paragraphs among the Annotations which might each supply material for extended review; and we had marked many interesting passages with the intention of discussing at some length the views contained in them. But, even after weeding out of our list the topics which appeared of minor interest (the process was that of thinning rather than of weeding), so many remain, that we can do no more than glance at two or three.

In the second edition of the work, just published, we find no material differences when compared with the first. Archbishop Whately's opinions have been too well considered to admit of change within a few months' space. But the minute reader will find here and there many little additions, which afford pleasant proof that the author is still thinking upon the subjects treated; and which promise that, rich as this volume already is in wisdom and eloquence, it may yet be farther enriched by the farther observation and reflection of its writer. In the former edition the Essay On Faction' was followed by no remarks: in the present edition it is followed by several annotations —some of them suggested, we may believe, by recent occurrences in America. The following passage, of special interest at the present time, points out forcibly the advantage of having in a State aliquid impercussum --a central rallying-point detached from all party, and to which all parties may profess attachment :

Bacon's remark, that a Prince ought not to make it his policy to govern according to respect to factions,' suggests a strong ground of preference of hereditary to elective sovereignty. For when a chief-whether called king, emperor, president, or by whatever name-is elected (whether for life, or for a term of

years), he can hardly avoid being the head of a party. He who is elected will be likely to feel aversion towards those who have voted against him; who may be, perhaps, nearly half of his subjects. And they again will be likely to regard him as an enemy, instead of feeling loyalty to him as their prince.

And those again who have voted for him, will consider him as being under an obligation to them, and expect him to show to them more favour than to the rest of his subjects; so that he will be rather the head of a party than the king of a people.

Then, too, when the throne is likely to become vacant—that is, when the king is old, or is attacked with any serious illnesswhat secret canvassing and disturbance of men's minds will take place! The king himself will most likely wish that his son, or some other near relative or friend, should succeed him, and he will employ all his patronage with a view to such an election; appointing to public offices not the fittest men, but those whom he can reckon on as voters. And others will be exerting themselves to form a party against him; so that the country will be hardly ever tranquil, and very seldom well-governed.

If, indeed, men were very different from what they are, there might be superior advantages in an elective royalty; but in the actual state of things, the disadvantages will in general greatly outweigh the benefits.

Accordingly most nations have seen the advantage of hereditary royalty, notwithstanding the defects of such a constitution.

We heartily wish that all parents would remember and act upon the Archbishop's view, as expressed in the following passage. We believe the caution is extensively needed. We believe that many injudicious parents (with the best intention) trench upon the incommunicable prerogative of the All-wise and the Almighty, by needlessly causing griefs and disappointments to their children, under the idea that all this forms a wholesome discipline. They forget that the nature and effect of every event partaking of the

character of pain, is determined by the source it comes from. When the heaviest sorrow comes by God's appointment, we bow in submission; and this not merely because we cannot help it, because it is vain to repine-because God will take His own way, whether we like it or not, but because we have perfect confidence in the rightness of whatever God may do, and because we feel assured that there must be good reason for all He does, although we may not be able to discern that reason. As regards man, we have no such confidence. And parents may be assured that their foolish conduct towards their children in many cases is a training, but an extremely bad one; it trains the children to a spirit of fruitless and therefore bitter resistance, and of dogged resentment. The philanthropist Howard, by taking the course the Archbishop reprobates, drove his son into a lunatic asylum. He followed that course rigorously and universally, and so the worst degree of mental disease ensued upon it. Most parents follow it only in part; and the lesser evil follows, of alienated affection, loss of confidence, jaundiced views, and a soured heart. Yet if any parent, on a cold morning, insists on his children remaining in that part of the room most distant from the fire, when their warming their little blue hands there could do no harm to any human being; or systematically refuses to permit them to go to 'children's parties,' not because they are asked to too many, but merely because it is good for them to be disappointed; or, generally, seeks to repress the exhibition of gaiety and light-heartedness, because we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of

God; then let that parent be assured, that surely as the field sown with tares yielded a harvest of tares, so surely will this petty tyranny bring forth its natural result, of resentment and aversion.

Most carefully should we avoid the error of which some parents, not (otherwise) deficient in good sense, commit, of imposing gratuitous restrictions and privations, and purposely inflicting needless disappointments, for the purpose of inuring children to the pains and troubles they will meet with in after-life. Yes, be assured they will meet with quite enough, in every portion of life, including childhood, without your strewing their path with thorns of your own providing. And often enough will you have to limit their amusements for the sake of needful study, to restrain their appetites for the sake of health, to chastise them for faults, and in various ways to inflict pain or privations for the sake of avoiding some greater evils. Let this always be explained to them whenever it is possible to do so; and endeavour in all cases to make them look on the parent as never the voluntary giver of anything but good. To any hardships which they are convinced you inflict reluctantly, and to those which occur through the dispensation of the All-wise, they will more easily be trained to submit with a good grace, than to any gratui tous sufferings devised for them by fallible men. To raise hopes on purpose to produce disappointment, to give provocation merely to exercise the temper, and, in short, to inflict pain of any kind merely as a training for patience and fortitude—this is a kind of discipline which man should not presume to attempt. If such trials prove a discipline not so much of cheerful fortitude as of resentful aversion and suspicious distrust of the parent as a capricious tyrant, you will have only yourself to thank for this result.-(pp. 58-9.)

Archbishop Whately is of opinion that the fear of punishment in a future life is a motive of more permanent force than that of temporal judgments. We quote his words:

It is true that some men, who are nearly strangers to such

a habit, may be for a time more alarmed by the denunciation of immediate temporal judgments for their sins, than by any considerations relative to the things which are not seen and which are eternal.' But the effect thus produced is much less likely to be lasting, or while it lasts to be salutary, because temporal alarm does not tend to make men spiritually-minded, and any reformation of manners it may have produced will not have been founded on Christian principles.-(pp. 61-2.)

Upon this we remark that there can be no question that, were future punishments realised as substantially as temporal evils, they ought to have, and would have, a much greater effect in deterring from sinful conduct. But the great difficulty with which men have to contend is the essential impossibility of realising spiritual and unseen things in their true bulk and importance; of feeling that a thing in the Bible, or in a sermon, is as real a thing as something in the daylight, material world. In no case is this difficulty more felt than in regard to future punishments in another life. We may be far mistaken but the result of considerable experience of the ways and feelings of a rustic population, is something of doubt whether in practice the fear of future punishment produces any effect in deterring from evil courses. A mountain, far away, may be concealed by a shilling held close to the eye; and future woe seems to crass minds so distant and so misty, that a very small immediate gratification quite hides it from view.

We remember, as illustrative of this, a circumstance related by a neighbouring clergyman. His parishioners were sadly addicted to drinking to excess. Men and women were alike given to this degrading vice. He did, of course, all he could to repress it, but all in vain.