I cannot say. Mr. Woodbury in his report to Congress, Feb. 11, 1841, makes a widely different estimate, and he may without much stretch of fancy, be supposed to know as much about the matter, as an anonymous writer, whose frequent falsifications have already been abundantly proved upon him.

But no sooner did England become alarmed for the security of her claims against us than the tide of gold turned, and according to his own table, one single year made a difference of seventeen and a half million dollars ;-for in 1838, we imported $14,239,070, in specie, more than we exported, and in 1839 we exported $3,201,180 more than we imported. The next year this sum increased to five millions, in 1841 it swelled to a greater amount still, and it is the opinion of several distinguished financiers of the country, that during the present year it will be much larger than it has ever been! Besides if the interest and principal of the state debts now due had not been repudiated, it would all have been paid in specie, for our paper currency will hardly pass current in sight of the banks from which it is issued, much less pay debts in Europe: and "Libertas" confesses; that, although during 1839-40 and 41, the revulsion of which I speak not only stopped the flow of over $14,000,000 of specie to the United States every year, but positively took away about $15,000,000, making a difference between the amount now in the country, and what it would

have been, had no unfavourable change taken place, of over $57,000,000 in three years; yet he does not deny that the sum would have been still larger had it not been for the large sale of our public stocks in the European Markets!

"Libertas" knows better than myself the motive which prompted him to put forth such a delusive calculation. He says we shall get no more credit in England till our debts are paid. Right! and would to God, we had never had any of this credit there at all. Then should we have saved our capital which has gone, or will go to England to pay for what we ought to have manufactured at home (for these debts and Bonds will be paid to the last dollar,) and England finding she could not sell us from $50,000,000 to $75,000,000 worth of her manufactures every year, would have been obliged before now to do away in part, at least, with her unjust, unreciprocal and selfish, restrictive, and prohibitory policy.

Many, probably most of my readers, never saw or heard of the book here reviewed, and I trust refuted. It will enable such to judge more correctly of its author's qualifications to become a critic of Republican Institutions, when I tell them he enters at great length, and with much zeal, into a defence of the Union of Church and State in England, and laments over the misfortune of America in not being blessed with such an establishment; this accounts satisfactorily for his impugning the character and motives of such a man as John Thorogood, who

was shut up in a filthy jail in England two years by the "minister of Jesus," (?) for the non-payment of a 5s. 6d. Church Rate! His attack upon Mr. Thorogood was too base and intolerable to be swallowed by his own greatest friend and flatterer.

The editor of The Scottish Journal, a man who seems to possess a spirit akin to that of “Libertas" himself, and who has established a press in New York through which to pour out his British hatred upon American Institutions, even he, thoroughly saturated as he is with the monarchical spirit, could not pass his contemptible libel upon John Thorogood without rebuke. He complains of "the harsh party-sided view which the author has taken of certain questions of English politics, and for the introducing of which he has not the shadow of an excuse. Such is the Church Rate question. John Thorogood, who lay in a damp jail, swarming with rats for nineteen months because he asserted the birth-right of every freeman to think for himself in matters of religion, and acting upon that belief, refused to pay an odious, oppressive, and unjust tax for the support of the bellows-blowers, organ-grinders, and bellringers of the Established Church, the farther misfortune to be the object of an extra quantity of very illiberal condemnation from 'Libertas,' and the latter has put himself in a very unfortunate position in consequence. 'Let us see,' Libertas says, 'John Thorogood, it seems, is a dissenter from the Church of England, and we

*

*

has

hope a sincere believer in Christianity,' ('what necessity for this sneer,' says the editor.) 'How his conscience can be hurt by a small payment for supporting a Church teaching essentially the very same doctrines which his own church teaches, we cannot explain.' 'Libertas' must be very unfit to grapple with his subject, if he venture to say that Episcopalianism and Independent principles have much in common. Upon Libertas's reasoning the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the Wickliffites of England, instead of being glorious martyrs, must have their own · blood upon their heads, as the doctrines for which they contended were not more essentially different. The smallness of the sum is nothing: trifling, indeed, was the ship-money which Hampden refused to pay; from that refusal. England dates her glorious Revolution. 'Libertas' is very unhappy in his Quaker illustration, saying that 'they quietly pay their taxes,' for from the days of William Penn, no English Quaker has paid Church Rates. We conclude by informing 'Libertas' that John Thorogood was NOT 'pleased to walk himself out of jail,' as he expresses it; the debt, 5s. 6d. and costs, £121 10s., were paid by an unknown hand, through a London solicitor of eminence, (known to be solicitor to the Dukes of Bedford and Buckingham among others.) And John Thorogood never has known who paid them." Thus much for the estimation in which "Libertas" is held by his own friends.

He has probably let fall no remark more characteristic of his principles than that he “cannot explain how, it could hurt John Thorogood's conscience to pay a church-rate." I presume he did find a difficulty in understanding how any man, could have so tender a conscience: a thing which, if his book is a fair sample, he is never troubled with.

One other item shall close what I have to say, on the statistics of this book, "We may fairly state without fear of challenge, that the taxes paid by a working man in England do not exceed four to eleven per cent. on his income." Probably Sir E. L. Bulwer has had as good an opportunity of understanding this matter as "Libertas." He says, "By indisputable calculation it can be shown that every working man is now taxed to the amount of ONE THIRD OF HIS WEEKLY WAGES." (England and the English, vol. 1st. p. 116.) Quite a difference between four and thirty-three and onethird per cent. when it comes out of a hungry man's pocket; but still no great mistake for "Libertas."

Mr. Villiers, in speaking on this subject in Parliament last spring, said, "He believed he could not do better than call the attention of the committee to the petition of a labouring man, by name William Gladstone, which set forth the share of taxation he bore with reference to the wages he received. He used, he said, one ounce of tea, two ounces of coffee, eight ounces of sugar, eight