ponent, he made the most beautiful eulogium of him, in whose steps he hoped to follow, and near to whom he prayed that God might find him at the day of judgment! Suppose these two, members of the same communion, and all the beauty of the fact vanishes.' But the Bible is not to be held accountable for these divisions. It is the corruption of the human heart, the darkened judgment of fallen man, which engenders and propagates them by the abuse of private judgment, an evil which admits no remedy. The reading of the Bible, it is pretended, leads to revolutionary feeling -mere party invention ! On the contrary, the people who are obedient to its dictates, are, to say the least, as moral, peaceable, as far in advance of cultivation, to say no more, as those upon whom spiritual despotism and national manners impose ignorance and estrangement from the Scriptures. In the short space of a very few years, France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, Poland, have been the theatre of revolutions and civil wars, which cannot be ascribed to the reading of the Bible, which is not read in those countries: while England, Switzerland, Holland, Prussia, and the United States, have continued, and still hold on, their peaceful progress. These arguments might have answered the enemies of the Reformation, who wished to stifle it in its cradle. But if Bossuet were alive now, he would not venture upon the prediction, which facts have given the lie to. It is hard to estimate the exact amount of influence which the Bible exerts upon public morality and civilization. The statistics of this matter have been strangely overlooked: is it as if they were of no value in men's calculations? "There are certain Christian churches which enjoin certain practices as the terms of admission and continuance in their communion. Such, for instance, is the celebration of family prayer. Every head of a family belonging to these churches, is in the habit of assembling his household, young and old, master and servant, every morning and evening a prayer, reading a chapter in the Bible, and frequently a psalm or hymn, compose their worship. This is a fact, of which all who have travelled or re ceived hospitality in those countries can bear witness to. You might as well deny that certain persons at certain times prohibit meat from their tables, as deny the habit of Bible reading, morning and evening, in certain families. Now, the proportion of these members of the church, to the general population might be laid down. Suppose, for example, the number of these Bible readers was to the population of Scotland as one to five. If the reading of the Bible has had no influence upon these men, then it would be found that one-fifth of the condemnations for crimes, and offences will fall upon these men; but if, on the contrary, not one-tenth, nor one-twentieth of the whole be found amongst them, then it is evident that the reading of the Bible has a moralizing influence.' To what shall we attribute, or what can be the motives for denying the right? They are twofold: those of prejudiced ignorance, dreading the fearful results which have been represented as inevitable; and, on the other hand, despo. tism, which fears lest this knowledge should lead to loss of power, and the fall of their system. Our author devotes his third portion to addresses, founded upon the right and consequent obligation, of men to read the Bible-speaking in the first place to the indifferent and unconcerned; secondly, to the unbelieving; and, lastly, to the believing; and we regret that our space does not admit us to follow him: heartily do we, indeed, join in his emphatic wish. "Sow the land with Gospels-a Bible for every cottage,' said Victor Hugo, (and one of blessed memory before him, our own George III.) We would fain give extension to this prayer; for the philosophy of the academy offers no surer defence against error than the ignorance of the cabin; and the Bible, the only infallible source of religious truth, is no less needful for the wise than the peasant. As the Book of God has been given and belongs to every creature of God, then we in our turn cry-A BIBLE FOR EVERY HOUSE -A BIBLE FOR EVERY MAN!" But this wish cannot be realized; the priests and the journalists forbid. Our eye turns to another and very dissimilar production, (De la Propagande Protestante,) and we are forcibly reminded of one of our old divine's pithy expression, "Fortune is but the devil's spit upon God's providence ;" and this is the slime and venom of the serpent and his seed, cast upon our author and his friends. It will be necessary to inform our readers, that this and a number of similar publications were called into existence by an effort made, on the part of the priests of the liberal kingdom of Belgium! to exclude Mr. Boucher's church from the pale of the law, and to render his position as a minister of Christ untenable in Brussels. His great ability, his uncompromising firmness in combating error, even in its very strongholds-his acknowledged power as