The Sun.
London, England, 1866-05-03 00:00:00

The Accident on the Brighton Railway.

FURTHER PARTICULARS.
It would appear that Wm. Jeffrey, signalman of
the Caterham Junction, who has been 12 months in
the employ of the company, went on duty at 6.40,
and entered all the trains passing up to the time of
the accident. The ballast train in question arrived
at Caterham at 8.30 p.m., and was shunted into a
sideway on the down train line, and after pulling
down clear of the points was put back into the
chalk siding. The next train before the 8 p.m. train
from Brighton was the down train, which should
have passed Caterham at 9.36 p.m., but did not pass
Jeffrey's box till 9.39.

It may here be stated that the regulations for this
signalman provided that he should keep the key of
the points leading out of the siding, and only per-
mit anything to pass after having " blocked" the
down line by telegraph to the next signal station.
Instead, however, of doing this, it is stated on the
one side that he gave the key of the crossing points
to the head guard of the ballast train, with these
instructions, "You follow the Dover." The signal-
man, however, denies that he gave him any direc-
tions whatever, but says that he intended him to
follow the two trains—the 8 p.m. Brighton Com-
pany, and one of the South-Eastern trains, both of
which were late. When the South-Eastern line
was cleared back by telegraph from Selsdon, Jeffrey
at once altered his station semaphores and distant
signals to " All right," and the eight p.m—the un-
fortunate train in question—from Brighton passed
with the signals in that state.
It is further stated that after passing the South-
Eastern train the usual whistle was given by the
driver of the ballast train for permission to leave
the siding, and that Jeffrey gave the necessary sig-
nal in reply to do so by waving twice a white light
he held in his hand.

There is, however, great doubt about these state-
ments. Certainly it hardly seems credible that
Jeffrey, having taken off his fixed signals for the
eight p.m. train to pass, should order the ballast
train out before it had done so, the more especially
as he says he did not " block" the line back to
Selsdon. Owing to the discrepancy in the state-
ments of the men, and as the reasons given by the
guard and driver for leaving the sidings are ob-
vious the authorities did not deem it advisable to
arrest Jeffrey.
The collision must have been of the greatest vio-
lence. It had the effect of throwing the engine and
tender of the eight p.m. train of the line and down
the embankment, killing the guard and smashing
his van to pieces. The first three or four carriages
were driven at right angles to the line, and into
each other, whereby Mr. and Mrs. Drew were killed,
the lady on the spot, and the gentleman died about
two hours afterwards, and injuring the other pas-
singers. Eight of the worst cases were taken to
the residence of Mr. Jackson, by whom they were
most kindly treated, and attended on the moment
by three medical gentlemen who happened to be
in the train. The other passengers, numbering some
20, were brought to London, and sent in cabs to
their homes. One lady, however, upon reaching
the station was so bad that she was taken to Guy's
Hospital. Her name is understood to be Jane
Edwards, living somewhere at King's-cross. Her
injuries, however, are ascertained to be not of a
dangerous iiture.
The following is the official list of the killed and
injured :
KILLED.

Mr. and Mrs. Drew, 43, Great Percy-street,
Pentonville.

William Webb, guard, Brighton.
WOUNDED.

J. P. Ranwell, 254, Camden-road ; general con-
cussion.

Capt. Matthew, 10, Leicester-square; leg injured,
and severe shaking.

Annie Pollard, 3, Copthall-chambers ; severe
pain in the back, &c.

Mr. J. Sexton, 7, St. George's-terrace, Lower
Edmonton ; bruised on head and face.

William Foster, Esq , 29, Fulham-place, Maida-
hill ; injury to leg, and severe shaking.
Miss Cohen, 34, York-street, Westminster.
Mr. and Mrs. E. Surge, 29, Langham-place,
Portland-place.
Mr. and Mrs. D. Glasgow, 20, Myddelton-square,
Clerkenwell.
Mrs. Watnor and child.

The accident blocked the line till 5 a.m. yester-
day morning, and in consequence the 10.20 p.m.
down, and 10 p.m. up South-Eastern mail, as well
as the South-Western special, were greatly delayed.
The mail bags of the two first-named trains were
transferred and forwarded by the 1 a.m. train.
Within a few minutes after the accident the infor-
mation was forwarded to head-quarters at London-
bridge, and it is hardly necessary to add that the
officials there instantly adopted all means that lay
in their power in the shape of rendering assistance
and administering comforts to the unfortunate
passengers.

