In his prison he dreamed a dream, which he published; and dream as it is, it is still read with avidity, has been admired by Dr. Johnson, and a host of other bright and honoured literary names of the present as well as of past ages; it is the cottage companion of many a humble labourer, who learns from Christian how to live, and from Hopeful how to die; while every Sabbath school library in the kingdom provides a place for the dream of the tinker in Bedford gaol: for though two hundred years have passed away since it was first announced to the world, the scholar and the divine-the erudite and the illiterate-combine to uphold its popularity and to speak of its utility.

It is related of him, that having gained the confidence of the gaoler, he was at times permitted to leave his confinement, and spend his evenings, and sometimes whole nights at his own house. This coming to his enemies' ears, they determined to watch the matter, and sending an officer from London, with orders to go to the gaol by night, they expected to be able to secure their ends. It happened that on the very night the officer arrived, the prisoner had obtained permission to remain at home; but a strong impression resting on his mind that he ought to return, he went back to his prison, and in a short time the officer arrived, made special inquiries for and insisted on seeing him; and having satisfied himself by so doing, went back to his employers to relate the disappointment. So much for God's providence, as manifested towards his servants.

In the year 1672 he obtained his liberty, and had a preaching-house built for him, where he continued to preach until his death. When he visited London, twelve hundred people gathered together at seven o'clock on a winter's morning to hear him; and among his audience were to be found some of the ablest divines of the day. But the time came when he must die, and die as he had lived, like his divine Master, doing good. At sixty years of age, he was requested by a young man who had become estranged from his father, to seek a reunion with him; the good old man undertook the mission, accomplished his purpose, and returned to London. Having ridden on horseback, he was thoroughly drenched with excessive rains; this induced an attack of fever, and after an illness of ten days "he reached the sea and passed triumphant over." Thus lived and thus died the light of the seventeenth century, at least among the common peoplethe model for lay preachers-JOHN BUNYAN.

SCRAPS FROM A TRAVELLER'S NOTE-BOOK.-No. VI.

A PLEASING INSTANCE OF WELL-PLACED CONFIDENCE AND IRISH FAITHFULNESS.

DURING a recent tour in Ireland, I had an opportunity of learning many particulars relative to some of those traits which are peculiarly developed in the Irish character, which are so often brought prominently forward in connection with accounts of Irish emigrants, and indicate the exercise of great self-denial and noble disinterestedness for the sake of those who have been left behind.

Returning one morning from Stillorgan to Dublin, in company with R. GEsq., he pointed to a noble mansion by the roadside, and spoke of its inhabitant as a lady of great wealth, and equal piety and benevolence, and related to me the following instance of well-placed confidence on the part of the original proprietor of the estate.

This gentleman possessed considerable wealth, and was without children. He had discovered in Dublin a young man, a poor mechanic, of most industrious habits, who was his nephew. He invited the young artisan to his house, treated him kindly, and in time came to esteem him very highly.

On one occasion he sent for his humble, unaspiring relative, and, after some preliminary conversation, astonished the labouring man by addressing him thus:"Thomas, I have long watched your conduct with pleasure and satisfaction; you have gained my confidence, and I believe you are worthy of it. I will tell you, therefore, that I have made you my sole heir, and shall leave all my property to you."

The young man, with tears of surprise, gratefully acknowledged the kindness

of his uncle, who continued-" I have, however, been thinking it would do you more good, save some loss of the property, and prevent the possibility of trouble to me henceforth, or of litigation with you after my death, if I just give it you at once. I have, therefore, made up my mind to this course, and you shall provide me from time to time with what I may require. I shall not want much."

The property (many thousand pounds in value) was at once transferred, the uncle literally reserving nothing to himself.

Time rolled on the nephew faithfully performed his part, and gained the esteem of his fellow-citizens by his correct and pleasing conduct and bearing under this sudden change in his circumstances; when one day the now aged uncle sent for him, and addressed him in these words:" Thomas, I have no fault to find with you; you have done for me all I wished; I have all I want at present; but I hear you are thinking to get married, and things may change. I begin to think it was rather venturesome of me-savoured a little of temerity, you see, Thomas, to place myself so entirely in the hands of another. You might run out of the property, or you might turn rogue and deny me the little support I require; so, if you have no objection, it will make me more comfortable to have the property in my own power again."

