puts out the light of both." There are many ways of putting out the light of reason of these, his lordship has exemplified two, viz., looking for it where it is not, and denying it where it is. If ever there were wanting a practical proof of the apostolic doctrine"the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God"-it would be abundantly found in the whole class of writings to which this very clever book belongs. The vain, speculative search upon a field which the search of ages has proved to be barren. The uncertain, difficult, and circuitous path after that knowledge which is confessedly revealed the attempt to prove the certain by the uncertain-to sanction, by that which must be for ever doubtful, that which is established on the simplest proofs, beyond the sophistry of all time to shake. These are con * tradictions which it would require more than Lord Brougham's philosophy to reconcile. We have no feelings of unkindness or asperity towards the noble author; we rejoice to see his very considerable powers turned to so useful a purpose: and while we assure him that he must not expect to cultivate a field so new to his pen, without committing errors and finding opposition; yet we sincerely hope that he will be led on by the course which he has entered, to correcter and sounder views. If he would for a time lay aside the Natural Theology, and look to the actual evidences of revealed religion, we have so much trust in the clearness of his judgment as to predict, that he will relinquish the enormous notion, that Christianity stands in need of proof from speculative Theology. The above article had been two days in the course of printing when we received another essay on the same subject. It has not been in our power, therefore, to notice this little work as we should have desired; and we much regret it. We cannot, among our recollections of modern essay writers, recall a happier example of the soundest thinking, seasoned to the highest taste by pointed, but not poisoned wit, playful fancy, and elegant learning. On some points, too, the writer is preeminently happy in seizing at once upon the important point. We specify one instance for its infinite importance—the absurd inconsistency of those who, admitting Christianity to be the revealed truth of God, would still set its authority aside where it comes in contact with human reasoning. The nonsensical sophism-"philosophy deals with human evidence and its results,"that discovers that to be false in a doubtful philosophy, which it calls true in a certain revelation, is exposed by a few clear and masterly observations. Upon the material question, the reader of this little essay will also find all that is, perhaps, to be said, well said. Our perusal has, of necessity, been glancing and cursory; but all that we have read is worth reading, either for its wit or truth; and we earnestly recommend it to out readers. The infidelity of the day has assumed philosophy for its menstruum; books of this kind convert the same dangerous medium into an antidote. * Metaphysic Rambles. By Warner Christian Search. Dublin. Fellowes, London. Milliken and Son, POST-SESSIONAL REFLECTIONS. BY TERENCE O'RUARK, A.M. DEAR ANTHONY-The Session is over, and the chatterers have gone to chatter elsewhere-as to holding their peace, that is out of their nature-you might as well expect modesty and silence from a company of sparrows. But the doors of the House of Commons are closed fast, and for some time to come we shall not be pestered with records of the deliberative wisdom of that assembly, matutinally calling for our disgust in all the newspapers. Every human creature had become exceedingly sick of this little long parliament. In my sight it was the loathsomest thing in nature. It seemed too contemptible to be hated, and too mischievous to be forgotten: but it is done with for the present, and even the Tail must be glad that it is, for did not they want to go home to assist in digging out the potatoes? To be sure they did, and a much more fit and wholesome employment it is for them than sitting twelve hours a day in the House of Commons, afraid even to go out now and then for a glass of gin, lest they should meet with the scowling eye, and the growling reproach of their tyrant Dan. My worthy neighbours, the hodmen in St. Giles's are much better off, except that they tumble off scaffolds now and then, and break their bones. Perhaps the Tail gentry may have something of that too, just before they die: when they do, they will be hurt past all surgery, I can promise them, and in England there will be an uncommon quantity of dry eyes at the catastrophe. I said every human creature was tired of the sitting of the house; but there are some creatures in the house who imitate humanity so abominably that I do not think they come within the class of human creatures. There are Roebuck, and Hume, and Buckingham, and Warburton, and Wakley, and Bowring, and Aglionby, for example, who would rather, I am sure, have the respectable house always sitting. While they are there they keep up a perpetual fizzing, and fuming, and spitting, like a bit of unsound wood thrown on the fire. They have a sensation of being of some consequence, once a day, as they march up the lobby, but parliament being prorogued their occupation is gone. They have to pay additionally for their lodgings, on account of being at home in the evening; and even their franks, which pass in a crowd, are shunned when there are but few members in town, as rather dis-respectable and notorious. The session is ended, and what is to be said of it? Why this, that it is well it was no worse, but what has been done is mischief. It is melancholy to see people who ought to know better, going about, and chuckling with a silly air of triumph at the result in the affair of the Corporation Bill.