"THE BRITISH FRIEND"-INNOVATIONS,
QUERIES, &c.

To the EDITORS of THE BRITISH FRIEND. DEAR FRIENDS,-Having been a subscriber for your periodical, and a careful reader of its pages from the commencement, I wish to say that I have done so with interest and great satisfaction; and have often felt thankful that you were enabled to conduct it so consistently, and so fearlessly to advocate the principles and testimonies of the Society, and I hope you may never relax in your adherence to and advocacy of its original fundamental doctrines.

I have been particularly pleased with some of the later numbers, as I have no doubt is the case with many other Friends, who may not have told you so, for many are fearful of the results of these new movements amongst us for change and innovation; and well they may, if the rules and practices of the body are to be altered to please and accommodate such members as your correspondent Edward Bowron, and the class of "Young Quakers" whom he volunteers to represent. Would it not be well to ascertain, before that is done, what weight these "young Quakers" have in the different meetings to which they belong, so that some who have been induced to favour the proposed changes, may be led seriously to reconsider the whole matter. Answers to a few special queries might elicit the state of the case; for instance:

1st. Are those who deviate from the rules or advices of the Society in what are termed the "Minor" testimonies, the most strictly consistent in the maintenance of our most important doctrines, and the most exemplary in regard to the observance of our principal testimonies?

2d. Are they most regular in their attendance of both meetings on First-day, and also on week days; and is their conduct or appearance while there very reverent and becoming?

3d. Are they careful to pre-arrange their business and other engagements, so as not to interfere with their attendance of meetings for worship or discipline? and do they avoid taking pleasure excursions, or setting off on any journey on meeting days?

4th. Do they choose situations for summer residence, or when change for health is required, where they can have the opportunity of attending our own meetings, or do they attend other places of worship, without regard to consistency?

5th. Is it from that class that the vacant seats of ministers, elders, overseers, clerks, &c., are generally filled up?

6th. Are they the most liberal in contributing to the necessary though small expenses of the Society? 7th. Are they very loving towards their fellowmembers, and willing to take a word of kind advice meekly? or do they consider their advisers their enemies, and try to hold up faults in others as a palliation of their own shortcomings?

8th. Do they in public intercourse honour and defend the principles of the Society?

9th. Are they the most frequent visitors and comforters of those members who are sick, poor, or embarrassed, &c. ?

Comparisons, I know, are odious; but at present something of this kind seems needful. And there could be no difficulty in answering any of these queries, either by the class to which they refer, or by others.

"He that despiseth the day of small things shall fall by little and little." "He that is faithful in a little shall be made ruler over more."-I am your friend, Q.

2d Month, 1859.

OUR RULES FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR. To the EDITORS of THE BRITISH FRIEND.

RESPECTED FRIENDS, The present condition and future prospects of our religious Society in these kingdoms, is a subject of great and growing interest. I have long entertained a settled conviction, that if our numbers should ever very decidedly increase, we may expect it to come from among the laborious classes more than from any other source. I have therefore been led to consider whether our rules respecting the poor are calculated to promote such increase, and I may candidly state that I believe they are an insurmountable barrier.

Many worthy individuals convinced of our principles shrink from seeking to become members, lest the purity of their motives should be suspected; on the contrary some persons seek membership on account of the outward provision which membership secures to them. Friends in the station of overseer feel the responsibility of encouraging poor persons to become members lest, by so doing, they should impose a pecuniary burden upon their brethren. In short, considerations of a pecuniary character are unavoidably affecting some applications, and practically excluding others. Compulsory relief, as now settled amongst us, was unknown to our earliest prede

cessors.

When we know that in many instances the bounty of the Society is positively abused, and that not a few amongst our contributors can ill afford to support such abuse, we need not wonder at the caution exercised in reference to the admission of the labouring poor into membership. Birth-right membership brings upon us many onerous claims for relief and education, which really do not possess any greater right to our bounty, than similar cases amongst the community at large. However outrageously dishonest and bad a father's conduct may be, we are, in numerous cases, compelled to support and educate his children already born and hereafter to be born, and such claims are sometimes enforced with intolerable insolence. We have no redress. Our rules say that his children are members, and we must maintain and educate them, if the wretched father thinks fit to make us do so.

