208 Characters of the Chinese — -Brougham's Education Bill. [Oct. I, 
a Welsh peasant. We haa not been 
there long before a young and very 
beautiful girl entered the apartment 
where we sat, fro m an ‘ inner c h am her, 
where, we afterwards learnt, the corpse 
lay. It was the widow’s eldest daugh¬ 
ter ; and never did we see a more inte¬ 
resting and heartless creature. Sorrow, 
deep and powerful, was strongly de¬ 
picted on her fine features, and she had 
been weeping—but she seemed to have 
made an effort to conquer her emotion, 
and with a graceful rustic simplicity, 
proceeded to place before us the most 
dainty viands on the table. Little did 
we expect to find so beauteous a gem 
amid those rude mountain wilds; yet 
liow frequently do we see in some re¬ 
mote glen or village one bright object, 
eclipsing all the rest, and shining in 
virtue, and beauty, and happiness— 
Like some lovely mountain flower, 
Whose veil of wiry dew 
Is only touched by the gales that breathe 
O’er the blossoms of the fragrant heath, 
And in its silence melts away 
With those sw T eet things, too pure for 
earthly stay! 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
CHARACTERS C f the PEOPLE of the 
different provinces of china ; 
translated from the Chinese Imperial 
Almanack. 
1.-DEKING, or Shan-tyn-fou. The 
JL people stout and courageous, dis¬ 
creet, polite,just, frank and open, averse 
to ceremony, strict in morals. These 
qualities they derive from the proximity 
of the Emperor. Paou-ting-fou; the. 
people agricultural and given to letters, 
but destitute of eminent talents. Yung - 
ping-fou; letters cultivated here, and 
held in estimation ; the people frugal 
and agricultural. Tin-tsin-fou; the 
population a medley of individuals 
from all the provinces of the empire: 
frugal but jovial and extravagantly 
gav. 
2. Keang-sou ; Keang-nin-fou. The 
people frank and confidential; among 
them many men of letters. Sou-te-hou ; 
the students distinguished by great 
civility of manners ; the people taught 
to respect themselves ; frank and open 
in deportment, instruction progressively 
advancing. Sang-/cany-fou ; the men 
of letters very diligent, and studious ; 
benevolence tile distinguishing feature 
of the people. 
3. Gan-hwuy; the people volatile, 
economical, and of a prepossessing ex¬ 
terior. 
4. Keang-si; men of letters much 
employed in classical works ; the peo¬ 
ple in agriculture. 
5. Che-heang , Hang-tehou-fou : pre¬ 
cious stones and other rarities to be 
found here. Some commerce with 
foreign parts, and in the interior. The 
people always clad well; the men of 
letters formal and methodical in their 
studies. 
6. Fo-kyn , Fo-tehou-fou; character 
pacific, sincere, economical, of a jovial 
exterior. 
7. Hou-pi-wou-chang- fou ; the popu¬ 
lation a mixture of individuals from 
all parts of the empire. Every family 
has its peculiar usages. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
T happens to me to he included 
among the 44 mean sectarian persons” 
for whom the anonymous writer on the 
44 Philosophy of Contemporary Criti¬ 
cism” in your Number for July, so un¬ 
hesitatingly invites from those Northern 
Lights , the Edinburgh Reviewers, 44 a 
hearty and effectual rap over the 
knuckles,” for attempting 44 to touch 
the ark of our magnificent and awful 
cause,” as he describes Mr. Brougham’s 
Education Bill, but with more pro¬ 
fanity (sectarianism apart) than good 
taste or philosophy. Notwithstanding, 
however, (heboid front assumed by the 
writer, I have the spirit to condemn 
every past, and to assist in repelling 
every future attempt to invade those 
rights, civil and religious, belonging 
to me as a man and a Briton. 
44 As we,” he says, p. 531, 44 are in 
the number of those who say, let the 
bill pass, and rectify afterwards any de¬ 
fects that may be found out by carry¬ 
ing it into effect, we can only recom¬ 
mend to those who entertain doubts 
upon the subject, to let us know the 
whole truth of their objections to the 
principle , and not pester the friends of 
national improvement with their petty 
local and parochial concerns!*' 
Before your July Number bad, in 
the course of its circulation, reached 
me, I had prepared an article on the 
subject, which was laid aside through 
Mr. Brougham's postponement of the 
measure till the next Session of Par¬ 
liament. I have not seen reason to 
introduce any alteration inconsequence 
of the article in No. 69 of the Edinburgh 
Review, which, though an able attempt 
to defend what is not defensible in its 
present state, the Dissenters flatter 
themselves is the requiem of the bill. 
But, 
