upon mentaries Again, protected manufactures have almost always been found in a languishing state. The woollen, the cotton, and the silk manufactures in England all afford striking examples of this truth. The woollen trade, perhaps, affords us the best example, on account of the almost unheard-of extent to which the attempts to protect it were carried. In the year 1678, an act was passed for the encouragement of the English woollen manufacture, in which it was ordered that all dead bodies should be wrapped in woollen shrouds! and, but a little later, finding that the woollen manufacture was making some progress in Ireland, the English manufacturers petitioned the king (William III.) and his parliament to interfere for its suppression in that country. Nor was their supplication unheeded; for in the king's answer to their address, he made the following promise:-"I shall do all that in me lies to discourage the woollen manufacture in Ireland, and encourage the linen manufacture, and to promote the trade of England;" and an act very soon did pass to that purport. Here, then, was legislative pro tection with a vengeance. But what came of it? The woollen manufacture remained protected until 1825. In the five years, from 1820 to 1824, our exportation of woollen goods amounted to 1,064,441 pieces. In the five years, from 1840 to 1844, it reached 2,128,212 pieces, or just double the quantity exported during the last five years of prohibition; and this, too, in the face of a rapidly increasing trade in cotton! What will our Protectionist friends say to these figures? But why need we even go so far back as the history of the woollen trade for an example? We have a still more powerful illustration in the case of agriculture. Up to within the last few years British agriculture was protected by an import duty upon foreign corn. And what was the consequence? Just what we might expect. Prices were high, and the less corn there was produced the higher the prices rose. This was virtually a premium for bad farming, and so it operated. Nowhere were the resources of the land properly or fully developed. Want of skill and energy was everywhere prevalent among agriculturists, until their supineness became proverbial; and what the upshot of another century's persistence in such a course, none can describe and but few imagine, except those who so nobly came forward, and, amidst the "mingled jeers and laughter" of the few, averted the impending evil, and laid the foundation of peace and plenty for the many. "Mind is mightier than the strong, Kight hath triumphed over wrong." We know that the question of free trade in corn is a sore one in many quarters. We do not wish to wield the last too heavily. Landlords complain loudly of the wrongs they have suffered. Their rent-roll has be come reduced, and the value of the fee simple of the land has been lessened. This is undoubtedly true. As ever, so now, "after the crisis comes the crash." Land and its produce had been raised to an artificial value, and that, too, at the expense of the necessities of the people: thus the people had suffered at the hands of the landowners. But retributive justice came, and many of the mighty were put down, while the humble have been exalted. Well might poor Hood exclaim, i days gone by "O God! that bread should be so dear, And flesh and blood so cheap!" Long ago did that most truthful of poets, otherwise, then let the country which excels Oliver Goldsmith, tell us "Ill fares the land, to hastening woes a prey, Where wealth accumulates, and men decay." But in the all-absorbing scramble for wealth, the cries of humanity were long overlooked. We are prepared to show that the tendency of protection is to destroy external trade; also to uphold the advantages of all commodities being rendered as cheap as is consistent with their cost of production, without their being encumbered with taxation; and finally to maintain that free importation is the source of plenty, and protection the forerunner of scarcity; but space reminds us that it, too, must not be over-taxed, and we therefore hasten to a conclusion. We cannot but rejoice in the fact of a steady determination having set in, to rid commerce of its fetters, and leave it open to the only legitimate protection we have learnt to recognise, namely, the protection of its owen intrinsic superiority and worth. If British manufactures are more durable, and Bot necessarily more costly, than those of other countries, they will, of course, take pre-eminence. If British commerce generally be more advantageous and accessible than that of other countries, then it also will still maintain the superiority. But if it be Britain in these particulars derive the advantage of her excellence. The world must gain by every improvement in production, or increased facility in exchange; but it is neither desirable nor just that any nations or people should, by any possible means, usurp the laurels or the bounty, to which in the "great race of nations" now going on, they do not show themselves to be honourably