The most searching inquiry into the circumstances
of the accident has already been instituted by Mr.
Hawkins, the traffic manager, but the result will
not, of course, transpire till the inquiry before the
coroner takes place, which will probably be some
time to-day.

IADTERTIsEmENT.I--Holloway's Ointment and Pills.—
Sure Cure.—Be the ailment external or internal, chronic
or acute, inflammatory or otherwise, a certain remedy may,
be found in one or other, or both of Holloway's prepara-
tions. In the nursery and toilet they are equally in place.
The use of them involves no danger, the employment of
them will not cause the most timid any apprehension of
doing mischief. They always relieve, and by their correc-
tive, purifying, and healing powers, invariably prove bene-
ficial in every disorder incident to the human frame. In
wounds, sprains, glandular swellings, enlarged veins, and
diseases of the skin, Holloway's medicines may be used
with safety and certainty, without weakening the system
or transferring the disease eo other parts.
[ADVERTISEMENT.] Dyspepsia (indigestion), constipa-
tion, debility, consumption, and all nervous, bilious, stomach,
and liver complaints in every stage, are only aggravated and
accelerated by drugs of every description, but perfectly cur-
able by Du Barry's health-restoring Revalenta Arabic's
Food, as proved by thousands of cases which had been con-
sidered hopeless, such as—cough, asthma, also diarrheas,
haemorrhoids, liver complaints, flatulency, nervousness,
biliousness, fevers, sore throats, diphtheria, catarrhs, colds,
influenza, noises in the head and ears, rheum itisrn, gout, im-
purities, eruptions, hysteria, neuralgia, irritabllity,sleepless-
ness, acidity, palpitation, heartburn, headache, debility,
dropsy, cramps, spasms, nausea and sickness, even in preg-
nancy or at eta, sinking fits, bronchitis, scrofula, tightness of
the chest, pains In the pit of the stomach and between the
shoulder's, &c. We quote a few :—Cure No. 46,276. Mr James
Roberts, timber merchant, of Irrimley, Surrey, of 30 years'
diseased lungs, spitting of blood, liver derangement, and par-
tial deafness.—Cure No. 47,121. Miss Elizabeth Jacob+, of ex-
treme nervousness, indigestion, gatherings; low spirits, and
nervous fancies.—Cure No. 1,771. Lord Stuart de Decies, lord
lieut. of Waterford, of many 3 ears' dyspepsia.—No. 49,832.
Fri ty years' indescribable agony from dyspepsia, nervousness,
vomiting—Maria
s ugh, j
constipation,niy cur flatulency,
eN
o. 5,8
116. T
spasms,heßev,
sickness, aJamesnd
T. Campbell, Fakenham. Norfolk, of indigestion and torpid-
ity of the liver, which had resisted all medical treatment.—
In tins, 11b, 2s 9d ; 21b, 4s 6.1 ; 51b, lls ; 121 b, 22s ; 241 b,
408.—Barry Du Barry and Co., No. 77, Regent-street, London;
also Phillips, tea dealers, 8, King William-street ; likewise
at 61, Gracechurch-street ; 4, Cheapside ; 49, Bishopsgate-
street Within ;
63, 150, and 298, Oxford-street ; 3.30, Strand ;
54, Upper Baker-street ; 103, Tottenham-court-road ; 96,
Upper-street, Islington, N.; Harvey, Notting-hill; Close
Brothers, 65, high-street; and Stubbs, Queen's-terrace, St.
John's-wood, London; and all respectable grocers and che-
mists,—Beware of spuriousiraitations.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TDIES.--The political storm of the past month
has been followed by a sudden calm. There is ex-
haustion after the struggle, but there is also satis-
faction with the result. The House of Commons
has resented successfully what it considered the un-
fair dealing and dictation of Ministers, and has no
desire to be aught but generous towards them and
their measures. The ordinary supporters of the Go-
vernment are now able to return to their natural
allegiance, and show that what they havedone was
prompted by no spirit of faction and no indifference
to the Liberal cause. We may even assume that the
Conservatives, proud of their numbers, of the elo-
quence that has been displayed in their ranks, and of
the great part they have played in vindicating the
honour of Parliament and the good faith of public
life, are ready to enter into new discussions with un-
wonted liberality. The general feeling is that never
was there a better time to settle the question of
Reform. Every one admits that, after the promises
and the efforts, the disputes and recriminations of
fourteen years, something ought to be done. Each
side is committed to a change, and the wisest men of
each side are desirous to fulfil their pledges. Nor is
this merely the selfishness of politicians anxious to
