Section IV. provides that all deeds and instruments, not being testamentary dispositions, shall be enrolled within three months of their execution, and shall be irrevocable, except where power of revocation is reserved.

Section V. contains provisions and reservations in favour of creditors, &c.

With Section VI. we must trespass on the attention of our readers at length. It is as follows:—

"And be it enacted, That if after the making of any such gift or grant for such uses or purposes as aforesaid, any such testator, donor, or grantor shall have died, leaving any parent, wife, child, or grandchild, who by reason and in consequence of such gift or grant shall have been left destitute or insufficiently provided for, it shall be lawful for every such parent, wife, child, or grandchild to apply to the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper for the time being, by petition in that behalf setting forth all the circumstances of his or her case; and thereupon the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper shall forthwith proceed to inquire into the facts so alleged in such petition in such manner as to him shall seem most expedient; and if, upon such inquiry, the said Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper shall be fully satisfied of the truth of the said fact, then it shall be lawful for him to make such order as to

lived for thirty years. She had executed another will prepared by her own solicitor, and in it had made provision for her brother; but of this will no trace was forth-coming at the time of trial. The second—or what we may term, the priest's will, was prepared under the directions of Dr. Meyler, the confessor of the testatrix, and by his attorney-by his confidential adviser-but a man totally unknown to Miss Caldbeck. This professional gentleman drew up a will from verbal instructions, and allowed several months to elapse between the preparation and execution of the deed. The latter took place, not in the house of Miss Caldbeck's brother, but at the chapel in Westland-row, in the presence of the confessor, his coadjutor, and confidential attorney. Moreover, the custody of the document was not permitted to remain with the testatrix, so that she could have the power of destroying or obliterating it whenever she pleased, but it was kept in the possession of Dr. Meyler, who took good care to preserve the most profound silence on the subject.

"On carefully examining the various points connected with, or bearing on the case, the learned Judge decided-first, that the testatrix was of sound mind at the time of making her will; secondly, that there was no evidence of improper influence sufficient to set the will aside. He refused, however, to grant the defendant's costs, on the grounds that the next of kin was fully justified in coming forward, as he had done, in the suit, and that the defendants had not conducted the suit in a fair manner. The law of the case, then, has been with the Rev. Dr. Meyler, but few will affirm that his cause was sustained by justice. The influence of the priest and confessor was exercised for the benefit of his Church, not for personal interest, and upon this plea was he borne harmless. There are delicate modes of obtaining money, which no law can reach, and of one of the most efficacious amongst them did the Rev. Mr. Meyler avail himself, to the comfort of his co-religionists. Well, indeed, did the learned Judge remark, "that clergymen of all religious persuasions had higher and more important duties to attend to than the construction of wills; and the less they dabbled in personal concerns the better." But such a doctrine would suit neither the views nor the interests of the Popish Church. Separate her from temporal affairs confine her within the bounds of truth-and the fabric of error, superstition, and tyranny must crumble to atoms.

him shall seem reasonable for allowing to every such parent, wife, child, or grandchild, for his, her, or their life or lives, or for any shorter period or periods, so much and such portion of the proceeds or profits arising from the property, estates, or effects so given or granted as aforesaid, as may be sufficient for the support and maintenance of such parent, wife, child, or grandchild during any such period as aforesaid, and from time to time to alter or annul such order, and to make such other or further orders and regulations in that behalf as the justice of the case and the wants of the several parties interested may seem to him to require."

From this it appears that the framers of this Bill are conscious that undue influence may be exercised, and that this Bill, as to "bequests for pious and charitable purposes," will give to many. under the influence of false religion, a power which they will exercise for the purposes of leaving the wife, the child,-the parent, destitute of the provision which should have been. made for them. Nor is this all, for when under the influence of priestly rule the deluded penitent shall have given up his property for prayers-which may never be said, and masses-which may never be offered-neglecting the scriptural duty of honouring and maintaining a parent-shall have impoverished his wife, and beggared his offspring-the wife, the parent, the children have this consolation left, that they may apply to the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper, who may make order to allow them for life or shorter period some allowance sufficient for their "support or maintenance."

