eyes of Europe to their conspiring character against society at large, that the demand became irresistible for the suppression of a confederacy demoralized by their very rule of life, and disciplined to subtlety and all mischief. The constitutions, thus reduced to a dead letter, soon sunk into insignificance, as the tales of by-gone times, to be never again valid and effectual" to all eternity;" for so the infallible sentence fulminated from the papal chair had pronounced.* Few, in consequence, were the copies which escaped consignment to the moles and to the bats; and of these few, the libraries of the curious became the only depositaries.

But now that, in the language of Pius VII., "The catholic world having demanded, with unanimous voice, the re-establishment of the company of Jesus, it has been conceded and granted to their most pressing petitions ;" and these abrogated constitutions have been resuscitated, to be observed as the "rule prescribed by their great founder." The uncloking the wily brotherhood again is obviously a measure in no degree less imperiously called for than in the former æra of their treacherous machinations. This service has been rendered by reprinting the original work, and throwing it open to more general examination in an English version, accompanied by the authentic documents of Paul III., Clement XIV., and Pius VII., respectively, for the institution, suppression, and restoration of the Society; and also by an outline of the present condition of popery in this kingdom; to all which the public attention cannot be directed too earnestly, nor devoted with too much jealousy and scrutinizing

research.

CENTRAL SOCIETY OF EDUCATION-MR. LIARDET, ON DR. SPRY'S LETTER TO MR. DUPPA.

SIR, The last number of the "British Magazine" contains a letter from Dr. Spry, the Vice Dean of Canterbury, to B. F. Duppa, Esq., the Honorary Secretary to the "Central Society of Education," impugning the correctness of the report made by me to the society respecting the condition of the peasantry in that part of Kent which was the scene of the remarkable riots which occurred in the early part of last summer; and as the letter is calculated to create impressions injurious to my character, I trust a sense of justice will induce you to allow a place to my answer in your pages. That some inaccuracies should be found in a statement drawn up under the circumstances that existed is not very surprising, but a little consideration will shew that those alleged by Dr. Spry are not of a nature, even if substantiated, to affect materially the character of the report, the object of which was, not (as he seems to suppose) to assail the ecclesiastical dignitaries of Canterbury, but to call the attention of the public to the social condition of the agricultural classes. The charges contained in the letter are-first, that I have committed an error in stating the number of persons concerned in the riot belonging to the ville of Dunkirk to be # Id.

Bull of Clement XIV.

+ Bull of Pius VII.

more considerable than that of those belonging to Boughton; secondly, that I have under-rated the number of acres contained in the ville; thirdly, that I have overstated the proportion of land in the ville belonging to ecclesiastical corporations; fourthly, that I have erroneously represented the inhabitants as the tenants of the church; fifthly, that I suppressed the fact, that the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury contributed, in common with the other proprietors, to the support of a dame-school; and lastly, that I refused to avail myself of the local knowledge of the vicar of Herne-hill to correct any misinformation I might receive.

These are substantively the whole of the charges, and a single glance at them is sufficient to shew that, with the exception of the last, which is utterly unfounded, they do not, even if admitted to be true, affect the real character of the report. Of what consequence is it to the point in question-the actual condition of the people-whether the number of rioters resident in Dunkirk was less than that of those belonging to Boughton? or whether the former place contains, as the report says, "about 5,000 acres," or 5,224, as Dr. Spry contends it does? or whether the population of Dunkirk be about 700, according to the report, or not likely to exceed 613 (which was the census in 1831), as Dr. Spry would infer. It is obvious that these are points of so little importance as to render it unnecessary for me to contest them in detail. I may however observe, with regard to the comparative numbers of the rioters belonging to Dunkirk and other places, that Dr. Spry's supposed triumph is founded on the assumption that all the rioters were either killed or taken prisoners. Because the report states, that one person from Boughton was killed, and two were in custody for trial, while from Dunkirk two were killed and none were in custody, thus making the total number of casualties for Boughton three, and only two for Dunkirk, Dr. Spry asks, how it can be said that the number of rioters belonging to the latter place could be greater than that of those from the former, observing that three are surely more than two. One would think it was sufficiently evident that the mere enumeration of the casualties can afford no certain data whereon to decide the comparative numbers of the parties. Many of Thoms' followers left him before the affray commenced, and several of them I was told, and believe, belonged to Dunkirk. The remaining charges, though not intrinsically important, with the exception of the last, merit a more particular notice.