entitled to receive. Glancing at the alterations which have, within the last few years, taken place in the tariff of the several countries of continental Europe, we perceive most assuredly a "move in the right direction." To this we may refer more particularly in another paper. Looking at the opinions recently expressed in high quarters in England, we feel assured that the tide of free trade has set in, and that before it every legislative restriction to commerce must be entirely and for ever abolished. This is not an age for retrogression. Looking at the question in its broadest aspect, we are prepared to maintain that native industry ought not to be, and need not be, protected by legislative enactinent; and this opinion we shall hold, until proof be adduced to the contrary. C. W., Jun. AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I. Ir forms a curious yet interesting task to compare Britain, as now presented to our view, with its position and capabilities in gone by ages. It has evidently been ordained by God that civilization can only be gradually educed from barbarity; and while we see some nations high in intellectual progress and moral greatness, others are sunk in ignorance, and debased by vice. But, strange to say, we have instances of the glory of the first departing, while the shame of the latter has been taken away. Need we cite the case of Palestine, which was once the delight of the Lord, and which, from the influence of His favour, attained the loftiest eminence in religious privileges and moral greatness? But, when basking under the influence of the smiles of heaven, a sad and desolating blight came over the whole land, and now "its holy cities are a wilderness, Zion is a wilderDess, Jerusalem is a desolation," &c. Speak we of Rome, "the mistress of the world," and tell of her conquests and universal rule? Then we must dwell on her decay, and finish with her fall. Or, if to Greece we turn our retrospective glance-to Greece, " mother of arts and eloquence," the land of philosophers and the home of sages-we involuntarily recur to her present aspect, and sigh over the sad change which has come over her, feeling "Tis Greece-but living Greece no more! So coldly sweet, so deadly fair, We start, for soul is wanting there!" Without staying to inquire into the causes that sapped the foundations of these great empires, let us see in what state our own land must then have been. From what we can gather from the historian, Britain must have been barren and unfruitful in the extreme. It occupied its place as a dark spot on the face of the deep. Again, as we look down the long vista of time, we behold mighty changes passing over its surface, which cannot be better described than in the language of the inspired penman, when he speaks of the wilderness and the solitary place being glad, and the desert blossoming as the rose. The character of Britain has indeed changed; barrenness has yielded to verdure, and weakness been supplanted by strength. The question then comes, What is the cause of this prosperity? And we conceive that the answer will lead us to adopt the affirmative view of this question. We depend much upon agriculture for our prosperity, but it is evident that if this had been the only foundation for our greatness we should have been very different to what we now are. The principal cause of our present proud position was the industry and inquiring spirit of the people. After the treasures of the mineral world had been discovered, intellect began that noble course which, in its upward range, has brought us where we now are. It is a remarkable fact, that when our land was found of a peculiar internal construction, embodying a wonderful combination of the most useful minerals, then the people became famed for their untiring toil; the mind was called into operation; practice soon gave birth to theories; and, after a series of careful experiments, mighty results were realized. Invention had only to lift her wand and mutter her incantations, and a thousand varied forms and strange combinations sprung into existence. The invention of the steamengine marks an era in the progress of Britain, and as its immense power was further developed, its multiform applicability became manifest. And now, behold the result! Where is there a nation that presents such a scene as ours?