The Sun.
London, England, 1841-07-07 00:00:00

LITERATURE.

QUARTERLY i?EVIE W. NO. CXXXV.
- . Murray,'London, 1811.
The .Quarterill Review 'is not in general re-
markable for the Unreadable character of its con-
tents, but this number is an exception, for any-
thing more dull or prolix than the majority of
its articles we have not met with for many a long
day. Not only are the subjects badly chosen,
but they are badly treated. I Who, for instance,
cares to read a heavy dissertation on the present
state of Belgium, or to be .told that the facts col-
Meted by Mr.. `ferment during his late 'three
weeks' scamper throUgh this most uninteresting
of kingdoms, bear-no slight resemblance to fic-
tions? • The work; though published but the
other day, is already forgotten, and it is a foolish
as well as :a hopeless attempt, to. revive it.
Again, what can be a staler theme for comment
thb.rl the United States of America? Yet here
we find nearly forty pages on the subject, in the
shape of a notice
~of " Sir Augustus 'Foster's
Notes,"-which 'are at present unpublished, and
which--if we may. judge of the manucript by
the Reviewer's extracts—are not unlikely to re-
main so. Sir Augustus was secretary to the
British-Legation at" Washington, about the year
106, and the following are among the best of
his American reminiscences :
I found. among the demoeMts many highly respectable and
worthy persons, and even among the lowest in station of the
members of Congress several droll, original, but unoffending
characters. Such was the tavern-keeper who conimitted an
act of ,great impropriety in my house. when I gave a ball for
the Queen's birth-day, and when, the drawing-rooms being
left empty
.on the company going to supper, he thought
(poor fellow !) that he was alone and unobserved; but, two
stray federal members who were rambling about espied his
attitude, and the joke. was.too good to be lost, so they had it in
all the papers and all over the States, in prose and verse, ring-
ing the changes on the extinction of the British fire. My poor
guest wrote me an humble letter, saying he would rather burst
another time ; and I, most graciously answered, and hoped to
have gained his vote for peace by my soothing ; but the grace-
less dog voted, alrl the same for war, and proved how hard it is
by any good words to sever a party-man from the mass of
his political friends. Another original was a Philadelphian
butcher, who used to frank his linen, there having been no limits
to the privilege, and to send it to be washed at home; the
weight, however, as some of the Federalists assured me, was not
so tremendous as might he supposed for the post-bag, since he
was known to change his shirt only once a-week. I visited him
at his stall at Philadelphia, and insisted cn his giving me a
feast on his beef, to which he agreed; and I, profiting by a
general invitation, went to his home on the banks of the De-
laware, where Ireally did get a luncheon of as line beef as I ever
tasted, and had only one regret, which was, that my honest
host happened to be absent. It was told of him that at the
President's table, observing a leg of mutton of a miserably lean
descrip'ion, he could not help forgetting the legislator for a few
moments, and exclaiming that at his stall no such leg of mut-
ton should ever have fc;und a place. I also heard that; being
one day invited with several members of Congress to dine at
the President's, he took his son, the young, butcher, with him,
who was a great country lout, and on going up to the Presi-
dent told him he had heard one of his guests had been taken
ill and.could not come, and therefore he had brought his son
with him, who was very anxious to. see him, and would not be
in the way,' as there wai, he knew, a :spare plate. Another
