468 



TO THE EDITOR OF THE EXAMINER. 



advocate for testing the sincerity of public men. I want to know how 

 far I can trust you as a public writer. You are a representative, I a 

 constituent. If I am to approve of, and support you, it behoves me to 

 look to it, that I place my trust where it will not be abused. 



I must argue with you at present, on the supposition of your entire 

 honesty of purpose. If there are suspicious appearances against you, 

 the trying position of a talented Journalist with strong feelings, and 

 strong prejudices, engaged in the thickest of the fending and proving 

 fray, plead your excuse with me so powerfully, that you have at present 

 my good opinion. I award you in this respect, full benefit of clergy. 

 But to the point of your delinquency. 



It would, Sir, be very unfair and uncandid in you, to abuse the clergy 

 for trying to make their debtors pay their dues, even if they insisted, 

 which they never do, upon the whole of the reserved produce, as pro- 

 vided for in the contract of lease ; or, if not provided for, waived in the 

 contract, soleley for the knavish profit of the landlord. You are too 

 knowing a man really, to wish a body of men to pretend absolute 

 indifference to the good things of the world. Is it worthy of you, then, 

 to aggravate the demerits of the clergy, by quoting apostolic disinteres- 

 tedness against them ? You have no right, as a candid and liberal man, 

 to avail yourself of the old church bombast, applying apostolic descent and 

 pretensions to the clergy. You know very well, the modern clergy are 

 not f -to blame for these absurdities ; and you know, that the question as to 

 their usefulness, is quite independent of their bearing very absurd names, 

 and having a deal of nonsense predicated concerning them in very old 

 books. You must be aware, in your cool moments, that, as far as the 

 clergy discharges the obligations binding on all Christians, and perform the 

 services to society, hitherto by society deemed essential from them, they do 

 not deserve the gross vituperation they get, at the hands of many of their 

 fellow countrymen, and amongst others, I grieve to say it, from you, 

 .Your employment, Sir, and location, do not admit of a personal ac- 

 quaintance with the conduct of the great body of the parochial clergy. 

 Is it becoming in a philosopher, and one, who is for ever advocating 

 manliness and fair dealing, to decide against a large body of his fellow 

 countrymen, because, every now and then, he hears of a true case of ill 

 conduct amongst them, or is " credibly informed by a most respectable, cor- 

 respondent," that Parson so and so is not quite so good and amiable, as he 

 ought to be? di&m fiofb <r. ,-iooq ^di "Jo notoeoubs 



How indignant were you, and properly so, at the carelessness of the 

 Times, the other day, in reporting a police-case so unfairly, to the 

 prejudice of the police-man ! How far ever do we hear from you, of 

 the culpable indifference to truth exemplified in the haste of other jour- 

 nalists to fill their columns with information ! Ought not you to let 

 parsons, as well as police-men, reap some advantage from your conscious- 

 ness of the abundance of misrepresentation afloat in society ? You are 

 not, I trust, yet so far gone in bitterness against any class of your fellow 

 countrymen, as to refuse consideration to testimony such as mine in 

 their favour. You have every reason to suppose me a sincere man. 

 You will not refuse me some claim upon a radical reformer for a 

 hearing, when you reflect how I have shot a-head of the prejudices of 

 my education, and that I am, though a parson, a radical reformer.^'!'" 



Pray, then, Sir, award me the same favour you so gladly concede to 

 your respectable informants of the delinquencies of clergymen; and till 