a writer and a preacher, made him indeed an antagonist of no mean importance; and while they would have passed others by, whose talents and character rendered them less conspicuous, he was singled out as an object of attack, and the whole venom of the liberal press vented upon him and his adherents. The Prussian minister at the Belgian court, stood manfully forward, however, in his defence, as did also the American chargé d'affaires, Mr. Maxey, and with a due appreciation of the value of English freedom of discussion, as applied to the support and maintenance of the church, these gentlemen called a public meeting of M. Boucher's friends, and passed a series of resolutions approving of his ministry, testifying to its usefulness, and humbly soliciting the king, who could not be indifferent to the cause of a faith he himself professes, to admit M. Boucher within the pale of the law-to confer upon him the same privileges which other ordained ministers possess-and so to legalize his position, that he might enjoy the benefit the constitution assumes to guarantee to every denomination of belief. The matter, we believe, is still pending. It at this hour remains a doubtful question how far the Protestant monarch of a Roman Catholic country can, or dare, assert his own heartfelt convictions, when the cause of popery enters into antagonism with the accomplishment of his desires. Meanwhile the papers teem with attacks upon Protestants and Protestantism. The press groans under the issue of little volumes of abuse and ribaldry, and the charge of an attempt to Protestantize the kingdom of Belgium is boldly fastened upon the English nation, whose efforts to propagate the Bible, and facilitate the reading of the Scriptures, at once expose them to so weighty an accusation The respectable agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and another gentleman, the secretary of the Evangelical Society, and a minister of the Gospel, are placed in the head and front of this offence; yet mainly with the object to wound another, and, as we believe, writhing under the smart of the truth. Both are alike accused of dishonesty and ignorance, and the pamphleteer endeavours to substantiate his charges by proofs. The agent of the Bible Society is accused of wishing to pervert Catholics, by the circulation of Bibles, under the stamp of authority, abusing their confidence, &c. This cannot be done, they say, out of respect to Catholic doctrines, nor from the spread of toleration, or they would not publish contrary to the will of the church, nor mutilate the Scripture, nor lead Catholics to transgress the ecclesiastical laws. Their aim is, then, to Protestantize, i. e., evangelize Catholics, by offering them the Scriptures. We believe that this crimination will not weigh heavily upon either of these gentlemen. We may leave them to the testimony of a conscience void of offence towards God and man, and say for them-how much lighter sits their bosoms, Lord, than if they had left their fellow-sinners weltering in blood, without putting forth a finger to relieve them. We want this feeling more manifested at home, among ourselves a deeper sense of our responsibility to the misguided, blind-led people of the land, and a bolder and more honest avowal of our design to Protestantize, i. e., "to turn them from darkness to light; from Satan's kingdom to that of God's dear Son." It is objected that the agent and secretary should first apply themselves to prove that the church has no power to forbid nor right to restrict the reading or the publication of the Scrip tures. We say answer him. We are not to be called on to prove a negative; let the Church of Rome, "the witness and pillar of truth," prove her own power, not by assertion and penalties, anathemas and inquisitions, but by an appeal to the read M. Boucher, and word of God, and we will close our depositories. Neither are the agents of the society appointed for discussion, but merely for the sale and distribution of the Scriptures. Another grievous accusation turns upon the omission of the apocryphal books from their editions. Answer. The apocryphal books belong to that portion of the Bible called the Old Testament. Now they have never been considered canonical by the Jews-the best witnesses in this matter; they are not written in the language of the original (Hebrew); they are not quoted or referred to by our Saviour or his disciples, nor would they now be so tenaciously adhered to, if it were not supposed that some countenance might be drawn from them for the Romish doctrine of praying for the dead. He states in a foot-note, (page seven,) amongst the errors advanced upon these books," that Jesus Christ and his postles have not spoken of them." Again, let us not be called on to prove a negative; let him produce the quotation. We defy him. By the way; how is it that Rome is such a stickler for the totality of the Bible abroad, and at home so much in love with her "Extracts?" With us the adage is "half a loaf;" with them, "the Bible -the whole Bible-nothing