The faith, the courage bold, to dwell
On doubts that drive the coward back,
And keen through wordy snares, to track
Suggestion to her inmost cell.'

This I believe to be part of the work of every section of the Christian Ministry. I know, dear brethren, our great work is to save souls.' Blazon that in letters of crimson and gold upon the record of our marching orders. But in doing that we must seek, from a higher platform of knowledge, to mould by anticipation the sentiments of the people on great moral and theological subjects. It is our duty to the future, which is in the present folded fast.' 'Tis law as steadfast as the throne of heaven, Our days are heritors of days gone by.' Yes! let us first, and by all means, save souls: go down to the masses and compel them to come in. But, brethren, we have amongst us a growing and spreading culture which we dare not neglect.

But, say some of you; and I respect the saying: Will not preaching Christ do all? Declare the old truths: The wages of sin is death ;' 'He that believeth not shall be damned;' 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.' Are not these truths as mighty as ever?

Yes! a thousand times yes! But we cannot ignore the eager truthseeking attitude of certain minds. They have tried to believe.

But a

subtile spiritual diagnosis will perceive that they must be met upon their own ground. They are earnest and real, but their minds to believe

fully must know why-in short, must be persuaded. And nothing will accomplish this sooner than a perception that there is in the pulpit a sympathy with, and knowledge of, the intellectual difficulties which I dare to say all men that read and think much, must have. The fact that they have been fronted, thought over, and perhaps met, by the Preacher of Christ, is a hand let down to help the soul up the crags of doubt, to faith.

I know that all this involves intellectual labour; and I remembercould I forget?-the arduous duties of our ministerial life: the preparation for and work of the Sabbath, from four to six weeks of ticket renewal; pastoral visitation; visitation of the sick; the immense social demands of our people-to say nothing of the business detail which falls terribly to the lot of some, in a measure to the lot of all. Can we,

it

But

may be asked, with all this do as you advise? Not all of us. there are young, keen, broad and stalwart minds amongst us, and to those I say 'Yes.'

I am not a 'parlour geographer,' or a 'drawing-room dragoon.' I give the results of experience. Everything depends on having a resolve; on moderately early rising; and time, to the uttermost of possibility, conserved and parcelled out; and we shall inevitably find that earnest intellectual industry for the benefit of our people is correlated with happiness.

which they deemed cheaply purchased at the expense of life-that principle which has planted liberty, civil and religious, of the press as well as of the conscience, in this happy country, which has watered the sacred plant so profusely with its best blood; which has diffused its light abroad till it has rendered this country the preceptor of mankind, which has nerved its arm and manned its heart in the hour of danger, and made it the champion as well as the exemplar of freedom-that principle which has fostered the learning, liberated the genius, warmed the charities, purified the morals of this great Protestant nation, a principle "the noblest," as the great Chatham exclaimed, for which ever monarch drew his sword, or subject shed his blood," is about to be sacrificed from a cowardly apprehension of dangers, which, however, the advocates of this measure do not pretend that it will dissipate, but only change; not remove, but-perhaps-postpone. It is to be surrendered to expediency!'

Whatever view one may have been led to take of the measure which Sadler so fervidly opposed, the meed of genuine oratory will be conceded to this bold and flashing peroration.

Extravagant expectations were formed of the future eminence of the man who had made such a magnificent beginning. It was confidently prophesied that he would become 'a potent voice in Parliament.' But when he entered the House he was in his fiftieth year, and he had to mate himself with university-men, of noble family, like Stanley, (the late Earl of Derby,) of the highest professional distinction, like Brougham, of superb and richly cultivated genius, like Macaulay. But if he did not satisfy unreasonable demands, it must not be supposed that he sank into insignificance or mediocrity. He spoke often and always with effect. On the 7th of May he evinced rare quickness, facility and resource as a debater. Mr. Villiers Stuart suddenly introduced a resolution on Mr. Sadler's favourite question-a Poor Law for Ireland. Thereupon, Mr. Wilmot Horton, Chairman of the Emigration Committee, whose Reports Mr. Sadler, in his work on Ireland, had sub

jected to a severe analysis, made a fierce attack not on Mr. Stuart's motion, but on Mr. Sadler's book. Mr. Sadler, though so unexpectedly assailed, forthwith disabled and disarmed his adversary with an agility and strength which called forth enthusiastic applause. The following account of this passage of arms appeared in Blackwood's Magazine for August, 1829: (p. 234 :)