eccentric member from the south, a printer and • publisher. •
wrote as an answer to' an invitation from the Pre:Went, " I
won't dine with you because you won't dine with me." Then
there was a tavern-keepei from the north, who when elected
sheriff in his own'county, used to hang criminals himself, to
save a dollar, and make his son drive the,cart ; yet he was by
no means an' itl-meanirig uncivil person, Though not parti-
cularly agreeable.
The Reviewer, referring to Sir Augustus Fos-
ter's remarks on Moreau, whom he frequently
met while a resident at Washington, takes the
opportunity to sneer at
.Napoleon's Marshals—
especially Massena. • • His contemptuous allusion
to this last soldier; Of fortune_ is certainly not
warranted by what we know of Massena's mili-
tary career; for the .man who chiefly helped
to gain the brilliant victory of Rivoli ; who
saved France at Zurich, when all but over-'
whelmed by the forces of the Coalition Powers;
.and who executed that masterly retreat through
Portugal which extorted the admiration even of his
enemies, was assure.(l4. no ordin ry commander.
Lannes, too—the chivalrous=-the intrepid—" the
Roland of the French 'army," as Madame Junot
calls him—surely, he Was a soldier.of eminence!
Marmont iNe give. Up to the Reviewer's cen;
sure, for he was a man. but of secondary talent,
and wanted that firstgreat requisite' of a. general,
decision. Sir Augustus does not appear to en-
tertain' a high notion 'Of thesAirrericarr charanter,
for an extract is. given . from his manuscript,
wherein he Condenm,s Jonathan for having treated
the ashes of Washington with marked neglect;
forcing'Jefferson to sell his library in his old age;
and leaving Munroe. •in a state alinost of starva-
tion. We fear there is too much justice in this
condemnation; and; the recent letter of' Presi-
dent Jackson, where he speaks' of his dreadful
pecuniary embarrassments, does not tell more fa-
vourably for transatlantic generosity. " Min-
strelsy of the Bretoas" woutd 'have been more
acceptable, had the .ReVieWer gone deeper, into
the Subject; but he merely skims the .cur-..
face, and this in no - very attractive manner.
The "Australian Colonies" is a mere heavy colt-:
pilation; gathered from the most.obVious sources.
" Swinburne's Courts of Europe" points out some
of the numerous editorial blunders in apostliumous
-work •ptiblisliad -a few months since, which we ,
also exposed. in The Suit. " Whewelf on Indue
tive Sciences". is an instructive essay, but we fear
it will be caviare to most periodical realers.
The facts, too; are riot well arranged, and the
style, thbugli familiar' enough; is dry and tame.
The ic Budget and the.. Dissolution "—as may
be surmised . from its title—is. a sltshing
attack on some of the more recent pro-
ceedings: of the Ministr3. It is intended to be
smart, but is dull by mistake. . In fact, so
cruelly hard pressed .is the . Reviewer for jests,
that he is compelled to have recourse to O'Con-
nell's Tail, on which threadbare • themeike cracks
sundry small jokes that are 'positively excruciat-
ing ! From one or two significant hints thrown
out in the course of this article, we infer that the
Peel section of the Tories. are not disinclined to
hoist false colours, and affect Liberalism, by way,
of qualifying theinielvess for office;' for we are
told that " protecting duties are in. their nature,
and by the very principles on which they were
originally founded, liable to revision, alteration,
and even "extinction "..which is in a great mea-
sure surrendering the- question at issue het,.veen
the Whigs and Tories.' This ad captanduni
hint, coupled With SA.. Robert Peel's praises
of " moderatiOn" in his crafty hustings speech
at Tamworth, satisfies us that those of'the faction

