the score of right. What you concede is as little given to the lower as to the higher classes. It must go exclusively to electors or dissenters, or both; they consist in the majority of selected inhabitants of towns, who only seek it to turn it against all the leading divisions of society. The ballot and every other democratic grant will be used in favour of the Liberals, or be a dead letter; every surrender to the dissenters must be employed against the church, or be inoperative. The Liberals wage eternal war against nearly all the great national interests, and they do the same against the great classes. They labour to pull down wages with property, the servant with the master, and the peasant with the noble; and they are the most determined opponents of every measure for gratifying the wishes and bettering the circumstances of the working orders. The dissenters, in their attacks on the church, essay to take from these orders religious instruction; it is owing to them and the Liberals that so vast a portion of the middle and lower ranks is suffered to be without places of worship and religious teachers. These two descriptions of men are identified to a high point in political principle and conduct towards religion. They are inveterately hostile to the power and property of the higher classes, and the mighty portion of the middle ones comprehended in the great interests: they would sink the labourer, by political measures, to the condition of the brute in circumstance; and force on his conscience the doctrines of a sect to his heavy pecuniary loss, or sink him to the condition of the brute in religion and morals. They are open foes to the great mass of the population in regard to both property and number. - If your concessions were to be shared by all, they might be called just, if not wise but you only take from a few to give to a few; you leave the many as destitute as ever. Will any man make himself so ludicrously foolish as to say that your new few-your fractions, fragments, and cullings of interests and classes, have any natural right to their monopoly of power and its continual increase? No; political power and privilege must be the common right of all men equally, or of none. You have decided by your distribution that the state alone has the right to bestow them; and this right must also be one to regulate their use. Here is an end of right on the one side, and how is it affected on the other? The old few in different ways represented with tolerable fairness the community at large; this is proved by the fact that public affairs were commonly managed, whether wisely or not, according to the wishes of the majority. Your new few, although you pretend to select them from various parts of the people, are in their working taken from one only; their majority smothers the minority, which would give them diversity of representation. Instead of acting for, they are arrayed against, the community; the small housekeepers, of whom their ruling portion consists, are opposed in feeling to all the great interests and classes. Your few, therefore, stand on one side, and all the great divisions of society on the other, in eternal conflict. In the first place, you perpetrate the most gross outrage on national right, by enabling the petty minority to tyrannise over the majority. Every great division of society has a right to as much power as will suffice for its protection, and this right you destroy. Of necessity, you sacrifice the best of individual rights. Were we asked for a test to distinguish a free from a despotic government, we would give this: when every man equally can gain from his rulers, not imaginary and disputed political privileges, but redress of real grievances, the laws and policy he finds necessary for protecting his property, promoting his business, and benefiting his general circumstances, the government is a free one; and in proportion as the power to do this is confined to a part of the population, it is an odious tyranny. Apply this to the government you are creating; notoriously, no great interest or class can obtain what it finds necessary for releasing it from heavy suffering, saying nothing of prosperity, because an insignificant minority has almost unlimited power. What is the conclusion? Your assertion that you act from the command, and on behalf of the people, covers you with the shame of either saying what you know to be untrue, or being intentionally ignorant of the truth. Turning from newspapers, unions, and public meetings, to unerring demonstration, we find that all the great interests and classes are in the body against you. Even in towns, almost half the housekeepers go with the Tories when put to the vote. While all your transfers of power necessarily fall solely on a few handfuls of electors, and not on the labouring classes, the latter differ radically in general policy from the government you are creating. Saving one or two questions of the moment, which relate only to fabric, Messrs. Hume, O'Connell, Grote, Bulwer, and Co. are fiercely opposed to the bulk of the middle and lower orders in regard to the management of public affairs; they are much more so than any other description of public men. The mass of the people does not ask you to do what you are doing-you are giving nothing to it even in appearance-the government you are raising will clearly do every thing it objects to, and refuse all it desires; and of course your transfers of power are virtually so much taken from the people. Were