PRICES OF CANAL SHARES, DOCK STOCKS, &c.

At the Office of R. W. Moore, 5, Bank Chambers, Lothbury.

NOTICES TO CORRESPONDENTS.

Burgovallensis" has unquestionably some reason to complain; but the Editor regrets to say, that the department of Parish Churches has utterly failed. Every other part of the Magazine has succeeded beyond expectation, and a full and overflowing supply of contributions has been obtained. But in this, which seemed likely to answer many good purposes, there has been a great deficiency. There have been some papers of great beauty, (such, for instance, as those of Mr. Townsend, praised in the last "Quarterly,") but the supply soon failed, and not above two or three of these papers have been received for a long time. The Editor regrets this, for it was a favourite plan of his once. There seemed an opening for much purè, beautiful, and wholesome feeling, apart from all party and controversy. But what must be, must be; and it seems in vain to try this any longer. The money, therefore, before devoted by the proprietors to the purpose of a plate, will now be given to obtaining more reviews. Perhaps "Burgovallensis" will be a little sorry for his hard remarks on some of the plates, when he is told that they, in common with the circumstances just mentioned, tended to bring about the change. If, after the trouble and expense of getting plates, they gave so little satisfaction as these did to him, why go on? Has any notion what the expense of a much better plate every month would be? He must remember, that, in engravings for every month in the year, people do not count by pounds, but by tens, and even hundreds.

A correspondent, who signs himself "Latens," asks the following question : - The Guardians of the Poor of the district in which I live, (acting, I suppose, under orders of the Commissioners,) refuse to pay the clergyman's fee for the burial of paupers. Have I any remedy?

Many thanks to "A Medical Man" for his excellent letter on Vivisections. It was impossible to use it in this number, but it is intended to use it as soon as room can be found.

"Canonicus" must excuse the non-appearance of the P. S. to his letter in this Number. It was believed to be in the hands of the printer, but he will be the first to excuse this accident, as he will know that it was not unlikely to occur.

The Editor cannot forbear repeating his earnest request for abstracts of important meetings, proceedings, &c., rather than the newspapers which contain a long account of the matterεov nμov avтos, and 'bis dat qui cito dat,' are truly applicable here. Many thanks to those who have answered his former requests, and thus enabled him to give much useful

matter.

It is well to warn all persons against a cheap edition of the Pensées de Pascal, published this year at Paris by a bookseller named Hiard, because, being commonly found in London, it may do harm. The mischief of the edition consists in its having an appendix containing notes from Voltaire, who was as incompetent to detect faults in Pascal's reasoning, as he was incapable of estimating his piety.

"B. Q" is quite mistaken about the Lyra Apostolica and Samaria. What difficulty can there be about the matter? Among non-episcopalians, there are, to speak generally, two classes. The one, scoffs at all notions of a succession in the ministry, and at all belief that any commission from God is necessary for a man to minister in spiritual things between God and man, to preach God's word, and administer his sacraments. When A, B, or C, the first man whom we may meet in the street, likes to say that he is called to be a minister, the justice of the peace, or a quarter sessions' licence, or any ceremony he may please to go through, with any persons he may please to officiate at it, are quite competent to make him an able minister of the New Testament. Any one, in short, may act in God's name; and a body of Christians, with this self-called and self-constituted ministry, with A, B, or C, dealing as they will with God's word and sacraments, is just as true and as good a branch of the Catholic church, as the wit of man can devise. This is the notion of one class of Christians. But this is not the notion of the Presbyterians. They, as well as Episcopalians, maintain the necessity of a

clear commission, and of a succession in the ministry. They wholly repudiate the notion of any one, whosoever will, taking the ministry on himself. This doctrine may be found in plenty of the books published by English Presbyterians of authority during the commonwealth. The argument, then, with the Presbyterians is a much more simple matter than with the others. They agree, in short, with us, in believing that, without a ministry duly commissioned according to God's appointed way, there is no church. The sole question in arguing with them, therefore, is this: Which is the way appointed by God for giving the commission? Is it the Presbyterian or the Episcopal? He who, with the Presbyterians, believes that a commission and succession are necessary to make a ministry, and that a ministry is necessary for a church, must, of necessity, if he believes that the Episcopalian and not the Presbyterian discipline is the true one, believe that there is no true church among the Presbyterians. How far the plea of necessity might avail, if that were the ground, is another question; but, as Archbishop Laud says, where has the necessity been proved? Will "B. Q." understand Samaria now? The truth is, that a large portion of persons, calling themselves Christians, both in and out of the church, have no belief whatever in the necessity of a commissioned ministry, or in the value of the sacraments. The practice of the primitive church, confirmed for 1500 years, is not sufficient with them to fix an interpretation on scripture, if it could be called doubtful. It is quite the same thing to them, who preaches God's word, or administers his sacraments, if he preaches well. They are, consequently, ready to amalgamate with all bodies of persons calling themselves Christians. Ignorant and angry when the truth is set before them and they cannot reply, their only and their regular course is to assert that they who maintain the necessity of a commissioned ministry, believe that all non-episcopalian Christians are necessarily and certainly lost. They know, as well as the persons whom they malign, that this is not the doctrine taught by the Episcopalians, whatever they may think of the misery of those who belong to no church. But what can people do,-who have no knowledge and no argument to offer, but who will still dispute,-what can they do but call names, and fix odious opinions on their opponents?

