Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XIII, Issue 28, 6 November 1885, Page 1

Current Topics AT HOME AND ABROAD.

Sib Julius Vooel also perceives the folly— or A cktisto Abuse. even the something worse than folly— of turning

tbe public schools of the Colony into nurseries for babieß. "We clip the following question put to him at his recent meeting in Christcbnreh, with Sir Julius' answer, from our contemporary tbe Lyttelton Times :—": — " I have read in some of our local papers— l think in thp Otago Daily Times— that Sir Julius Vogel, soon after his arrival in this country the last time, stated that to impound £600,000 out of tbe Consolidated Revenue for the purposes of education wweorefrlatively absurd. Now, seeing that tbe ColoDy is in an unprecedented state of depression, and that hundreds of old, useful colonists are going away in consequence ; and seeing, further, that it has bow become very doubtful whether a payable market can be found in the Old Country for farm produce sent from here, what does Sir Julius Vogel think now of a dogged persis ency on the part of our legislators in a line of policy in the matter of education which he himself has denounced to be ' superlatively absurd ?' Sir Julius Vo^el : My answer is that I don't remember using the phrase. It doesn't sound such a phrase as I would use, but I may have done bo. Then I don't believe that thousands are leaving the Colony, because statistics show that mor° are coming than are going. Then I am not sure that those persons who are in oistress do not finu their distress materially alleviated by having their children educated free of cost. There is no greater boon to the working classes than free education. Take a family of five or six children ; the father can hardly complain of tbe taxation to which he is subject, when it ia a fact that he receives from £20 to £25 a year in free education. Ido not think that the class referred to has any reason to complain ; but wha.t J did say then, and what Ido say now, is that I think the cost of education is excessive. The State pays more than would h*ve to be paid if the children were sent to private institutions. Children are sent to school who ought to be in tbrir mothers' arms — at least children of four or five years of a<re — and in my opinion it is nothiEg short of mischievous to have children sent to school at that age. I think there is not sufficient local supervision, or not sufficient economy on the part of the Government. We are paying £3 15s per head, and by a custom which has arist-n 5s additional for every child attending school ; and m order that the committees may grab as much as pos lble they take children from the mothers' arms. I don't suppose that they teacb them much, but they are allowed to sit on the floor (laughter). Year by year the uumber of children increases. I need scarcely tell you that such is the case (laughter). It is a very serious matter, and it is quite true that tbe House is very jealous of any interference with the expenditure ; and though my own view is that we ought to have a less expensive system, vet I cannot avoid seeing that the view of the majority throughout the country is not in accordance with mine." Sir Julius, nevertheless, has not explaioed the case fully, and when we consider that the £20 or £25 received in free education by the father of five or six children is Irequently received by fathers who are able to pay for their children's education, and largely at the expense of those who are not well-to-do, the matter appears much more grave. Free education is a necessity for ihose who cannot afford to pay for their children's schooling, and it should without question be provided for them, bat provided as it is for tbe whole population inclusively, the cost must continue excessive and become still heavier every year— to the serious injuty of many and tbe general detriment of the children. The case of the little children Sir Julius explains very clearly. There is, however, connected with it an oi her feature not alluded to— nor perhaps as yet generally noticed. It U that tbe admission of the«*e infants into the schools t-lla in a maiked manner against the training of young girls to become domestic servantn-a very necessary portion of the c immunity. Tne n ir-e-girl, who was commonly developed into thrgeneral servant, is not now employed m many families, whose nursing is done by the school teachers -and thus, as we have heard it complained, msny of the pooier households are deprived of a means of increasing their earning*, and of providing occupation for their m embers. The whole school system, in short, as it now exists,

is full of evils, and the points in which it works miichief are endless. The question put to Sir Julius was a useful one, and hit aniwar ihould be sufficient to work a change, were it not for the attitude taken up, and not to be departed from, by a pig-headed majority.

ANOTHER SCANDALOUS, ATTACK.