-a scene where mechanical forces and appliances, in their most striking forms, are displayed-a scene in which manufacture takes a sovereign place, in which trades are carried on with such perfect system. Upon these things, as well as upon natural produce, not only our greatness, but our very existence as a people depends; and therefore they ought to be protected-protected by such means as will prove most efficient; and these must necessarily be legislative enactments. This is a great and important question, and as such deserves our close attention. Were the glorious fruits of our industry exposed to the gaze of the world without a legislative fence encircling them, we should soon be robbed by the unhallowed grasp of the stranger, or the unprincipled fellow-countryman. Yes, to preserve native industry, to keep it in a healthy and energetic state, legislative enactments must be made. These have the happy influences of preventing the foreigner from culling our inventive ideas, and of making self-dependence flow in its own proper channel; for self-dependence will keep one countryman from living on another's toil. For this purpose-to take a case in pointwe believe patents were first instituted; and these have at least the tendency, if not the direct power, of giving to each man his due. When a man invents a machine, it is his undoubted right to claim the protection of his government; and were this not the case, that happy dependence referred to, which man places upon his own energy and skill, would be sadly weakened; rights would be violated, and injustice committed. Here, then, we have a form of protection, the propriety of which even our opponents will admit; and we maintain that the principle involved in it may be advantageously applied to other cases. We do not advocate the abstract principle of protection as of universal applicability; but we maintain that it may be properly and beneficially applied, at certain stages, in a nation's progress, and especially towards certain crafts and classes in a community. Even Adam Smith, who lays down as the first principle of the wealth of nations that," as far as mere wealth is concerned, the fewer restrictions on industry the better," admits that there are two cases in which it may be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the benefit of domestic, industry. The first, “when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country.” The second, "when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of domestic industry.” It has been well said by the ex-premier (Lord John Russell):-" Were there no such thing as war, no such thing as commercial disputes, no such thing as a national debt, it might be easy for the ministers of different communities to come to an understanding upon a plan of general freedom, and regulate the world according to the rules of universal liberty. But the existing fact is, that every nation is obliged to guard its independence with the utmost jealousy; to avoid with the greatest care putting itself under the contral of any other power; and to check its industry | by taxes, which are absolutely necessary for the preservation of its separate existence. ... It is not only internal but external situation, also, that must be consulted in arranging economical laws for a nation. In deciding every question that comes before him, a legislator ought to consider that he has to provide, not for the execution of a project of perpetual peace, but for the welfare and prosperity of his own country. Without going the length of a Venetian proverb, 'Pria Veneziani, poi Christiani,' I am disposed to say, 'Let us first be Englishmen, then economists.'" Considering these things, and, above all, the fact that under a faulty system of protection Britain has become "great, glorious, and free," we give, with confidence, an affirmative reply to the question now under debate. A. Sorial Economy. IS THE CONFESSIONAL IN HARMONY WITH INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL FREEDOM OR SOCIAL WELL-BEING? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. THE nature of the confessional is a point on which many are grievously ignorant, although it is so important. If auricular confession be enjoined by God as necessary to sairation, how many there are who, by denying it, forfeit his mercy; but, if it be not, what must be thought of a church which sets up such a doctrine in defiance of his holy word, and in direct breach of his command "not to add to or diminish" from it? When, too, we consider the training of a priest for the confessional, we wonder not when even St. Liguori cries, "Oh! how many confessors have lost their own souls and those of their penitents!" Of" Aristides"" article we say nothing; his arguments are clear, and, to an impartial mind, convincing; but we purpose examining those of "Confessarius," not in party feeling, but with an unbiassed mind, whose only desire is to elicit truth. "Confessarius," then, commences with this argument:"No institution sanctioned by God can be opposed to the true welfare of man." Auricular confession is an institution sanctioned by God; therefore, auricular confession is not opposed to the true welfare of man. Now, the major premise we reverentially admit, but the minor we unequivocally deny. We may at once grant that confession of sins has that sanction which the first two texts adduced affirm; but, happily, they have nothing to do with the point at issue. No word about secret confession to the priest is here used. The people confessed their sins to God in public, not to the priest in private. These two passages, then, prove nothing for "Confessarius." His whole argument hinges on the word "confess," the correct meaning of which he will find by comparing Numb. v. 6; Lev. v. 65; xxvi. 40, "If they (the Israelites) shall confess their iniquity then will I remember my covenant." Josh. vii. 19, where Joshua exhorts Achan to give "glory to God, and make confession unto him.” 1 Kings viii. 33, 35, 47; Nehem. ix. 2, "And the seed of Israel stood and confessed their sins" Psa. xxxii. 