Reviews.

A NEW MODE OF TREATING DEAFNESS; by JAMES YEARSLEY, Surgeon to the Metropolitan Ear Institution, author of " Deafness Practically Illustrated," "A Treatise on Diseases of the Throat," &c. London: Jous Churchill, Prince's-street, Soho. Pp. 30.

own. “I understand," says he, “that the ablution, generally called baptism, is not necessary and indispensable in order to be a Christian, and hence it is no mark or sign of being so to them who receive it. Amongst the Jews, the purifications by water were symbols of the purification of the heart. The coming of Christ finished types and symbols. Christ did not baptize. He washed his disciples' feet; yet none have THIS small treatise, having been written for the made the washing of feet an indispensable sacrament." columns of a medical periodical, contains a good many Again: All war is antichristian. The arms of a Chris-technicalities that the generality of our readers would tian for the defence of the sacred rights of manRELIGIOUS AND CIVIL LIBERTY-consist of prayer and a resistance—constant, firm, and passive-to all tyranny." "Receive everything that befals thee, and endure trial, and when thou art oppressed take courage, for gold is refined by fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of affliction." And again: "As men, we ought only to utter the sacred name as an act of worship; for instance, to praise, to thank, and to ask of the divine Being, and even these only when the heart truly feels what the tongue is about to utter; never in worldly differences, or asseverations, ill called reli gious.'

many.

On a distinct sheet, following the preface, is the letter of William Penn to the King of Polland, con cluded by these remarks::-"The letter from which the preceding translation is made, was taken from a volume in English, which contains an account of a journey made by William Penn in Holland and GerThe title is William Penn's Journal of his Travels in Holland and Germany in 1677, &c. Fourth edition. London, 1835. In this book, the letter is found at pp. 10-17. I have translated it as closely as possible; but every reader who understands English, ought not to rest satisfied with my inferior version; it would be tapestry admired by its underside,' as Cervantes says. The letter is of high import. as respects the important subject of religious liberty. In it, Penn treats more about affecting the heart than ruling the intellect; his language is more effectually addressed to the Christian than to the philosopher, but his sentiments are so correct, expressed with so much clearness, and at the same time in such a lively manner, that one of the best English writers of the time prefixes this letter to Locke's Essay on Toleration. This is as it should be: and it will be seen that Penn, in this letter, as in his other writings, considers liberty of conscience to be the inherent and natural right of all men, and he considers that, without liberty of conscience, the religion of a man is not his own, it is but what has been imposed upon him, not chosen; and that to use his liberty of conscience is the first step a man must take to possess a religion."

The volume is as interesting as it is curious, and although the ancient writer of it has shrouded his name, perhaps in impenetrable uncertainty,

"Yet some, who have his secret mean.ng guess'd, Have found our author not too much a priest."

not understand. It discloses, however, a simple and easy remedy, which is asserted to have afforded extraordinary relief, in cases of deafness which had been considered as quite incurable.

The means proposed are so simple, that the patient can employ them for himself; and so innocent in their character, that we do not see that they could in any from personal experience, nor do we happen to know case be productive of injury. We cannot speak at all remedy; but to any of our readers who suffer from any one who has derived benefit from the proposed this complaint, we would recommend the perusal of the work before us, as a likely means of procuring permanent relief.

THE PRESENT AGE: or, Truth Seeker in Physical
Moral, and Social Philosophy. London: HOUSTON and
STONEMAN. No. 1, pp. 44. Price 6d.

THIS Monthly may be described as an old friend in a
Teetotalism, Reform in our Criminal Jurisprudence,
new dress, and is devoted particularly to the cause of
and other philanthropic objects. The contents of the
written, and we have only want of space to plead for
number before us are interesting, the papers well
our inability to give a more lengthened notice of the
work.

A PLEA FOR IRELAND; or, a PROPOSAL to form an ASSOCIATION for the PURCHASE and IMPROVEMENT of IRISH LANDS, &e. By a MEMBER of the MANCHESTER CORPORATION. Manchester: JOHN HARRISON, Printer, Market-street. THIS is an interesting pamphlet, on an interesting subject; containing much valuable information within We cordially recommend it to the attention of our readers, satisfied that it sketches out a plan for the improvement of Ireland, which, if judiciously and energetically carried out, cannot fail to be productive of the most beneficial consequences to that distracted and unhappy country.

a short compass.

Poetry.

"OUR FATHER."

[The following lines were written in consequence of reading the subjoined extract from the "Report on Trades and Manufactures" in the "Prize Essay on Juvenile Depravity," by H. Worsley, M.A.],

"Many of the children," continues Mr. Horne, "told me they always said their prayers at night, and the prayer they said was, Our Father.' I naturally thought they meant that they repeated the Lord's Prayer, but I soon found that few of them knew it. They only repeated the first two words; they knew no more than Our Father.' These poor children,

15th. At his reside ce, Brighton, RICHARD PATCHING, in his WANTED, by a Young Man Friend, a SITUA

No. IV.

FRIENDS:

GLASGOW, 4TH MONTH, 1st, 1850.