but the Bible"-perhaps, like the Kildare peasant, that all may be burned together, and nothing escape. When Mr. Carlile published the Gospel of St. Luke for the use of the national schools, in which he left the word repentance to mean any thing most convenient-contrition, attrition, penance, or change of heart-then we were told that each book was distinct and separate, came out at a different time, and from different authors. The Belgian worthy delares this rank heresy, and fit for the tender mercies of the inquisition. M. Pascoe Tiddy is accused of theft, in surreptitiously availing himself of the "approbation." We have heard of such accusation before applied to all the Protestant community by a dignified ecclesiastic-" Messieurs ces sont des voleurs." To what purpose, however, have we put our acquisition? Answer. We have translated the Scriptures into one hundred and sixty languages, and circulated millions upon millions of copies of the Scriptures; giving every man "to hear in the tongue wherein he was born the wonderful works of God:" while the church which calls them hers, is contented with locking them up in one language, and that a dead one. We may safely commit the answer of certain impertinences touching the orders, mission, doctrines, &c. of the Evangelical Church at Brussels, to its pastor and minister, and content ourselves with noticing the every-way rational and satisfactory answer prescribed for the use of all fathers and mothers, if invited to avail themselves of the opportunities and advantages of schools conducted upon scriptural principles: tell them "We are catholics, our children are catholics, and we wish to die in the catholic church: no use to speak to us upon religious controversy. We believe all that the catholic church believes. You, you do not believe what that church believes. You reject the devotion towards the holy virgin, our good mother." [He had before accused Protestants of laying to their charge the worship of Mary.] "You do not obey the holy catholic church, the mother of all Christians; and whosoever obeys not the church let him be to thee as a heathen man and a publican.' You may depart; we have no need of your mutilated Bibles, nor of your little heretical books, nor of your evangelical schools. Faith lost, all is lost. No, never shall we sell our infants for a morsel of bread." Pity that this cannot be more widely circulated, for the advantage of all Jews, Turks, heretics, and infidels! Only substitute for "we are catholics" a blank, to be supplied-we are Mahomedans, we are Hindoos, Buddists, &c.; and thus an end of all discussion. Truly, this is to have seared consciences; truly, this is not "to be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear." He speaks of the English style of the tracts-hinc illa lachrymæ. Has France and Belgium so fraternized that England is to be hated on every score? and is her religion, like her linen, to be excluded? He was a scholar, and a ripe good one; Exceeding wise, fair-spoken and persuading; Ir in term time you go into the court the world, nor yet meagre. From his looks you would say he was no longer a young man, though scarcely yet entitled to be classed among the middleaged. His forehead is not very lofty, but straight, and angular at the sides; and it projects above the eyes, which causes them to appear sunken, to which appearance the darkness of the eyelashes also contributes. His nose is straight and short, and the cheek-bones are rather higher and more prominent than is usual in Englishmen. The upper lip is long and large, but not full, and the mouth large. This description will be enough to show that the face is not handsome, but its expression is, as I have said, very intellectual, and the play of his features confirms this first impression. If he is reading his brief, you observe a look of steady concentrated attention—if a brother barrister, who is not "on the other side," that is, not engaged against him, makes a whispered remark, it is generally replied to with a ready smile; if the "attorney in the cause turns round from his seat between the innerbar and the bench, to ask or suggest some information, the look of fixed earnestness in listening is more marked than I ever saw it in any other coun tenance. Such is the personal appearance, so far as I can give it by these few touches, of the present solicitor-general for England, Sir William Follett, a man not yet I believe forty years of age, who has been for the last seven years the most eminent barrister in England. There are many men at the English bar more learned in the particular branch of the profession to which they belong, than he can pre tend to be, but none of them can make in open court such effectual use of their learning. They may know the law applicable to certain circumstances better than he; but none of them can see so quickly, or so clearly, the particular circumstances of a case to which the principles of law will be applied, in order to decide it. Many men have been eminent for gaining causes who