in capacity, courage, disinterestedness, and the love of truth; and yet how marvellous the contrast! Luther took to wife a nun. For thirty years together Loyola never once looked on the female countenance. To overthrow the houses of the order to which he belonged, was the triumph of the Reformer; to establish a new order on indestructible foundations, the glory of the saint. The career of the one was opened in the cell, and concluded amidst the cares of secular government; the career of life of the other led him from a youth of camps and palaces, to an old age of religious abstraction. Demons haunted both: but to the northern visionary they appeared as foul or malignant fiends, with whom he was to agonize in spiritual warfare; to the southern dreamer, as angels of light marshalling his way to celestial blessedness. As best became his Teutonic honesty and singleness of heart, Luther aimed at no perfection, but such as may consist with the every-day cares, and the common duties, and the innocent delights of our social existence; at once the foremost of beroes and a very man. How remote from the 'perfection' which Loyola proposed to himself, and which, unless we presume to distrust the bulls by which he was beatified and canonized, we must suppose him to have attained! . . . Thus he stands apart from us mortal men, familiar with visions which he may not communicate, and with joys which he cannot impart. Severe in the midst of raptures, composed in the very agonies of pain; a silent, austere, and solitary man, with a heart formed for tenderness, yet mortifying even his best affections; loving mankind as his brethren, and yet rejecting their sympathy; even while a squalid, care worn, self-lacerated pauper, tormenting himself that so he might rescue others from sensuality, and then a monarch reigning in secluded majesty, that so he might become the benefactor of his race; or a legislator exerting, though with no selfish purpose, an obedience as submissive and as prompt as is due to the King of kings."

"Heart and soul," Macaulay adds, "we are for the Protestant. He who will be wiser than his Maker is but seeming wise. He who will deaden one half of his nature to invigorate the other half, will become at last a distorted prodigy. Dark as are the pages, and mystic the character, in which the truth is inscribed, he who can decipher the roll will read there that self-adoring pride is the headspring of stoicism, whether heathen or Christian. But there is a roll, neither dark nor mystic, in which the simplest and most ignorant may learn in what this 'perfection' of our humanity really consists."

We, therefore, both admire and respect Luther: we admire Loyola; but it is an admiration which a Hindoo fakeer excites as much as the Roman Catholic saint.

We close this paper in the words of the writer above quoted,"Why consume many words in delineating a character which can be disposed of in three ?" Ignatius Loyola "was a fanatic, a Papist, and a Jesuit. Comprehensive and incontrovertible as the climax is, it yet does not quite exhaust the censures to which his name is obnoxious." M. H.

Politics.

IS THE PREMANENT CONNECTION OF THE BRITISH COLONIES WITH THE MOTHER COUNTRY DESIRABLE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

THE love of country and the pride of nationality have ever been considered the highest and noblest expression of civilized minds. In ancient times, to be a free-born Greek was the glory of the earliest pioneers of intellect and freedom. The Jew delighted in the thought that he was a Hebrew of the Hebrews. The great Apostle of Christianity, in his bold appeal to the Roman Emperor, proved the talismanic power of the words, "I am a Roman citizen." While France has gloried in her eagles, and Italy has struggled, bled, and triumphed in her love of country, England can unite in her sons the excellences of all these expressions of love for fatherland, pride of birth, and devotion to the best interests of nationality, for

""Tis a glorious charter, deny it who can,

That's breathed in the words, I'm an Englishman."

The policy of the English nation has been of late years to give to all her subjects the rights of Englishmen, however widely spread over the earth's surface her colonies and dependencies may be; her flag covers no slave, shelters no despot: it gives the fulness of freedom to all, both in thought, word, and act, only limiting the freedom of the individual to insure equality of freedom to every other individual-freedom to all, none daring to make another afraid. The Englishman's home is his castle; his hearth is sacred, whether in the wilds of newly peopled colonies, where the rude log hut for a time shelters the honest toiler, or in the palatial residence of the self-raised city millionaire, and the titled noble, who traces a long ancestry, or boasts the high blood of ancient kings and princes. These inestimable privileges are possessed by no other single people; the blessings of all are united in the English race and nation; while other nations are tempted to envy, their better feelings prompt them to emulate, to honour, and esteem them as examples most worthy of imitation.

We affirm that all under the sway of our beloved Queen possess the rights and privileges of Englishmen, whether at home or abroad, whether distinguished by the appellations, English, Irish, Scotch, Australian, Hindu, Canadian, or any other of the myriad of local names which our fellow-countrymen may bear. The law protects and preserves the personal liberty, private property, and religious freedom of each one.

Colonization, whether considered as a providential arrangement

by which the human family is made to disperse itself over and occupy the whole face of the earth-which may be considered in some measure as a law of nature or as an outlet for the surplus life and activity of old and densely peopled states, results in a permanent increase of the productive power of the world, an increase of the comfort and happiness of the human family. As such it has ever been encouraged by wise statesmen, and their efforts have constantly been directed to abridge its inconveniences, mitigate its evils, and perfect its adaptability to forward the social and intellectual progress of humanity.

It is our present duty to exhibit some special reasons in favour of colonization as a permanent and integral part of the policy of the British Government, to show that the permanent connection of the British colonies and the mother country is desirable-subjectively in relation to the mother country, objectively in relation to the colonies themselves. In pursuing our task we feel pleased to know that there can be no party-spirit, no political bitterness associated with a subject like this; it being our purpose to inquire which is the best means to produce the best end-the mutual comfort, happiness, and prosperity both of the mother country and her colonies.

