replied, "I have nothing to give you ;" but feeling instinctively in his pocket, he found therein to his great surprise a small packet containing six florins, and an image of the virgin. Of course this could be nothing else than a veritable godsend, which was given forthwith to the lucky beggar, who trudged off well pleased with the prize. As it turned out, however, the worthy curé, dressing himself in the dark, had slipped into his guest's inexpressibles; and scarcely had the unexpected bounty been gratefully acknowledged before the shrine of Our Lady, than the appearance of the monk to claim his habiliments unveiled the mystery. "God will repay thee, brother," said this charitable host; and the traveller pursued his journey. The rebuilding of the church of Notre-Dame-de Finisterre commenced in 1618, but it was not completed until the year 1712. A dome, surmounted by a lantern of copper, was added in 1828, and the entablature over the Doric portal was only finished in 1830. In the interior, the perfect symmetry observable in the architectural details, and the quiet light which is shed over the whole building, produce the most delightful effect upon the beholder. Twelve columns of the composite order, and resting on marble slabs, support the roof, and separate the nave from the aisles. The pulpit, by Duray, is finely sculptured. Above the maitre-autel, which is in the form of a tomb, are two angels, supporting the Ark of the Tabernacle; and over the stalls in the choir are medallions of the twelve Apostles, painted by Van der Heyden, which can scarcely be surpassed in beauty of design and richness of colouring. At Ghent, where the Beguines are more numerous than in any other part of Belgium, the Conventual Church is a Gothic structure of very great antiquity. It stands in the middle of a sort of close, surrounded by old and irregular buildings; and is well worth a visit, especially at the time when the nuns are at their devotions. About 400 of the sisterhood, habited in their peculiar costume, and kneeling with their faces buried in their hoods in front of the altar, present a very striking appearance; and the music which accompanies the ceremony of the salut is generally selected from the most approved compositions. The interior of the church is especially remarkable for its extreme neatness, even in comparison with the universal attention which the continental churches receive in this respect. - In the Flemish churches generally, and in those of the Beguines in particular, the stranger's curiosity is forcibly attracted by the waxen figures of the various limbs of the body which are attached to the walls, and hung upon the arms, or about the necks of their favourite saints. These singular objects are the votive offerings of individuals seeking the aid of a saint in curing some malady affecting the particular member there suspended; and it is difficult to repress a smile at the sight of the legs, and feet, and eyes, and ears, like the limbs of so many wax dolls. To such an extent of absurdity is this practice carried, that little waxen pigs are sometimes offered, in order to obtain success in the fattening of a litter of young grunters. Sometimes the niche in which the offering is suspended is lighted by means of tapers, fixed on a stand something like a music-desk, and ornamented with garlands of flowers. Ridiculous as all this mummery is, to Protestant feelings it cannot fail to be highly disgusting. LAW REPORT. No. XL.-LADY HEWLEY'S CHARITIES.-(Continued from p. 232.) ATTORNEY-GENERAL v. SHORE AND OTHERS. LORD LYNDHURST. - This case was originally argued before the late Chancellor, in the presence of two of the judges. Circumstances to which it is not necessary that I should particularly advert, prevented that noble and learned lord from pronouncing any decision upon it. I regret that the parties were deprived of the benefit of his judgment. The case was afterwards argued before me, with the assistance of the learned judges who are now present. It was argued with great ability and learning, and every thing was urged at the bar that could throw light upon the subject, or that could properly be submitted for the consideration of the Court. For myself, I certainly could have wished that I had not been called upon to pronounce a decision upon such a question; but the parties on both sides have expressed a wish that I should decide it, and I have felt it my duty to comply with their request. It must be satisfactory to those who are interested in the case, that I have had, upon this occasion, the assistance and advice of judges, so much distinguished for their intelligence, experience, and learning. It is highly satisfactory indeed to me, not so much from any difficulty that exists in the Case, as on account of its importance to the parties who are interested in it; and I may add, also, on account of its importance to the public. I agree entirely in what has been stated by the learned judges, as to the principle upon which this case must be decided. In every case of charity, whether directed to religious purposes, or to purposes purely civil, it is the duty of the Court to give effect to the intention of the founder, provided this can be done without infringing any rule of law. The principle is uniformly acted upon in Courts of Equity. If, as the learned judges have stated, the deed of foundation VOL. XVIII. NO. V. be clear and precise,-clear and precise in the language and in its application,-the course of the Court is free from difficulty. If, on the other hand, the terms which are made use of are obscure or equivocal, either in themselves or in the application of them, it then becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain, as well as it is able, from extrinsic circumstances, what was the intention of the founder of the charity,-in what sense, and with what view, the particular expressions were used. It is a question of evidence, and that evidence will vary with the circumstances of each particular case. It is a question of fact, to be ascertained, and the moment the fact is settled, the application of the principle is clear and easy. the It can scarcely be necessary to cite authorities in support of these doctrines; they are founded in the plainest principles of common sense and justice;—but if it were necessary to quote any authority upon such a point, I might refer to the case which has been already mentioned Attorney-General v. Pearson, and to the case in the House of Lords, which was