PUBLIC AFFAIRS.

THE session of parliament is drawing to a close, and we have no reason to complain of its inactivity. Many important debates have taken place, several important measures have been passed. None will deny the diligence of our legislature, for the last few weeks at least ; and on the whole, we have no reason to be dissatisfied with their work. The discussions in both Houses, though they may lead to no immediate results in the shape of legislative acts, nor, indeed, were meant to do so, are not unfrequently amongst their most important proceedings. Thus, in the House of Commons, the report of the Royal Commission on Education has been well sifted; and all parties seem to acquiesce in these two conclusions, that the present system, as a whole, must be retained as the only one that is even possible in England; and that, in its mode of instruction, it has been too ambitious, and consequently, in its effects, both partial and superficial. Night schools and ragged schools begin to be spoken of with a degree of respect, which contrasts, with a violence which we might almost term amusing, with the contempt with which government inspectors and the privy council at Whitehall spoke of them five or six years ago. Yet, on the whole, we agree with lord Shaftesbury, that they are better without government aid than with it, for at least one good reason which his lordship men tioned. That not unfrequently "the very best teachers, fitted beyond all expression for the duties assigned them, would not stand an examination before the Privy Council inspectors." The teachers wanted, whether male or female, and the only teachers, we will say, worth having, are, under divine guidance, self made; and lord Shaftesbury has described them well. 66 They are characterized by earnestness, truth, piety, and a thorough knowledge and love of their children, presenting in themselves the most extraordinary combination of the teacher and the missionary." We would add one remark in passing. There is a great prejudice against the title, Ragged School, as if, it said, rags and filth were a recommendation. And so they are-to these institutions. It is their special vocation to be the chiffoniers of public instruction; to be always groping and raking in the mud which lies at the bottom of that awful current of humanity which rushes deep and turbid through the lowest quarters of our great towns. It is theirs to bring up from its lowest depths the pearls, some of which will not fade or lose their lustre, either in this world or in that which is to come. This done, the diver must go down again and again, and leave the polishing of his pearls to other workmen. A ragged school ought never to cease to deserve its name. It should always be filled with ragged children. When these have learned cleanliness and order, they should make way for others, or be removed to a higher and totally distinct department. A ragged school should be the first step in the upward progress of those outcasts for whom no decent school for the children of the respectable working man will open its doors, or ought to do so.

In the House of Lords several debates have occurred on matters especially interesting, not only to the clergy, but to all earnest members of the church of England. Lord Lyttelton proposed an increase

of the episcopate at home; but even his high character, and the respect in which he is so justly held, failed to secure for him more than a respectful hearing in a thin house. Lord Ebury fared no better with a proposal for altering the terms of subscription to the Prayer Book. Last year, it will be remembered, his lordship, in a long and elaborate speech, introduced the question of Prayer Book Revision. It is evident that these subjects are taking hold upon the public mind. If the first should ever be carried, it will only be with the loss of the secular dignity which is now, and has been for ages, associated with our English episcopacy. And we would here repeat a caution we ventured to give to the advocates of lord Lyttelton's measure some time ago,-— to consider well the consequences of what still appears to us so needless, and at the same time so hazardous, a measure.*

The other questions are not allowed to sleep. The formidable number of pamphlets which crowd our table, for and against liturgical reform, sufficiently attest the interest taken in it both by the laity and clergy. Ireland has now taken up the subject, and formed her own "Liturgical Amendment Society.' To this course she has probably been driven by the unwise proceedings of our English Convocation, of which we have said enough already. The last pamphlet we have opened argues for revision "with an especial reference to the clergy, and the Essays and Reviews." Evidently there is a great disturbance, a ferment in many minds, and it is foolish to conceal it. Many of our bishops and archdeacons, in their Charges, have introduced the question, They view it, of course, in different lights. Indeed, it seems, just now, to be cast loose on the world, ignorant of its own parentage, and equally willing to accept a fostering hand from High or Low churchmen, from a Tractarian, or an admirer of the Essays and Reviews, This is an ominous state of things, and one on which our Evangelical churchmen should, if possible, come to a full understanding with each other, and be prepared to act in concert.

After nearly fifty years of public service, Lord John Russell receives a peerage, which his political opponents no less than his personal friends allow to be well deserved, He took leave of the House of Commons in an eloquent speech on our foreign policy, from which we are left to infer that our relations with France have been for some time past, as indeed we all supposed, of a frail and delicate nature. His silence, rather than any explicit statements, in answer to questions put to him by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Kinglake, and others, have left a painful conviction that France has been trafficking for the accession of Sardinia as the price of Italian independence, and the withdrawal of her troops from Rome. England, it is now clearly understood, will never consent to so unprincipled a transfer of sovereignty, and one so injurious to her own interests. If persisted in, it would have caused an open rupture. Were an apology wanted for the attitude which England has assumed, for our enormous expenditure in forts and fleets and rifle corps, it is supplied at once by such disclosures. For the present the clouds have passed over us, and we begin to breathe more freely. An European war may still be averted, and the bold front we have been able to assume will, if so, have been, under God, the chief cause of the world's prolonged tranquillity. From India we learn that abundant rains have fallen, and that the * See Christian Observer, April, 1860,

funds raised at home for the relief of the sufferers from the famine have been sufficient. It will be a bright feature in the history of the year. It reflects great honour on the national character. We have had an opportunity of returning good for evil. The Indian mutiny and its atrocities have been avenged in the Indian famine, and now England has been permitted to exhibit to millions of idolaters what it is to be a bible-reading nation, taught to return good for evil. The lesson, we are assured by our missionaries, is making a deep impression.