Colonization is beneficial to the mother country, as it opens up a vast field for the profitable employment of the capital and surplus labour of its people. In a thickly populated country it is possible, nay, is a fact, that capital and labour may increase much more rapidly than its own resources can profitably employ. The opening up of a new colony forms a fresh means for the employment both of capital and labour, extends the circle of their exercise, and contributes to the supply of a greater number of comforts and richer abundance of production. In this process of amelioration, the supply of labour at home being subdued in proportion to the demand, the value of labour rises, for the wider employment of capital proportionately increases its value; therefore both classes are benefited; and under wise control, that which is thus beneficial in the commencement must of necessity be increasingly beneficial in its permanent continuance, and that which is permanently beneficial must be desirable in proportion as its permanence is assured.

Colonization is beneficial to those who become colonists, that is, to the colony; as its connection with the mother country provides them with all the requirements they need in capital, labour, and the useful products of labour suitable to their wants, and fits them to profit by the bounteous resources nature invites them to develop. That which they could not provide for themselves is provided for them, in exchange for the wealth they possess, or may win from Mother Earth by the activity and energy which their new position demands from them. The more permanent the relation of reciprocal producer and consumer is, the more desirable is the permanent connection of mother country and colony.

The security of personal liberty and the rights of property are strongly in favour of the permanence of this relation; because, in a

new colony, the power and prestige of the mother country is a shield of protection to preserve the colonists from internal anarchy and foreign violence. The mother country, having a settled code of laws, municipal police establishments firmly organized, and a military and naval establishment, transfers all the safety, security, and confidence which these organizations represent to the benefit of the colonists, in common with its subjects at home. While the fear of embroiling themselves with a large, old-established, and wellregulated home government intimidates foreign despots, and lawless men and nations, from interfering with the personal liberty and property of the colonists,—they are under the ægis of a mighty power; therefore they cannot suffer wrong or violence without the wrath of a power fit to demand reparation and inflict due punishment on the offender,-internal anarchy, confusion, and spoliation are annihilated by the fear of the imperial anger. The colonist breathes freely, lives in comfort and safety, and the reward of his industry, accumulated property, is preserved to him. The prosperity thus secured to the colony begets new wants, comforts, and luxuries, which the mother country is benefited by supplying, while the richer supply of productions from the colony increases the wealth and comfort of the home population, by affording larger supplies of commodities at a lower cost; thus by so much increasing the wealthiness or productive power of the millions both at home and in the colony. It is a reciprocal advantage, which is secured by each seeking their own happiness by mutual aid, protection, and service.

The greater the number of the colonies possessed by an old country, in like proportion is the security and welfare of each insured, when wisely and prudently governed. As the great banian tree receives stability and derives support from each stem which strikes down into the earth, and, surely fixing its tensive fibres on a constantly increasing basis, can defy the storms and tempests so rudely tearing up and destroying the isolated oak or single sapling, in like manner the mother country, with her numerous progeny of healthy, thriving colonies, becomes increasingly powerful to resist the storms of human passion with which cupidity, avarice, and the love of violence devastates isolated kingdoms and colonies.

If these advantages are worth possessing, and are so secured by the union of mother country and colony as to be inseparable concomitants each to the other, why, then, their permanent connection in these important relations must be a still greater advantage; for it is self-evident that a benefit possessed is increased in its value in proportion to the permanence of its possession; indeed, this is exemplified in every-day life so frequently, that to give illustrations would be a trial of the reader's patience scarcely to be tolerated. What, we would ask, has been the chief cause of England's prosperity, her greatness? We unhesitatingly answer, Her Colonies. Which are the most happy and prosperous communities on the face of the globe? We as unhesitatingly answer, The British Colonies. To what can we ascribe this cause of

the greatness of England, and this prosperity and happiness in her colonies, but to the permanence of their connection with each other? On the contrary, look to Mexico and Hayti, for examples of evil resulting from separation and misrule in other nations. Nay, who can for a moment gainsay that, but for the separation so much vaunted by the Americans, they might have been happier, more prosperous, and more peacefully employed at this hour? Looking back along the stream of history, do we not find the mother country by her own wealth redeeming the foul stain from her national character by purchasing the liberty of the slave, thus paying tribute to her own conscience while respecting the rights of her colonists to reimbursement for the property she had taught them to own in the human form divine? Would a different policy have been possible had America remained a British colony? We trow not. May it not be possible that the present troubles in America are, in some respects, retributive? In their Act of Independence did they not forge the fetters more strongly upon the unoffending slave? Thoughtful man, judge thou; we speak as unto the wise; reflect, the assizes of God's judgment may take ages of mortal men's lives to mature. It cannot be objected that England is ignorant of the wants and necessities of the colonies, and therefore cannot legislate for them, nor govern them; but in wisdom has she so far voluntarily given to her colonies the power of self-government, only possessing a veto in cases of illegal action or violent wrong-doing-assisted in the government thereof by the advice of her wisest and best colonists.

What advantage can be possessed by the colony when separated that it has not now in enjoyment? Is it freedom, prosperity, a market for its goods, self-government, security, protection? It has all these in the highest degree, under the best circumstances, and in the greatest assurance of durability, under the fondly cherished relationship with the mother country. Continue to this relationship permanence, and future ages will bless thee; but destroy this connection, and the execrations of all civilization, present and future, will ring in thine ears through a never-ending eternity. L'OUVRIER.

NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

THE question for discussion is ambiguous; for is the desirableness of the connexion to be viewed in relation to the interests of the mother country, or in relation to the interests of the colony? When Chatham rose with his dying breath to protest against the dismemberment of the British empire, he viewed the question in one of its aspects; when Washington, at the bead of thirteen States, declared the necessity of their independence, he took the question in another aspect. The only way in which the ambiguity can be destroyed is by assuming that what is desirable for the mother country must be also desirable for the colony. This, however, cannot be conceded as a universal proposition; for take the Spanish settlements in South America as examples,-their inde1863.

E