THEIR ORIGIN, DISTINGUISHING PRINCIPLES,
AND PRACTICES.

XXVII.-MORAL EDUCATION-AMUSEMENTS, &c.
(Continued from page 4.)

DIVERSIONS OF THE FIELD CONTINUED.-Friends usu-
ally try the lawfulness of field diversions, which include
hunting and shooting, by two standards; and, first, by
the morality of the Old Testament.

They believe, in common with other Christians, that men have a right to take away the lives of animals for their food. The great Creator of the universe, to whom every thing that is in it belongs, gave to Noah and his descendants a grant or charter for this purpose. In this charter no exception is made. Hence, wild animals are included in it equally with the tame; and hence, a hare may as well be killed, if people have occasion for food, as a chicken or a lamb.

They believe, also, that when the Creator of the universe gave men dominion over the whole brute creation, or delivered this creation into their hands, he intended them the right of destroying such animals as circumstances warranted them in supposing would become injurious to themselves. The preservation of themselves, which is the first law of nature, and the preservation of other animals under their care, created this new privilege.

But though men have the power given them over the lives of animals, there is a condition in the same charter, that they shall take them with as little pain as possible to the creatures. If the death of animals is to be made serviceable to men, the least they can do in return is to mitigate their sufferings while they expire. This obligation the Supreme Being imposed upon those to whom he originally gave the charter, by the command of not eating their flesh while the life's-blood was in it. The Jews obliged all their converts to religion, even the Proselytes of the Gate, who were not considered to be so religious as the Proselytes of the Covenant, to observe what they called the seventh commandment of Noah, or, that "they should not eat the member of any beast that was taken from it while it was alive." It seems almost impossible that men could be so depraved as to take flesh to eat from a poor animal while alive; and yet, from the law enjoined to Proselytes of the Gate, it is probable that it was the case. Bruce, whose Travels into Abyssinia are gaining ground in credit, asserts that such customs obtained there. And the Harleian Miscellany, vol. vi., p. 126, in which is a modern account of Scotland, written in 1670, states the same practice as having existed in our own island.

This law, therefore, of blood, whatever other objects it might have in view, enjoined that, while men were

VOL. VIII.

engaged in the distressing task of taking away the life of an animal, they should respect its feelings, by abstaining from torture or all unnecessary pain.

"On Noah, and in him on all mankind,

The charter was conferr'd, by which we hold
The flesh of animals in fee, and claim
O'er all we feed on, pow'r of life and death.
But read the instrument, and mark it well.
Th' oppression of a tyrannous control
Can find no warrant there. Feed, then, and yield
Thanks for thy food. Carnivorous, through sin,
Feed on the slain, but spare the living brute!"

Cowper.

From this charter, and from the great condition annexed to it, Friends are of opinion that rights and duties have sprung up-rights on behalf of animals, and duties on the part of men-and that a breach of these duties, however often, or however thoughtlessly it may take place, is a breach of a moral law. For this charter did not relate to those animals only which lived in the particular country of the Jews, but those in all countries wherever Jews might dwell. Nor was the observance of it confined to the Jews only, but it was to extend to the Proselytes of the Covenant and of the Gate. Nor was the observance of it confined to these proselytes; but it was to extend to all nations, because all animals of the same species are, in all countries, organized alike, and have all similar feelings; and because all animals, of every kind, are susceptible of pain.

In trying the lawfulness of the diversions of the field, as Friends do, by this charter, and by the great condition annexed to it, I purpose, in order to save time, to confine myself to hunting; for this will appear to to be the most objectionable, if examined in this manner.

It must be obvious, then, that hunting, even in the case of hares, is seldom followed for the purposes of food. It is very uncertain, in the first place, whether, in the course of the chase, they can be preserved whole when they are taken, so as to be fit to be eaten. And, in the second, it may be observed, that we may see fifty horsemen after a pack of hounds, no one of whom has any property in the pack, nor, of course, any right to the prey. These cannot even pretend that their object is food, either for themselves or others.

Neither is hunting, where foxes are the object in view, pursued upon the principle of the destruction of noxious animals. For it may be observed, thats rewards are frequently offered to those who will pro cure them for the chase; that large woods or covers are frequently allotted them, that they may breed and perpetuate their species for the same purpose and that a poor man in the neighbourhood of a fox hunter would be sure to experience his displeasure,

BRITISH

THE BRITISH FRIEND.

if it were known that he had destroyed any of these
animals.

agony.

With respect to the mode of destroying them in either of these cases (which is the next consideration), it is not as expeditious as it might be made by other means. It is, on the other hand, peculiarly cruel. A poor animal is followed, not for minutes, but frequently for an hour, and sometimes for hours, in pain and Its sufferings begin with its first fears. Under this fear, perpetually accompanying it, it flies from the noise of horses and of horsemen, and the cries of dogs; it pants for breath, till the panting becomes difficult and painful; it becomes wearied even to misery, yet dares not rest; and, under a complication of these sufferings, it is at length overtaken, and often literally torn to pieces by its pursuers.