Another illustration of (l 'hose unprovoked oatrages by which certain jigivlons of the English Press distinguish themse Atf-in their treatment of matters connected witbrSjtjland occurs in the Saturday Review of AiH[t 15. The writer \% speaking of the creation of Cardinals whicuß-tl lately taken place, and he seizes upon the opportunity afforf.e^tiim to make a scan* dalous, unjustifiable and libellous attack b., \"s Eminence Cardinal Moran, on the character of the Irish prießtEoolt of New South Wales, and on Irish Catholics generally. An attempt, moreover, made to promote jealousy and ill-feeling between Catholics of the different nationalities ia particularly insidious, and deserves the most severe reprehension. "Last year," says the Review "he (Archbishop Moran) succeeded, on the death of Archbishop Vaughan, to the Boman Catholic See of Sydney, where, if truth must be spoken, his career has been far from a success. He had difficulties, no doubt, to contend with. He followed a prelate of considerable acquirements and great force of character, who had made himself universally popular and respected as well among Protestants at Sydney as among his own flock, as was shown at the time of his embarking for England on what proved to be his last voyage . . . when half the population of Sydney followed him to the port and cheered as the vessel steamed out to s^a." Comparisons, as we know, are " odorous," and not always pleasantly po, and when one is made for the purpose of discrediting the acquirements and character of a prelate by those of his piedecesaoi tbe unpleasantness, not to say the stench, is very maiked. No man more than tbe late Archbishop Vaughan himself would bave been ready to acknowledge the superiority of Cardinal Morao in those points where he is superior, or would have rejoiced more to know that the See left vacant by him had been more ably filled. And brilliant though Archbishop Vaughan was there can be no doubt bufc that a more solidly able man now fills his place. It will further hold good in the opinion of all Catholics that a Pontiff like Leo XIII., noted f .r his wisdom and the strength ami keenness of bis jud^rneut, would be the last among all living beiuoja who could make tbe mistake of replacing a strong and fully-qualified maa by a weaker one in a position growing everj day iv importance, and year by year needing a nicer and more skilful management, as well as a bolder standing, and a braver tront towards a world increasing in enmity a^aitiht the Church of God. As the colonies grow in importance, those who are appointed to rule in them must of necessity be fitted for the task required of them, and men of a higher, rather than a low»r standard must necessarily be appointed. Under no circumstances could the Pope have failed in making sach an appointment ai the circumstances of the place and times demanded. And the intimate knowledge that he possessed of Cardinal Moran's career, of his great learning as famous among the learned men of Rome as among those of his native country, and knowu to all who constitute the learned world, of his singular moderation, and of all those qualities owned by him that elevate the man and adorn the prelate, in itself vouches for tbe soundness of his Holiness's choice. To be little the qualifications of Cardinal Moran ia to offer an insult to the wisdom and judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff, and no one would more strongly hare condemned such an action than his Eminence's distinguished and admirable predecessor. This writer, however, who pretends to glorify the memory of Archbishop Vaughan at the expense of his successor, in fact, insults that memory, and betrays that he is more actuated by the deadly, disgraceful, hatred of tbo Irish people than by respect for anything connected with Archbishop Vaughan or the work so well and faithfully done by himjdunng his all too short career. " Rut. moreover " says tbe Review," Archbishop Vaughan wa9 au Englishman, and bad a strong euou,rh wrist to control the somewhat unruly — and almost wholly Irish — priest-hood under his jurisdiction, who would be none the warse, if ihey are not gieatly maligned, could a little of the superfluous energy of our blue ribbon enthusiasts bo brought to bear upon them." Tbe picture drawn of Archbishop Vaughan bullying with an iron hand and by virtue of his English blood anil prejudices a drunken Irisb priesthood is one as dishonouring to his memory, as it is foul and calumnious towards the clergy of JTew