who side with him, will stick at nothing to regain
possession of place and.pay. But the country will
not be deceived" by the§'6' s)ecious insinuations,
which are put forth merely af.ifeelers, for it knows
well that, however it,may profess to change, and
and become moderate, Toryism is, and must be,
essentially immutable—as much so as the
laws of the Medes ' and Persians. Speak-
ing incidentally of , the Corn-laws, the
Reviewer states."the subsistence of the people
was, until the late Budget, the first, and,
indeed, the only object of any Corn-law in Eng-
land,a
or in any other country thud we };now on"
.wh
t monstrous' effrontery is this! Who does
know that this impost was raised for the ex-
clusive benefit of the landholders ? They had
not
lived in clover, and far beyond their means,
during the war; and when the peace came, they
were afraid that the various alterations and re-

• ....41.“.•,1 --
ductions it brouvht with it, would operate it:-
juriOUsly on their interests, so passed the
Corn-laws, by way of protecting themselves

at the expense of the people. But the day
of reckoning is at hand, and they know
it. Hence their loud, wolfish howls against—
what they call—the quackery of Free Trade.
The article concludes with fierce abuse of Lord
Melbourne, for having, " introduced Robert
Owen to sully the virgin presence of the Queen
with his abominable doctrines," from which it is
to be inferred, we • presume, that this sturdy Re-
former edified her Majesty with an elaborate lec-
ture on'Socialism, and did his best to persuade her
to become a convert to his creed. This expres-
sion of amiable solicitude for Royalty comes with
peculiar propriety from a faction which has never
missed an opportunity. of assailing the Queen in
the. most virulent manner possible ! But the
Tories imagine that they are now within sight of
the Promised Land of office; consequently..like
the old woman in the song, they are discreetly
desirous " to moderate the - rancour of • their
tongues."

CHURCH OF ENGLAND QUARTERLY
REVIEW. No. XIX.
Painter, London, 1841.
The " Correspondence of Horace Walpole," the
best and completest edition of which has been
recently published by Mr. Bentley, is made the
subject of some very acrimonious strictures in
the present Number of this straight-laced periodi•
cal. There is an infinite deal of 'cant in these
strictures, and
,much t*addlins,o• criticism, for
we are gravely assured that Walpole was by
no means so brilliant' a letter-writer as has been
supposed ; that he made up by blasphemous and
'indelicate allusions what,he lacked in smartness
and humour • and in his sketches of character was
utterly reckless of truth and propriety. The
secret of all this cynical criticism is, that he oc-
casionally indulged in an arch smile at the
ravenous clerical pluralists of his day. He dis-
believed in the " Nolo Episcopari".doctrine ; and
was doubtful whether even the gravest and most
decorous -Bishops could he fitly considered-per-
fect models of apostolical innocence, simplicity,
and disinterestedness. Above all, he accused
an Archbishop of York of having been a bile-
caneery and indulged in the luxury of a seraglio
—a statement which he would scarcely have
dared to make, had there not been some grounds
for it,' for we all know that it is only of late years
that our Bishops have been chosen for their
learning and private worth. For these hereti-
cal opinions, the Reviewer--like Twhackum in
Fielding's tale—" saddles'? - Horace 'Walpole
" with a judgment." Had he but kept his irre-
verent hands off Mother Church, not the
slightest objection would have been made to his
Correspondence; but because he declared that
the old lady was no better than she should be,
all pious and moral readers are requested to
avoid his Letters as though they were a pesti-
lence. It is late in the day to declaim against
Walpole in this puritanical fashion. He has long
'Since taken his proper station as an author,
and the Reviewer may be assured that his
righteous-over-much indignation will only sub-
ject him to ridicule. " University of Cambridge"
contains some useful suggestions respecting the
mode of education which should be adopted at
this great seat of learning. The following re-
marks deserve . consideration ss:-" We can see no
good reason for the permission oanted to 'the no-
bility to take places in the classical tripos with-
out passing through the probationary mathema-
tical ordeal. In point of the advantages and
honours of learning it is degrading to a Univer-
sity to Make a difference between her sons.
Under her fostering care the peer and the pea-
sant should. run the same race with equal advan-
tages ; and then, if the noble be distanced by the
son of the shopkeeper, " palmam qui meruit
ferat." " Smyth s Lectures on Modern History"
is a shallow, tamely w.ritten article ; and " Chris-
tian Politics and Conservative Prospects" abounds
in sophistical reasoning. The The remaining papers
may be dismissed with Cure remark that they are
neither above nor below the ordinary level.

