t

tute by being compelled, on the recurrence of accident or disease, to draw from their bank the accumulated savings of years, But if the banks could be made to combine scheme of insurance against such casualties, this distressing result would be ob viated, and the labourer, by dividing his savings between the temporary deposite, and the insurance tunds, would, at one and the same time, be able to accumulate an available resource for the period of marriage, and to make a provision for the various accidents of life. This union of Economical Banks with friend ly societies, would complete the system for allording to the people the means of self-support. Should this union, however, be found too complicated and expensive, then it will become expedient that depositors to the banks should also be members of friendly societies.

It should never be forgotten, that all the benefits which can be rationally expected from Economical Banks, arise in consequence of such institutions affording a convenient and secure place of deposite for the surplus earnings of the uniucumbered labourer. Now, in whatever degree these surplus earnings are curtailed, in that degree will the utility of Economical banks be destroyed. As wages must ever be sufficient to keep the supply of labour up to the demand, the man who has the average number of children, will be able just to support his family, But when, instead of enabling the married labourer to support bis family by apportioning his wages to the value of subsistence, we give him, upon every rise in the price of provisions, a certain allowance from the parish, we depress the earnings of the unmarried man, to whom this aid is not afforded, below their natural level, and, by an act of injustice for which it would be difficult to find a name, deprive him of the means of providing for his future wants. Whoever is interested in the success of Economical banks, should endeavour, as a preliminary step, to *correct that most mischievous operation of the poor laws, by which an increase in the parish rate is substituted for a rise of wages. This miserable and unjust system, (for we are told by the highest authority, that the labourer is worthy of his hire,) prevails, to the disgrace of the country, throughout many agricultural districts; and, if it should not be exploded, will, in such districts, present an insuperable bar to every plan for improving the condition of the people.

But it is not merely in the distributing of parish relief, that unenlightened benevolence obstructs improvement, and tends to perpetuate the misery it would remove. In the erection of penetentiaries, enormous sums are squandered in a manner much worse than useless. Whatever the capital and consumption of a country may be, they can create only a given demand for labour. Now, if Government supplies a portion of this given demand, by

means of convicts in a penitentiary, it must necessarily throw a portion of independent workmen out of employment. Thus the Jabour market will be narrowed, wages will be reduced, the diffi culty of obtaining employment and subsistence will be increased, and want will goad fresh victims to the perpetration of crime. Thus it may be feared lest the Penitentiary at Milbank, erected at an enormous expense, for the purpose of training convicts to industry and virtue, should prove the remote occasion of making new criminals in the place of those whom it may reclaim Convicts should be employed and reclaimed in distant colonies, where, from the great productive powers of industry when directed to new lands, they might, with a moderate degree of skilful management, be made, not only to maintain themselves, but to replace the expense of their transport; and where, by opening new fields for commercial speculation, they would enlarge, rather than narrow, the labour market on the mother country. In order to aid the improvement of the people, we should carefully abstain from every thing which might prevent wages from finding their natural level; and should confine ourselves to encouraging the unincumbered man to lay up those surplus earnings which are his due

From the preceding observations it will appear, that much is yet to be done, and not a little to be undone, before we can arrive at a perfect system for affording the people the means of self support. This consideration should animate us to more energetic exertions in the great cause which has been so auspiciously commenced. Enough has already been accomplished to ensure the success of future efforts. ihe great events, the astonishing and rapid changes which, for the last five and twenty years, we have witnessed in the political world, become trivial and unimportant when contrasted with that mighty moral revolution, which is now working its tranquil, its noiseless, but resistless way, and which is not we trust to cease, until the Millennium come.

CORRESPONDENCE.

There is no part of our critical office, on which we enter with so painful reluctance, as that of discharging our duty to the Public, at the expense of the feelings and interests of a deserving individual. The wish to make reparation for even seeming severity in our Review of Mr. Good's Work on Job, induced us to give a prompt insertion to that Gentleman's letter, in our March Number, although it was impossible to print it without adding a few remarks substantiating the statement of the Reviewer. We regret that we failed in our attempt to

give Mr. Good satisfaction. He complained, in a Note to the Proprietor, of the 'self evident absurdity' of our silly come ment' on his letter, and intimated that three lines of graceful apology would have done more service to the Review than this page of blundering defence.' It now becomes proper to do justice to our Reviewer, who, it is unnecessary to state, is wholly a stranger to Mr. Good, and opened his volume under no unfavourable prepossession whatsoever. At the time of his receiving Mr. Good's Letter, from the Publisher, he was labouring under severe indisposition, and had only an hour allowed him hastily to draw up the few remarks which appeared in the Number for March. As both his competency as a Hebrew scholar, and his integrity as a critic, are deeply implicated in the justness of his strictures on Mr. Good's Work, we think it due to him to give insertion to the following communication, as affording specimens of the data on which he formed his opinion of Mr. Good's qualifications and attainments as a Biblical critic.

Job, ch. iii. 6. "Let it not rejoice amidst the days of the year." "There are two derivations of the Hebrew term (Jihad} here translated rejoice;-the one is from the verb to unite or join together: in which case the phrase must be necessarily rendered as in our common version, "let it not be joined to;" and the other from the verb (hadeh) to rejoice, or exult The latter derivation appears the more forcible and poetical; and I have followed Cocceius, Mercer, and Schultens, in admitting it into the text, in opposition to the common reading."-Mr. Good's Note, p. 36.