'Mr. Sadler possesses a promptness and dexterity which render his resources readily available in the emergencies of debate, and cause his most expert and experienced adversaries to feel that he is not to be taken at fault, and that he is always prepared to give a reason for the faith that is in him. Perhaps no one would be more inclined to acknowledge this than poor Wilmot Horton. That pertinacious experimentalist was not easy until he selected Sadler for single combat in the House, and called upon him-a thing somewhat unusual to answer in propria persona for certain allegations respecting the Emigra tion Committee which were contained in his work on Ireland. The answer was accordingly given, and the baffled querist was put to silence, if not to shame. It was so fully, so eloquently given, as to give rise to the suspicion that the question, instead of being a stratagem to take him by surprise, was a contrivance concerted for the purpose of enabling him to appear to advantage. But that suspicion Wilmot Horton himself speedily removed, by the impertinent and unseemly repetition of his interrogatories. He was again in the field, (on the 4th of June,) and armed at all points, he again threw down the gauntlet to his reposing conqueror. Sadler met him again at a moment's notice, and his figures, both arithmetical and rhetorical, shivered into fragments at the Ithuriel touch of the weapons employed by his calm and resolute assailant, whose manly understanding detected the sophistry, and whose honest English feeling exposed the inhumanity of a system, the cruelty and injustice of which is only equalled by its absurdity and extravagance. To Wilmot Horton's credit be it spoken, that from that day forth he asked him no more questions.'

At the close of the Session Mr. Sadler received a deputation from the town and port of Whitby, where he says he had not a single personal acquaintance, requesting his acceptance of the

honour of a Public Dinner as a homage to his high character and splendid talent.' The newspapers of the day report that the dinner was attended 'by every individual of note in Whitby, with about three exceptions.'

During the Session of 1830, Mr. Sadler took part in the debate on the Address and in many subsequent discussions. On the 3rd of June, he brought forward his motion for the equalization of the sister-island with our own country as to a national provision for the destitute; to quote his own moderate and simple words: "The establishment of a system of Poor-laws in Ireland, on the principle of that of the 43rd of Queen Elizabeth, with such alterations and improvements as the course of time, and the difference in the circumstances of England and Ireland, may require.'

His leading points were: 1. The absolute necessity of such a provision as regards the labouring classes of England.' 2. The necessity of assimilating as much as possible the institutions of the two islands.' 3. The mass of misery occasioned to Ireland, by absenteeism, exorbitant rents and the ruinous and oppressive system of underletting to which it gives rise.' 4. The consequent flocking of Irish labourers to England, overstocking our own labour-market: Thus the want of a legal provision for the poor of Ireland operates as a grievous injury to those of England.' He then appeals to justice and mercy on behalf of that island which, though forming an integral part of the richest empire in the world, stands forth as one of the most striking examples of misery which Europe presents.' Under the head of justice, he lays down the main principle of his philanthropic, Christian policy, which made him the great champion of 'the rights of poverty,' as the necessary correlative of the rights of property. He clearly defines the former, 'proving, against the Malthusian polit

ical economists of the day, that they are not inconsistent with, and do not in any wise impinge upon, the latter :

'It is not put forth on behalf of the poor as a right to a division of any part of the real property of the country; on the contrary, it is urged in perfect consistency with all the just claims of property, however rigidly maintained and by whomsoever expounded. It simply implies a real and indisputable right, that after the institutions of the country have sanctioned the monopoly of property, the poor shall have some reserved claims to the necessaries of life; and that those claims shall be available only in the case of those who may be smitten with sickness, and consequently incapable of labour; disabled by age or incurable disease, who can there-fore labour no more; of infancy, which, left parentless and destitute, makes so touching a demand upon our care; of that state of wretchedness so common in Ireland, when those who are most willing, and even anxious, to work, can nevertheless obtain no employment: that these should be relieved in some humble measure,. so confined, if you please, that the right thus recognized shall make but a small inroad upon the amount of wealth which shall be called upon to administer to these necessities; nay, on the contrary, when duly understood, should actually increase its advantages. Finally, that all assist-ance should be administered in the form of remunerated labour, wherever the applicants are capable of it; to those who are anxious to earn their pittance by the sweat of their brow.'

