"Here I am

Riding upon a black ram,
And for my crineum crancum
I have lost my bincum bancum,
And for my game

Have done this worldly shame, Therefore pray, Mr. Steward, give me back my land again."

(See Ruffh. dict. tit: Free bench-)

The following is curious, not only as a specimen of Norman French, but for containing a description, written so long ago as the eleventh century, of what were then considered the necessary qualifications of a good lawyer. It is quoted in the notes to Stephen's Pl. from the assizes of Jerusalem :"Il convient a ce lui que qui est bon pliedoir et soutill, que il soit sage de son naturel, et que il ait esprit sein, et soutill engin, et que il ne soit dontif, ne esbay, ne houtous, ne hatif, ne nonchallant el plait, ne que il ait s'entente ne sa pensee aillors tant com il pleidoie, et que il se garde de se trop corrouer, ne agrier, ne ehmouvoir en pleidoiant," exxiv. "A good pleader ought to have good sense, sound understanding, and a subtle genius; he should be free from the faults of indecision, timidity, false modesty, haste, and non chalance; while he pleads he should keep his attention from wandering to any other subject, and should also take care to avoid impetuosity, heat, and asperity."

AT no time within our memory has the public anxiety been more intense, respecting the conduct of a public body, in whom, hitherto, in all things relating to the interests of religion, great confidence was reposed, than is felt, at the present moment, concerning the Synod of Ulster. The agreement, in many essentials, between that body and the Church of England, could not fail to be gratifying to the lover of scriptural truth; and that they should have concurred, as it was thought they did, respecting the merits, or demerits, of the Education Board, so as to repudiate all connection with it, as a trespass against light and knowledge, also augured favorably for the interests of true religion. But that agreement no longer prevails. The Synod and

the Board are now united. And, it is our painful duty to add, a shock has been given to public confidence by, what we must call, this monstrous union, such as it has seldom been our lot to witness. We proceed, with as much temper and calmness as we can command, to offer such comments upon this strange transaction, as may serve to exhibit it in its true light, and enable our readers to judge, how far the members of the Church of England should look upon it as a warning, or an example.

And here, we must expressly state, that we have no intention whatsoever to criminate the Synod, as though, in consenting to bring their schools under the National Board, they were guilty of any departure from either the letter

or the spirit of their own propositions of 1833. We take our stand upon higher ground, and ask ourselves the question, will the union of the Synod with the National Board, upon the terms stated by Dr. Cooke, conduce, generally, to the advantage of a sound system of instruction throughout the whole of the country? That is, surely, the way in which a religious man, or a religious body, ought to consider this important question. It is not enough that such a body should be able to assent to it, without any compromise of its own consistency, as regarded former declarations. We would not hear the enemies of the Synod of Ulster say, that they are willing to look to the interests of their own schools alone; and, provided that is secured, to be indifferent to the general good of the Irish people. And therefore it is that we put the question upon higher ground than that of the agreement or non-agreement of what has lately been done, with certain propositions formerly laid down as the basis of an arrangement; and we ask, supposing there is no reason whatever for insinuating a doubt respecting the consistency of the Presbyterian body in this transaction, is the system of instruction to which the Synod has thus given its sanction, one of which an enlightened Christian can approve? and are the modifications which have taken place in it, (for we are willing to concede, for the sake of the argument, that the Board have come into the terms of the Synod, instead of the Synod having come into the terms of the Board,) such, as to render it safe and expedient for the clergy of the Church of England to "go and do likewise."

Now, in the first place, it is to be observed, whatever is to be conceded by the Board to the Presbyterians, must be understood as conceded by them to every other religious body with whom they are connected.

The

Synod lay claim to no superiority above any other religious sect. Their stipulations for themselves imply the obvious reasonableness of similar stipulations in favour of any other Christian community which may seek to form a similar connection. This being admitted, we can bring the matter at issue to a very simple test. Let us take the fourth demand of the Synod, viz. :-" That their school-rooms may be used for a

lawful purpose," e. g. for Presbyterian worship on Sundays ;-does it not follow directly from this, that the schoolrooms of the Roman Catholics may be used in a similar manner, namely, for the celebration of the Romish service! Is Doctor Cooke, is the Synod of Ulster, prepared to sanction such a proceeding as that? And, can any advantage which they may derive to themselves, either expiate the national sin, or compensate the national mischief, of turning four-fifths of the national schools into popish chapels, and providing, by a national grant, for the dissemination of the popish superstition throughout Ireland ?

