other bequests, and that in Catholic England of old, as in Catholic Europe at this day, a man was not permitted to leave his land, for any purpose, religious or not, without making reasonable and proper provision for his near relatives; whereas, in Protestant England, the law is just the reverse; it places charitable and religious bequests in a worse position than any other, while, at the same time it makes no provision for wife and family; allowing a man to leave all his land to a prostitute, but not permitting him to leave an acre to a hospital.

Another fact equally opposed to prevalent Protestant prejudices, substantiated by the history of this subject, is that undue influence upon testators to the prejudice of the reasonable claims of relatives (i. e. of near and needy relations), is unknown in a Catholic community; for that wherever, as in this country, law makes no provision for their protection, moral theology prescribes it as a religious duty binding under pain of grievous sin: so that in no case has any Catholic been convicted of a neglect of this duty, whereas it has prevailed extensively since the Reformation-especially since the Revolution, in this country among Protestants: and by reason of its so prevailing, the modern law against testamentary dispositions for pious purposes was passed. And still more: despite the vulgar prejudices of which many not vulgar partake, as to the disposition of priests to use their influence for the purpose of procuring property from testators, it appears, on the contrary, that in no case has any priest used his influence for such a purpose; and whereever priestly influence is used, it is in favour of charity; although, by reason of the law against bequests for Catholic sacred purposes, legacies are often, legally and apparently, personal, and for the priest's own benefit, when morally they are for such spiritual purposes; and to which they are faithfully and honourably applied.*

And, on the other hand, all the cases in which undue influence has been proved to have been exercised are Protestant cases; and instances in which the influence

*See evidence of Mr. Gibson and Mr. Field, 1844.

has been used not for charity but for self; while, on the contrary, all the cases in which undue influence has been alleged against Catholic priests, are cases in which the object has been not self, but charity.

Of course a subject so fertile in facts so interesting and instructive, has no common claims upon the attention of all who love truth and justice; and it is submitted that it eminently illustrates the fallacies of popular impressions and prevalent prejudices.*

The learned Protestant lawyer, the late Mr. Burge, said in his evidence on this subject:-" It has been represented, I think erroneously, that the statutes of Mortmain were passed for the purpose of protecting the people of England against the rapacity of the clergy, and against their ignorance and superstition. I have not met with any statements in old books, which would lead me to suppose that this was the popular opinion. I should say rather that most probably writers and historians were misled. I refer particularly to those who have spoken of the gross ignorance' of the clergy. For instance, we find in Robertson, from whence Mr. Hallam borrowed his statement as a representation of the state of the clergy at that time and of their gross ignorance, that at a visitation the question put to them was whether they could read. Now the question was not whether they could read, but read well; (the word 'bene' is suppressed), and the reading referred to was not simple reading but chanting." Here is a specimen of the manner in which and the means by which Protestant prejudices have been created and cherished on this subject by slanders, as Junius said, "invented by knaves and made current by fools"; started by dishonest writers and copied with servile fidelity by writers superficial and shallow.+

* "He founded a monastery, for he was most pious", says a chronicle. So then, will Robertsons and their followers say, this was the grand proof of their piety! Attend a little, you hasty judge, "for he was most pious, a lover of the poor, and of all that appertained to God." (Mores Catholici, b. i, c. 6.)

† Evidence of Mr. Burge, Report of 1844.

See the Essay, further on, where a most malignant misrepresentation is traced down from the time of Hardwicke to the last edition of Blackstone.

One main motive of the present writer is, to expose the misrepresentations thus incorporated in public opinion by successive legal authorities from Lord Hardwicke (the author of the modern law) to the present day. And the writer might venture, as expressing his own purpose and intention, to cite the language, so eloquent and so just of Sir F. Palgrave:-"I wish my evidence to be taken as the means of leading others to consider the question impartially, and especially to examine the propriety of submitting any longer to the thraldom of the traditionary opinions of the last century. We are now wholly governed by the traditions of Blackstone, and Delolme, and Robertson, and other writers of that description (or Adam Smith), whose opinions are taken entirely as law, without the slightest investigation as to their relevancy or -truth. All these writers have contributed to fetter public opinion upon the subject of mortmain, and to prevent that freedom of thinking which results from the investigation of facts. The main cause of the popular prejudice is the habit of taking traditionary opinions upon trust. People will rarely take the trouble of examining the grounds of the opinions they have formed. If they would do so, they would find that this feeling would disappear, except among those who are adverse to every species of perpetual endowment or to every permanent donation in favour of objects of religion or charity. As to those who consider that all charitable foundations are detrimental, their opinions will continue as they are. But all persons, of whatever religious class or political opinion, who are favourable to the principle of permanent endowments for religious or charitable purposes, will see, if they simply examine the case upon its true grounds, that they uphold the proscription of such endowments, without that impartial investigation which they would give to any other question of policy."

