From Feudal to Federal. By J. A. Partridge. (Triibuer.)—The greater
part of Mr. Partridge's book is devoted to subjects which he describes as "Free Church," "Free School," "Free Trade." The first and second of these interest us chiefly. We find ourselves differing much from the author as regards the first, mostly agreeing with him as regards the second. But whether we differ or agree, we have to deplore that much ability of thought and expression—the vigour and freshness of Mr. Partridge's style are often very striking—is deprived of much of its due weight by the violence of his language, and by an inaccuracy,. producing the effect of the grossest misrepresentation, with regard to facts. Whatever Mr. Partridge may think about Church matters, he °tight not to make use of figures that either have never been or are not now correct. What is the fairness of quoting, as if they were actual wrongs now wanting redress, past misdeeds of bishops ? It may be fairly argued that bishops are useless, or, being not useless, should not be paid out of public fends, but is it right to suggest the false charge that they get more than their legal allowance ? Where, again, does Mr. Partridge get his strange figures, that there are two thousand livings, and that the revenues of the Church of England (including incomes and value of buildings) are ten millions? • There are twelve thousand livings, worth on an average, in gross value, three hundred pounds a year ; is net value less than two hundred and fifty. The parish churches cannot be said to have any pecuniary value. The awn is a gross exaggeration; half would probably be in excess of the truth. Is there any real reason, again, for thinking that the cultivated land in the reign of King John was not more than two millions and a half acres, i.e., about one-fourteenth part of England ? Here, indeed, we agree with Mr. Partridge in his main argument, that tithes are not to be referred to private benevolence. They are, we feel sure, public funds, though burdened of course with vested interests. Again, may we suggest to Mr. Partridge that he is making a very sweeping and unjust assertion when he says "many [cathedrals] have not a [school], and those that have are not satisfactory in attendance or teaching" ? He means, we presume, that the schools are not satisfactory, dm, though the words grammatically mean the cathedrals. We will take the two instances that occur to us, and that because they are the two archiepiscopal sees. St. Peter's School at York and the King's School at Canterbury are two of the best schools in the kingdom. Mr. Partridge probably has never heard of them, but then he should have heard of them before he wrote.