Who would imagine after reading this Note, that the English Translators of the Common Version, ever thought of "rejoice," as suitably expressing the sense of the original? In the márgin of the English Common Version, we find the very rendering adopted by Mr. Good. "Let it not rejoice among the days of "the year!" A less pompous Author, would have said merely, I prefer the marginal to the textual reading of the public ver

'sion.'

Ch. iv. 5. "The Hebrew an almost uniformly implies iterals tion, rotation, turn, or circle,"-for the root is not sa, but on, which as a verb neuter, signifies to re-turn; and as a verb active, to re-store, re-cover, and also to re-turn."-Mr. Good's Note, p. 48. M

an is not a Hebrew, but a Chaldee word. Every Hebrew scholar knows that an, or man, (for so the word is printed in both Athias's and Vander-hooght's editions,) is from the root x, or N, venire, to come, or go. aw, or aw, is the origin of an, or an, the win Hebrew being changed for the in Chaldee.

Ch.av. 23. "Tribes of the field," 3. The sons, or progeny of the field."-Mr. Good's Note, p. 66.

Where did Mr. Good find? If he would look into his Hebrew Bible, he would find 8, which does not mean' sons,' but stones.

Ch. vi. 19. The companies of Tema search earnestly."—" Such," says Mr. Good, in his Note, p. 80, "is the real meaning of the Hebrew on, which implies not merely to look, but to beat about, or investigate, or examinate every step." The theme is van, to thrash or beat out corn, with a rod or other instrument ! ! !"

הביטו but הביטו The Hebrew word is not

What an accurate etymologist! The Hebrew word van never means to look. which is from , Intuitus est, to look attentively. The very word used in the text occurs in Psalm xxxiv. 6.

הביטו

they looked attentively.' In the compass of a few lines, Mr. Good commits the following four errors.-1. He is wrong in saying a means to look. 2. He is wrong in giving an as the word. 3. He is wrong in giving-search earnestly, as a version of the original. 4. He is wrong in not giving as the proper root The companies of Tema "looked attentively,

is the proper translation.'

Ch. vii. 12. "I am much more at a loss for the reason why should be commonly translated whale, &c."—Note, p. 89.

The text has not un but pin, and if Mr. Good had referred to Gen. i. 21, he might have found the reason of pan being ineluded in the class of large sea animals. Whatever may be the meaning of pan, Mr. Good has lost sight of his original in

תנים fiving

Job. ch. xi 17. Thou shalt grow vigorous.'-In our common version, Thou shalt be." The primary meaning of, however, is not that of simple being, but of strength, vigour, perfect life, as opposed to dissolution: whence, as a verb, it implies almost constantly to become strong and vigorous, to recover strength and vigour (says Parkhurst) after faintness, weakness, or sickness.' See his Lexicon: Article nn, 11. Who does not perceive the fitness and elegance of the term, as used in such a sense, and upon such an ocsasion'Good's Notes, p. 133.

And who does not perceive the carelessness or ignorance of Mr. Good? The Hebrew is p, which has no other meaning than As the morning thou shalt be.' The primary meaning of is that of simple being, as opposed to non-exstence. The word is, non from , and what has this to do with a reference to Parkhurst under nn?

y

Job, chap. xvi. 7. I am altogether at a loss to know why should be rendered " my company.", as a verb, means generally to "testify," or "bear witness," but has no such sense as "to as

sociate: and my, as a substantive, generally implies “testimonies,” or "witnesses."y, indeed, from y, is clearly" a company," or association, and so is, from the same radical in regimen, but 1 believe never otherwise, and here it has nothing to govern' Good's Notes, p. 186, line 8, &c

It is surely somewhat strange, that a Biblical critic should be, by his own confession, "altogether at a loss," where the elementary principles of Hebrew Grammar are mat er of consideration. Mr. Good is at a loss to know why should be rendered " my company:" we will inform him. 18 in regimen in this very passage, in consequence of the yod affxed. In Hebrew, a noun singular in the feminine gender ending in ♬, changes into л, before an affix, as 78, a wife; wwX, a law; . my law: on, integrity; non, mine integrity: cum multis aliis. So, in the text is my y company', from, being changed into before, aecording to grammatical rule. in

תורה :my wife

Numb. xvi. 5, 6, is, his

"hath

company,' as is, verse 16, thy company.' 'Ch xvi. 7. "Here, indeed, hath he distracted mehe distracted me;" Not, "hath he made me weary," as in our common version: 5 in no sense implies "to weary;" but generally "to move, or shake violently" to agitate, distract, madden, intoxicate." There can be no doubt of the real meaning in the present case.'-Good's Notes, p. 185.

הל «

Certainly, there can be no doubt of the real meaning in the present case, and as certainly Mr. Good has not found it. "does not mean to weary.'

does not mean to weary,

root of in the text.

66

.

Who ever thought it did? If certainly does, and that is the

• Ch. xxxi. 21. "If I have withdrawn my hand" no means directly to withdraw," to draw back or aside-our common,rendering, "If I have lift up my hand against,”—and that of Junius, and Tremellius, and Piscator. "If I have shaken my hand at" (si agitari manum meam) are both of far inferior force as well as correctness; and I am compelled to relinquish them.'-Good's Notes, p. 367.

Our critic is out again. The Hebrew word is van, which has nothing to do with AND to withdraw.' It is derived from , and is adequately rendered in the common version, “If I "have lift up.'

‹ Ch. xxxiii. 17. “Rooteth out." Not no', from no " to hide," as given without any clear meaning in our common version: but n' from D to uproot.'-Good's Notes, p. 386.

There is no such verb in the whole compass of Hebrew a o, to uproot.'

Chap. xxx. 25. "For the rock)" not for the poor. The term