He next glances at the 'recognized right to legal relief' of the citizens of Greece and Rome, and at 'the still more liberal and far more imperative and direct institutions of Moses; and to the example of the primitive Church.' After quoting the judgment of the greatest intellects, he disposes of the false notions of some modern speculators on political economy, e. g. that all provision for the poor should be voluntary; or that labourers' wages should be taxed in order to form a fund for their relief when out of work. He appealed to the spirit of Christianity, of which Charity is its very boast." He admitted that it may be doubted whether, in some of its forms, the

6

provision has not been carried to a culpable excess, increasing and perpetuating, by actual and permanent temptations to idleness and improvidence, the poverty it was intended only to relieve.' He insists on the antiquity of this provision as an English institution, being one of the wise and benignant regulations of Alfred,' the founder of our liberties.' He points to the extent and splendour of endowments for the poor 'in Roman Catholic countries, and to the preferable system,' which prevails in Protestant lands, which connects moral superintendence with charitable. relief.' He says: 'Even Iceland, poor as she is, is not too poor to have a law for the relief of the indigent.' He especially instances America, where the most liberal and efficient system of legal charity ever established is in full operation,' and the practice of Moslem nations and of heathen China. 'Whichever way we turn, therefore, we see a system of national charity completely established, except in one country, and that, in our own European Empire, and in that very part of it where such an institution is more than in any other indispensably necessary.' He clenches this part of his argument with the saying 'of our great moralist, Dr. Johnson: "A decent provision for the poor is the true test of

civilization."

The motion, being opposed by the

Government, was lost; but was renewed next year by Mr. Sadler, and again opposed by Mr. Stanley, the late Earl of Derby, who, however, 'could not conclude without expressing his persuasion that an opinion in favour of Poor Laws was every day gaining ground in Ireland, and that to an extent which no Government could or ought much longer to oppose.' In his second speech, Mr. Sadler drew a powerful picture of the ravages of the Irish famine-fever in 1817:

'Multitudes of the poor wretches found themselves destitute, in their utmost need, of all relief whatever. Even mendicanev failed them they carried infection with them, and were no longer received. Many of them, cleared and driven from their native homes, were repulsed when they sought refuge in the town, and had not where to lay their head. Some of them indeed crept into fever-huts which were suddenly erected on the sides of roads, and in open spaces, where the diseased, the dying and the dead were crowded together.

Where was that national charity which in England would have been a very present help, and would have stood between the living and the dead till the plague was stayed? It was wanting. The distant sympathies of the Empire were indeed awakened; at least, all but those of the absentees. But it came too late: the victims had finally escaped. Nor can the apologists for such a state of things make the miserable excuse that these visitations are unexpected. The experience of centuries is full upon this awful subject. And yet men oppose themselves vehemently to a provision which it would be the first business of every civilized State in the world, in similar circumstances, to establish! But it is not on these seasons of distress that I ground my argument in favour of a legislative provision for the poor of Ireland. These are but occasional heavings of the misery which has constantly afflicted Ireland; the swelling of that dark abyss of suffering which abates, over which a spirit of despair is perpetually brooding, and rousing the troublous element to renewed agitations.'

never

He then, by most startling statistics, contrasts the general rate of mortality in Ireland with that in England and Wales; and demands:

6

What is the havoc of pestilence and war compared with the aggregate of the victims of unrelieved poverty? And before this constant and silent devastation has done its final work, what sufferings does not this state of things imply? "Few and evil" are the days of human pilgrimage; but beyond the lot of mortality, to these poor Irish those few days are thus diminished, and their evil thus embittered. What can be the cause of this afflictive state of things in a country which forms part of the richest empire upon earth, and where, therefore, such sufferings are heightened, and humanity itself insulted, by the unnatural contrasts perpetally exhibited?'