct divine service at Bedford; that on such occasions he had always passed toll-free through the Houghton gate; that, on the day in question, he was in a gig belonging to Mr. W. Armstrong, whose servant was driving; that, in coming to the gate, toll was demanded; that, notwithstanding the claim of exemption made by the complainant, on the ground that he was going to his usual place of worship, the demand was still insisted upon; and that the toll was at length paid under protest....... Mr. Handscomb then cited the following cases; namely, that of the late Rev. Joseph Sanders, at

Merthyr-Tydvil, reported in the Wesleyan Magazine for 1832, p. 135; that of Mr. W. Bennett, at Hemel-Hempstead, in February, 1833; that of Mr. G. Parrott, at Guildford, reported in the "Watchman" of April 22d, 1846; and that of Mr. J. Unwin, of Sheffield, reported in the "Watchman" of September 13th, 1848.

He also referred the Bench to the opinion of Mr. Fitzroy Kelly, and to the still more weighty opinion of the late Sir Nicholas Tindal, copies of which are to be found in the Wesleyan Magazine for 1841, p. 375. He also produced the "Minutes" of the last Wesleyan Conference, to show that his client was regularly appointed to the Bedford and Ampthill Circuit, between which places the toll-gate stands; and he produced a printed Plan of the Sunday appointments for that Circuit, by which it appeared that, on the day referred to, the complainant was going to Bedford in the ordinary course of his ministerial duty. .The defendant's Attorney argued, in reply, that the evidence of the com

plainant ought not to be received, inasmuch as he was the informant, and, as such, entitled, on conviction, to a moiety of the penalty; that the claim of exemption was not sufficiently explicit; that, as the vehicle was driven by an attendant, the claim of exemption could not be maintained; and that, at all events, the toll could be demanded of the driver, on his return the same morning.......At this stage of the proceedings, the Magistrates suggested that, as the complainant had disclaimed any wish to enforce the penalty, the better plan would be for the litigant parties to submit to the recommendation of the Bench, without a formal conviction. The Attorneys, having conferred with their respective clients, consented to this arrangement; and the Bench then required the toll to be refunded by the gate-keeper, and that the court fees should be paid by the parties in equal moieties. The gate-keeper was then informed by the Magistrates, that the law was quite clear on the point, and cautioned against exacting toll under such circumstances for the future.

Motiers-Travers, Neuchâtel,
August 17th, 1848.

DEAR AND HONOURED BRETHREN, -With the deepest gratitude to God did we learn, from your letter of the 25th of July last, the resolution of the British Conference with regard to the persecuted Christians of the Canton de Vaud. This new evidence of your Christian sympathy, which confirms all those we have received from your various Committees, is especially valued by us, because we are thereby assured of the communion of your prayers, and of the continuance of your intercession, on our behalf, with the

:

King of kings and Lord of lords. We are inspired anew with courage when we think of the faithful perseverance of your fraternal love, of which we have already received so many evidences. We feel assured that so many prayers cannot fail of efficacy it is to them that we ascribe the indwelling peace and joy we possess, through God's mercy, in the midst of our troubles. We scatter the good seed of the word of God in the midst of those who are committed to our care with more confidence, when we reflect that it is watered by your fervent supplications; and if the present moment be gloomy, we look forward to the future with greater hope, assured that one day the Lord will enable us to gather in an abundant harvest, wherein we shall both rejoice together. We are particularly affected by your prayers on behalf of the people and of the rulers who govern us; for never have we borne them with more affection on our hearts than since the time they have repulsed us. God, indeed, has

given us grace to submit to our trials in a spirit of patience and meekness, to bear our persecutors in mind before Him, under the conviction that they are more to be pitied than ourselves, and that their arbitrary measures have done us much more good than harm. Continue then, beloved brethren, to pray for them and for us.

We trust, that the hopes you express in your letter will be speedily realized, as much for the honour of our country as for our own quietude : our path, however, is still darkened with respect to external circumstances, nor can we anticipate, with any certainty, the time of our deliverance. On our mountains, one is sometimes assailed with a sudden gust, at the very moment when the heavens seem to assume the most serene aspect. It may very probably be thus with regard to our present position as a church. The Lord would teach us to go on from day to day, and to rely on Him alone.

It is true that more than one favourable circumstance appears at present to announce the return of a healthier feeling on the part of our population. In the first place, our meetings are not the occasion of any disturbance by the populace. They would, generally speaking, be left undisturbed, without the intervention of the agents of authority. In the only instance in which there has been latterly a little disturbance, one word from the Prefect of Vevey sufficed to put a stop, in a moment, to a tumult which was only attempted under the favour of night. It becomes more and more evident that our meetings will no longer be disturbed in any way, since the Council of State desires that it should be so. On the other hand, the Council of State, one of whose members does not scruple to manifest his sympathy with the insurgents of Paris, and another takes every opportunity to avow the doctrines of Socialism, daily loses its hold even on those who raised it to power, and has received certain checks from the Grand Council during the last sessions. Thus, for instance, the town of Yverdon, which the Council of State had placed under administration, has been replaced by the Grand Council under the regular government of the communal authorities named by the majority of the citizens. You are aware that M. Schopfer, on accepting the Presidency of the Grand Council, frankly declared himself in favour of religious liberty. More recently, at the close of a disagreeable scene in public, in which he was involved through M. Druey, Counsellor of State, he was led

to give in his resignation as member of the Grand Council. He wished to undergo a new election. Although the party of the Council of State had skilfully selected as his competitor an honourable man and a friend to religious liberty, M. Schopfer was nevertheless reelected. He is thus pledged by this very fact to persevere in the defence of those principles for which he first raised his voice.

The tribunals called upon to decide on those cases which were remitted to them by the decree of the 28th of March, have just taken a position which appears to promise greater tranquillity for the future. Four police tribunals, those of Lausanne, in the case of M. Scholl and Madame Vinet; of Aigle, in the case of M. Pilet; of Payerne, for M. Clement; and more recently of Echallens, in the affair of M. Germond, have, it is true, decreed fines for the offence of prayers in dwelling-houses; but the tribunal of Vevey has had the honour to enter on a better path. Interpreting the decree of the 28th of March as not interdicting, either in the letter or the spirit, any other than politico-religious meetings, which might be the cause of disturbances, it has pronounced in my case, that the meeting at which I presided, in my own house, not having any connexion with politics, and not having caused any disturbance, there was no need to enforce on me the penalty imposed by that decree. The public administration appealed to the Court of Cassation against this releasing sentence. Unfortunately, an error of form, which compelled the Court of Cassation to reject the appeal, prevented it from pronouncing judgment on the basis of the question itself: but more recently it had the opportunity of pronouncing such judgment, in consequence of an appeal by M. Germond, against the sentence of the tribunal of Echallens. The Court of Cassation then declared, in freeing M. Germond, that the decree of the 28th March was only applicable in those cases where there had been disturbance. Since then, the tribunal of Vevey has absolved five persons committed to its decision, without any appeal on the part of the public administration. It is, therefore, probable that the Council of State will make no more use of its decree, and will no longer send those to the tribunals who may be surprised in the misdemeanour of attending religious meetings. In this sense the decree of the 28th March has no doubt received its death-blow.

But, nevertheless, the Council of State,