cited at the Bar. Throughout the judgments, delivered in those cases, these principles were acknowledged and acted upon by the noble and learned lord who presided, and whose experience in Courts of Equity, and especially in questions of this nature, was more extensive than that of any other living person. I look upon it, then, that these principles are settled, and that they do not admit of doubt or controversy. What, then, was the intention of the foundress of this Charity? what the objects and the purposes to which it was directed? We look at the Deed of Foundation, (I refer to the Deed of 1704) and find that the objects were to assist poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel; to assist poor and godly widows of the Q Q same description of persons; to promote and encourage the preaching of Christ's holy gospel in poor districts and places; to assist in the education of persons intended for the ministry of Christ's holy gospel; to assist poor and godly persons in distress: those are the objects of the Deed of 1704. The Deed of 1707 provides for the maintenance of ten poor persons in certain almshouses that were founded by Lady Hewley. The rest of the property is directed to be applied to the same objects as are mentioned in the original Deed of 1704. This is the substance of the provisions of the two deeds, and the first question that arises, and, indeed, almost the only question, is this:Whom did the foundress of this Charity mean to designate by poor and godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel? and what were the principles and doctrines of which she intended to encourage and promote the preaching? It may be said that the expression poor and godly preachers"- is clear and precise; but it is admitted on both sides, as well by the relator as on the part of the defendants, that it does not include ministers of the Established Church. However poor, however godly and pious, they were not intended to be included; it is so admitted by the parties, and rightly. It appears, therefore, that the terms 66 poor and godly preachers" are to be taken with some limitation, some restriction; and the question, therefore, is-What are the proper limitations and retsrictions in this instance? It is important, in the first place, to endeavour to ascertain what were the particular religious opinions of Lady Hewley, the foundress of this Charity. There can be no doubt that she was, in her religious faith and opinions, a Presbyterian. It is a matter of history that she was so. It is admitted by the answer of Mr. Wellbeloved, and others of the defendants. It is proved by the evidence in the cause; by the testimony of those respectable witnesses to whom the learned Judge has referred. not contested by any contradictory It is evidence. It is proved that she attended the chapel which she herself, I believe, built, and in part endowed, -Saint Saviour Gate Chapel,—and which is admitted to have been a Presbyterian Chapel. Doctor Colton, the preacher at that chapel, was an acknowledged Presbyterian. He was her religious adviser; he was the executor to her will; he preached her funeral sermon. All these circumstances lead satisfactorily to the conclusion that she was in her opinions a Presbyterian. This being so, the next question that presents itself is, What were the doctrines and opinions of the Presbyterians of that time? upon this also I think no reasonable doubt can be entertained. The Presbyterians of that day objected only to those Articles of the Established Church that relate to matters of discipline and church government; they did not object to any of the doctrinal Articles of the Church of England. It is stated by the witnesses, and there is no contradictory evidence, that they were believers in the Trinity and in the Doctrine of Original Sin, as contained in the Articles of the Church of England. If we go further, we find the same points, to a degree at least, admitted in the answers of Mr. Wellbeloved, and others of the defendants. "Very many," they say, "of the Presbyterians of that day believed in the doctrine of the Trinity." The admission is qualified indeed by the terms "very many," which admit of some latitude of construction; but coupling this with the evidence, I am justified, I think, in coming to the conclusion, that the great body of the Presbyterians were, in their opinions, Trinitarians. But that which appears to me to be decisive upon the subject is a document that was referred to in the course of the argument; namely, the Heads of Agreement entered into between the Presbyterians and the Independents in the year 1691. In the eighth section of those heads of agreement, entitled, "Of a Confession of Faith," they say that "they hold either the doctrinal part of those, commonly called the Articles of the Church of England, or the Confession or Catechism, shorter or larger, compiled by the Assembly at Westminster, or the Confession agreed on at the Savoy, to be agreeable to their rule of faith and practice." That document, therefore, appears to me to be decisive upon the question, because the articles to which they refer, namely, those of the Church of England, the Confession, the Shorter and Larger Catechism, and the Confession agreed on at the Savoy, all contain expressly and distinctly Trinitarian doctrines. If it were necessary to proceed further in this case for the purpose of showing what were the opinions of the Presbyterians at that time, I might refer to the Act of Toleration. It is well known that the Dissenters were consulted in framing that act, and that they were satisfied generally with its provisions. But we find in the seventeenth section, that no person is allowed to preach, or is relieved from the penalties for preaching imposed by former Acts of Parliament, unless be subscribes the Articles of the Church of England, with the exception of the 34th, 35th, 36th, and part of the 20th, which do not relate to doctrinal matters, but merely to Church government, and matters of that description. Upon the whole of this evidence, I am satisfied, (and I think no reasonable doubt can be entertained upon the question,) that the great body of the Presbyterians, as well as Independents of that period, namely, about the commencement of the eighteenth century, believed in the doctrines of the Trinity and of Original Sin, contained in the Articles of the Church of England, and other documents, to which I have referred. Was Lady Hewley, then, an exception to this general rule