The first is, that I have overstated the proportion of property in the ville belonging to the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Dr. Spry states, that the whole district contains 5,224 acres, of which 1,008 belong to that body. If this estimate be correct, which I am willing to believe, I have no doubt been greatly misled, for I understood the portion belonging to the church to be about four-fifths of the whole. Still the mistake was one which might easily be made, without subjecting the person making it to a charge of wilful misrepresentation. We usually suppose persons on the spot to know to whom the land belongs; and I can only say, that if a stranger asks the question in Dunkirk he will invariably be told it belongs to the church. But it is

asked, why I did not refer to official documents. The answer is, the point was wholly a subordinate one. My object was to ascertain the condition of the people, not to make accurate admeasurements of the country. Besides, if I have been wrong, others with better opportunities have likewise been mistaken. In a letter to me, the vicar of Herne-hill, finding fault with my estimate, states the property of the dean and chapter in the ville to be about 1,500 or 1,600 acres; which estimate exceeds Dr. Spry's by nearly 600. But even allowing the latter gentleman to be correct, does it very much improve the case of the dean and chapter? If not proprietors of the greater part of the district, as the report states, are they not proprietors to a very great extent? and are they not resident within six miles of the place?

The next charge is, that I have falsely represented the inhabitants as the tenants of the church. Dr. Spry asserts, that there is only one tenant in the district holding under the dean and chapter. The truth is, that many of these people hold by a very dubious tenure; and it is rather difficult to say whether they are tenants on sufferance, or freeholders by special occupancy. It is certain that most of them pay a quit rent, only it is affirmed that this rent is not an acknowledgment that the lord of the manor has any proprietary right in the soil, but that he engages to protect the holder in peaceable possession of such land as the quit rent is paid for. This, at least, is the account given of the matter by the vicar of Herne-hill, by which it appears there is undoubtedly a relationship subsisting between the dean and chapter and the holders, though whether that relationship can properly be called that of landlord and tenant may be a question.

The next charge is, that I have suppressed the fact that the dean and chapter of Canterbury are, in common with other proprietors, part contributors to the support of a dame-school, and that I have insidiously represented the whole expense as falling on the vicar of Hernehill, who, it is gravely added, "is as much above assuming undue merit to himself, as he is of lending himself to representations injurious to the character of the dignitaries of the church of Canterbury." Why the whole expense of the school does not probably exceed twenty-five or thirty pounds a year, and of this some part is defrayed by the scholars themselves, several of whom pay threepence or fourpence a week! In the district, the school is always called the vicar's, and as such I described it. I had heard from him that there were other contributors, but I did not know that the dean and chapter were of the number. Had I known it, and had I wished to depreciate those dignitaries, could I have done so more effectually than by representing them as part contributors to a village dame school?

The last charge is, that I positively refused to avail myself of the proffered assistance of the vicar of Herne-hill, to correct any misinformation I might receive, by his own local knowledge. My answer is, no such offer was made. It is true that that gentleman, when apprised of my intention to visit the cottages of the peasantry, offered to accompany me; but this, for obvious reasons, I declined. In his presence I could not have put all the questions I wished; nor if I had, could I have got the unreserved answers I required. I say this with

out meaning the slightest disparagement to that gentleman, than whom it would not be easy to point out a more exemplary pastor. I may add, however, that so far from offering me the assistance mentioned, this gentleman did not conceive himself at liberty to allow me to take notes of, or even to see, certain lists and particulars which he read

over to me.