Again, if the Presbyterians, as managers, may so arrange the business as to include suitable instruction in the catechism and the Bible, the Romish priest, where the Romanists are numerous, may make corresponding arrangements, agreeable to his peculiar views. Dr. Cooke knows well the sort of books and the kind of instruction which he may thus have an opportunity of introducing. Is it desirable to give him that opportunity? And, upon the principles lately acted upon by the Synod, how could it be refused? How could they deny to others, the same liberty which they contended for, as meet to be conceded to themselves? And that liberty being once admitted, what, we would ask, is to prevent the priest turning the school to account as a mere lecture-room for inculcating upon his youthful flock the dogmas of popery, and indoctrinating them in the vitiating theology which has lately been detected, and exposed to the indignation of the empire? Is Dr. Cooke, is the Synod of Ulster prepared to sanction such a system as that? If not, let them retrace their steps; for assuredly their adhesion to it makes them partakers in its abominations.

Another mighty triumph of the Synod over the scruples of the Board appears to be, that the Presbyterians may ingraft their schools upon the Board, fixing their own regulations. But what is that but to contend that Romanists may have the same privilege ;-the privilege of being governed by just such rules and regulations as may be entirely satisfactory to themselves! Does not the reader, at one single glance, see the latitude which would thus be afforded to every mischievous evasion? The rules, hitherto, have

not been stringent enough, to prevent the most mischievous abuses. What will not be the case when such abuses are legitimatised, and the rules so altered, that they can no longer be complained of, or prevented?

The

Upon the whole, the effect of this Presbyterian movement is, to give a bad system the adhesion of a religious body, upon terms which make it positively worse than it was before. advantage of the arrangement to the Presbyterians is, that a certain small sum of money is secured to themselves, for the education of a small fraction of the people. The disadvantage of it is, that it perpetuates, for the great majority of the people, a system vicious in principle, and rendered, by the laxity of the new regulations, ten times more vicious in practice than it was before.

The Church of England is now left alone to contend against this great evil. We trust she will be found faithful in this hour of trial, and not, for any paltry individual advantage, compromise the truth of God. Dr. Cooke would, perhaps, tell us, that neither he, nor the Synod, are guilty, because of the consequences which flow from the new arrangement between them and the Board. But our view of the matter is very simple. Does the connection thus formed, or does it not, tend to give the Board a stability and a consequence which it had not before? Does it, or does it not, tend to guarantee its continued existence? If it do, then justly are the parties to that arrangement chargeable with all the consequences which may follow from it, when, without their active co-operation, it must have been, comparatively, without reputation, and powerless. When modified according to their wishes, they set to their seal that it is a good system; and that, although the modifications, which, in one sense, favour them, must, in another, prove still more extensively favourable to the disseminators of a foul and pestilent superstition! In this respect, we humbly trust that the clergy of our pure and scriptural church will never follow their example.

And now, respecting the propositions of the Synod in 1833, to which Dr. Cooke refers as the justification of the step which he and his brethren have taken, we entreat the attention of the reader to his own evidence given before a committee of the House

of Commons, on June the 26th, 1837. He is asked whether a certain individual referred to is prepared to abide by the principle and the substance of these resolutions. His answer is, "I take that for granted; though I confess I would not now make the offer myself of these propositions; AND I BLESS GOD THAT THE COMMISSIONERS DID NOT ACCEDE TO THEM; BECAUSE WE SHOULD THEN HAVE MADE OURSELVES PARTIES TO WHAT I BElieve to be A GREAT ERROR; AND I THINK WE COULD NOT HAVE OBTAINED THE BLESSING OF GOD UNDER IT, IF THERE HAD BEEN A DECIDED PROPOSAL, OR A WRONG PRINCIPLE, MADE BY OURSELVES, AND ACCEDED TO." Such was Dr. Cooke's opinion then; and is it possible for words to convey more strongly a condemnation of the conduct which he has been induced to pursue on the late occasion? Assuredly we remain of the Doctor's opinion, that it will not obtain the blessing of God. When asked whether he did not think that a different system was impracticable, his answer is, "I would not exactly say that; BUT I BELIEVE EVERY GOOD THING IS PRACTICABLE, IF THOSE WHO DESIRE IT ARE TRUE TO THEIR PRINCIPLES; AND I DARE NOT SAY THAT A BETTER SYSTEM IS NOT PRACTICABLE." Such is the ground which Dr. Cooke has abandoned; and such is the ground which the clergy of the Church of England will, we trust, never abandon.