be rid of a troublesome subject. There is amid all
the utterances of extreme opinions on either side a
conviction that the Franchise may be safely extended
so as to include a less wealthy class, but one which
has made great progress in education and political
moderation. Though with the strong Conservative
spirit which possesses the upper and middle classes,
and which the recent conduct of Government has
remarkably increased, there is no chance of success
for a measure of democratic Reform, there is a
general feeling that such a Bill as will lay the ques-
tion at rest for a generation may now be passed
into law, provided the Government make no further
mistakes, but extend to their followers and op-
ponents that confidence which can alone insure
support. We regret that, while moderate men of all
opinions. are preparing thus to co-operate for the pub-
he good, one vehement voice is again heard. Mr.
Bright has been an unfortunate ally of the Govern-
ment through the whole of this controversy. Indeed
but for him there would hardly have been any contro-
versy at all. A full month before the meeting of Par-
liament, and at a time when the scheme of reform
was yet to be settled by the Cabinet, Mr. Bright in-
augurated the dexterous policy of spreading the mea-
sure over several years, so as to gain by one instal-
ment the necessary leverage for making the next more
thorough and complete. Whether the Government
borrowed the idea from him or arrived at it indepen-
dently is of little moment. It is enough to say that
the speech of their ally nearly ruined their project. The
suspicions of the country and the vigilance of Parlia-
ment might not have been roused had not the truth
been thus blurted out. But no sooner is the undigni-
fied contest which the Government had brought on
itself at an end, no sooner have the Premier and the
Leader of the House of Commons been barely saved
from downfall by the votes of faithful but uncon-
vinced supporters, than Mr. Bright is unhappily in the
field again. With the greatest part of his speech at
Manchester we have no fault to find. Mr. Bright is
quite right in saying that a large proportion of the 32
Liberal members who voted for Lord Grosvenor's
amendment are likely to give their votes in favour of
the Government and the bill in its future stages.
Those 32 who really expressed the opinions of the
majority of Liberal members have enforced their own
reasonable views, and there is now no reason why they
should not come back into the fold. Nor can we com-
plain that Mr. Bright should endeavour to make a
stand for the exact fran3hises proposed in the Govern-
ment bill. As he desires to descend much lower than
£7 and £l4, it is natural that he should refuse to rise
any higher. What we deprecate is that he should affect
to anticipate that the House of Commons will be
utterly hostile to any measure of reform, and should
begin to throw out threats of a dissolution. The
party on whom he looks " sometimes with astonish-
ment and often with pity" is a "reactionary party"
with a " very small minority in the country," al-
though they polled 313 votes. So the time has
come when the question must be decided " whether
the great Liberal party and population shall submit
to that small reactionary minority." " Then we
should come to this great struggle I don't care my-
, self, if it is to come, how soon it comes." "The
bill in 1831 was not carried without a dissolution of
Parliament. It may be that this bill must go
through the same ordeal." Of course, all this was
received with the usual cheering, but we would
suggest to Mr. Bright's official friends that it is not
the way to make their path smooth in the coming
discussions. To recall the recollections of 1831,
with its political frenzy breaking out into riot and
organising rebellion, is not the way to reassure the
upper and middle classes of this country. They
are somewhat timid politicians. They find them-
selves a small minority possessing property in
face of a vast working class, which not only does
not save, but, if its spokesmen are to be believed,
has elevated impecuniosity to the rank of a social
duty. If a Reform is to be carried, the apprehen-
sions of the proprietary and mercantile sections of
English society must not be roused. As little must
the just susceptibilities of the House of Commons be
weunde 1. One of the most disagreeable points of
Mr. Gladstone's conduct as leader of the house is
that he has never expressed any dissent from Mr.
Bright's projects, or any disapprobation of the
menace to the House of Commons. There arises a