The correction of the Bicester statistics arrived too late for insertion. The friend who communicated it is requested to look at the proceedings of the Incorporated Society for Promoting the Building &c. of Churches, in this month's Magazine. He will see that grants are made for repewing churches.

It appears from the Standard, of Dec. 28, that the Armagh petition against the national education system has already been adopted at a meeting of the clergy of the united dioceses of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross.

"R. S." is thanked for his letter, which arrived Dec. 28. He will see by the letter of "C. F. H." that he has been anticipated.

The following have been received, and will be used as soon as practicable::-"Vincentius Lirinensis"-"J. M."-"A Priest of the Scots' Episcopal Church" - "T. G." on the Eucharist “D. I. E." on the Importance of Periodical Relaxation from Professional Pursuits-"H. E. R.”—“J. H. B."-"A Constant Reader," from Penshurst-" J. E.""A. T. Russell," on Scripture the only Rule of Faith-and "M." from St. Peter's College, Cambridge.

The quotation from Borlase will be very acceptable.

The offer of a translation of MS. Prayers from Roman-catholic Missals, &c.. shall be answered, in Notices to Correspondents, next Number. A private communication would be more satisfactory.

To the Editor of the British Magazine.

ROMANISTS SCHISMATICS.

SIR,-In an interesting article at the commencement of your December number, in which some of the "disgusting fabrications" of popery are exposed, I was astonished to read the following sentence, with which it concludes:" We are more anxious to reform than to make proselytes; we are more anxious to see the Romanist restored to primitive catholicity, than to swell the numbers of Protestantism." Now, Sir, feeling persuaded, as I am, that the national church in this kingdom is pure and apostolic, I cannot but look on Romanists as schismatics, and therefore consider it their duty, and the duty of all Christians in this country, to return into the communion of the national church. Any reformation which left them separated from our church would leave them still in the sin of schism. And how could they be said to be "restored to primitive catholicity" while they continued in schism? Such reformed Romanists would be a most dangerous set of pious dissenters. I am, &c.

A. I.*

The Editor is much obliged to "A. I." for giving him an opportunity of expressing his regret that the sentence in question was not modified. An examination of the former part of the article (the Latin in the notes is especially referred to) will shew that, from circumstances not likely to interest the public, the article in question (the excellence of which was not only ascertained by a cursory perusal when it first arrived, but might have been anticipated from the abilities and principles of the author) was not subjected to the usual careful revision in going through the press. The labour of making minute corrections in MS. is such, that this is generally deferred till the article is in type.-Ed.

THE

BRITISH MAGAZINE.

FEB. 1, 1837.

ORIGINAL PAPERS.

COMMERCE OF THE JESUITS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS.

In a former article, an attempt was made to sketch the history of a Jesuit adventurer in the fields of commerce, from his rise to his fall, and to shew the ruin which that fall entailed on a multitude of unfortunate individuals, and on one of the first commercial houses in France. The manner in which the Jesuits were forced into various courts, in order to argue their liability to the debts contracted in the name of the society by Father de la Valette and others, may afford a few instructive details relative to Jesuit commerce, as well as to the government &c. of the society itself. Perhaps the most effectual mode of attaining these two objects will be simply to state, as briefly as possible, a few of the proceedings which actually took place in different courts of justice. It must be remembered that Father de la Valette was the "Superior of the Windward Island Missions," and Father de Sacy, the "Procureur General" of the same mission; and it must also be stated that, on the bankruptcy of Messrs. Lioncy and Gouffre, the society appointed another agent in Marseilles, named Rey, who discharged a part of that set of bills which has been mentioned as amounting to about 1,500,000 livres, or 60,000l. This he did with money furnished to him by the society of the Jesuits, and he received the consignments &c. made by Father de la Valette. M. Rey was appointed by Father de Sacy, with the authority of his superiors. After consigning merchandize, of which M. Rey disposed, to Cadiz and to Amsterdam, in order that the Spanish and Dutch flags might procure the vessels' impunity from the English, one consignment was charged by F. de la Valette with the payment of 150,000 livres (about 60007.) to Messrs. Clork, Dedel, and Co., at Amsterdam. Father de Sacy ordered the money for which it sold to be paid to M. Rey, but the Dutch house of business resisted this measure. M. Rey continued VOL. XI.-Feb. 1837.