South Wales. Indeed it is technically libellous and the clergy so vilely belied and inaolted would have grounds to bring an action at law against their libeller. — The Revieiv continues — " Archbishop Moran has failed 'almost as conspicuously as his predecessor succeeded, in commanding the homage either of Catholic or Protestant opinion. And it is hardly possible to deny, if we may trust to local sources of information, that this is partly at least due to bis own indiscretion." One of the " local sources " referred to we may add is the Sydney Morning Herald which, says the Review, " does no fc appear to be inspired by any kind of narrow delusiveness or no. Popery fanaticism."— Appearances, nevertheless, as we know, are often deceptive, and 'never were they more bo than in the present instance. The other local source consists of certain letters from " Roman Catholic correspondents " to the Herald'-' and them we may dismiss without any notice whatsoever .-There are other Catholics* however, to whom the Revieiv also alludes. — He writes as follows. ''How far the Imh Colony there has been the cradle of civilisation for all Australia is a point on which perhaps an Irish prelate can hardly be expected to form an impartial jadgment, but here also Dr. Moran will by no means find bfjaiiews universally shared by his coreligionists. Only the other day a iSAan Catholic priest expressed his conviction in the Tablet — not too good ieason — that at home some Irish Catholics were aHandal to the creed they professed and a curse to the country thjp belonged to : and we have Been quite as emphatic a verdict pronounced on the Australian Irish by their own co-religionists. " As to the Roman Catbolic priest, why, he wag only Father Angus talking of the Irish national Members — and mania is always mania and rabies is rabies, whether it occurs in a priest or any one else. The co-religionists of the Australian Irish who have spoken of them as Father Angus has •poken of certain Irish Members of Parliament, if any such there be — deseive the amount of credit due to Catholics who reject the obligations of charity, and who place the prejudices of race or caste before the duties and ties of religion. On them also we need waste bat little of our attention. The chief thing, meantime, to be noticed about Ibis article, thoroughly contemptible as it is in itself, is the gratuitous, offensive manner in which the Irish Catholic people generally are attacked through those feelings which they most tenderiy cherish — the lore and veneration they entertain towards their priesthood and which culminate towards those prelates who, like Cardinal Moran, -vindicate by their great and notable virtues, by their talents and learning, the character of the race, and prove it able and more than able to hold its own in any position on earth. This article in the Saturday Review is but another specimen of that irrepressible, unsparing,*hatred shown towards us by a section of the English Press and people, and which is the cause and justification of any bitterness we have ever nhowa in return.

very marked, it has aroused among the French inhabitants, a distrust and dislike of English rule, which might have been supposed to be impossible among them, and many utterances have been made that show, at least, how far from extravagant it would be to picture circumstances in which the French population might desire to break away altogether from the English connection. — We may believe, therefore, taking everything into consideration, that the commission will decide in favour of the convicted leader, and that "expediency will be given due consideration, — if, justice itself be not in the ascendant.

THE CASE OF LOUIS BIEL.

Canada. — It is to be hoped that the inquiry may result in establishing the insanity of the convicted man, so that he may escape the felon's death to which he has been condemned — Nor although the matter is .tub judice, seeing how far away the inquiry is to take place, do we consider it improper to say we are convinced that any other decision than that we speak of, would be a miscarriage of justice. — The conduct of the prisoner on bis trial, and indeed, of the leader in all his career, was evidently that of a madman, — and the fact of his obstinate assertion of his sanity goes to prove his madmss. — Where ia the inhabitant of a lunatic asylum, to be found, who does |not repeatedly protest that he is sane, and imprisoned only in error, cruelty and injustice / The part, moreover that Riel had in the insurrection remains doubtful. — It is not at al certain that of his own free will he became the leader oflit, — and tbe French Canadians who are so warmly struggling to save him, declare that the balf-breeds obliged him to act as he did:— Even if sane he appears to be a man of no great strength of mind, and the probabilities aio that his advocates are justified in their plea, — But as to the insurrection itself, there is no doubt but that the half-breeds were driven into it, by the ill-treatment they received.— ln their case also, the tactics so often pursued in Ireland were followed, and with tbe result that must necessarily obtain among a hardy and uncivilised people with arms in their hands. They sent petition after petition to have their county surveyed, and their limits defined — but, no notice was taken of their reasonable demand.-And atlast when the land on which they were Bettled had been purchased by certain companies, a strong body of police was to evict them, who, after a fashion not unknown to men of tbe policeman's calling elsewhere, fired upon them unprovoked, and forced them to retaliate.-— It is not to be wondered at, therefore, if the sympathies of the French Canadians are enlisted on the side of tbe subdued insurgents and if, in any case, they question the justice of putting their leader to death. — They maintain, besides, that the jury which convicted hitn was packed, and altogether there are more points than one in which the affair resembles transactions that have taken place ere now in Ireland.— Thiß result of the matter in Canada hap, eren so far', been

BTILL UNITED.