natural presumption, therefore, that when Mr.
Bright speaks he speaks semi-officially ; that there
is a sort of understanding between him and the
Government as to what he shall say and the
course he shall indicate. Are we, then, to con-
clude that the House of Commons goes into
Committee on the Franchise Bill and the Re-
distribution Bill with the threat of dissolution
hanging over it ? For the sake of the Govern-
ment, and for the sake of their measure, we should
hope not. Any appearance of coercion, any ap-
proach to a threat, anything, indeed, but the most
perfect confidence and good faith may be fatal to
their Reform Bill and themselves. As to gaining
by a dissolution, let them not deceive themselves.
The country never was in a more Conservative
frame of mind than at present ; the well-to-do and
educated classes, who really govern, are only too
averse from change. There are not fifty members
who would approve so monstrous a proceeding as
the destruction of a Liberal House of Commons
three months after its first meeting on the details of
a bill respecting which such diverse opinions pre-
vail, and the political results of which are so uncer-
tain. To send six hundred irritated members back
to their constituents within a year, to punish them
with heavy expenses, and then bring them up to
Westminster to sit far into the autumn, would be a
course which the boldest statesman would hesitate
to try: Unless he could succeed in unseating the
majority of the members of the present House, he
would find the new one bent upon his destruction,
irrespective of party. But it is useless to discuss
a contingency so improbable. The Government
will have to pass their Reform measures through
the present Parliament or not pass them at all.
We, who earnestly desire their success, are only
anxious they should not renew their mistakes, and
check the public anxiety for an honest and effec-
tual setttlement of the question. Such a settlement
can only be made with the consent of the moderate
Liberals, and, it may be said, also of the Conserva-
tive party. These two sections united will form a
majority of this or any future House of Commons,
and they make up the whole body of the House of
Lords. To these, then, the Government must
appeal, to these it must defer. They are men on
whom all the platform oratory in the world will have
no effect ; they are not to be daunted by threats or
melted by sentimentality. Unless a Government
can convince them of the justice and expediency of
what it proposes, the announcement of its own
desperate resolves and the threatening speeches of
its allies will be alike in vain.
HERALD.—After the exciting debates of last week
on the bill for the extension of the franchise, we
turn with a feeling of relief to the calm and dignified
discussion which preceded the second reading of the
bill for amending the law by which capital punish-
ment is now regulated. We may also add that,
having deemed it our duty to oppose the ill-advised
plan upon which her Majesty's advisers proposed to
remodel the political constitution of the country,
we gladly embrace the opportunity of supporting
their endeavour to regulate the infliction of the
extreme judicial penalty. The recommendation
s o 1
the Royal Commissioners upon which the bill is
based, were in fact little more than so many autho-
ritative adoptions of suggestions which have been
frequently and perseveringly advocated in these
columns. The Draconian severity of our penal
code in days long past has been condemned by
everybody. There is no one but would shudder at
the thought of re-enacting the law which made a
man's life forfeit for stealing a sheep, or sent
coiners, forgers, and robbers to hang in ghastly
rows at the Old Bailey every Monday morning.
Enlightened policy, no less than common humanity,
teaches us that the protection of society is best in-
sured, not by treating all crimes of whatever degree
as deserving of death, but by a careful graduation
of secondary punishments according to the nature
and circumstances of each particular offence, reserv-
ing the capital sentence for those crimes of peculiar
enormity upon which all ages and nations have set
the seal of their reprobation. With us the list
of such crimes has been gradually curtailed till
only murder and treason still remain, and even in
these the substitution of a protracted, if not a
life-long imprisonment, has been proposed as
the Ultima Thule of a milder regime. To pro-
mote the attainment of this result we have had
an agitation, conducted with average ability, in

