which distinguishes the grounds on which such a question must be decided in old and new countries, is, that the state of society in the latter is not susceptible of such an organization as is necessary for the efficiency of any Church establishment of which I know, more especially of one so constituted as the Established Church of England; for the essence of the establishment is its parochial clergy. The services of a parochial clergy are almost inapplicable to a colony, where a constantly varying population is widely scattered over the country. Any clergy there must be rather missionary than parochial.

III.

THE CANTERBURY SETTLEMENT.

The Canterbury Settlement folk state through their chairman, Lord Lyttelton, that the district in trust for them is considerably more than two millions of acres, and that they have placed on it a value of £3 an acre. Of this only onesixth goes to the New Zealand Company, and one-sixth to defray expenses (under whose control? we ask). One-third is to be expended on the actual emigration (that is, the price of £1, which is the largest ever demanded by the Government in Australia, is really to be devoted to the purposes of emigrants out of the whole £3.) The privileged purchaser is, however, we are assured, to be allowed to take out labourers. The remaining third, not a tenth, is to form a Church! Excellent young lord! why not go yourself beforehand into the wilderness to prepare the way? Pious jobbists! with what modesty have you not formed your plans! But what advantage is this to be to England? So many bees are to be enticed, or deluded, by the vociferations and tin-kettle clangour of a body of cant-mongers, we mean pious enthu

siasts, into settling in an antipodean bush, there to support so many drones. "This is to be a Church-of-England colony." What a parody we could annex upon the House that Jack Built! It is laughable, but painful, to hear the list of boons lavished by pious generosity upon purchasers. "The first purchasers," says Lord Lyttelton, "that is, purchasers in the present year," (this ought to produce a rush to the Canterbury mart,) "shall be entitled to the right of pasturage," (mark, in New Zealand,) "at the rate of 16s. 8d. for 100 acres of land per annum, over five times as much as they have purchased." "And now," continues the pious young nobleman, "we propose to give, also, an option of purchasing any part of that land; if it suits the purchaser to do so. That is looked upon as a considerable boon and advantage." O pious impudence of assertion! Then he goes on to privileges with regard to port-towns, or rather sites of port-towns; but the wind-up, the climax, the corner-stone of magnanimity, is what? A BISHOP!! yes, a Bishop! £1,000 a year is what Lord Lyttelton states that we ourselves, that is, he, or the settlement, or both, have named for the endowment of a Bishopric; but he admits that a Bishop can be done for less, say £600 a year -a low figure for the wilderness. Let us leave Lord Lyttelton here. He deserves well of his country. Nature designed a Stiggins; but the mould was not rough-cast, and she turned out in this instance a Peer. The mental attributes of some men render them pious and well-meaning ministers of humbug, and we do not think that this religious scion of modern nobility sees far beyond the window of a vestry. However, we do not think ill of him. His mother, we are told, built a church some years ago, without going to New Zealand, out of the proceeds of a bazaar. Probably if his head were examined, there would be discovered a prominence denominating veneration for bishops. However, we have bishops here, and perhaps some small capitalists would rather go to New Zealand in the hope of leaving the type behind with Lord Lyttelton. Let us turn now to a

Mr. Sidney. He thinks that the Canterbury Settlement is too exclusive, and, when he stated so, was hissed. He says £500 is necessary for each man desirous of availing himself of this boon. He thinks that £40 or £50 ought to suffice for Emigration. We think so too. He says, "If you want to have the best bone and sinew and stuff, which this country possesses, transplanted, you must not adopt the exclusive system." Do we want the best bone, sinew and stuff of the country to be transplanted to New Zealand? Do we want to bleed England of all that is left of good in her? What are you doing, fatal, foolish philanthropists, if such you are, with your bishops, your church, and your £3 per acre speculation? We will not impute evil to your motives. We feel assured that lords and