ing the Catholic Church. It is a subject to which we have frequently reverted in onr columns, and to which we shall probably still from time to time refer. Finding in it, aB we do, an exact fulfilment of our blessed Lord's declaration that Satan cannot be divided against himself we recognise it as an important link in the chain of evidence that proves the truth of Christianity and especially of the Catholic Church. It is, for example, hardly possible to take up any of those publications issued for instruction and edification in godliness by the various Evangelical communities without teeing some quotation from the infidel publications of the Continent, or some hopeful allusion to transactions that are taking place among Continental Freethinkers, and all of which are believed to be injurious to the. Catholic Church., There can be no doubt in the world but that our Evangelical friends are thoroughly agreed with infidel 3 everywhere in their hostility towards the Church, and we have the best reason to believe that they view with approval all that is done in opposition to her by the common enemies of all religion. Our Evangelical fxiends differ among themselves. Their publications are filled with their mutual bickerings, and pulpit is opposed to pulpit. They differ greatly from the Freethinking sects — but they are completely at one with these as well as with one another when there ia any question of an attack upon the Church. Here, then, we plainly see the union of Satan with himself, and receive, moreover, a proof of the truth of Christ's decision. But there is a wider union in which our Evangelical friends take their part than that which binds them to the sects of the Freethinkers, and the tie is still the same, namely hatred against the Catholic Church. Not only are these people united with civilised, though irreligious sects, but they, in common with these sects are also united to the heathen world, and we sec occasionally certain transactions in which all may be exactly compared with one another. During the outbreak of the Commune, for example, when the more advanced sects of the Freethinking universe were before the world, among their most flagrant deeds were the attacks made and the destruction visited by them on certain convents. One attack, for example, was led by a wretch, whose occupation was that of presiding over a den that it would be impossible to name among decent people. Another took place under the auspices of a villain who, turning out the nuns, subjected the little girls who were their orphan charges to treatment more vile than that which as revealed by the Pall Mall Gazette has roused all Europe and the civilised world to indignation. But before the time of the Commune the piety of a certain Evangelical minister had resulted in the destruction of a convent. A godly man in America incited by the whisperings of his inner devotion composed a work which, always in the interests of godliness, he '.prevailed upon an abandoned and lying woman to give to the Evangelical world, as eminently calculated for its edification aad instruction, it being a book that contained revela-

tions of what she had experienced during a pretended residence by her in a convent. Such was the origin of the " Revelations of Maria Monk," and its result was such an excitement among the Evangelical mob as led to the destruction and burning by them of a convent at Charleston. The agreement, therefore, of the Evangelical^and Freethinking trees is proved by the sameness of the fruit borne by them, and all that remains is for us to show how both are in harmony with the pagan growth. The action of the French in attacking Acam and Tonkin ha", as we know, beemthe occasion of terrible suffering to the Catholic missionaries and the native Christians, their converts. 30,000 out of a total of 41,000 were massacred during the months of July and August, the Bombay Gazette givingn g us the following details . •' The bishop's house, the two seminaries, the 12 convents of Native nuus, the 200 churches or chapels, and in short all the houses of Christians, have been pillaged and burned," Advanced Freethinkers in their triumph, or Evangelical Christians in their godly excitement in fact could hardly do any more. — Whether they would do any less — allowing for the circumstances amidst which they find themselves, and the various restraints to which they are subjected— we may judge by the facts we have already[mentioned, by the events that took place under the Commune, and previously under the Revolution when, as M. Taioe, its historian, tells us. they imprisoned Catholics by Jthe thousand, and guillotined them by the hundred — merely because of their religion, whatever the other pretence may have been — By the ardour, again of our Evangelical friends as evidenced at Charleston— and many other places— as, -fot example, the other

The cable tells ns that au examination is to be held into the mental condition of Louis Kiel, the leader of the recent insurrection in the north-west of

One of the most interesting studies of matters connected with religion in our opinion, is that of the harmony shown by the action of the devil in oppos-

day, in Newfoundland, when pious followers of the Dutchman for a lengthened period carried on their murderous course in many ways. That the Evangelical and Freethinking spirit is the same in every place, and at one with that of the pagan world, we cannot doubt when we see how in every place, so far as circumstances will permit Evangelical and Freethinker in combination, are ready to make their attack, and one of the same kind, upon the Church. The ruffianism tnat inspired the boss of the nameless den in Paris, or the Pasha of the orphanage, that was rife atnong the Evangelical mob at Charleston, or in the Orangemen of Newfoundland, or among the pagans in Anam, obtains the prayers of some howling "Shepherd " among ouraelveo, or the patronage of some bombastic philosopher. The swine who trample and befoul our pearls, and when can BWine more filthily wallow than when engaged in such a task, are the favourite beasts and monstrous pets of all our pious and enlightened circles, and ererthing about them proclaims the infernal union. We «cc, then, how Evangelical, Freethinker, and Pagan-are united, and now the devil holds them in his common leash, slipping them, now and then, when he sees an opportunity of wounding, or hurting the heel of his ever victorious and immortal enemy.