which appeals have been made rather to sympathy
and sentiment than to reason and reflection—to
morbid pity for the criminal rather than to careful
consideration for the protection of society. Still it
must be admitted that it was mainly through the
influence of the abolitionists that the recent com-
mission was appointed, and we may therefore ex-
press our acknowledgments to them for the prac-
tical advantages which have resulted from their
well-meant exertions. The tone of the debate on
Tuesday night was singularly uniform in favour of
the retention of the extreme penalty in some cases.
With the solitary exception of Lord Romilly no
one of the assembled peers expressed a wish for en-
tire abolition, and his lordship's speech was hardly
calculated to advance the cause he espoused or to
raise the reputation which he enjoys. It consisted
mainly of supposed cases, possible of occurrence
certainly, but still only affecting the question at
issue as do those hard cases which are said to make
bad law. The suggestion to imprison murderers for
life, and then to administer the lash to them, sounds
strangely as coming from a humanitarian advocate,
and the assertion that capital punishment does not
deter was but the thoughtless repetition of an oft-
exploded fallacy. When the Flowery Land pirates
were brought out to execution, more than one of
those who had often faced death in the war of
waters, and had savagely imbrued their hands in
the blood of their captain and officers, fainted in the
prospect of the doom they had deserved ; and in
the recent case of Charlotte Winsor the effect upon
the prisoner was still more remarkable. While
Harris and she were tried together the professor of
infanticide remained unmoved, but when, at
the second trial, she became aware that
her accomplice was to give evidence against
her, her courage failed, and her whole de-
meanour changed. In like manner, during the
arguments of counsel in the Queen's Bench, she
showed but little emotion, but as soon as the Lord
Chid Justice intimated that his opinion was against
her, and that the web of legal sophistry which her
advocate had woven would avail nothing, her head
drooped, and the tears fell fast down cheeks too
long unused to the melting mood. Nor do the ex-
periments in the direction of abolition bear out the
theories of its advocates. 'The report of the Italian
Minister of Justice states that murders have in-
creased since secondary punishments were substi-
tuted for the extreme penalty. Our own experience
shows that the modern tendency of juries to call
almost every homicide manslaughter has been ac-
companied with a continuous increase in the in-
stances of the crime and in the enormity of its
attendant circumstances. Theory and practice,
therefore, concurred to restrain the Government
from going the whole length to which Mr. E wart
and his friends desired to carry them ; but, on the
other hand, humanity and experience united to re-
commend the classification of murders, for the worst
of which only should life be taken. The frequency
of infanticide, the misery and wretchedness of the
women by whom it is constantly committed to con-
ceal their own shame, the impossibility of obtaining
convictions in such cases, have led to the adoption
of a middle course, by which we may hope that the
ends of justice will be promoted and the increase of
this unnatural crime effectually checked. One
important provision of the bill remains to be
noticed. Executions are in future to take place
within the walls of the prison, in the presence of the
officials. We regret to see that this part of the mea-
sure was opposed by Lord Malmesbury, who attaches
considerable, and, as we think, undue, importance to
the possible influence of the last dread scene in a mur-
derer's life upon those who witness his public shame
and his mortal agony. But those whose duty has
compelled them to be present on such occasions
will hardly endorse his lordship's opinion. Doubt-
less to the culprit himself the moment is generally
one of intense suffering. On many of the spectators,
it may be, it exercises a powerful influence, awak-
ening within them feelings in which pity, disgust,
and horror, are strangely blended. But with the
majority there is a studied endeavour to shut out
such feelings. The roughs and rowdies, the scum
and off-scouring of society, meet around the gallows'
tree, not to learn a moral lesson, but to enjoy their
brutal saturnalia. It may be that if each could wit-
ness it alone the effect would not be wholly lost upon
him. But the evil influence of association is fatal to
this: The endeavour to prevent the obtrusion of
unwelcome thoughts, and to stifle the qualms of
conscience, is only too successful when it is made
in the midst of a mob, each one of whom has come
to reproduce upon the flag-stones a copy of my Lord
Tomnoddy, more vulgarised, but not more debased
than its original. It is not in noisy mobs and
tumultuous assemblages that the lessons of capital
punishment are taught. It is not amid the roar of
a multitude, in which the filthy jest and the profane
oath goes round from man to man and even from
woman to woman, that the still small voice which
points the moral of the culprit's history can be heard.
The assembled thousands know that their courses
are evil, but each trusts to his associates to keep him
in countenance, and thus each is gay with forced
merriment even while St. Sepulchre's bell tolls at
once for a living' man and a parting soul. The
tolling might be retained, together with, as has been
suggested, the exhibition of a black flag or other
symbol on the prison walls, which should tell the
passers-by of the tragedy which stern justice is en-
acting within. The lessons to be learned from the
shameful close of a life of crime would, we venture
to say, be more impressively taught in this way
than they can be by executions as hitherto con-
ducted. Having long since suggested this altera-
tion, and having constantly advocated it whenever
opportunity offered, we may fittingly express our
satisfaction that the course we recommended has at
length been legislatively adopted.