Let us next consider our rules respecting removals and settlements. A Friend who unavoidably falls

into necessity, and receives help from his meeting, even of a casual character, cannot remove into another meeting without an undeserved stigma-he is a marked man. A Friend becomes insolvent, through no fault of his own, a similar result ensues. In fact, our rules respecting the poor, more than any thing else we have in the shape of legislation, I believe are the cause of the declining numbers now professing with us.

When we reflect upon the efforts so laudably making through the means of First-day schools, and the increased care and interest taken by the Society in those who are attenders of our religious meetings, the mind dwells with a degree of complacency and comfort upon those hopeful indications; but we find that by far the larger portion thus receiving our care are amongst the poorer classes, and the admission of such is a matter of caution and difficulty.

My object in this paper is to show that our poor regulations interpose a barrier which excludes the hope of much addition to our numbers, from the only source whence we can reasonably expect any considerable increase, and I want us to revise our rules on this head.

We have not amongst us, as a community, a due proportion of those who depend upon their labour for their daily bread. Our regulations as to maintenance, education, and membership, have induced this state of things; it is not healthy, I believe it is not in the ordering of best wisdom, and that the religious life of the Society is deeply affected thereby. I am respectfully your Friend,

2d Month, 24th, 1859.

DRESS AND ADDRESS.

To the EDITORS of THE BRITISH FRIEND.

J.

RESPECTED FRIENDS,-I believe it would greatly tend to mutual forbearance on this subject if the points of difference were more clearly defined. So long as each side satisfies itself with upholding its own views from its own point of vision only, there will be much argument-perhaps much warmth-but there will be very little conviction. If we would prove to others the incorrectness of their theories, we must look at it from their own standing ground, and show in what respect their vision is warped or their judgment biassed; and in that love which I trust we all bear towards the Society, I would ask of those who think with you to look at our difficulties as they really are, rather than at what you may fancy them to be.

-Although there may be some who are indifferent to our rules, I am satisfied the great majority of those who like myself sympathize with the proposed change, do still desire to uphold these two testimonies of our ancestors to truthfulness in language and simplicity of attire. The whole gist of the subject lies in the solution, In what way these testimonies ought to be borne in the present day? or, in other words, what would our earliest Friends have done under our circumstances?

1st. On Speech.-We know that modern grammarians render the second person singular as thou, or you; and the universal custom of our best writers and speakers, and of eighty million persons by whom the English tongue is spoken, confirms this grammatical law. Conscience can no more affect this than it could the rule of a preposition governing the objective case. The real basis of our testimony was not founded on Lindley Murray, but on the use of flattering terms, and this point alone is worthy of our scruple. Now, that which is not intended as flattery by the speaker, nor felt as such by the hearer, cannot be flattery either

in intention or in effect. Two centuries ago it was usual to address inferiors in the singular, and superiors in the plural number. Our predecessors declined to do this, and great persecutions followed their scrupulously adhering to this law of equality. But in my day it is a universal custom to say "you" to all men, and in adopting such mode I cannot see that I am violating this law of equality as maintained by George Fox. It was stated at the conference that at Sheffield they still used "thou" to inferiors. If so, it is clear that Friends there do right in literally following George Fox.

--

2dly. It is also said that "you" had its origin in flattery. I do not deny it, but I believe the cause of its universal adoption has been that it is simpler and more easy than "thou." Thou lovedst, thou oughtest, &c., are too difficult and formal for ordinary speech. So much is this felt to be the case, that the singular number is never spoken with perfect correctness, and Friends generally in the South of England, in Ireland, and in America have placed the objective "thee" as nominative to a plural verb, e. g., "thee love," &c., thus sacrificing their grammar in preference to their scruple. A reference to Chaucer, or other old writers, will show the great change which language undergoes. The past participle "ed," once universal, is now rarely pronounced; hath, saith, moreover, whereunto, and other scriptural phrases, have become obsolete in conversation. We adopt the simpler forms in the same way that the French and other nations use the plural pronoun, or as the Germans in using the third person plural-viz., because it is easier to utter. Thou is fitted for address to the Almighty, for poetry, and for histrionic or dramatic language, but not for ordinary speech.