ANOTHER GOSPEL MISSION.

that the light of their gospel truth Bhould dispel the gloom established by "Popery" in the country alluded to. Mexico, in common with other Catholic countries, has long been the field of most hopeful Evangelical missions, and if its people have not already embraced the tenets of Methodist or Baptist, or of the many other •ects labouring there in the vineyard of the Lord, we must attribute the mischance to some unaccountable accident. Like every other Catholic people the Mexicans, as a matter of course, are longing for the pure milk of the Word, and ready to acccept it greedily at the first offer. Like every other Catholic people also they are the dupes of an ignorant, superstitious, and immoral priesthood, and oaly await the first notes sounded from the stump of Cbadband or Stiggins to accept the deliverance brought within their reach. We gain all this information concerning Catholic countries and the relation borne by them to the priests and the preachers of the gospel according t 0 Evangelicalism from those Evangelical publications that we constantly peruse, aDd which we find most entertaining and instructive on many points. Mexico, however, although it has long since been the seat of flourishing missions, sufficitnt according to the rules laid down by our authorities and they are infallible, sufficient several years ago to have banished every vestige of ■' Popery " from its borders, and to have replaced every altar with its attendant priests by an inverted tub affording accommodation to a " heated pulpiteer " of the trne Do-Popery type, has hardly as jet responded to the ad vantages conferred upon it and wholly renounced its Popish errors.— Therefore, we say, it is a matter for congratulation that it bids fair immed lately to become the dwelling place of even a larger section of the Beformed and more enlightened people than it had already received in the persons of American or English missionaries and their following. The Mormons in fact, finding their field of expansion in Utah becoming circumscribed and needing a larger territory, have acquired a vast tract of country there which they are about to colonise. And is there not here a source of true joy and exultant hope to our Evangelical friends? Or, if not, what is the reason that hope and joy are wanting to them I The Mormons also, are an anti- Popish people. They are an outcome of the Reformation, and of the right of private interpretation. They possess the Bible and study it, and profess an obedience to its precepts as sincere as that of our Evangelical friends themselves. If they; declare that the Bible corroborates the Book of Mormon who shall condemn them, according to them at the same time the right to search tbe Scriptures and discover there all that is profitable to instruct, and form the perfect man of God ? And if they declare that the Bible bears out their custom of polygamy who shall blame them that knows how Luther could not agree to pronounce himself decidedly against it ; bow. indeed, he sanctioned it by signing with his own hand the permit granted to Philip of Hesse to become the husband of .two wives at one and theßame time ; who knows, besides how another great champion of the Reformation and model of all pious men, that is, William the Silent, married a second wife— whether with a permit or without it— while his first was alive and imprisoned in a room of his palace, preached at, poor lady, through a hole in tbe door until madness delivered her from the necessity of listening to her godly monitor? We cannot see, then, why the arrival of the Mormons in Mexico should not be bailed with gladness by other Evangelical and godly men already engaged there in the convemon of Papists. Nobody can be more different from tbe Catholic priesthood than the Mormon elders, and the missionaries of all Protestant sects should welcome them cheerily. As to the embarras des richesses that falls to the lot of the Mexican people, it is to be hoped they will know bow to make a good use of it. It will at least be in tb& power of that ignorant body the Catholic priesthood to point

Theee is, it would seem, an increase of hope for Mexico, and much encouragement for the religious future of that country is offered to those good people who for so many years have been anxious

A HOrjSB DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF.