The young man received this announcement with surprise, but with perfect composure; and, stepping to his own home, he soon returned with the writings, which he opened before his uncle, and then said-" Uncle, I hold the property, but it is yours, and you have a right to do as you please-exactly as you wish, it shall be." So saying, he destroyed all that related to himself in the presence of his uncle; thus leaving himself once more poor, and at the mercy of the old man. The old relative reflected, on the departure of his nephew, on this piece of moral heroism. He relented. His heart was overcome by this convincing proof of the fidelity of his protegé. Once more he re-transferred all he possessed to him, and observed-It could not be in better hands; for the man who could act thus, would, he was sure, never wrong him."

The old pilgrim lived some years after this, was well provided for, and never had one moment's occasion to regret the confidence he had placed in his nephew; who also, after a somewhat brief career of uprightness and consistency of conduct, both public and private, was himself laid in the silent tomb; while, at the time I was in Ireland, his aged widow continued to reside in the mansion; and by her sympathy with the suffering and distressed, her unusual benevolence of disposition and kindness of heart, has obtained the profound respect of all classes. J. H. G.

MAGNA CHARTA.
(Concluded from pag. 108.)

CLAUSE 31 of the great charter is analogous to our more modern Habeas Corpus Act. It proves that a "writ of injunction" shall be granted absolutely, and without charge, to any one who is imprisoned. By this writ a prisoner was allowed to be at large on bail, or it was imperative that he should be tried without delay. With such a safeguard against unlawful imprisonment, no innocent person could be legally detained in custody for any lengthy period. This provision would be a severe check to King John, who, it is said, once threw a rich Jew into prison, in order to extort money from him; and, fearing that the Jew would even prefer his wealth to his liberty, gave orders to have one of his teeth drawn daily till he should comply. The poor Jew bore the loss of some of his teeth before he would yield to this royal robber's demands.

Succeeding this clause are various regulations of the feudal system, all of which were abolished by the statute of the 12th Charles II. And then appear the most admired safeguards of our personal liberties, clauses 37 and 40. They

read as follows:

"No freeman shall be seized, or imprisoned, or dispossessed, or outlawed, or in any way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor will we commit him to prison, excepting by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the laws of the

land.

To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice."

Lord Coke, commenting upon these words, says,-" As the goldfiner will not out of the dust, threads, or shreds of gold, let passe the least crum, in respect of the excellency of the metall, so ought not the learned reader to passe any syllable of this law, in respect of the excellency of the matter."

The legal and continuous use of trial by jury is in the first of the above clauses clearly and positively enjoined.

Familiar as we are with this mode of trial, its origin and earliest stages are matter of controversy among the learned. Common opinion attributes its constitution to King Alfred; but antiquaries pronounce that this king only reestablished, or modified, in this instance as in some others, that which had been practised before. Some assert that the Britons (the most ancient inhabitants of this island) were accustomed to trial by jury; others, with greater show of reason, contend that this mode of trial was first established in Denmark by Regner, surnamed Lodbrog, who began to reign in the year 820, and that from him the Saxon King Ethelred adopted the practice.

There are traces, however, of this custom in the laws of all those nations which adopted the feudal system, whether in Germany, or France, or Italy; and Bishop Nicolson attributes the institution of trial by jury to Odin, or Woden, who led forth and governed the earliest colonies of Goths in Sweden.

In the laws of Denmark the twelve jurors are called Sunde-men, true, or rightmen, and these jurors decided all causes within the jurisdiction of the court, whilst in England they were only chosen to try particular causes. In Scotland, a jury of twelve is mentioned in the laws of King David I., who began to reign in 1124. An early notice of juries also occurs in the statutes of the Welsh. In our own records, trial by jury is spoken of as being customary under King Ethelred, who began to reign in 978.

In the days of Henry III., the mayor and aldermen of London claimed the privilege, that "for a trespass against the king, a citizen should be tried by twelve citizens; for murder, by thirty; and for a trespass against a stranger, by the oaths of twelve and himself."

The judgment, or verdict (from the Latin veredictum, a true saying), must in England be unanimous, or it is no verdict at all; but in Scotland it is different, for Barrington states, that the Scottish law does not require unanimity in the jury, excepting in revenue cases, before the Court of Exchequer; for that the chancellor, or foreman, can give in the verdict upon a majority of one; hence Scottish juries are of an unequal number, namely, fifteen, selected out of fortyfive returned by the sheriff.

