The writer, said to be a _Christian
minister_, with the malignity of baser minds, sinks and keeps in the
background her "glories," and brings into relief and dwells upon her
shameful parts; representing in the most sombre colours the misery of
the "squalid" population of our cities. Would to God there were not
so much truth in the picture! His reverence, however, seems to have
lost sight of the clergyman; and in gratifying his resentment against
England, and in his zeal to kindle the same unchristian feeling in
the breasts of his countrymen, has not hesitated to sacrifice the
truth;--and he a clergyman, whose office it is to "proclaim peace on
earth, and good-will to men!"

That there is much misery and wretchedness in England, none can deny;
but will not the well-informed philanthropist consider it rather as
our misfortune than our reproach?--consisting mainly, as that mass
of wretchedness does, of those ills which neither "kings nor laws can
cause or cure." What plan would this philanthropic divine recommend to
remove those evils, which, while he affects to deplore, he yet glories
over? Strip the nobility and land-owners of their possessions--convert
our monarchy into a republic--and the church into a "meetin ouse?"

These _reforms_ effected, would the people of England be permanently
benefited by them? Supposing the whole arable soil of England were
divided in equal portions among its crowded inhabitants, (passing
by the injustice of robbing the present proprietors of their lawful
possessions--many of them acquired by the same hard labour or skill
by which an artisan gains his weekly wages,) would the equality
of property long continue? Would not the sloth, improvidence, and
imprudence, that ever distinguish a great proportion of mankind; and
the industry, foresight, and ambition that characterise others, soon
bring many of the equal lots into one, thus forming a great estate,
the property of an individual,--when matters would just be at the
point where his reverence found them? And then, of course, would
follow another "equitable adjustment," to relieve the wants of the
poor, whose progenitors had squandered their patrimony. Or, admitting
that the lots remained in possession of the families to whom they were
originally granted, would the produce be equal to the maintenance
of their numerous descendants, when the property became divided and
subdivided into fifty or a hundred shares?

The present proprietors of th