3dly. On the heathen names of months and days. We all of us acknowledge that any exaltation of idols is sinful, and that because the Jews were so prone to heathenism, they were forbidden to possess graven images, or even to mention their names. The only point of difference therefore is, Does the use of these words tend to foster idolatry amongst us-does it exalt false gods, or does it dishonour God?

Language is fossil history; and these words are imperishable records of the sins of our ancestors--they are perpetual witnesses that our forefathers not only worshipped the host of heaven (dies solis et dies luna), but also appointed special days in honour of manmade images (Tuisco and Woden, &c). If all historical evidences, and all idolatrous remains were swept away, we should still have in these words graven upon our lips, proof of the universal and desperate wickedness of man's heart.

Similar remarks would apply to the first six calendar months (to the last six I presume no conscientious objection would attach-and as they are adopted by all civilized nations, we cannot as a society protest upon any but religious grounds). Our early Friends felt, however, that the names of the first six months and of the days of the week were idolatrous, and that in so calling them they were individually guilty of rendering homage to false gods. To every person who so regards it, it is an unquestionable duty to forego their use; but may not those who think these words merely exhibit man's wickedness, but offer no honour to idols or temptations to idolatry, uphold the same pure testimony as George Fox, without literally following his example.

4thly. On Dress.-The great point at issue appears to be, whether it is right that each section of the Christian church should have a distinctive garb distinctive not only from the world, but from one another. Each generation has its simplicity, as well as its fashions. Our early Friends adopted the Christian costume of

their own day; and if we do the same and for the same reasons, do we not uphold the same testimony, without doing that which they neither recommended nor practised, viz., adopting the costume of past generations? How far we can individually carry out this or any other testimony without the aid of a society combination such as Fox or Barclay never thought of may be matter of grave doubt; but if not, it would appear that in those who abandoned them, their professed scruple had no root, but were formal and life

less excrescences.

I cannot therefore at present see that the advocates of change are either repudiators of our first principles or that they ought to leave us. We unite as a body in certain Scripture interpretations and testimonies; if we can conscientiously set our seal to all of these, would the seventeenth century Friends have repudiated us? I think not. Your comparison of the Scotch clergyman presupposes a doctrinal difference which does not exist with us; and it also overlooks the fact that he was offered a pulpit, and paid for preaching certain doctrines, and then refused to fulfil his part of the contract!*

I admit the great force of your appeal, that the staunchest Friends have almost uniformly adopted the plain language and the Friends' costume. But they do it for the same reason that George Fox wore his own hair long when others did not, namely, because they felt it to be individually required of them to do so; but he did not counsel his friends to copy him in this respect, or recommend others to walk by his conscience. I know that many who throw aside the Friends' dress, throw off much else with it. I know also the practical benefits which this dress confers; but the questions still remain-First, Is it right for any church to dictate to its members the special ways in which its testimonies are to be displayed to the world? second, Ought individuals to profess a scruple which they do not really possess? third, Is church authority a sufficient warrant for so doing?

I cannot doubt but that our most scrupulous members will ever feel it right to adopt great plainness of dress and address; but for us to be continually reported as exceptions, when we feel that in our measure we are honestly carrying out these same inward testimonies and principles in the way we feel to be required of us, is hard and discouraging. Let us ever remember the words of our Saviour, "Ye are my friends if ye do whatsoever I command you;" and that the distinctive mark of discipleship was neither by sect, by creed, nor by dress, but "by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples-if ye have love one towards another."-I am yours respectfully,

Reviews.