as to belief with reference to these doctrines? If she was a Presbyterian, and the general doctrines of Presbyterianism were such as I have stated, it seems incumbent upon those who would contend that she was an exception as to the general belief, to produce some evidence of the fact; the burden of proof is upon those who would make that assertion or suggestion. But waiving this, what are the probabilities of the case? It is well known that the principles of Unitarianism were at first not only very coldly received, but were listened to with aversion, and even with disgust, more particularly among the laity. Lady Hewley, at the time to which I am referring, was a person advanced in life: is it probable then that she should have adopted these opinions; that she should have deviated from those who surrounded her, and in whom she had confidence, upon points which, in one of the documents before me, are stated, I think, by Dr. Kenrick, to have been considered by all churches as essential? There is another consideration that presents itself, arising out of the situation and character of Lady Hewley. She had attracted much attention; she was a person of great piety, of a certain rank, of great and extensive charity. It must have been known, it would have been a subject of general notoriety, if she had entertained these opinions. It must have come down to us as a matter of history, had she entertained Unitarian opinions, as in the case of Firmin, who resembled her in the benevolence of his disposition and character. But it is not necessary to rely upon probabilities in this case; we have direct evidence of the fact. The witnesses who have been so often referred to, declare that she was a believer in the Trinitarian doctrines, and upon this point, as upon the others to which I have referred, there is no contradictory evidence. If we advert to the answers of Mr. Wellbeloved, and others of the defendants, what is it that they say as to this point? They do not deny that she entertained Trinitarian opinions, -that she was a Trinitarian in her belief; on the contrary, they say that "they have heard and believe that very many of the Presbyterians of that period were Trinitarians; but, save from the probability arising from such circumstances, they cannot say whether she, in her religious belief, was a Trinitarian." They admit, therefore, the probability of her having been a Trinitarian, which is in substance to the same effect, though not so strong in the expression as what Mr. Wellbeloved is reported to have stated upon this subject to the Commissioners; for in their Report they say that "Mr. Wellbeloved concludes, from Lady Hewley's attendance at the chapel during Dr. Colton's time, and from the general state of religious opinions at that period, that she did not entertain what are commonly called Unitarian sentiments." But the evidence, as to this important part of the case, does not rest here. Dr. Colton is admitted to have been a Trinitarian: no doubt is entertained upon this point. Dr. Colton must have been a Trinitarian, because, as he was the preacher at St. Saviour Gate Chapel, he of course subscribed the Articles agreeably to the 17th section of the Toleration Act; and we cannot presume that he would bave subscribed those articles fraudulently, more particularly when we consider his character for learning and piety. Dr. Colton, therefore, was a Trinitarian; and, as I have already stated, he was the preacher at Lady Hewley's chapel. He was her adviser in religious matters; he was the executor to her will; he preached her funeral sermon, and in that sermon there is the strongest evidence of the double fact of Dr. Colton himself being a Trinitarian, and of Lady Hewley, with whose sentiments he was intimate, entertaining also the same opinions. Never, therefore, was there a stronger body of evidence leading to any conclusion than this, to show that Lady Hewley did not entertain Unitarian opinions. But further. There is a document which has been adverted to by the learned Judges, namely, Bowles's Catechism, and which was much relied upon in the argument at the bar. Passing by the question as to the Trinity, (although the witnesses who are conversant with the subject state that Bowles's Catechism is to be considered as a Trinitarian catechism,) this at least is clear, that the doctrine of Original Sin is contained in that catechism in the most clear and distinct terms. I agree entirely with what the learned Judges have stated, that when Lady Hewley requires, as a qualification for those persons who are to be admitted into the almshouse, that they should be able to repeat by heart Bowles's Catechism, she must be taken to have assented to the doctrines contained in it. If so, the evidence is clear that she was a believer in the doctrine of Original Sin. And if we may rely upon the testimony of the witnesses who state that this is a Trinitarian catechism, then that also establishes the fact of her being a believer in the doctrine of the Trinity. The facts, then, which I consider as established, are these: that Lady Hewley was a Presbyterian, and that the Presbyterians of that period were believers in the Trinity, and in the doctrine of Original Sin. I have further satisfied myself that Lady Hewley was not an exception to the general belief of that class of Dissenters to which she belonged, but that she also was a believer in the same doctrines. This, then, being the case, we are prepared for the more satisfactory consideration of the next question, namely: What did she mean by "godly preachers of Christ's holy gospel?" What were the doctrines, the preaching of which she meant to promote and encourage? Is it reasonable to suppose-is it at all probable, that she intended to found a Charity and to bestow her property to promote the preaching of doctrines directly at variance with her own opinions? and this not as to subordinate, and trifling, and formal matters, but with respect to points that have always been considered by every Church as essential, and which she herself must have so considered. When I say points which have always been considered as essential, I am not using my own expressions, or relying on my own opinions alone; they are the expressions and the opinions of a very learned person, Dr. Kenrick, one of the defendants in this suit. In the sermon lying before me, he says, "If others have established a distinction between those essential articles of faith which cannot be rejected without perdition, and |