1-5, "I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord." Dan. ix. 3, 4, " And I prayed unto the Lord my God, and made my confession." Ezra x. 1; 2 Chron. xxx. 22; Rom. x. 9, 10; 1 John x. 8, 9; cum multis aliis. Thus we see that, although God enjoins confession of sins, yet that it means not secret confession to the priest, whereby may be obtained absolution, but a humble acknowledgment of our manifold iniquities to Himself, the great Fountain Head, who alone is able to pardon them. "Confessarius" next brings forward that oft-quoted passage by St. James, ch. v. 16, "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." This bears on the face of it something very different from auricular confession. The meaning of the text is plain and obvious, and is explained fully by our Lord Jesus Christ in the sermon on the mount, Matt. v. 23, 24, if any one has injured another, let him go confess it to him, and then let him come and offer his gift. Lastly, he quotes that beautiful passage in St. John's 1st Epistle, i. 8, 9, " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This, by a mysterious course of reasoning, he tries to make conclusive. He says, "Private confession to God alone cannot be meant for two strong reasons; first, because the confessing our sins is here put in opposition to the saying we have no sin: these two are opposite to one another, and therefore must certainly relate to the same object. Now, who is there in his senses who would dare to say to God, in private, that he has no sin? In this part of the sentence, then, the apostle certainly means saying, we have no sin before men; and, consequently, in the opposite part of it, when he says, 'If we confess our sins,' he necessarily means before men also." We grieve deeply at such wresting of God's word. Weak must be the authority for a doctrine, if proofs such as these are required. Alas! people, instead of taking their religion from the Bible, make a creed of their own, and then go to the Bible for proofs "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," not others, as it must be, were the reading of "Confessarius" correct. No. If sin has hardened our heart, so that we say in it we have no sin; or if, conscientiously believing ourselves pure, we repeat our conviction to others, then "we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us;" but if humbly we acknowledge our iniquities, and confess our manifold sins unto God, then "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." We think, then, we have satisfactorily shown that the Roman Catholic Church is utterly destitute of scriptural authority for her doctrine of auricular confession; and it now remains for us to endeavour to prove it a novel doctrine, without exhibiting any great ignorance of history," or "wilful misinterpretation of it." "There is no doubt that, in the early days of Christianity, public confession and penance for open and scandalous crimes were in use, and were observed with much strictness. But we do not find traces of any general law, or even custom, that called for the secret confession of sins to the priest, as a neces sary part of repentance, and a condition of forgiveness. When this ancient discipline fell into disuse, it was at length succeeded by private confession to a priest particularly appointed to the office, and called the penitentiary; but, upon the occasion of a scandal which happened, the practice was abrogated by Nectarius, bishop of Constantinople, which plainly proves that, in the judgment of the church, it was not regarded as a sacramental act." This their own canon law proves, which states, "It was taken up only by a certain tradition of the church, and not by any authority of the Old and New Testaments."* Panormitan says, "he finds no manifest authority that ever God or Christ commanded us to confess our sins to a priest."† And Peresus, a bishop of the Trent Council, declares, that "the clear and plain manner of this ordinance, both in respect of the substance and circumstance, appeareth only by tradition.". Petrus Oxoniensis, too, affirms, that "it had the beginning from a positive law of the church, and not from the law of God."§ The Romish St. Buonaveture|| held this, as well as Medina. ** Rhenanus†† and Erasmus ‡‡ affirm, that "neither Christ ordained it, nor the ancient church used it." Hear Caietan:-" A man contrite or sorrowful for his sin standeth clean in the judgment of God, and is a formed member of the militant church."§§ Hence contrition, as it goes before confession, so may be without it. Lastly, St. Chrysostom says, "This is wonderful in God, that he not only forgives us our sins, but neither doth he disclose them nor make them known, neither does he enforce us to come forth and tell |