had but little legal learn ing. They have relied upon the power and brilliancy of their style, or the energy, vigour, and perseverance of their manner, or perhaps on their knowledge of mankind, and their cun ning adaptation of themselves to the prejudices of those whose favourable judgment they sought to gain. Sir William Follett is not one of these. His legal erudition is not inconsider able; and it extends over an unusually wide field; and if I allude to it in terms that may seem unequal to what might have been expected from the reputation of so great a man, it is only because this is not the point in which his superiority over other men appears. His legal learning either is, or seems to be, always sufficient for the cause he has in hand; and he gains causes by no ardour of temperament-by no remarkable felicity of oratorical powerby no cunning management of judges or of juries-but by the application of a clear, vigorous, practical understanding to the matter in hand: by judiciously striking upon the points which may most favourably be brought for ward; and by a simple, forcible, lucid statement of those points to the court or the jury. In addressing the court no man more happily combines the accuracy and care of the responsible advocate, with the ease and grace of the gentleman. I have heard him accused of occasional slovenliness of expression, but nothing of the kind has ever fallen under my observation. the contrary, I should describe him as On "In verbis etiam tenuis, cautusque serendis " as somewhat delicate, and cautiously careful in his choice of words; but possibly there may be occasions in which he relaxes from this habit. There is no barrister in England so variously employed as Sir W. Follett. The court of Queen's Bench is his court, but every where that causes of high importance are to be argued, he is brought by anxious clients, who think they have not the best assistance, unless they have his. In the House of Lords in the judicial committee of the Privy Council-in the Lord Chancellor's Court occasionally-and in all the common-law courts of Westminster Hall, he is frequently to be found. But with all this business, there is no appearance of bustle about him. You read in his face, or think you read in it a certain wearied appearance of the eyes, the traces of long nights and days of study, but there is no trace of nervous agitation or hurry. All is managed as if with an easy mastery of the subject in hand, neither light and careless, nor painfully deliberate, but in an even manner, with so much of emphasis as to command attention. I have heard that the solicitorgeneral likes better to plead before the House of Lords than elsewhere. Different reasons are assigned for this. Some say it is because it is the highest and most dignified court; others, because the fees are the largest ;-but this, I believe, is a mis take. Not that Sir William is indifferent as to the amount of his feevery far from it; but the fees given for going into the Lords are not, in general, I believe, so large as are given for going "special" into other inferior courts. But one may easily suppose, that considering the public reputation of Sir W. Follett, and the consciousness, which he cannot but possess, of a power and refinement of mind which will engage the attention of the most accomplished judges, he may feel a pride in pleading before such men as generally hear appeals in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, Lord Cottenham, the Earl of Devon, Lord Brougham, Lord Campbell, and, possibly, Lord Denman and Lord Abinger, with other lords of known acuteness of mind, though untrained by professional education, form a tribunal before which any man, however able, may be sure that his best talents will not be thrown away. Besides, in the Lords, an advocate who feels himself above any thing like professional wrangling-who wishes to proceed without interruption in the developement of his case, and the arguments which support it-who trusts to clear, continuous reasoning, rather than to force of manner or subtlety of discussion-finds himself more at home, more in his proper position, than when pitted in a sort of struggle with rival barristers, before judges or juries, in Westminster or at Guildhall. Still, I would rather see and hear the solicitor-general discussing a nice point before the judges of the Queen's Bench, or Common Pleas, than any where else. The interruptions he sometimes receives, and the allusions he is compelled to make to his learned friends, may not, perhaps, be pleasing to himself, but they bring him out, and exhibit a fire and elasticity of mind, which in different circumstances might not be made apparent. I have heard that he is not so well pleased with his work when he has to address juries. In this he is unlike many, and indeed most, men who have been eminent at the common law bar. I do not mean to say I am sure that what I have heard is perfectly accurate, but I should think it very probable; and if I have at all succeeded in conveying what I have |