of the Working Man's Friend. It had been alleged
that if the tax were taken off, the country would be
flooded with the vilest publications: but his opinion
was precisely the reverse, for he believed if the tax
were taken off that the people of England would not
be bamboozled with cant and balderdash; they would
demand good and sound literature, and if it were given
to them they would understand it. As it is they prefer
the translation of French literature to our own bad and
trashy writing. In his own case, he had given in the
Working Man's Friend an opportunity to the working
classes to write in that periodical for themselves; and
the result had been, that 596 articles had been furnished
by the working men of England in the course of ten
months. He had not been able to insert the whole of
those articles, but he had printed and published 130 of
them, all of which had been contributed by blacksmiths,
colliers, and almost all sorts of working men. To those
men he had awarded prizes and 130 books in payment
of their writing, and 130 volumes had been given away.
In no case had he been called upon in the distribution
for a low class of literature, but on the contrary for the
very highest that could be commanded. It was evident,
therefore, that if the working classes possessed a cheap
and healthy literature they would buy their magazine
or newspaper to read at home instead of going into all
sorts of places to spend their money."

Mr. Holyoake moved, as an amendment, an addition
to the original resolution, to the effect of adding the
repeal of the newspaper stamp and advertisement duty
to that of the duty on paper. Mr. Milner Gibson
supported the enlarged proposition, which was put and
carried by acclamation.

There have been several other meetings on the same
subject in the provinces. In the Town Council of
Birmingham, on the 7th, Alderman Baldwin moved the
adoption of a petition to Parliament against the taxes
on paper and advertisements, and the stamp-duty on
newspapers; especially founding his case on the grievances
in connexion with the paper-tax, which he himself
as a manufacturer effectively pointed out. Mr. Baldwin
stated that if the paper-tax were repealed, he alone could
give employment to five hundred additional persons
within twelve months. Mr. Charles Sturge seconded
the motion, and spoke especially against the penny-
stamp. Alderman Smith and Alderman Martineau
opposed the motion, as more fitting for the consideration
of the Chamber of Commerce. Alderman Muntz
declared against the principle of giving up altogether the
discussion of such subjects: the town of Birmingham
pays a larger proportionate share of the paper-duty than
any community in the empire. The motion was carried
almost unanimously; Alderman Martineau and Mr.
Cox alone holding up their hands against it.

There was a meeting of Yorkshire paper-manufacturers,
at Leeds, on the same date, at which resolutions against
the tax were unanimously passed.

The Prelates of the Established Church in Ireland
have addressed a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury
complaining, that in the recent addresses of the English
prelates to her Majesty, they designated themselves the
archbishops and bishops "of the Church of England,"
in place of "the united Church of England and Ireland,"
according to the act of George the Third, uniting the
Churches of England and Ireland into one Protestant
establishment. The complainants say:—"We have
painfully felt that, of late years, as well in legislating on
ecclesiastical affairs as on many public occasions, a
disposition has been manifested to regard the Irish
provinces of the United Church as if they did not form
an integral portion of the one Church of the nation.
We are conscious that the Irish branch of the Church
is peculiarly exposed to the attacks of its enemies; and
we are on that account the more apprehensive of any
step being taken which has a tendency, even in
appearance, to dissociate our provinces and bishoprics
from that great community with which it is our happiness,
and, we hope, our safety, to be identified. We
therefore not unnaturally fear the effect which may be
produced by a movement on the part of our English
brethren against a common adversary, in which they
have not only acted without any concert or communication
with us, but have styled themselves by a name
which would seem to intimate that they are Prelates of
a separate Church from ours,* and wish to appear so
before her Majesty. We beg to assure your Grace,
that, in submitting this statement to your consideration,
we are not actuated by any wounded feeling of
disappointment or of dissatisfaction; but we deem that we
owe it to the Church in which we bear office, to guard,
as far as is in our power, against a separation being
made between the component parts of the National
Church, which were most solemnly and authoritatively
united together in one. We confidently hope that the
form of designation employed in your address was
adopted inadvertently, and not from a design to disclaim
a connection with the provinces of Armagh and Dublin.
And we trust that we may reckon on having the aid,
the sympathy, and the prayers of the Archbishops and
Bishops of the provinces of Canterbury and York in
whatever difficulties and dangers may yet await our
portion of the Church."—The Archbishop of Canterbury
in his answer, dated the 31st of December, and
addressed to the Archbishop of Armagh, says:—"I am
anxious to assure your Grace, and my other Right
Reverend brethren in Ireland, that this designation did
not originate in any desire to represent ourselves as a
separate body, but was employed solely because in the
present instance 'the movement of the common adversary'
was immediately directed against ourselves. It
did not appear to any of the Bishops whom I had the
opportunity of consulting, that we could properly
invite the Irish Bishops to complain of an aggression
which only affected the Church in England. At the
same time, I am ready, for my own part, to acknowledge
that the document would have been more correctly
worded if it had been written in the name of the English
Archbishops and Bishops of the United Church of
England and Ireland. It would have been better to
have indited an inharmonious sentence, than to have
given ground for the apprehensions expressed in your
Grace's letter. I will take an early opportunity of
communicating the letter to my episcopal brethren,
who at present are dispersed in their various dioceses.
But I can venture to say, in their behalf, that we all
consider the Irish branch of the United Church to be so
closely identified with our own, that if one member
suffers the other cannot fail to suffer with it; and that
in all cases where co-operation is desirable or practicable,
we shall be ready to act with your Grace and the other
Irish prelates as an united body."

The Irish Prelates have since presented an address to
the Queen, chiefly relating to the above subject. In
conclusion they pray that, "whatever may be the
defensive measures determined on for securing the National
Church against injury, the two portions of it may not
be regarded or treated as having separate interests, but
that one and the same legislative protection may be
extended to both branches of the Church in common."

A meeting of the lay members of the Church of
England, in the districts of St. Paul's and St. Barnabas,
in the parish of St. George's, Hanover Square, was
held on the 8th, for the purpose of addressing the
Bishop of London against the Romish Practices still
carried on in those churches. Mr. J. G. Harris, the
chairman, after going into the details of those Romanising
practices, concluded by stating, that all of them
were still carried out, save the lighting of candles, and
it behoved them to request the Lord Bishop of London
to at once exercise his authority in removing evils
utterly repugnant to the true principles of Christianity.
Mr. Freeth, in moving the adoption of an address to the
Bishop of London, observed that the doctrines of Mr.
Bennett had caused amongst his own family much
unhappiness and estrangement. He moved an address,
thanking the bishop for "the firm and decisive manner"
in which he had persisted in his acceptance of Mr.
Bennett's resignation; stating, that the ceremonies
introduced by Mr. Bennett were still continued, with
the exception of lighting the candles; and praying the
bishop to restore "that pure and simple form of worship
which is especially adapted to the capacity and
understanding of the poor, and which has been supplanted by
an excess of ritualism, by tones and gestures, by bowings
and crossings, and by other mummeries of superstition."
Several speakers warmly denied the charges against