bishops, and those that invite them to put down their names, have no private interest in any speculation, and, indeed, would not condescend to business, or we might, indeed, suspect those who are concerned in so worthy a design, of dishonourable motives: considering, as we do, the somewhat curious terms of the undertaking. However, this cannot be; and, therefore, discarding the notion of a job altogether, we merely regard the Canterbury Settlement as a plan injurious to England, and productive of no good in itself, which, like other quackeries, will probably end in disappointment, loss, and a bubble. We look upon it as a piece of religious twaddle clothed in realities, selling land at a profit, and providing for bishops, secretaries, committees, boards, and all the hocus-pocus of Societies and Companies. We already see the emigrants returning in disgust, minus a large proportion of their £500, feeling that they might have encamped at less cost, risk, and loss of time, for a year or two, on Hornsey Down, and seen kangaroos and wild Indians for a shilling. The Bishop alone remains to the last with a sinecure and an advanced salary, having taken out a large stock of port-wine and woollen-stockings to secure him from the ague!

Perhaps we are illiberal. We have lately seen our Agape

mone. Why not enjoy a Canterbury Settlement? But we think that it is illiberal of them to compel emigrants, who can afford £500, to subscribe to the 39 articles. Imagine if an Unitarian crept amongst their numbers in the character of a Jonah !

Let it not be imagined that we scoff at religion in these observations. We scoff only at that which casts a doubt upon the purity of the worship dedicated to God. We have never before associated cant with a wilderness. We can admire and sympathize with the stern spirit, which at various times led forth fiery and rugged men from the haunts of mankind into the wilderness, to commune with God after their own hearts. Their errors were those of conscience, and their schism founded on truth. We can understand such men as Hampden, Vane, and Cromwell, designing to go forth where there was no false worship or oppression. We can dwell with sacred enthusiasm on the idea of the sacred rites of religion solemnly blessing the departure of a new colony. If we departed, we should wish, in common with those who, like us, left their native shores with full hearts and humble hopes, to have our departure hallowed, as the sun went down upon the waters of twilight, by the chorus of a holy psalm to Him to whose guidance we entrusted our wanderings. So, at the first dawn of the promised land upon our strained eyesight, we would kneel without hypocrisy to entreat a blessing from Heaven.

But there is something much too worldly and sophisticate in the £500 Canterbury Settlement, with its Bishop, its promoters, and its select guidance. We want to know all about the £3 an acre. We wish to see some benefit to England, and we do not think it pious, religious, or charitable, to strip her of those who can best contribute to her welfare. If it is merely a Church-extension matter, we think that the Church is best off here. The established religion of this country never succeeded in a missionary point of view. The North American Indians were chiefly converted by Moravians. The Church of England is far too respectable and comfortably off

to travel barefoot over the world to convert Chimpanzees and Cannibals. We doubt all but the respectability of the Canterbury Settlement.

IV.

CANADIAN DUTIES UPON ARDENT SPIRITS AND TOBACCO.

Upon the article of whiskey a heavy duty might be imposed most beneficially to the country. The cheapness of spirituous liquors is the ruin of many an otherwise flourishing settler. Every writer upon Canada has, in turn, lamented this fact. Amongst others, Sir Richard H. Bonnycastle states as follows: "Canada is a fine place for drunkards. It is their Paradise. Get drunk for a penny, clean straw for nothing. There! Think of whiskey at 10d. a gallon, cheaper than water from the New River in London. I have seen an instance of the effect of excessive drinking daily before my door, in the person of a man of respectable family and of excellent talents, who, after habitually indulging with, at least, the moderate quantum of sixty glasses of spirits-and-water a-day (?), now roams the streets, but, strange to say, never touches the cause of his malady. I have seen an Irish labourer on the works take off, at a draught, a tumbler of raw whiskey, made from Indian corn or oats, to refresh himself! This would kill most men unaccustomed to it, but the habitual crowded stomach it only stimulates."-Vide Canada and the Canadians in 1846, vol. ii.

A heavy internal duty upon manufactured tobacco: the indiscriminate use of which, we think, productive of both moral and physical evil; acting, as it does, according as the habit of expectoration, or swallowing the saliva, exists, upon either stomach or lungs, might be made productive of a very considerable revenue. It is, undoubtedly, productive of more idleness than any habit we know, and the reflection it begets