But, as though that were not sufficiently galling to those who may thus be reduced from affluence to penury, the same or any future Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper may alter or even annul such order. The power is quite discretionary with the Lord Chancellor or Lord Keeper; and who can say, unless Protestants more actively exert themselves, how long it may be before it shall be lawful for a Roman Catholic to be Lord Chancellor. What prospect, let each one ask himself, would there then be for a Protestant to receive any portion of his alienated patrimony?

Who can deny that thus great evils may be inflicted? Who does not perceive that many of them flow naturally from the system of the Church of Rome? Thus it is, and ever will be. False doctrines lead to errors in practice. An erroneous theology becomes the parent of an erroneous morality and an erroneous policy.

With the figment of purgatory to frighten her penitent-and the more impious figment of masses to redeem from purgatorial fire-Rome has long traded in the souls of men.

Unwilling to permit eternal life to flow as the free gift of God to all who, by a true and living faith in a crucified Saviour, come to Him, she would prescribe other modes of access, and

other mediators, and repeated sacrifices, despising the plain language of Scripture and overlooking the finished work of Christ Jesus, who by one offering "hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. x. 14.) Thus she proceeds, taking away the Scriptures from the people, lest her errors should be detected-inculcating the existence of purgatorythat prayers and masses may help the souls detained thereinand then making it a pretext for obtaining the money of her penitents, and acquiring an ascendancy over their property and persons.

Sec. VII., and last, gives power to trustees under certain circumstances to apply surplus of property to other objects of the same

nature.

Such are some of the provisions of these Bills. Is it not then our bounden duty to interpose and prevent measures so powerful for evil, so impotent for good, being carried into effect?

But worse measures than these are in store for us, if we do not bestir ourselves. It may be the expedient policy of those who have hitherto been reckoned the leaders of the two great parties in the State to keep back for the present, and till after the next general election, their intention of endowing the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland. Such a measure is, however, in contemplation; and, if the electors do not make the protection of the Protestant institutions of the country a rallying-point at the next general election, they must blame themselves hereafter for suffering, by their own supineness, such a measure to be carried into effect. The confidence heretofore placed in statesmen can no longer with safety be reposed. Public men have themselves to thank if, having deserted their principles, those who value principle should take security against future treason. The measures now before Parliament in favour of Popery will, if they are adopted, tend deeply to inflict injury on the constitution, if they do not bring about a total disunion or destruction of Church and State.

We would indulge the hope that many who seem favourers of these Bills have been so without fully entering into their real scope, tendency, and effect.

There is scarcely a Continental power that is not more protected than our own country against the plots and machinations of Rome.

And it is most important to be borne in mind, that many of the ancient laws complained of in our statute book on the subject of Popery were enacted at a time when the whole people of this country, with but few exceptions, were Roman Catholics.

The Roman Catholic hierarchy themselves felt oftentimes the tyranny of foreign rule, in the person of the Bishop of Rome; and the Roman Catholic Kings, surrounded by their Roman Catholic barons, and their Roman Catholic Commons, found it

essential for the safety of themselves and the well-being of the State, to make laws for their own protection.

But, if a Roman Catholic sovereign, legislature, and people, thus found restrictions necessary, how much more must they be so to Protestants, against whom the Church of Rome declares a most unmitigated hostility,-whose power she would destroy,— whose policy she would overturn, and whose very existence she would annihilate !

We are glad to see that the attention of the public is being roused to these points, and that people are beginning to ask themselves, whether Popery is so desirable a thing as represented, and whether, whilst she speaks toleration and equality, she is not seeking her own supremacy, and our subjugation.

