insinuating that the Catholic votes of this Union were in the pocket of the Pope's inquisitor, was; and we will demonstrate, that grossly as General Green has insulted Bishop England, he has treated the "eminent Catholic clergymen" of other places worse.

Did General Green believe that the Catholics were so slavishly subservient to their "champion," when, on the 7th of September, he wrote? -"He will be fortunate, indeed, if he escapes the censure of those who are in authority above him, for the abuse of the influence which his official station gives him."

Did he not assail the Catholic Church when he called upon the Protestants to persecute the religion if it was found that Mr. Van Buren got a majority of votes in any place where Catholics were numerous? Did "the eminent Catholic clergymen" of Baltimore consider this to be merely "a censure upon Bishop England," and not an attack upon their religion, and upon the Catholic freedom of suffrage?

Thus, it is plain that the Bishop's whole crime consisted in writing what he authorizes us to say he still thinks, that whatever real evils have fallen upon the country are derived from other sources, and not from the administration of Mr. Van Buren. And though since General Greene's assault, the Bishop thinks proper to use the right, which he will not forego, of expressing his preference, he defies any one to show that he has by any way whatever sought to influence any one under his spiritual charge to vote one way or the other, though his advice has been asked by many.

General Green has vented all his rage against the Catholics, because of his greater affection for them. Why can he not spare a little for a large number of the clergymen of various Protestant denominations who are praying and preaching for the opposed candidates? We could give him at least fifty from various sections of Georgia, and the larger number are eloquent for his own party? He need not come South. His colabourer in Philadelphia can probably favour him with the name of the subject of the following article from the United States Gazette, September 25:

AWFUL TREATMENT OF A CLERGYMAN

"With such a heading, or caption, for it is very taking, we met a paragraph in the papers, which we thought would rouse the indignation of the press. 'Pulling a clergyman's nose, and kicking him from the pulpit,' is worse than sacrilege,—and what is more, the clergyman was a Van Buren man. We were shocked to think that any Whig should be guilty of such an outrage, and felt determined to denounce the perpetrator of such an act. How like a demon he must have appeared, thought we, winding his way up the crooked stairs of the pulpit, and laying violent hands and

feet on a minister of the Gospel in the very midst of his ministerial labours, 'in the sober use of his legitimate, peculiar powers.' We read the paragraph more carefully and found that a clergyman had been preaching and praying party politics in his pulpit, and some indiscreet young man had said that he ought to have his nose pulled and be kicked from the pulpit.' He was wrong, nevertheless-there is nothing canonical in such gross applications—the scourge of small cords (of public opinion), should be applied to him who would make his ministry of peace a means of social war, and change the place of prayer to a den of party strife."

The next is a little specimen from Georgia. The Savannah Telegraph, of September 15, informs us of a large Harrison meeting in Scriven County, at which the Van Buren men assisted.

"The company having assembled at the court-house, under an arbour,

"On motion of Col. A. S. Jones, the Rev. Peyton L. Wade was called to the chair, the Democrats not voting.

"The chair announced the order of the day, viz.: Col. Gamble was to open, followed by Col. Lawson, Democrat, without being limited as to time, other speakers would be timed.

"Col. Thos. Green moved that the Rev. Moses N. McCall be associated with the Rev. Peyton L. Wade in the chair, and to which motion the chair objected, on the ground that the motion was out of order, as 'the meeting was a Harrison meeting.'"' It is not want of materials that prevents our furnishing the General as abundantly as he could desire.

Now, here is direct clerical influence openly used by Protestant clergymen, and is there nothing of censure but for the Pope's inquisitor? This is the impartiality of our press.

It is of this, and not of supporting General Harrison, that we complain.

One word now for the influence of Bishop England, the "Catholic champion," the "grand inquisitor," and for the prospect of his carrying the vote of the Catholics as a body.

The council which the General praises so much, says, and the General prints it,

"And here, beloved brethren, whilst we disclaim all right to interfere with your judgment in the political affairs of our common country, and are far from entertaining the wish to control you in the constitutional exercise of your freedom-we cannot in justice to ourselves, refrain from addressing to you a few observations, equally demanded by the love that we bear to our civil and political institutions, and the obligations of morality. You cannot but be aware that our own views and sentiments, respecting the political parties which divide our national councils, are as little in harmony as your own, as those of any other religious body in our land."'

Will General Green charge the prelates with the publication of a lie? Is not this, then, plain evidence that there was as little chance of getting a consolidated Catholic vote as of getting a consolidated Protestant vote?

Bishop England subscribed this declaration. How, then, could he

expect a consolidated Catholic vote, even if he desired it?

Would the

bishops whose preferences differed from his, allow him such domina

tion?

But Bishop England's influence is paramount. The Pilot, of September 7th, says:

"Bishop England's declaration of preference for the administration, becomes an exhortation and a solemn religious injunction from one who, if he is not the first in the church, cannot be called even the second in spiritual influence. He is known throughout the United States as the great champion of Catholicism; and it might well be supposed that such a letter, coming from such a source, would have an undue influence upon the consciences of all those who have been accustomed to look up to him as the great expounder of religious obligations.

Does General Green mean to say that the other bishops regard the Bishop of Charleston as one whom they must follow?

Did the Bishop's declaration of preference (which, by the by, he had not made in that letter) influence "the intelligent Catholics of Baltimore and their eminent clergymen?" General Green says they adhere to him. We can have no objection. The Frederick City Examiner, of September 9th, a Harrison paper, forms, we think, a more just estimate than General Green does. That paper could not discern either electioneering in the letter, or influence in the Bishop.