* Because the Lords manfully stood out against the radicals in the Commons, and, as they always will, beat them upon the points in which they had the unanimity and firmness to stand out, people forget that this bill is in every part a democratie bill, and that even as the Lords have passed it, it is another step in the revolution— ay, and a most important step. Such a measure ought not to have been passed by King, Lords, and Commons; for any man may discern, that with such republican forms of government in the towns, there never can be harmony and sympathy with King, Lords, and Commons. The operation of this bill will be to create a number of municipal revolutionary batteries throughout the kingdom, against the nobles, the church, and the throne. If the King's ministers were so stupid as not to see this, when they proposed the measure, they should be sent to some asylum for idiots; if they did see this, they deserve to be sent to the tower. But how is it that this session also should have passed away without anything being done to turn back the tide of revolution? How is it that notwithstanding the great additional strength which the Conservative party gained by the general election in the beginning of the year, it has enabled us to gain so little for the Conservative cause to do so little damage to the enemy? How is it, in fine, that with a majority of the English representatives on our side-with two-thirds of the nobility devotedly in our favourwith the universities-the churchesthe greater part of the landlords, and the whole of the respectable part of the press ranged on our side: how is it that with such a force as this, a paltry despicable majority of some thirty nominees of Mr. O'Connell have been able to make such head against us, to thwart every attempt at rational legislation, and to overthrow the ancient corporations of England and Wales? Assuredly there has been something very wrong, or very defective in our generalship, that under such circumstances, such results should have taken place. I do not hesitate to say, that we have been lamentably deficient in courage, spirit, and activity, during * We need not say that from this we totally dissent. the past session. Our forces have not been marshalled as they should have been ; their several duties have not been appropriated to each; nor has there been that cordial understanding and constant communication between the chiefs, and the body at large, which is necessary for keeping up a lively and general interest throughout the party. Our chiefs continue to act in opposition, as if they were ministers, and had all the responsibility of govern. ment upon their shoulders; while they who are really responsible, and enjoy the advantages appertaining to the position of responsibility, do not allow it to interfere in the least with their party views on political experiments. We confine ourselves merely to defence, and appear quite satisfied with doing that which ought to be the duty of the government side of the house. They are continually making assaults, not only upon our party, but even upon our personal interests. Why do we leave them thus unmolested to pursue their mischief? It is true that the ministerial party is in the anomalous position of being at once the nominal support of the crown, and the actual enemy of every monarchical institution. It is true that being in this position-a position which no set of honest men could be in-it is necessary that the opposition should take care of the interests of the monarchy, which ministers have so basely deserted; but there is no reason that the man who deserts these interests, should be spared. The Conservative opposition has a double duty to perform-it should preserve as much as it can from the destructive rapacity of the revolutionary ministers, but it should also assail them. This has not been done. On the contrary, there is an absurd fashion prevails of helping them to a certain extent of admitting that thus much, or thus, of what they propose, is needful or expedient. If a compliment can be paid them, our leaders fail not to avail themselves of the opportunity, and are ever ready to protest, how happy they are to give their opponents their support, when they possibly can. All this is perfectly sickening to honest men, who are disgusted with the palpable profligacy of the ministerial party, and desire to see that party always treated as criminals, with whom it is disreputable to be on terms of courtesy. What avails it that our leaders tell us to form registration societies, and to busy ourselves