R tndo there is occasionally infinite confusion. The Kignt Key, Dr. Nevill, for example, in opening the Synod of his Diocese on Tuesday, delivered what, viewed from an Anglican stand-point, and admitting the possibility— which, however, we by no means understand- that a man in all sincerity, of at least moderate information, and in the full enjoyment of his senses, can believe the Church of England to be the representative-or even a representative-of the primitive Church, may be considered as a very excellent address. Dr Nevill, nevertheless, takes, on one point at least, a view of his Church that differs very much from that we find advanced by another authority of no mean standing. A correspondence, then, has recently occurred in the London Timts between the Bishop of Carlisle and Lord Ebury as to the Romanising tendencies of the Anglican clergy. Lord Ebury has written in great alarm, looking upon his Church as in imminent danger and fearing for all the admirable results of the Reformation. The Bishop of Carlisle contradicts the statements made by Lord Ebury, and assures him that whatever danger may have existed the action of the late Pontiff Pius IX. completely put an end to it. The Bishop, however, acts in some degree as one of Job's comforters, for while he denies the possibility of any union with Rome he boldly states his belief that the only radical difference that actually exists between the Catholic Church and his Establishment is that Rome makes use of a mutilated Eucharistic service in a tongue " not understated of tbe people," and with holds the cup from tbe laity— which, to all intents and purposes, is a claim that tbe Chuich of England continues to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and does so in a more perfect manner than that in which the Catholic Church makes the offering.— We may remark in passing, meantime, that according to another Anglican authority, that ia tbe well-known and somewhat unstable Mr. Foulkes,— in a work lately published by him, an error in the form has invalidated every Anglican consecration made since Queen Elizabeth conferred the power of consecrating on Archbishop Parker. —Lord Ebury, however, stands more aghast than ever, and calls out in dismay— Q,,U custodiet cvstodex .' What shall bark in place of the watch-dogs grown dumb, and give Dotice of their unfaithfulness f It is in commenting on this correspondence that the London Times who seems to share the fears of Lord Ebury rather than to rejoice in the full confidence of tbe Bißhop of Carlisle contradicts a statement made by Dr. Nevill and causes ua some confusion ns to where the right understanding may be found. Dr. Nevill says that his Church being a spiritual kingdom, her laws must be spiritual and that she stands in no danger unless, to use the Bishop's words, " She begins to rely upon petty maxims of worldly policy and to feel safe only when hedged about by resolutions and statutes, framed oftentimes to meet the circumstances, real or imaginary, of the moment ; whereas these very laws of carnal commandment may themselves, at the next revolution of the wheel of time, become a weakness and a snare." The Bishop says again, " In like manner, I do believe that when tbe Church of Christ Urns from His law of love and sacred influences to the minutiae of minatory regulations she is but providing that her body may be rent." But on tbe other hand, the London Times, surely an authority on Anglican matters— tells us that the only safety for tbe Church of EDgland consists in her Establishment, and her reliance upon tbe law— on resolutions and statutes, and minatory regulations, and on the obligation of obeying them imposed upon her clergy.— " Disestablishment" says the Times, "would avail nothing, or more probably would make matters a good deal worse than they are. As things gtand, the Church has a law which the clergy are under obligation to obey. They may break it, and they sometimes do, but not always with impunity. Tbe law in any case remains to guide the practices of those who obey it, and to testify against those who act in open defiance of it. In a disestablished Church the dangerous persons who are leading us all to destruction would have a more free hand. If they can do mischief now, they would do ten times as much if they were set at liberty to work their will. We certainly think that the Bishop of Carlisle goes too far in minimizing their numbers and their influence."' In tbe multitude of counsellors, therefore, as we said, there is confusion, at least when those counsellors treat of an institution that is divided againut itself

out to them these evident f raits of the Reformation, and how everyone possesses in the " unaided Word » a book that he may twist and turn as ,t suits bis whim or fancy, and how not one of them all can give areason for the faith that is in him more to the purpose than that given by the neighbour >ho differs the most widely from him and holds doctrines the most palpably absurd. The (advent of the Mormons should warn the Mexicans against the fruits of the Reformation as they really exist, and affords them additional cause for thankfulness in belonging to the only rational and consistent, as it is the only true form of Christianity— the Catholic Church.

Wk are told on authority that there is gafety in a multitude of counsellors. But if we must submit to authority and admit the pronouncement as true our own experience tells us that in the same multi-

and engaged in internal warfare, concerning which the Times tells us once more, •' Tbe union between Rome and England may oe as near at hand as Lord Ebury fears.or as remote and impossible as the Bishop of Carlisle pronounces ie to be. But it seems at least as likely as the hearty union of parties within the Church of England itself." Let bs rejoice, meantime, that the Romeward moveineut makes itself felt, for if it be of God, as we may well believe it to be— no earthly law can n strain it, and every spiritual ordinance that comes of the Spirit of Light must serve to promote it.