BISHOP ENGLAND.

"This eminent divine, having recently written a letter declining an invitation to a public dinner, given by the friends of the administration to Mr. Colquitt, of Georgia, on the express ground of a determination not to take any part in political matters, the Van Buren party have foisted his letter into the public prints, and are circulating it in the form of handbills. What their immediate object can be, in doing this, it is hard to guess. The Bishop manifests a strong disinclination to be brought into the arena of politics, from a just belief that it would impair his ministry of peace and conciliation;' and, although, in a portion of the letter there is a sentence which would seem to exonerate the administration, in the opinion of the writer, from the responsibility for the 'distress in our states,' it is yet expressed in very vague terms, and must be set down as one of those sweeping generalities which writers will sometimes indulge in, when their productions are not intended for the public eye, as, we think, was manifestly the case in this instance. But suppose we admit that the Bishop, being located in the heart of South Carolina, is tinctured with Van Burenism. What can be made of it? Do the party suppose, for a moment, that the members of his church are to be influenced in their politics by his position or preferences? If they do, it is a great mistake. If the truth were known, we think it highly probable that the Bishop is, even among the ministers of his own church, largely in the minority, in regard to his political preferences. We believe that three-fourths of the clergymen of all denominations would be in favour of Harrison, if they took part in politics; and we are more fully convinced that, in the present canvass, the opinion of any minister in the country, as such, would have no more effect upon the politics of the people than upon a hail-storm.

"The people of this country are jealous of clerical interference with their political opinions, and hence it is that clergymen generally, have found it most expedient to abstain from any active participation in the business of politics. Such was doubtless the spirit under which Bishop England wrote the letter in question, declining to take part in a public festival, and he will be much surprised to find that the administration party have dragged his name into the canvass to make political capital out of it."

As far as we can learn, the Examiner has, so far as respects the clergy in his vicinity, and certainly, so far as regards the Bishop's own letter, given quite a correct view of the subject.

We said that General Green insulted the Catholic clergy. We proceed to the proof.

It is an insult to any man to invite him to do what you say does not become him, and to urge him to its performance by threats.

General Green says that it would be unbecoming in the Catholic clergy to influence their flocks to vote, at the present election, for one candidate in preference to the other.

General Green invites the Catholic clergy, his own eminent friends included, to influence their flocks to vote against Mr. Van Buren.

"We are aware that, with a large body of the Catholic clergy, the propagation of their religion, and what they believe to be the true faith is of much more vital importance, than whether Mr. Van Buren or General Harrison is President. And we do not hesitate to avow, that we expect that a just regard for their higher obligations, as servants of a Master whose kingdom is not of this world, will prompt them to exert their influence to counteract Bishop England's misguided political zeal. The only way that they can counteract it, is to disabuse the laity, over whom his letter might have an influence in relation to the political question, and its bearing upon them as a society. We, therefore, believe that Bishop England's letter will have a political effect precisely the opposite of that intended. The clergy cannot but see, that if they rally for Mr. Van Buren, politically, it will rally the Protestants against themagainst their schools and their church. We do not believe that Bishop England is prepared for this."

Such is the way in which General Green compliments his eminent clerical friends: "Come, gentlemen, Bishop England never canvassed any one, but I beg of you to degrade yourselves by getting votes for General Harrison; and if you do not, your church will be ruined."

"If you permit in any place where you are, from any cause whatsoever, a majority to be given for Mr. Van Buren, we shall rouse the Protestants to destroy your church, and I shall take my children from your schools.”

General Green must look upon his eminent Catholic friends to be a more pitiable set than we know them to be.

SECTION V

The subject grows upon us, and each post brings us new proof of the correctness of our observation, that no other religious body in the United States is treated with more insolence than the Catholic body is; not only by that discreditable aggregate which assumes the title of the religious press, but by the political press and the political agitators of the land. How has General Green proclaimed a war of extermination against the Catholics? How has he denounced and insulted Bishop England, and misrepresented him? How has he insulted the Catholic clergy, by threatening them with ruin to the religion, and the taking of his children from their school, unless they would canvass and procure Catholic votes for General Harrison? And all this, because Bishop England merely gave an opinion that the present administration did not deluge the country with innumerable evils, real and imaginary. How nobly has the General declared, that if any Protestant clergyman was to be guilty of such a high crime, no mercy should be shown to him!!

In our last, we have shown to the General some Protestant clergymen, praying and preaching and presiding at county meetings for his friend General Harrison, and lo! we find on his part neither blustering nor threats! How is this? It is as we stated: because the insolence of custom has habituated one party to heap abuse, and made the other believe it was his duty to crouch. And shall it continue? We trust it shall not.

We have now before us a pretty specimen. We regret that our limits will not allow us to insert the entire document of friend Michael H. Barton, who has more influence amongst the Quakers than Bishop England had or has, or ever will have, amongst the Catholics. It is quoted by the New York Evening Express, a Harrison paper of September 29th, from the Cincinnati Daily Gazette, and we also find it on the columns of the Philadelphia National Gazette of October 3d, not reprobated as an avowed open appeal to the religious body to which friend Barton belongs, to vote, as a body, against Mr. Van Buren, and for General Harrison, but lauded in the following words and figures, to wit:

"Our fellow-citizens of the Society of Friends, who are numerous among our readers, will find an appeal in another column, made by one of their number in favour of General Harrison. It is evidently the plain statement of a plain man, who has