a test desired from us to distinguish a popular from an antipopular government, we should say, in proportion as the labouring classes can obtain from their rulers the means for keeping them in employment, giving them adequate wages, supplying them with religious instruction, preserving them from the sources of vice, and protecting them from ill usage, the government is identified with the people; in proportion as they cannot do this, it is the people's enemy. The new House of Commons far surpasses the old one in disregard of the labouring classes; and the liberal part of it assails their interests throughout. Reforms, then, are indeed necessary, but not such as you are giving us. We want them in infinitely greater number and compass. In the first place, let the system of working the engine of government be radically reformed; let this engine be used for the benefit of the country, and not its own derangement and destruction. In the second, let every man's grievances be thoroughly redressed, but confine him to his own affairs, and do not suffer him to sport with the rights and property of his neighbours. No longer permit the shopkeeper to make laws for landowners and farmers - the newspaper scribe to legislate for shipowners and colonists-the dissenter to govern churchmen-the town mechanic to measure out the work and subsistence of village labourers--the democrat to lord it over the aristocracy. Reform to every man impartially, ac cording to his desire, the laws and systems which waste his property, depress his trade, or injure his employment and wages; but prohibit him from prescribing reform for others. In the third, reform the church to increase her uses. Give places of worship to adults, as well as schools to children. In vain will you dispense religious instruction, if you only bestow it on infancy, and refuse it to the half grown and mature. Let the want of places of worship and ministers for the less wealthy classes, which prevails to such an extent in large places, be accurately measured and fully supplied. In the fourth, put down with a strong arm the things which reduce the lower orders into profligacy, irreligion, turbulence, and guilt. And in the fifth, restore the equipoise of power, drive the miserable minority from its usurpations, give back to the real majority its rights, and re-establish the dominion of severe impartiality and justice. These reforms display nothing intricate or doubtful. Every man who is accessible to the conclusions of common sense will admit that they are not more essential for the sake of order and prosperity, than for that of right and liberty-that they are just as necessary to prevent the fall of the empire as to banish national grievances. What stands in their way? Nothing of moment save- we speak without reference to person or party-the government. Let it change its system, and they will be accomplished. Private interest, even more imperiously than public duty, commands the government to make this change. In its present false position it is exposed to the fire of all; it finds only enemies on every side; and the foe from which it suffers the most is that minority it professes to follow. Forced into deadly contention with the latter, it forces the great interests and classes—the body of the community-into the support of its assailant. It combines the majority and minority, however they may differ from each other, against itself. The change will identify it with the real country-turn the majority against, and enable it by moral weight to keep in order, the minority. Between this change and the most fatal one conceivable for both government and empire, you must choose. If you will not make the one, you must have the other. ORIGINAL ANNALS OF THE PARISH, EXTRACTED FROM PRIVATE LETTERS, NOW FIRST PRINTED FROM THE MSS. OF THE REV. PROFESSOR WODROW, OF GLASGOW. THE thin volume bearing the above piquant title has been kindly placed in our critical hands by an eminent bishop of the Episcopalian Church of Scotland, who considers its contents as honourable to the character of Wodrow, and, moreover, as historically valuable, from the light they throw on the manners of the Scotch nobility and gentry in the days of our great-great-grandfathers, and on the nature and working of the Presbyterian discipline during the high and palmy days of the "Orthodox, orthodox Wha believed in John Knox." We fully agree with our respected friend; and therefore at once throw to the four winds of heaven every thing in the shape of scruple as to the propriety of publishing extracts from a volume printed, according to its own title-page, for private circulation only. We might plead the example of the old Quarterly, with its " Bubbles from the Brunnens," that of the Edinburgh Review, with its "Starkie on Libel," and a thousand and one skits of Blackwood, beginning with "Peter's Letters;" but we have no need of precedents here. We abhor, in point of fact, the whole of this kind of humbug of private printing-even when printing there has been. A pretty privacy which includes the confidence of every devil in the chapel-royal of" W. Aitken, printer, Edinburgh!"- -a pretty privacy which embraces all the frequenters of David Laing's back-shop (forenent the Cullege), all the hoary twaddlers of the Bannatyne Club, all the learned and judicious curators of the Advocate's Library, not forgetting_Patrick Fraser Tytler, Esq., David Irving, LL.D., &c., &c., &c. Our correspondent has not mentioned the name of the editor of this extraordinary collection; but, from internal evidence, we strongly suspicate that there has been a partnership in the concern. Indeed, we have hardly a doubt that the world ought to unite in its acknowledgments of obligation the distinguished names of the Rev. Mr. Tait, of the "Tongues,"&c., and Patrick M.DC.XCIV.M.DCC.XXXII."