With respect to the modern law itself, the late Mr. Jarman, then the most eminent of living conveyancers, many years ago published his opinion," that the law produces much litigation and many attempts at evasion, as is always the case where the feelings of mankind are not in unison with the statute-book.

Against this law, therefore, the writer fights under the shadow of the great modern Protestant names of Jarman, Palgrave, and Burge; and he may add, under the great ancient Protestant names of Bacon and Coke ; for, as Sir F. Palgrave justly says, "the feelings and language of Lord Coke form a singular contrast with the opinions of Lord Hardwicke, a great judge, but one whose narrow nay bigoted views have caused much mischief to charitable uses"; and all the evidence shews that at the age of the Revolution there was a grievous change in the policy of the law as respects charity, compared with that which prevailed at the Reformation ; and that Cowper and Hardwicke reversed the policy of Bacon and Coke.*

The "narrow nay bigoted views" of Lord Hardwicke, however, unhappily prevail at this day in the profession, in the public, and in parliament; Lord Hardwicke was a great hater of Popery, and put in force most eagerly the persecuting laws preventing Catholics from holding lands. In his time, the most eager haters of Catholicity were the enemies of charity, and so in our own days; those who maintain the modern law, declaim against the rapacity of the priests and denounce the arts of the clergy. This is the language of Paine; and the

* What the modern law actually is, may be judged from one of the first cases occurring under it.

"In 1719 Roger Troutbeck left England a poor mariner, and never returned, dying in 1785. He made his will, not being aware that the statute of George II had passed, and his will contained this recital :'As I have no relation or kindred alive (to my knowledge or belief), having outlived them all, and whereas it is natural for all men to have regard for their native place, where the seeds of their education were planted, I therefore bequeath, etc.' (giving the whole of his property on certain trusts, the general object being to complete and increase the charity school in Wapping, where he had been educated as an orphan.)

Although, however, he had no heirs or next of kin that he knew of, and though none appeared when the advertisements were put in the papers, by the order of the Court of Chancery the property was confiscated under the act of George II, and went to the Crown. The proceeds were spent on the Royal Pavilion at Brighton, and the poor of Wapping were deprived of the intended bounty of the testator. See evidence of Mr. Anstey, First Report, Committee 1851, p. 502.

law was passed in an age of scepticism; in an age when Bishop Butler declares it was deemed a mark of imbecility to avow belief in Revelation; and when contemporary history shows universal corruption, debauchery, and depravity. It was in such an age, that the coarsest prejudices against Catholicity prevailed, and were made the means of passing the first law against charity.

The present publication is directed, not merely so much against the law itself, as against the feelings and prejudices in which it originated: and, as it was a law against charity, passed from prejudices against Catholicity, so this little work pleads at once in favour of charity, and seeks to dissipate some popular prejudices against the religion which, by common consent, is emphatically the religion of charity-the religion which founded our cathedrals, our churches, our colleges, and the old religious houses, with all their magnificent hospitality, and their munificent works of mercy.

Nor is it only against prejudices prevailing in the public mind that these pages are directed; it is also designed to expose some instances in which, both in courts of law and committees of the House of Commons, these prejudices have been permitted to produce flagrant injustice. It is well that such cases should be recorded

not for purposes of reproach as to the past, but of warning for the future. There have been days-dark days in our history, when courts of law were scenes of oppression, and committees of the House of Commons perpetrators of persecution. These pages are commended to all who do not desire to see those days revived; to all lovers of charity, of justice, and of truth.

It is a curious fact, that to the religious houses of the Catholic Church, to which originally the ancient laws of mortmain applied, those laws now no longer apply; because, being under anti-Catholic laws illegal, they are not recognized as corporations, i. e. bodies having perpetual succession; and the consequence is, the virtual confiscation of any bequests to them as such bodies.*

* See case of Carberry v. Cox, Appendix.