The Irish Church Establishment.
FACTS OR FICTIONS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

Sin,—Dr. Lee may be excused a little irritation at the
conversion of his " Facts" into " fictions," but, on the
other hand, his ingenuity has been:rewarded by an honorary
degree, bestowed by Trinity College, and will, no doubt,
receive further acknowledgment.
Dr. Lee has observed that I " quoted legends which
even Lanigan has rejected ;" but this assertion must be
reckoned as ono of those matters of opinion which Dr.
Lee may eall a " fact" if he pleases. He next misrepre-
sents me as " leaping from the seventh to the twelfth cen-
tury," because of " difficulty in producing any real in-
stances of the exercise of the Papal jurisdiction in the
age preceding the English invasion," whereas my
true reason was stated, namely—unwillingness "to mul-
tiply such instances ad nauseam." Dr. Lee also describes
the presence of Papal legates at various ancient synods as
beside the question," and gives the public to understand
that the question at issue was that of episcopal succession.
Dr. Lee well know that the Papal legates were brought
forward by me, not in reference to episcopal succession,
but to contradict his "fact" about "Rome having no real
jurisdiction in Ireland till the year, 1172."

Dr. Leo once more mentions the 199 parishes without
any Anglican inhabitant, and professes himself unaware
that the term " Anglican" was used for brevity instead of
" member of the Established Church." This appears ab-
surd to Dr. Lee, an Englishman, but not to Irishmen.
" These 199 parishes, Dr. Brady [so says Dr. Lee] conve-
niently forgets are all parts of benefices, containing, with
one exception, members of the church." This unworthy
insinuation of my " conveniently" forgetting this " fact"
is only another "fiction." These 199 parishes are not all of
them parts of benefices, for only 145 of them are in that
position, as Dr. Lee has road in the Primate's charge.

Dr. Lee's notions in reference the revenues of the
Anglican clergy in Ireland seem of a fluctuating kind.
In the third edition of his pamphlet ho estimates the ave-
rage yearly net income of an Irish incumbent at £215, and
in his fourth edition printed in the same year, 1865, he
estimates it at £245. This change appears to have neces-
sitated another, for at page 18 of his third edition Dr. Lee
calls for an additional yearly revenue of £52,000 in order
to raise each incumbent's income to £250 per annum,
while in his fourth edition, page 14, his ideas expand, and
he observes :—" To give every beneficed clergyman in
Ireland only £3OO a year would require £60,000 to be
added to the present yearly revenue of the Church." But
a paragraph touching the number of curates and their sti-
pends, which occurs at page 14 of the third edition, and is
omitted from page 11 of the fourth edition, is perhaps the
occasion of both the alterations just noticed. Dr. Lee had,
in fact, made a blunder in deducting the curates' stipends
from the net incomes of the beneficed clergy, for those
stipends had already been deducted by the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners when they estimated the net income of
benefices at £393,833 13s. ld. And as Dr. Lee, on disco-
vering his blunder, had to raise the net income of incum-
bents from £215 to £245, he took the opportunity of mak-
ing a corresponding increase in the estimated requirements
of the Church, and raised his clerical pay from barely
£250" to "only £3OO a year" for each incumbent, and
changed the sum of £52,500 to £60,000. Dr. Lee has
now estimated the revenue of the church at £649,500.
Perhaps a judicious Parliamentary inquiry will increase
that sum.

Dr. Lee's statistics of clergy, churches and glebe houses,
fluctuate as much as his ideas of church revenue. On
comparing•tho several editions of the "facts," the numbers
of the clergy are given iu six different years, 1730, 1806,
1826, 1829, 1863, and 1864. Authorities are given for only
four of these years, Charles's Directory being the authority
for the earliest year, and Parliamentary returns for the latest.
Neither Mr. Charles nor Dr. Lee seem aware of the unreli-
able nature of the earlier return of 1730, nor of the exist-
ence of returns of the year 1792, which are of undoubted
truthfulness, and were adopted by Dr. Beaufort. However,
thus stands;" the progressive increase of clergy"as it appears
in Dr. Lee's " Facts":-800, 1,253, 1,977, 1,950, 2,281,
2-141. That. is to say, in three years, between 1826 and
1829, the clergy diminished by the number of 27, and again,
one year, between 1863 and 1864, the clergy diminished by