* Robertson, Esq., Advocate. The selection of the letters and the theological dissertation prefixed to them we ascribe unhesitatingly to the former great gun; -while in the marginal annotations we recognise at once the legal knowledge, the critical tact, and the strong but gentle manlike humour of "Peter the Great." Taking text and notes together, there can be no doubt that these "private letters" form a very interesting and instructive little tome; and we wonder certain persons did not prevail on the Bannatyne Club to be at the expense of the paper and printing, in place of merely luxuriating in the perusal of the said tome. Perhaps the Maitland Club of Glasgow may not think it too late even now to do what the Bannatynes ought to have done a year ago. Let our friends Motherwell and John Wylie perpend! Meantime, let REGINA proceed with her pen and her scissors. These letters are from the private stores of the well-known Wodrow, the great historian of the kirk of Scotland, who flourished as professor of theology in the University of Glasgow in the days of James II. the popish, William III. the glorious, Queen Anne of jolly memory, and the hot and heavy first of the Whitehorse generation, which now seems likely to expire in a filly. Some of the epistles are to, others by, old Wodrow they chiefly refer to "delicate investigations" among the great families of the north in those pure and primitive days to which we have alluded as rejoicing in Wodrow's genius and sagacity, which last was evidently of no common order. A right shrewd, sensible carle the professor appears to have been,- most fit and proper to be consulted whenever a Lady Jean or a Lady Peggie was likely (in Crabbe's phrase) "Before the husband to behold the son ;" or any grave and dignified lord of the session laboured under the heinous suspicion of having "stumbled over the tester." Wodrow obviously laughs in his sleeve throughout at the sourfaced Edinburgh, 1833. Pp. 84. hypocritical cant of the clerical correspondents who solicit his opinion on the "cases of conscience," disturbing the meditations of the manse's inglenook; but he is too scriptural a man not to answer the fool according to his folly that is to say, he clothes real tough good sense in a roundabout jargon of lengthy, as Jeffrey calls it, or, in Archdeacon Berens's dialect, longsome yarn, well calculated for the calibre of the Rev. Mr. Thomas Clerk, minister of the gospel at Ardrossan,-to say nothing of the Lady Pollocks and other elders in petticoats, who resort to him with equal confidence whenever any little scandal has arisen among their kindred or retainers. One of the first cases in the book is an Ardrossan one, and will serve to illustrate the acumen and wholesome humbug of the umquhile Glasgow Aquinas. We extract the document of Mr. Thomas Clerk, dated at his manse, Agust ye 13, year of God 1694." "VERIE REVEREND SIR, "I have presumed to give you the trouble of this lyn, that I may have your thoughts anent a scandall fallen out in this congregation; for as the sentiments of one of such learning and prudence as you are cannot but preponderat with me, so also they would give much light to others of the brethren of this presbytery with whom I have spoken thereanent, who seems to be somewhat in the dark as yet anent the samen. The matter is this: there are two persons in this congregation who are seeking marriage; the man is a widow, the woman is a single person who was never married. But there is the suspicion of the guilt of adulterie betwixt these two persons. The man's wife died in winter last bypast, about the middle of December. This woman, whom he now seeks to marrie, was his servant in his wif's time, and was with him in the house when his wif died, and hath served him alwayes since as a servant, till he began to seek marriage of her, and then the scandall breaks out, that they were guiltie of uncleannes together in the man's wif's time; which coming to my ears, I stopped their marriage till I should consult others thereanent, and examine the bussines; and having sent for the persons under the scandall, the man confest that his wif was jealous of him with that woman before she died; but denied all guilt with her: yet I press ing him to confess the truth, he hath confest that in his wif's time he was in naked bed with her, and the woman also hath confessed the samen; and this they both confest before our session, but denies that he knew her carnallie in his wif's time. But he confessed, as also the woman, that within a verie short time after his wif's death, viz. ten dayes or thereabout, they wer both guilty of uncleanness, so that the woman is now bigg with child. Yea, there was such familiarities betwixt these persons in the time while the man's wif lived (as it is now reported), as if they hade been married. But whatever be of the realitie of that event, it is certain that the man's wif, lying sick on her death-bed, did complain of his stubborness to her, and that he also did change his bed, not oulie from his wif's, but he came out of that house where his wif lay, and made his own bed before the woman's bedd he is now seeking to marrie; so that his bed-head was upon the woman's bed-side. Now, I have related to you the scandal as it is; and I would be informed if they (being guiltie of adulterie) may be married? 