American affairs show no improvement except in one point; the feeling of the Northern States towards Great Britain has become more reasonable. It is perceived that we really intended what we all along avowed; namely, to maintain a perfect neutrality. For though it may seem strange to us that such a construction should have been placed upon our conduct, it is not the less true that the conviction was almost universal in the Northern States that England, directly or indirectly, would give her influence to the Confederates, the slaveholding and cotton-growing States. Public feeling in England has, from the first, undergone no change whatever in this respect. A public meeting was held last week in London to present a testimonial to Dr. Cheever, of New York, who was present. He maintained that "the duty of the Northern States was to forbid slavery in the district of Columbia, repeal the Fugitive Slave law, and forbid the traffic of slaves from State to State." So far we agree with him. "If," he added, "the North were to adopt such a course, and announce their firm determination of suppressing all slavery and trade in slaves, for the future, he believed the course would at once command the sympathy and respect of all mankind." Of this there can be little doubt. But when he tells us that, "the duty of Great Britain in this matter was clear, no matter what the issue of the present struggle in the United States might be,-England should never submit to the degradation of recognizing a community of pirates as a nation,"-few Englishmen, and, we are persuaded, no English statesman, will see their way to this conclusion. It would be an act of injustice. Privateering ought to be made piracy by the law of nations; so should slaveholding as well as slave-dealing; but they have never yet been made

So.

And England is too just to act upon an ex post facto law. Lord Kinnaird, who followed, after alluding to the strange prejudice so current in New York, that our sympathies are with the Southern States, spoke the voice of all parties when he said, "Such statements were utterly untrue. He thought there was not much sympathy felt in this country for either party in the contest between the North and South, for the universal opinion in England was that both were equally insincere." Not much sympathy, it is true; but still great sorrow. No shout of triumph, or pealing of cannon and of joyous bells, will greet the tidings of the great battle, which we are told daily to expect, when they shall reach our shores. Whoever may be the victors, we shall be more disposed to put on our mourning suits. The conquerors themselves will feel as we do when passion is dethroned, and reflexion and calm reason have resumed their seat.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.-We are obliged to omit several contributions which were ready for the press. They will appear in our next Number.

FEW words are sweeter to human ears, or more frequently upon human tongues, than liberty. It does not, however, always happen that words oftenest used are those best understood. Our knowledge of the thing indicated is sometimes small and superficial. This becomes evident when anything unexpected arises to throw a doubt upon the notions we have formed, or taken for granted, respecting it. It may be that many who talk of liberty, know but imperfectly what real liberty is; it may be well to direct a few thoughts to this point. It may be that the painful events now happening in America have infused into some minds strong doubts, whether the modern forms of liberty are, after all, so much superior even to the despotisms of ancient times. This is a great question, which, however, we do not propose to discuss in this paper. But it must be evident that, for the consideration of such a question, it is essential to understand what true liberty is.

None

Liberty is as dear to us as to our descendants in America, or to any people on the face of the earth. boast of liberty more than we. We demand it for ourselves; we recommend it to others. We could not eat by day, or sleep by night, if it were gone. It is our glory that the first foot-print of a slave upon our shores makes him a free man. We have proclaimed liberty to the thousands who were onco serfs in our colonies and foreign dependencies. We gave twenty millions of money to the owners of slave estates in our West Indian possessions to set their bondsmen free. The love of liberty has always been a characteristic of our nation. Even in papal times, as the whole course of our history shows, the yoke of bondage galled our ancestors; nor were all the arts of Rome sufficient to make it sit easily on their necks. We have come to regard our isle as the home of freedom, and thousands

in other lands envy us our distinction in this respect. There is nothing which either our senators or ourselves guard with greater jealousy and watchfulness than this. To this fact the spontaneous rise and successful growth of the Volunteer movement may well bear witness. We may therefore be supposed to know what liberty is, and to be able to point out its constitution and bearings. No doubt we can; and every Englishman ought both to learn and to transmit the great lesson which the word of God, and the experience of ages, combine to teach. The subject is one of great interest for the genuine Christian. He of all men ought to have a true idea of liberty, and rejoice in it. Liberty and freedom are words not unfrequently used in the Bible, in a political, social, and religious sense. How greatly did Israel rejoice in his freedom from the yoke of Egypt. Among the rewards offered to the man who should silence the boastings of Goliah was this, "that his father's house should be made free in Israel." Both the Psalmist and St. Paul recognized it as an essential feature in spiritual life, for the one declares that he walked at liberty when he sought the divine precepts" (Ps. cxix. 45); and the other, that "where the Spirit of God is, there is liberty." (2 Cor. iii. 17.) Nor does there seem to be any difference in the nature of liberty itself, whether viewed in connection with ordinary or religious matters; so that we may argue from the one to the other with advantage. Let us first, then, inquire into the nature of true liberty, as presented in ordinary life, and afterward apply it to the affairs of the soul.

First. What, then, is true liberty? Whether we choose to call it by this term, or by the Saxon term freedom, it must be evident that it has reference to restraint of some kind. The word emancipation indicates the same. It necessarily implies the removal or absence of something which cramps energies we wish to exert, or impedes acts we purpose to perform. We cannot use the word free without having before the mind something which we wish to shake off, or keep at a distance. The man whose arms are pinioned, though he be in a desert, is not free. Neither is the man, though unfettered, who is shut up within the walls of a prison, and we know the liberty for which both are longing. They want to get rid of the impediments which prevent them from going whither they please, and doing what they wish. They want absolute and entire freedom in these respects.

But here a question arises. Is there such a thing in the world as absolute and entire freedom? and if there be, is it worth the having? We may answer thus: Alexander Selkirk, on his desolate island, had such liberty. A man may have it now, if he will. Let him only go into a lonely wilderness, far away from human society, there provide for his own wants, and