110! Credat Judceus I As to the number of glebe houses
being 141 in 1730, it is very unlikely to have been the case
But in 1791 there were certainly 354 glebe houses, by Dr/
Beaufort's account, and therefore Dr. Lee's estimate of 295
in 1806 has been wrongly obtained. But the complete in-
accuracy of these statistics will appear from the " progreS.-
sive increase of churches," as taken from the different ed-
tions of Dr. Lee's "Facts," and tested by Dr. Beaufort's
returns of 1791, and the returns of the Commissioners of
Ecclesiastical Revenue in the year 1836.
A.D. Churches. A.D. Churches.
1730 400 1820 1307
1791 ... 1001 1836 ... 1293
1800 688 1863 1633
1806 ... 1029 I 1864 ... 1579
1826 ... 1192
From the above figures, taken in every instance but two
from Dr. Lee's "Facts," it appears that in 61 years 599 new.
churches were built; in the nine following years 3.13
churches vanished; in the six next years 341 were built,
in the next 20 years 63 churches, and in the following 3
years 115 churches were erected. But in the next 7 years
the number of churches was reduced by 14, and in 27 years
afterwards was increaeed by the enormous number of 30'
But wonders have not yet ceased. During the 12 months
of the year 1863-4 54 churches have melted away, accord-
ing to the veritable "progressive increase" of Dr. Lee!
Dr. Lee inquires, "How can Alexander Knox, with any
fairness, be adduced as a witness for the purpose for which
Dr. Brady quoted him ?" Now, that purpose was
clearly
defined : Knox " thus deals with the body corporate, an
the rightful possession' theory," and the quotation then
adduced proved to demonstration that in the opinion of
Knox the modern Anglo-Irish Church did not rightly PO"
sess, as the corporate "body" of the old church, the ecclesias-
tical property of Ireland. Dr. Lee's present quotation.
from Knox does not apply to the "body corporate" theol99
and is so far irrelevant, but it applies to the question of the
endowment of the State Establishment in Ireland/ end
shows the views of Knox concerning the connection of
property with religion. Dr. Lee, however, hardly Per-
ceived the full force of one part of his quotations from
Knox. " When Canada was conquered, its Church Estab-
lishment was kept unaltered. It was no doubt felt that
such a concession on the part of the victors was right as
well as expedient. The different circumstances of 'llia
warranted and demanded a different conduct ; there Wv"'
a universal transfer of property (in effect), and it w 55111.41-
vitable that the Church Establishment should' reside with
the wealth, not the property of the country." So, then/
in Canada the Church Establishment was unaltered—there
was no imposition of the church of the victors on the van-
quished, while in Ireland different circumstances demanded
a different conduct. A member of the United Church be-
lieves, of course, that a Christian may serve in the Wars'
but he is not bound to believe the bodies and minds of the
vanquished to be the property of the victors. The van-
quished may surely be permitted to call their souls their
own. But perhaps Ireland is an exception. There the
church of the vanquished was altered, and in the universal
transfer of property its establishment was inevitably
obliged to reside with the wealth, not the property--wit
the rich conquerors, not the poor serfs of the count/.
The historical truth of this endowment of the victor
church with the spoils of the vanquished is apparent ; th°
morality of the transaction is questionable. It contradicts,
however, in the plainest manner Dr. Lee's "fact" that
"the Established Church. in Ireland now is the B°ll
church as that which has existed there for 14 centuries•
(Facts, sth edition, p. 14.) And it contradicts the other
statement of Dr. Lee, namely, that there was "no trans"
fer of property, as is commonly supposed, from the Roan
Catholics to the Reformed Church at the Reformation!"
" It is very satisfactory " to Dr. Lee "to find that II
Brady in his reply does not attempt to contradict most
the points which" he, Dr. Lee, "had advanced." But tin e
poor satisfaction must be, I regret to say, removed. Tone e
the words of the Rev. Mr. Byrne, chaplain to the 8i511.°13
of Derry, e the Irish church disdains to save her position
in the constitution by clinging to the skirts of the EDP°
church, or appealing to the Act of Union." Dr. Lee's e:
:-
tire pamphlet consists of a defence humiliating to those
who have higher views of a church than to regard it as
well paid political machine, and his statistical and history'
cal researches seem to have been directed rather to sustaill
a theory than to establish truth.—l am, &c.,
W. MAZIERE BRADY, 70-'"
April, 1866.