THE OPIUM TRADE IN CHINA.

THIRD NOTICE.

W.

They have been made to order by our merchants, as well as the opium they consume, and by which they are consumed in turn.

At first, and so long as opium can be smoked without any material injury to the constitution, the effect upon most is to excite and intensify the powers and faculties of the whole man. The physical frame is enlivened and strengthened, and made to move with a joyous freedom; the intellectual faculties are called into play with new power and vigour, in a harmony and balance of all other powers, which the use of spirits has a tendency to destroy; the imagination and feelings are excited and raised to the highest pitch, without running into the maudlin sentiment of the drunkard. In fact, for a time, the whole man is raised up to a higher and happier level, and the doze of opium seems to have been a clear gain. But mark the issue. To produce the same effect the doze must be gradually increased; and as it is increased it gets a firmer hold of its victim, and the opium-smoker enters the second stage. In this the physical constitution gets into a morbid state; and, in addition to the desire of pleasure, which was the first impulse, a new desire, or rather, a new appetite is created, not like the appetite for food proceeding from an empty organ, but a physical craving-a vague indefinite consciousness of a want, a sense of emptiness which seems to pervade the general frame, and which nothing but a repetition of the doze will satisfy. But here it does not stop: there is a third stage. By and by this unnatural appetite gets changed into a positive disease; and from that time the aim of the poor victim is not to gain a pleasure, but to get rid of a pain-the cry of want is raised into a cry of anguish a groan of universal wretchedness so deep and intense that no amount of resolution can resist it. The restraints of reason and the bonds of the strongest will are snapped asunder-the ties of the fondest affection and the strongest fetters of society are at once broken; the soundest principles and claims of duty are powerless to resist it, and the cry of conscience is drowned by a louder call-a call so loud and urgent, that if it be not heard, and the stimulant supplied, even though it be but to increase the evil, reason will forsake her seat, and the cast-off slave of pleasure will find his sure and speedy end in the grave of his own vice.

In the first stage it is possible for a man to continue the opium-pipe, or to relinquish the habit by a strong effort. With a good constitution and sound principles, or, as a substitute for principle, a clear sense of self-interest, coupled with a strong will, it is possible to go on for many years; but these are not the characteristics of an Asiatic race, and are rarely found in a Chinaman.

In the second stage, it is next to a physical impossibility, if it be not actually, as I believe it to be, a physical impossibility to remain. A cure is, however, possible, though extremely difficult. It leads almost inevitably to the third stage, in which the case seems to be hopeless, inevitable destructionsuch a case as that of the once great and noble Coleridge, from whose awful fate we derive a warning to all who are ever tempted to taste the fatal drug. He says in one of his letters-"Conceive a poor, miserable being, who for many years has been driven, in order to escape pain, to have recourse to a vice which reproduces it-conceive a spirit in hell engaged in tracing out to others the road to that heaven from which it is excluded by its crimes: in one word, conceive whatever is most pitiable, most abandoned, most disreputable, and you will form the most just idea which it is possible for an honest man to have of

my state."

The works of heathen moralists and Christian missionaries in China abound in pictures of the smoker's downward course. A Chinese artist has drawn in a series the progress of the opium-smoker, something in the style of Hogarth's Rake's Progress." In the latter stages they are easily known. The sallow complexion, the sunken eye, with a dark ring round the eyelids, the bloodless cheeks and lips, and the haggard countenance, soon mark them out. As they proceed with the indulgence, the skin becomes pale and wax-like, the eye loses its lustre, the corners of the eyelids and of the mouth become depressed, and look as if some dark matter were deposited under the skin, while the protruded and swollen lips tell of the frequent use of the large mouth-piece of the pipe. Their appearance is miserable in the extreme, and their state is more miserable than they look. The poor victim becomes enervated and weak-a griping pain rends his entrails-his stomach loses all relish for food-even the power of digestion fails-pains rack his limbs; and when the weary wretch retires to rest, the demon of his own creating pursues him still, and frightful dreams disturb his broken slumbers. There is no rest for him but in death, and that often finds him on the granite steps of some temple, or in the streets or highways.

