1832.] [ 341 ] 



yd bsnoimq 



; 

 NOTES OF THE MONTH ON AFFAIRS IN GENERAL. 



THE PLEASURES OF " PROVIDENCE." The oddest notions seem to 

 exist in parliameht regarding Providence. If we are to have faith in 

 Sir R. Inglis and the other church champions, we must suppose it to be 

 the peculiar delight of the Divine Power to scatter the seeds of evil 

 among mankind, and to introduce the cholera into England. They are 

 as much at a loss as the College of Physicians to discover the source of 

 the pestilence ; and so they must devoutly trace it to the " pleasure of 

 Divine Providence." But we are not so profane as these pious persons ; 

 and would as soon believe that it " pleased" Divine Providence to send 

 Sir R Inglis to parliament when we know that he was sent there by a 

 portion of the clergy, who have probably as little to do with Providence 

 as the most sinful and selfish of constituents. Sir Robert, in his exulta- 

 tion at having obtained the introduction of the words " Divine Provi- 

 dence" into the Scotch Anti-Cholera Bill, poured a phial of pious wrath 

 on Mr. Hume's head, for using the word " humbug'' in connection with 

 the amendment, We give Mr. Hume's reply : he said 



" It was not usual for members to mention publicly words or expressions 

 which were not intended for their ears. However, as the honourable baronet 

 had thought proper to mention the words publicly which he had said to an 

 honourable member near him, he would state what he did say. He said it was 

 humbug to set forth such words in an act of parliament as, that ' it had pleased 

 God' to afflict the country with a pestilence and the honourable baronet ought 

 also to have added these words, ' cant and hypocrisy/ He did not wish to 

 retract the words, but would repeat them ; and assure the honourable baronet, 

 that he looked with surprise on the religious professions of those who, like the 

 Pharisee in Scripture, were over ostentatious of their sanctity, and took every, 

 opportunity of displaying it in the market-place, and the House of Commons." 



We have no fear that in an age like this our disapproval of the allu- 

 sion to Providence in such a document will be misunderstood. True 

 church policy may require its introduction, but true reverence for the 

 Deity may equally demand its omission. There are members of parlia- 

 ment who are as apprehensive on the score of their piety as Acres wag 

 on that of his honour ; they are always urging government to " edge in 

 something" about religion, because they feel it " oozing out at the palms 

 of their hands." We are not illiberal when we say that many of these 

 persons are influenced far more by church-feeling than by religion. 

 Sheridan wrote an epigram on the rise in the price of beer, consequent 

 on an increased duty upon malt, and concluded it with a very pertinent 

 question 



" But what has malt to do with beer ?" 



In the same spirit we ask, what has piety to do with the props of the 

 church, or sanctity with sees and sinecures ? 



POTATOES IN PARLIAMENT. We read the other day, in some agri- 

 cultural corner of a newspaper, that somebody had planted " one potato 

 of the red kidney sort, the produce of which was sixty potatoes. This 

 seed next year produced three bushels, which being again planted pro- 

 duced eleven sacks. The produce of the last year from that seed was 

 no less than 168 sacks." 



As Cobbett calls the potato a " soul-debasing root/' it naturally 