But, perhaps we will be told, that, as the system was in operation, the Presbyterians were only bound to consider, how they might make the most of it; that they could not control it, for the purposes of evil for which it was employed; and that they were at liberty, and, indeed, bound to take advantage of it, for any good to which it might be converted. Be it so. We judge not for them. They are the best judges of what is suitable to their own principles. But we rejoice to

say, such is not the view which has been taken of the subject by the clergy of the Church of England. They will not accept of a boon to themselves, when its acceptance implies the recognition of a system which they believe to compromise the truth of God, and to be deeply injurious to the spiritual interests of the great majority of the people. Nobly has Hugh M Neile expressed the sentiments of that great body, when ap

Alas! alas! Have they not been taken by "the crafty wiliness" of the Board? and does not their recent conduct render them wholly incapable of making any vigorous opposition to the dissemination of those unscriptural errors, against which they before bore their testimony, as Protestant Christians?

We have before us a letter signed "Robert Stewart," professing to come from a fellow-deputy of Dr. Cooke, to the memorable conference which ended in the adhesion of the Synod of Ulster to the National Board; and who thus disposes of the objection, that by consenting to a union with that body, they became partakers of their sins. This objection, he observes, "would be considerably more at home in the mouth of a Cameronian, or a Covenanter;" "but sounds strangely from the lips of a staunch prelatist," who knows" that the bishops of his own loved communion'' are nominated by the very cabinet who appoint, support, and encourage the Board, and from the composition of which cabinet there is no law to exclude Romanists." Now, if this was said for the purpose of pointing out an abuse, which ought to be remedied, and stimulating those whom it concerns to find a remedy for it, it would be all very well. For, we fully admit, that a very great evil is involved in the mode in which our prelates are appointed at present; and that our church cannot be safe, until that mode is altered. We believe the individual, the Rev. Mr. Drew, of Belfast, to whom the above impertinence was addressed, is very sensible of this, and ready to fall in with any wise and scriptural plan that may be proposed, for rescuing the church, to which he belongs, and of which he is an ornament, from profane, or secular, or incompetent appointments; nor does his acting under the present ecclesiastical authorities, and acquiescing in present arrangements, until better may be found, imply, in the slightest degree, an approbation of that system, where it is defective or injurious; or debar him, in the least, from using his best exertions to procure a remedy for its admitted evils.

But can the same be said of the Protestant supporters of the National Board? Are they, having consented to receive its aid, free to act against

it as a system for the dissemination of a foul and leprous superstition? Will the author of this letter say so? and will he prove his saying by his acts? Will he come forward and denounce the National Board, as Mr. Drew would not fail to come forward and denounce the College of Maynooth, as a seminary which should never be supported by a Protestant state, and which is profluent of innumerable evils? No. The sneaking sophist would never do so; nor can we believe that he was otherwise than convinced in his heart of the utter unfairness of the analogy which he instituted, when he compared the endurance of an evil, until a remedy for it may be found, with that co-partnership with iniquity by which evil becomes established, and all attempts to find a remedy for it must prove fruitless.

And here, we are most anxious not to be misunderstood, when we talk of men "being partakers of other men's sins." Do we say, or do we think, that a sincere and zealous Romanist is guilty of sin, in seeking, by all allowable means, to forward the spread of popery? Or, that a Socinian, being conscientiously such, is guilty of sin, in seeking to disseminate the pestilent heresy, of the truth of which he is persuaded? Assuredly not. Doctor Murray and Mr. Holmes are but acting according to "the light that is in them," when they avail themselves of their present opportunities, to favour the advancement of those religious views to which they are respectively attached. To them, being what they are, it is no sin so to do; whatever may be the guilt or the error, to which, unhappily, it is owing, that they are, at present, so far estranged from the truth. But to those who believe that they are woefully in error, and who yet consent to be parties with them to a system which contributes largely to the diffusion of that error, TO THEM IT IS SIX. Dr. Cooke and Dr. Stewart are both of them convinced of this; and yet they are both of them subscribing parties to the system which enables Dr. Murray to propagate popery, without stint or limit; and Mr. Holmes to disseminate Socinianism to his heart's content; and they are totally disabled, by their own voluntary act, from uttering any protest, or taking any active measures against it! Is this a case which any honest man could describe as re