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND IS
THE POOR MAN'S CHURCH,
"And all fur love, and nothing for reward,"
As is evident from the following statement, showing
the small stipends for which the clergy undertake the
care of the souls of their flock :
Archbishop of Canterbury £2o,ooo—Poor fellow !
Archbishop of York l2,ooo—Disinterested man !
Bishop of Durham l9,ooo—Self-denying pastor'?
Bishop of London
poor man's-sake !
Bishop of Winchester
Bishop of Ely ll,OOO S minded !
Five more poor men's Bishops 5,0001. to 6,000/. a-piece
—how apostolic ! Six more successors of the Apostles,
3,000/. to- 4,000/. a-piece—how povertyLstricken ! Six
again upwards of 2,0001. a-piece—how like the early
teachers of Christianity ! Iwo, 1?500/. a-piece—One,
924/.—" They wandered about in sheep=skins and goat-
skins !" Besides a host of rectors, vicars, &c. &c., with
5001. to 2,000/. a-year !
These figures speak more than it might be prudent to
put into words, lest we should be called Infidels and
; but the figures will speak. Does this said
Church (say they) look like the poor man's Church ?
Is it not a little like the rich man's Church ? If it is
the poor man's Church, how comes this anomaly of
starving flocks, and pastors oppressed with wealth ?
Call it the Church of the rich, and you may call it by
its right tame, but do not belie the Church, and insult
the poor, by giving it the other (solemn) nickname.
TO call the Bishops' Church the Church of the poor, is
to- heap upon it the severest calumny, and arraign it as•
a culprit at the bar of religion and common sense. It is
the Church of the aristocracy and their youngest sons.
Were her wealth her own, this would still be true ;
but is it her own—this poor man's wealth ? Alas ! we
go from bad to worse—a large part of this wealth has
absolutely bean abstracted from the poor man's pockets
to gild the liveries and emblazon the arms of the
Bishops. One-third of her tithes was set aside for
the support and relief of the poor, and was, -for some
time, so applied ; but the Church has contrived to
swallow the whole, and now sends the poor man to
the workhouse for relief, if haply he may find it.
The poor man's Church ! so indeed she is, if by this is
meant that her Bishops have the poor man's money in
their pockets, and that her enormous wealth has been
so far deducted from his due—so indeed she is, for, after
filling the pockets of her dignitaries, who turn their backs
upon the poor, she sends forth her ill-paid and half-
starved curates into the houses of the poor, who, instead
of her enormous wealth wherewith to relieve their wants,
are, in some cases,- themselves dependent upon their
parishioners. There are six hundred livings under COL
a year, and five hundred more under 80/., making upwards
of one thousand livings under 801., besides upwards of
five thousand curacies, averaging 80/.,and many more of
them under 501., and this in spite of ancient laws mid
usages which would ensure to every pastor a liberal sub-
sistence, but which the Church has contrived to evade. In
this sense she is, and is determined to continue, the
Church of the poor man, whom it has been her practice
to keep as poor as she found him. The poor man's
Church indeed I
Whose Church is she, then ?—this State Church ? As
a State Church, chiefly • of the practically infidel and ir-
religious, Sabbath-desecrating Lords*, who leave it to
the middle classes to keep the Fourth Commandment,—
important personages in' the Church, who prepare for
the Sunday, by spending the Saturday night at the
Theatre and the Opera, in order to solemnise their
minds,—gambling, cursing, and swearing Lords and
gentry—(who dares deny it ?)—who will maintain the
Church with their lives and fortunes ! Defenders of
the Faith, who trample on the Sixth Commandment,
and take away life for a word ! Duelling Lords ! pil-
lars of the Church ! whose hands are stained with
blood. Men who, rather than own a religion, will hire
one,—who,- disliking personal religion, take up with a
national one. A State Church ig nobody's Church, and
suifs. thenyeiactly. They are not Episcopalians : Epis-
copalians are excellent men their religion is not Epis-
copalitin,—it is anything or nothing, only it must be na-
tional their religion is not the Christian religion—it is
the religion of the Sovereign and his Bishops. Hence they
will fight for it, or bribe for it, or drink for it ;
and they call it the poor man's Church, because the
State is nothing without the poor man—nothing unless
he works for it. and fights for it (they are fond of fight-
ing both in private and in public—it is part of their re-
ligion)"; so, without the poor man, it could not be the
State Church, and in that case they would be without
any religion at • all. Let them call it the poor man's
.Church if they willbut what a pity they won't pay for
it themselves when they get all the advantage of it. The
poor man has a private religion and is willing to pay for
it—those whose religion is public, in the matter of it,
should pay for it as well. Why should not the publicists
pay for their own religion, which belongs to themselves
and to nobody else ? It is to be feared their religion is
no religion at all—at least it is not a national one. Now,
'since a national religion is no religion at all—it is bind-
ing upon every man, therefore, to see to it that he has a
religion-of his own, and that religious freedom, or liberty
to hold his own religious vie.ws and worship, be guaran-
teed to every man.—Patriot.