I have now, Sir, gone through the whole of the strictures contained in Dr. Spry's letter, and trust I have shewn how totally undeserved is the charge of wilful misrepresentation endeavoured to be fastened upon me. I venture also to hope your readers will agree with me, that the points brought forward by Dr. Spry do not bear on the material parts of the report. It is not pretended that there is any exaggeration in the description of the degree of ignorance prevailing among the peasantry, the utterly inefficient character of the schools, and the low moral condition of the adult population. Dr. Spry does not pretend that there are any other means of instruction than those described, nor that the ville has up to this day possessed any church, chapel, or clergyman, whatever may be now, or for any time past has been, in contemplation. Indeed, he expressly exempts the points which form the real substance of the report from his observations, by saying, "Of the account given by your reporter respecting the general condition of the inhabitants of the ville of Dunkirk, the nature and value of the instruction they receive, and the knowledge they possess, I forbear from saying a word."

Trusting, Sir, to your sense of justice for the insertion of this letter in your pages, to which I conceive you are the more bound from the nature of your observations on the report, I remain, Sir, your obedient servant, F. LIARDET.

35, Southampton Buildings, Chancery Lane, Nov. 16, 1838.

THE SECRETARY OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT'S QUESTIONS.

SIR,-In reference to a circular recently issued by the Secretary of the Home Department to the Boards of Guardians, I beg to state what has fallen under my own observation.

The circular bore date, August 25, 1838, requiring, amongst other particulars,

1. The number of churches and chapels of the established church? 2. The number which each is capable of containing?

3. The number of dissenting places of worship, with the denomination to which they belong, and the number each is calculated to contain ?

The return is to be made by the 20th November.

Now, what is the course pursued by our guardian, a churchman, on receiving these inquiries?

He lays his head together with that of a neighbour, who has acted as a methodist preacher; and though there is previously no licensed meeting of that denomination in the parish, a building is immediately

erected on land belonging to the guardian, to be the scene of his neighbour's future ministry, trusting to the chance of a congregation. It is now nearly finished, and will of course be duly included in the return, with the number it is "calculated" to contain.

I do not state these facts to complain of the guardian or the preacher; the law allows the one to embark in any speculation for the improvement of his property, and the other to exercise his self-appointed vocation. But I protest against such a method of pretending to ascertain the relative strength of the church and of dissenters, while it is in reality holding out a lure to the latter to make their case appear to advantage by building places of worship with or without congregations, a space of three months being offered them as if expressly for that purpose, with the implied hope of a measure to be founded on it by the government.

It would be desirable to know how many similar instances occur; but I hope this will be sufficient to put your readers on their guard against any calculations which may be founded on such returns in support of measures hostile to the establishment. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, CLERICUS.

ON 1 TIMOTHY, vi. 13.

SIR,-The text in the 13th verse of the 6th chapter of St. Paul's first epistle to Timothy, as represented in the authorized version, has been a subject of lengthened consideration in the British Magazine,-what the sense is of the words, "Christ Jesus, who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession."

μαρτυρήσαντος

By giving to the word μapruρhoavros its proper ecclesiastical sense, by detaching τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν (ν. 13) from μαρτυρήσαντος, and by observing the sound rule of interpretation to which there is no exception-not to give a different sense to words or phrases occurring closely together, (τǹv kadǹv óμoλoyíav, in the 13th verse, is an express reference to the same phrase in the 12th verse; the same confession must be understood in both places,)—the whole passage seems restored to its catholic sense. Παραγγέλλω σοὶ κ.τ.λ., “I deliver to thee, (or commit to thee, or give thee charge of,) before God, who quickeneth all things, and Christ Jesus, who in his suffering witnessed to the truth under Pontius Pilate, (that good confession which he had just spoken of,) that thou keep this commandment (what I deliver) undefiled and irreproachable until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ."

The "good confession" is that which the "man of God," whom the apostle addresses, (v. 11,) "made before many witnesses," (v. 12.) That the apostle does not confine himself in his address to the person of Timothy is evident from the reference to the future appearance of our Lord. "The man of God," therefore, is the term applied to every Christian disciple whose baptism occupies the apostle's attention in the words of the 12th verse-" Fight that good fight of the faith," VOL. XIV.-Dec. 1838.

4 U