incessantly in laying the foundation of a strong numerical force in the House of Commons? We have increased that force, and what has it done for us? Look at the Whig-radical side of the house, and we not only find the members of the government proposing their destructive measures, and calling their supporters around them to explain what they mean to do, and to earnestly solicit their co-operation, but we also find the individual members of the party, each with his separate grievance to bring forward against the interests of our party, or against some individual connected with it. Is it because the Whig radicals are so pure, that we have no weapons of annoyance to use against them? Night after night we have Mr. Hume, or Mr. Harvey, or Mr. Warburton, or Mr. O'Connell, or Mr. Bulwer, or Mr. Wallace, coming forward with some attack upon a Conservative interest, or a Conservative individual; and the government leaders seldom fail to give them efficient support, for they know they shall want the support of these grievance-mongers in return. But this sort of warfare, which an opposition ought more particularly to attend to, is by our chiefs wholly neglected. They will not condescend to it themselves, and they look with a coldness, which amounts almost to disdain, upon any thing that any of their own party, save themselves, brings forward. This is miserable generalship. If any subordinate member of the Whig-radical party brings forward a grievance, his whole party back him up :-if any subordinate member of the Conservative party attempts the like, he finds himself with a minority of perhaps fortyseven, though he knows that the leaders of his party are all within ten minutes' walk of the house, and that had they taken the trouble to issue their request upon the subject, two hundred might easily have been brought to the opposition benches. But why do the leaders themselves leave the ministers so completely at rest to concoct, and to carry forward, their iniquitous schemes? While Sir Robert Peel's ministry existed, did the leaders of opposition content themselves with opposing his measures? Not at all. They kept him employed in endeavouring to meet their assaults. But it will be said, that they had a majority, and were, therefore, to take the part of assailants-let us then go farther back to the days of the old opposition. Did Fox, Ponsonby, Romilly, Whitbread, Tierney, Brougham, content themselves with merely resisting the measures of government? They did not-they were continually the assailants, and they had not a majority. And if ever there was a time in which an opposition ought to take the part of assailants, this is that time. Never was there so much opportunity-never more need, to expose the hypocrisy, the ignorance, the shameless profligacy of an administration. Why is it, that though a session has passed over since the infamous alliance between the ministry and O'Connell, there has been no resolution proposed to the house, expressive of disgust and apprehension at such a coalition? Why is there no parliamentary record of the indignation, and the loathing, with which that coalition has filled so large a portion of members of parliament, as well as of the people? It is true the resolution would not have been carried, but would a minority of three hundred upon such a resolution have been no blow-no check to the ministry? Could they have faced the country with a majority against the resolution, composed exclusively of O'Connell's abject nominees? Why was there not a resolution proposed expressive of the opinion of the Conservative party, upon the gross contempt of religion and the laws, exhibited in the fact of Roman Catholics voting against the support of the Established Church, after having solemnly sworn to do nothing to subvert it? Such a resolution manfully and eloquently brought forward, would have kindled a flame in England, that O'Connell and the ministry could not have stood against. Sir Robert Peel should have proposed such a resolution, for he well knows what was at all events the intention of the framers of that solemn obligation. He at least ought to have felt himself bound to do all that in him lay, to hinder the privileges granted by the Catholic Emancipatiou Act, from being converted into wea pons of destruction against the Estabfished Church? Why were not the commissionership jobs sifted and exposed? Why was not the absurd budget-speech of Mr. Rice ridiculed in parliament, as well as in the newspapers? If I recollect rightly, our sagacious conservative oppositionists made its pompous tediousness, and absolute nothingness, the theme of their praises! This will never do. If our conservative leaders approve of the courses of the present ministry, they are wanting in conscientiousness and sincerity-they should go over to the ministry and to Mr. O'Connell at once-if, on the other hand, they think them, as politicians, profligate and dangerous, they should be on no other terms with them at any time, but those of open war. They should smite them in the face continually, and be ever seeking, and making opportunities to hold them up to the detestation and the scorn of all honest men. The oftener that they pushed on trials of