R

for some time to perform the duty for which he was appointed-viz., gradually to liquidate the debts of Father de la Valette. But the Jesuits very soon tired of this piece of gratuitous honesty, and M. Rey's occupation ceased forthwith. The creditors, therefore, of Messrs. Lioncy and Gouffre thought it quite as well that each of them should look after his own interest individually, and accordingly they brought the matter into various courts.

Our first business, then, will be to lay before the reader the details of one or two of these cases.

1. The case of the Widow Grou.

While the Consulate of Marseilles was occupied in giving judgment as to some of these debts, that of Paris was occupied with others. Among those brought before the Consulate of Paris was that of a lady named Grou, and Louis Grou, her son. They had received as payment a letter of exchange for 30,000 livres (about 12007.), drawn, 27th May, 1757, by Father de la Valette on M. Rey, to the order of M. Rachon, who had transferred it to the order of M. Charlery, and he had endorsed it to the order of the Widow Grou. It was payable at two years date, and became due on the 6th June, 1759, allowing ten days grace. M. Rey refused to accept it, and would not pay a sous, and the widow appealed to Father de Sacy. Father de Sacy was equally unaccommodating: "He had no money, and hoped she would wait." After waiting two months, she cited him at the Consulate of Paris.

The proceedings here were curious. Father de Sacy actually appeared at the Consulate-a tribunal exclusively commercial-and pleaded his own cause in person! He hoped to baffle the lady in a cross-examination; and having obtained permission to ask three questions, he used it as follows:

Q. Who drew this letter of exchange ?-A. Father de la Valette. Q. On whom was it drawn ?-A. On M. Rey, merchant, at Marseilles.

Q. To whose order was it drawn?-A. To that of M. Rachon, who endorsed it on M. Charlery, and he endorsed it to me.

"Then," said Father de Sacy, "I am neither Father de la Valette, nor M. Rey, nor M. Rachon, and hence any demand on me is preposterous.

This was an able thrust; but French lawyers are almost as dexterous at parrying as Mrs. Trollope's celebrated American friends on the steam-boat, and M. Benoit, who pleaded the cause of Madame Grou, requested permission to ask Father de Sacy three questions also. On its being granted, he asked—

Q. What is the nature of Father de la Valette's situation at Martinique?-A. He is Superior of the Windward Island Missions.

Q. To whom are the Windward Island Missions accountable at home?-A. To the Procureur of the Windward Island Missions, resident at the House of Profession, in Paris.

Q. Who is now in the enjoyment of that office?-A. I am; and I am accountable to the Provincial, who is accountable only to the General of the Order.

"You see, therefore," said M. Benoit, "that the sum represented by this bill was paid to Father de la Valette, from whom it passed into the hands of Father de Sacy; from him it went to the Provincial, and from the Provincial to the General. The society, in its corporate capacity, has received the amount, and the society ought to be made liable."

Not content with this deduction of its liability from reasonable principles, M. Benoit read the letter in which Father de Sacy acknowledged the debt, and only asked for time to liquidate it, and wound up his case by citing the 'Dictionaire de Trevoux,' under the word 'Missions,' to trace the dependence of the Windward Island Mission on the House of Profession of Paris.

On the 30th of January, 1760, the court gave sentence to the following effect:

The Jesuits were convicted, and rendered liable to the sum of 30,000 livres, with interest: in case of refusal, every remedy provided by the law was open to Madame Grou, and all the effects of the society might be seized to enforce the demand. The Jesuits were also condemned to pay the costs of the suit.

This conviction was the first severe blow which the Jesuits had received, and it would necessarily lower them in the opinion of the world. There was no use in resistance; they could only appeal to the Parliament of Paris, and it was pretty certain that the same principle which guided the Consulate would guide the Parliament. There was, therefore, in this case, nothing to be done but to pay the

money.

Still this ready compliance with the decisions of an inferior court did not always characterize their proceedings, for on the 17th August, 1760, they obtained an arrêt du conseil, (a judgment in council?) fortified by letters patent, (registered the 5th of July, 1760,) which removed all causes then on foot, or hereafter to be brought forward, relative to these matters, to the Parliament of Paris. There is a slight circumstance connected with this decree which it is worth while to observe upon. In these letters the only parties referred to as defendants in the various causes before the Consulates are "the Jesuits of the vince of France, under F. de Montigny, Procureur-General of that Province." There was a reason for this; the creditors brought their actions against all the Jesuits of the Kingdom of France, &c., in their common house, situated in Paris, rue St. Antoine. Now, there were thirty-nine houses of Jesuits, but divided into four provinces-1. France; 2. Toulouse; 3. Guyenne; 4. Lyon; 5. Marseille.

pro

The mission of Martinique belonged to the province of France, because its revenues were attached to the College de la Flèche, and the Jesuits intended to rest their defence on the ground that the province of France was the only province interested in the matter, while the indictment implicated the rest. The committee of creditors obviated this difficulty by citing the General himself, then resident at Rome.

This august personage, of course, did not think fit to put in an appearance.