PHOTOGRAPHY.--111• Arago communicated to
the Academy of Science that M. Daguerre was still oc-
cupied upon a most important series of experiments con-
rweled with the improvent of photography. Thus, with
the view of increasing the sensitiveness of the prepared
plates, he had subjected them to the action of electricit,
while in the camera obscura, and had then immediately
exposed them. to the rays of light. The electric fluid
had, hOwever, made the plates too sensitive, and so much
so that the mere opening of the covering of the plate in-
side the camera obscura could not be effected rapidly
enough to prevent some portions of the impression from
being Inuch more vivid than others. M. Daguerre had
therefore made use of a preparation not so sensitive as
that which he commonly employed; and upon again em-
ploying the form of electricity had obtained such a de-
gree of, sentiveness that only the. millionth part of a
second was necessary for obtaining an impression so
that it was not expecting too much to anticipate that,
when further improvements should be effected, the
actions of the human body might all be taken by ths
Daguerreotype. _ _

In consequence of the decease, Najepty's
illustrious aunt, the Queen of, lianoyec, there was no music
at the Castle last ; ajia The services of the Quee;l4l
private Land have been Osiieised With until after the funeral
shall have taken place.

12, (I*1: tL'
—4" g\.4.'---•
ce, / P 4.-7 0.":1- „j' tt, *
t%& sriZie'4,M"--‘k .-,-1 , •Y ' ..,. 4,
Ve. s
tif:l4—,? ,1 1.444,/'
,i.
l.
cy „O , clij,;:ia. a “10 4. 44,.. Vf. , :1, 'Ol4 %,“1.1.._, ...'7l.ift-11`

e*it )1,111'„,

LONDON:
WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 1841.

Whatever we can say, which is at all likely to
influence the county elections, we have already
said, and said over and again, when we have en-
deavoured to show that the Corn-laws are inju-
rious to the farmers. We should not, therefore,
now refer to the subject, being quite sure that the
time is passed when newspapers can influence the
present elections, though they may catch hold of
the principles which are likely to actuate the
fr..cholders, and claim for themselves the merit of
having inspired them; we should not, we say, re/-
fer to the subject were it not that we see pomp-
ous boastings put forth under the authority of the
great Earl of CHATHAM, of the respectability of
the county representation. Whatever the county
electors might have been in Earl CHATHAM'S
time, we know from experience that there is not
a more dependent, and, generally speaking, a more
ignorant class of men, as to political matters,
than the voters for counties. " Such persons,
says the Bishop of DURHAM, in the sensible letter
which appears in another part of The Sun," have
had but little opportunity of forming ti eorreet
judgment of what is passing in Parliament, P:1;(.1
various arts are resorted to, to conceal frorlt them
the true character of public men." Few of
them read newspapers, except Occasionally,
and it is therefore quite impossible for
them either to know or appreciatQ what is pass-
ing in the world. We 5h0u1.;.,13 therefore, look on
their decision on any 'public question with much
doubt, but on tlai4 present public question they
unforturAti-4,ll,,alieve that they have an interest
adverse to the measures of the Ministers, and
adverse to the interests of the towns, and we re-
gard their, verdict as that of self-interested men.
They are judges in their own cause. They are
voting on that which only an impartial man can
correctly decide, and their votes will be given