strength, the better, for the oftener would the people of England perceive of what base materials the ministerial strength was composed. But this could not be done, without frequent and cordial meetings of the whole party, to communicate designs, and to deliberate upon the best means of carrying them into effect. This is not to be managed by clubs, where coteries are formed, and exclusive dinners given, which fill the excluded with jealousy and vexation. There ought to be meetings called, and frequent meetings, of the whole conservative party having seats in parliament, and there, the leaders should communicate with their friends-should hear what they have to say, and assign to them their posts in the aggressive war against those who are betraying the interests of the monarchy, and giving up the church to destruction. It will never do that Sir Robert Peel shall wrap himself up in his virtue, and make his boast in the House of Commons, that he is speaking merely his individual opinion, and cannot answer for that of others. Considering the confidence he expects, and which as a leader he ought to have, it is not for him, unless he formally abandons his position of leader of a party, to throw his adherents aside, as it were, and put his own individual opinion forth, as a thing of very prodigious consequence. I do not deny that it is so, but it is not becoming that he should, even indirectly, affirm it. His speech at Tamworth was excellent, but why was such a speech not delivered in the House of Commons? He comes to town, to assist in taking into consideration in the Commons, the amendments made by the Lords to the Corporations Bill. The moment he makes his appearance in the House, he is complimented in a very particular manner by the ministerial leader, and during the two or three evenings that he remained, he was as courteous, and as accommodating an oppositionist, as ever a minister had to deal withal. He hurries back to Tamworth to dine with his constituents, and in his travelling carriage, as he goes, he reads the insolent speech of Lord Melbourne reflecting upon the conduct of his administration; with this in his mind, he spoke his spirited speech at Tamworth, and showed how fully it is in his power to expose the ministry, and the wretched supporters upon whom they rely-but why-why I must again, and again ask, was such useful work as this, not done in parliament? One word more, and I have done with my scolding, which if it do no other good, will at least relieve me, for I am vexed that so little has been done with such cards as we have had in our hands. Why were such notices, as those respecting the House of Lords, by Hume, Roebuck, and O'Connell, allowed to pass without a single word of condemnation from those who are returned to parliament to be guardians of what remains of the constitution? After parliament was prorogued, it was found that Mr. Grove Price had given a notice for next session regarding them, and a very proper one, but was this enough from the Conservative party? I think not. I remain, dear Anthony, yours in sorrow and in anger, TERENCE O'RUARK. THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION BILL-IRISH CHURCH BILL-CENTENARY OF THE REFORMATION. THE first session of the second reformed parliament has terminated-a session almost unparalleled in the length of its duration, and we believe we may add, in the importance of the proceedings which marked its course. There was no period, since the last parliament assembled, at which the most intense interest was not felt as to the aspect of political affairs. Scarcely a week passed over without the public mind being agitated with some strong political excitement. At one time we were menaced with the extinction of the House of Lords; at another, with the stopping of the supplies; the language of revolution was frequently and loudly employed, and those who had not learned to despise that language as bravado, might very naturally have expected that this eventful session would not have passed away without bearing some permanent trace of the progress of social disorganization. Many, perhaps, feared that its termination would hardly leave the peerage or the monarchy untouched. The session, however, has terminated; the blusterings of St. Stephen's are suspended for a while, and still the ancient constitution of England remains, we cannot say unimpaired, but certainly not destroyed. The House of Commons have made two attempts to take into their own hands the supreme power of the state. They commenced the session by an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown; they ended it by an attack upon the privileges of the Lords. Had they succeeded in these attempts, the government of England would now be an oligarchy: but whatever degree of success may have attended the first, there can be little doubt that in the second they have been completely foiled. They may have succeeded in dismissing, without a trial or a charge, the ministers of their sovereign's choice; but they have failed, utterly failed, in the attempt to coerce the peers into submission to their will; and we confess that, whatever cause for alarm there might be in the events of the commencement of |