2d. If the guilt of the adulterie may impede the adulterer to be married to the adulteress, whether or not can these presumptions of adulterie confessed by the parties amount to that hight as that they may (be) judged guiltie, and so marriage be denied them; or if they may be admitted to satisfie for the scandall of adulterie, as haveing a scandalous cariage, and to purge themselves by their oaths, and so gett the benefitt of marriage? I have spoken with some bretheren of this presbytery, who are not clear to allow the adulterer to marie the adulteress; and the reasons they give is, because the rejecting of such marriages is a notable fence to the morall law; for if such marriages were allowed, libidenous men should have a temptation to use some unlawful means of hastening the death of their wifs to reach their cursed designs: as also that of 2 Samuel ij and 27, where it is thought by some, that not only David's adulterie and murther, but even also his taking Bathsheba to be his wif, displeased the Lord. But all these I submit unto your judgement, who, I doubt not, is well acquaint with the various sentiments of those that are orthodox writters anent this case, and expects your answer there Your humble Servant to serve "For Mr. James Wodrow, Professor of Divinitie at Glasgow, these." The pious and pawky professor, in his reply, divides this great Clerk's difficulties into sundry distinct points; and the first question to be solved is thus given:-"Query. Whether a man, being a widow, may mary a woman with whom he fell into adultery during his former wife her life?" A deep case, and a solemn. Hear the answer: I re "I know non but Popish writers that denies this in these, makeing it not only impediens contrahendas_nuptias, but damnans contractas. member not any Protestant systematick divine who mentions it among the things that imped marriage. Poole, crit. on 2d Sam. ii. 27, propounds it, viz. Machus possit ducere Macham, and cites Martyr: Willet, &c. speaking doubtingly about it; but resolves thus, nihil de hac re definit Scriptura neque hoc inter impedimenta matrimonii ponit. Now, if ther be no divine prohibition about it, it seems rationall that he who wrongs a woman thus by adultery should repair her again by marrieing her when he is a free man, even as it is thought of him that does so in the case of fornication: divine approbation will preponderate when laid in the balance with all those reasons ab incommodo mentioned in your letter. But considering this case in particulari hypothesi, that these parties ye write of are already so far and so miserably preengaged in their marriage that the woman is gravida, and their guilt of adultery not evident, and both importunate to have it consummat, it may seem a plain injury done to the woman to hinder it. "2d. Case. Whether the presumptions of adultery confessed by them will amount to a probation of adultery: and if not, if we may purge them by their oath?" Answer, I humbly conceive, (1.) that all these presumptions already confest will not prove adultery, but only a scandalous behaviour, for which they are proportionably to be censured. (2.) I see not what their purgation by oath can doe against such presumptions, but encrease the offence. I remember not that I ever heard of an oath taken in such a case where both parties denyed the fact, but only where it was in favorem alterutrius partis læsa ac confitentis. (3.) Though they should confesse adultery, if that hinder not the marriage, it resolves also that it should not cause delay of their marriage til after they had given satisfaction; which, by the order of our church, is a long time, seeing marriage is for preventing uncleannes, and so long a delay may occasion a new fall. This, with all submission to better judgement, especially of you that are acquant with the circumstances, and can better apply the rule than I am capable to do at distance, &c. &c. J. W." Then comes the first of many letters to Wodrow from the Lady Maxwell, of Pollock, whose husband was one of the lords of session at Edinburgh. This amiable dame, after a couple of pensy paragraphs about the state of her soul, winds up epistle the first with the following astounding intelligence. The "chancellor" of whom she makes mention was James earl of Seafield. "For news, there are none here Lady Ann McKenzie, Tarbat's daughworth your while; only it's talked ter, is with child to the Chancellour; and there was shortly a child exposed in the Grassmarket, which people are pleased to report to be hers. She looks very ill on it. Ther was likewise, when we came first east, a child, supposed to be two months old, laid down in the Cowgate, which is said to be Miss Bettie Montgomerie's, a daughter of the Major-Generall's. You know Mr. Ja. Laurie was scorned with her, and it's surmised the child belongs to him. What truth is in this I know not, but I have imparted them to you, having full proof that you'l keep them secret; and if Providence bring any thing further to light about it, I shall, God willing, transmit it to you. I hope the last shall not be true; but, however, it looks like punishment for his folly of being so fond of such a notorious strumpet. All here have their service to you. Give my duty to Mrs. Pont. I am in hast, for my Lord calls ISOBEL MAXWELL." me. "Edinb. Dec. 14, 1703." We next transcribe a letter to Wod |