The late Dr. Medhurst thus writes of what he saw in Shanghai:-"In front of a temple I saw one of such destitute persons, unable to procure food or the drug, lying at the last gasp. There were two or three others, with drooping heads, sitting near, who looked as if they would soon be prostrated too. The next day the writer passed, and found the first of the group dead and stiff, with a course mat wound round his body for a shroud. The rest were now lying down, unable to rise. The third day another was dead, and the remaining almost near it. Help was vain, and pity for their wretched condition the only feeling that could be indulged."

(To be continued.)

THE EARTH WE INHABIT: ITS PAST, PRESENT, AND PROBABLE FUTURE. By CAPTAIN ALFRED W. DRAYSON. London: A. W. BENNETT, 5, Bishopsgate-Without. Edinburgh: JOHN MENZIES, 1859. Pp. 104. WE do not think the title of this book conveys a just idea of the character of its contents. We might have passed it by as some new speculation on the period of the millennium and other kindred topics,

had not our attention been otherwise drawn to it. It is, however, a new physical theory of the earth, and therefore within the lawful bounds of scientific observation; though almost as startling as when the philosopher first declared, in opposition to the popular evidences of the senses, that, instead of the earth being a stationary body and the sun moving round it, the earth was really the body in motion in reference to the sun. Our author says:

"The history of the past tends to show a very curious phase of the human mind. It would appear that man has ever struggled hard to prove two fallacies; first, that he and his planet were the centre of all creation; and, secondly, that he had, by the gigantic power of his intellect, discovered every thing worth knowing."-Page 76.

From a great variety of observations in ancient and modern times, and from the differences in the admeasurement of scientific distances on the earth's surface by the most recent and accurate observers, all tending one way, the author has been led to the conclusion, that the earth is increasing in size, and extending its orbit in proportion. Most of the anomalies, and hitherto inexplicable phenomena, which occur in the higher branches of astronomy, readily explain themselves upon this supposition. When once familiarized with the idea of its possibility, he does not think it will appear at all opposed to the general analogy of nature; while strictly harmonizing with the great facts of geology, and of early Scripture history.

It might be supposed that if the earth were really a growing body, the fact would have been so obvious, it could not hitherto have escaped discovery, being one of the simplest things to detect. The truth is quite the reverse; for, supposing it to be the case, it would be one of the most difficult problems to prove, and if everything around were increasing in the same proportion, whatever the rate might be, it would be almost impossible to ascertain it. Very few persons are aware of the extreme difficulty that attends standards of measurement of any kind; while the obstinate tendency there is in the human mind, to make ourselves the stationary point and standard of judgment, and to attribute all change and motion to outward objects, helps on the deception, and disguises from us the real nature of the facts. We must all be familiar with the phenomena when being overtaken by a railway train at greater speed. Whatever the rate we may be going at, so long as we keep our eyes fixed on ourselves and the passing train only, we shall appear first to be stationary; for the moment the latter seems parallel, and then to go backwards; and without some third and independent object, it would be impossible to convince an ordinary observer, unacquainted with the laws of sight and of motion, that it was not really so.

The writer of this volume has adopted a popular and intelligent style, not overloaded with scientific detail; and has compressed into a small compass a variety of interesting matter, while he evinces an excellent spirit throughout. We think the proofs he adduces in support of his views are worthy of attention and investigation; though we are not yet so convinced of the enlargement of the earth's surface, as to recommend the formation of a company, even under limited liability, to buy up land at the present measurement, in order to realize a profit by its possible future development.

GILES'S ENGLISH PARSING; comprising the Rules of Syntax. Exemplified by Appropriate Lessons under each Rule. Improved Edition. Re-modelled by Margaret E. DARTON. London: ARTHUR HALL; VIRTUE & Co. 1859. This work has been long known and highly esteemed by grammarians. The above improved edition, re-mo