In the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons on the Mortmain laws, last session, the following evidence was given by the Bishop of London :

"His Lordship is asked, (Q. 570,) Does your experience as a parish clergyman lead you to apprehend undue influence with persons, particularly in sickness, from clergymen or others, for the purpose of obtaining grants or bequests for the Church? Certainly not. There is nothing in the principles of our Church which need lead any person to entertain such an apprehension, even in theory, and I believe in practice, it is equally groundless. . . . I think in respect to the Roman Catholic clergy there would be great reason to apprehend this influence, because the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is this:-It is confessedly taught in the writings of both Testaments that there are three most convenient modes of washing out the stains of sin-alms, prayers, fastings; and that it is altogether reasonable that one of these fountains should flow abundantly when the others fail and are dried up.' (571) 'And, therefore, if dying persons are persuaded that by leaving large bequests for charitable purposes, or for the purpose of having so many masses said for the repose of their souls, they can wash out the stains of sin, or escape a certain period of the pains of purgatory, there would be great danger of unjust disherision. The danger of this is of course much less in our own Church, which teaches no such doctrine, but merely instructs the clergyman, when visiting a dying man, to exhort him to settle his worldly affairs, and to be liberal to the poor. I may add that I have been informed on authority, which I believe to be credible, that an eminent Roman Catholic of the present day in England said, that if the Mortmain Act was repealed, he would require no other measure in favour of the Roman Catholic Church.'

"Mr. BROTHERTON.-Is your Lordship of that opinion?-No; I have too much confidence in the intrinsic truth and vigour of the Reformed Church to be much of raid of it myself.

"Sir G. GREY. Do you think that he meant that endowments in landed property would be so rapidly created?—Yes.

που

"Mr. MILNES. Does not your Lordship think that public opinion d act very strongly at the present time against any such abuse of the liberty? Might I be allowed to ask how public opinion

would affect that?—I think that a religious principle, a principle of truth on the part of those who had property to dispose of, might operate; a Roman Catholic might be anxious to provide for the dissemination of what he considered the truth, and other members of the Church might be equally anxious to provide for the dissemination of what they considered the truth. The one is more accessible in his dying moments to the arguments which I have described than the other, to whom such an argument could not with consistency be used. .... The difference between their Church and our own is of so essential and vital a kind, that I am not at present prepared to consent to any measure which shall increase the facility they now possess of advancing the boundaries of their Church in this country.

“Mr. SHAW.-Does any possible way to prevent it occur to your Lordship's mind?-The Committee will be so good as to understand that I am looking at the question throughout, in its bearings on the Church. It is only in the last few years that we have begun to think about such matters."

Here is the melancholy fact—a fact, however, which, while it discovers to us the cause of our weakness, points out also the source of our future strength.

The truth is, that till very recently the distinctive marks of Popery and Protestantism have been unheeded, if not unknown, by the best proportion of our people. They have never, or but rarely, and then superficially, formed a portion of education either in public or private seminaries, the public schools, colleges, and universities of the land, nor, as they ought to have done, the points of examination before the admission into holy orders.

Nor let it be supposed we are referring, in these remarks, to the Church alone. No. Every body of Dissenters seems to have been equally asleep on these points.

The fault of our present position is not with one man, or any distinct body of men; it seems to have resulted from the apathy of all, and to require the united efforts of all, to obviate the evil state of things at present existing. Popery was forgotten by many. By others she was thought to be dead, and by more to be harmless. From the extremes of hatred, we seem as a Church and nation to have leaped to the opposite extreme, without halting in the happy medium, where we ought permanently to have taken our position, with a Christian firmness and moderation, alike removed from bigotry on the one hand, and an unprincipled Liberalism on the other.

In the course of the present session, wher, the propriety of bringing in a certain Bill was before the House, Lord John Russell thus expressed himself:-"He thought that to keep up a punishment for assuming Episcopal titles was puerile and childish; and, with respect to the religious orders, to prohibit them, and to make some of them, as the Jesuits, liable, a in some cases they now were, to transportation, while these enact