Hunting, therefore, does not appear, in the opinion of Friends, to be followed for any of those purposes which alone, according to the original charter, give mankind a right over the lives of brutes. It is neither followed for food, nor for prevention of injury to man, or to the creatures belonging to him. Neither is life taken away by means of it as mercifully as it ought to be, according to the meaning of the great condition. The netting, however, of animals for food is perfectly unobjectionable upon these principles.

But if hunting be not justifiable, when examined upon these three principles, it can never be justifiable, in the opinion of this Society, when it is followed on the principle of pleasure. All destruction of animal life upon this last principle, must come within the charge of wanton cruelty, and be considered as a violation of a moral law.

Friends try the lawfulness of these diversions, again, by the morality of the New Testament. They adopt, in the first place, upon this occasion, the idea of George Fox and of Edward Burrough, which has been already stated; and they follow it up in the manner which I shall now explain.

They believe that a man under the new covenant, or one who is really a Christian, is a renovated man. As long as Adam preserved his primeval innocence, or continued in the image of his Maker, his spiritual vision was clear. When he lost this image, it became dim, short, and confused. This is the case, the Society believe, with every apostate or wicked man. through a vitiated medium. He sees, of course, nothing He sees of the harmony of the creation. He has but a confused knowledge of the natures and ends of things. These natures and these ends he never examines as he ought; but, in the confusion of his moral vision, he abuses and perverts them. Hence it generally happens that an apostate man is cruel to his brute. But in proportion as he is restored to the Divine image, or becomes as Adam was before he fell, or in proportion as he exchanges earthly for spiritual views, he sees all things through a clearer medium. Friends believe, that the creation is opened to him, It is then, as and that he finds the Creator has made nothing in vain. It is then that he knows the natures of things; that he estimates their uses and their ends, and that he will never stretch these beyond their proper bounds. Beholding animals in this sublime light, he will appreciate their strength, their capacities, and their feelings: and he will never use them but for the purposes intended by Providence. It is then that the creation will delight him. It is then that he will find a growing love to the animated objects of it. And this knowledge of their natures, and this love of them, will oblige him to treat them with due tenderness and respect. Hence, all animals will have a security in the breast of every Christian, or renovated man, against oppression or abuse.. He will never destroy them wantonly, nor put them to unnecessary pain. Now, in the opinion

of Friends, every person who professes Christianity 4th Month, 1850. would view them; and that it therefore becomes them ought to view things as the man who is renovated in particular, as a body of highly professing Christians, to view them in the same manner. formly look upon animals, not as brute-machines, to be used at discretion, but as the creatures of God, of Hence, they uniwhose existence the use and intention ought always to be considered, and to whom duties arise out of this spiritual feeling, independently of any written law in the Old Testament, or any grant or charter by which their happiness might be secured.

Society, therefore, believe that they are bound to treat Viewing animals in this light, the members of this them accordingly. Hence, the instigation of two horses of a moneyed stake, is considered by them to be by whips and spurs, for a trial of speed, in consequence criminal. The horse was made for the use of man, to carry his body and transport his burthens; but he was never made to engage in painful conflicts with other horses, on account of the avarice of his owner. Hence, the pitting together of two cocks for a trial of victory is considered as equally criminal; for the cock, whatever may be his destined object among the winged creation, has been long useful to man in awakening him the approach of day; but it never was intended him from unseasonable slumber, and in sounding to that he should be employed to the injury and destruction of himself, or to the injury and destruction of his own species. In the same manner, Friends condemn the hunting of animals, except on the plea of necessity, or that they cannot be destroyed, if their death their several uses, or the several ends of their existence be required, in any other way. For, whatever may be in creation, they were never created to be so used by man, that they should suffer, and this entirely for his sport. Whoever puts animals to cruel and unnatural uses, disturbs, in the opinion of Friends, the harmony of creation, and offends God.

They are of opinion, in the second place, that the such an exalted sense of the benevolent spirit of the renovated man must have, in his own benevolent spirit, Creator, as to believe that he never constituted any part of animated nature, without assigning it its proper share of happiness during the natural time of its existday, or its year of pleasure. And if this be the ence; or, that it was to have its moment, its hour, its tranquillity, without the plea of necessity, must be an case, he must believe also, that any interruption of its innovation of its rights as a living being.

loves all the works of the Creator, will carry every They believe also, that the renovated man, who Divine law, which has been revealed to him, as far as it is possible to be carried, on account of a similarity of natures, through all animated creation; and particularly that law, which forbids him to do to another this law is founded on the sense of bodily, and on the what he would dislike to be done unto himself. sense of mental, feeling. The mental feelings of men Now, and brutes, or the reason of man and the instinct of animals, are different. But their bodily feelings are alike, and they are, in their due proportion, susceptible of pain. The nature, therefore, of man and of animals is alike in this particular. He can anticipate and know their feelings by his own. He cannot, therefore, subject them to any action unnecessarily, if on account of a similar construction of his own organs such an action would produce pain to himself. His own power of feeling strongly commands sympathy with all that can feel. And that general sympathy, which arises to a man when he sees pain inflicted on the person of any individual of his own species, will arise, in the opinion of Friends, to the renovated man, when he sees it inflicted on the body of any brute.