66

Sir Edward Coke observes, that the subject is guarded by this part of Magna Charta in the order in which evils would affect him; firstly, in personal liberty, "no freeman shall be seized or imprisoned," because the freedom of a man's person is more precious to him than all the succeeding particulars. Secondly, none shall be dispossessed," meaning that neither the king nor others shall seize upon any of his possessions, and that a man shall not be put from his livelihood without answer. Thirdly, "none shall be outlawed, or in any way destroyed." By outlawry is signified the ejecting of a person, by three public proclamations, from the benefit of the law; which from the time of Alfred until long after the reign of William I. could be done for felony only, for which the penalty was death; and therefore an outlaw, being considered as a wolf, might be slain by any man. This law was modified, however, by a statute of King Edward III., which provided that the sheriff alone should put an outlaw to death. The term "exiled," signifies banished from the realm, and applied to all cases in which subjects were sent from England without their own consent. On account of this enactment, says Sir Edward Coke, the king cannot send any subject out of England into foreign parts on pretence of service as an ambassador, deputy of Ireland, &c., unless he be willing to go. As great men were thus protected from this kingly ruse of exile, so the common people were equally sheltered from banishment during the royal pleasure.

A statute of Elizabeth, in 1597, is thus interpreted by Sir Edward Coke :"None shall be forejudged of life or limb, disinherited, or put to torture or death;" and he observes, that the words "in any manner" are added to the term

destroyed," and to no other in the sentence, because they prohibit any means being used by which this destruction might be brought about; thus, if any person be accused or indicted for felony, his goods or lands can neither be seized for the king's use, nor granted, nor even promised, to another, before his attainder.

The last part of this clause provides for trial by peers, or equals; so that a noble must be tried by nobles, vassals by vassals, citizens by citizens, &c. &c. This custom is of considerable antiquity. Sir Edward Coke gives an instance of it in 1074, when William the Conqueror was king.

Having thus provided for the faithful observance of the laws of England, the next clause takes care that they shall be administered without expense, denial, or delay; and the words are written as if spoken by the king himself, because he is supposed to be present in all his courts of law. And, if we may credit the historians, royalty had been hitherto but little better than an auctioneer, and had with equal injustice knocked down plaintiff or defendant, according to the highest bidding. A few instances may be cited from Madox's "History of the Exchequer."

"The county of Norfolk used to pay a certain sum annually to the Exchequer that it might be fairly dealt with. In 1214, Robert de Ellestede paid six fox dogs of one sort, and six of another, to have a writ for removing his cause into the Court of Common Pleas. In 1156, the men of Southwark paid £8 to have respite in their complaint against the men of London. Thirteen years afterwards, one Hamelin the Dean gave one Norway hawk and one Iceland gerfalcon to have his plea adjourned to the Exchequer."

This part of Magna Charta told considerably against the king's income, and compelled him to look to honester means of filling his purse. But though the king was thus bound down to impartiality, and forbidden to receive gifts for the dispensation of justice, the judges themselves were a long time before they practised the like self-denial. From the days of Magna Charta to the Commonwealth, the custom had continued of making presents to the judges. Even the comparatively honest Sir Thomas More accepted gifts, according to the testimony of Lord Bacon. Sir Matthew Hale, however, made a noble stand against this evil custom, and would neither hear extra-judicially any party to a suit, nor accept any present whatever.

Succeeding clauses of the charter refer at some length to mercantile affairs, to escheated baronies, and to exemptions to forest laws. There is then a provision, that none should be made justiciaries, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs, unless they knew the laws of the land, and were well disposed to observe them.

Some of the most crying social evils of this period resulted from the cruel forest laws of the Norman Conqueror; but, as if these were not sufficiently oppressive, the king's foresters and warreners appear to have made certain local regulations, which were more odious still. Clothed with a little brief authority, these officers out-heroded Herod in their petty tyrannies. Clause 48 enacted, that "All evil customs of forests and warrens, and of foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their officers, &c., shall immediately be inquired into by twelve knights of the same county, upon oath, who shall be elected by good men of the same county; and within forty days after the inquisition is made, they shall be altogether destroyed by them, never to be restored; provided that this be notified to us before it be done, or to our justiciary, if we be not in England."

After this salutary enactment, there are certain provisions which are nearly all peculiar to this charter, and of no modern interest. Clause 60 is, however, worthy of note, as it is generally supposed that the king himself had it inserted, out of spite to the barons who had compelled him to agree to this charter; it reads thus: "Also all these customs of liberties aforesaid, which we have granted to be held in our kingdom, for so much of it as belongs to us, all our subjects, as well clergy as laity, shall observe towards their tenants, as far as concerns them." It provokes a smile of satisfaction when we think how clearly, in this instance, the old proverb is realised, "When rogues fall out, honest men come by their own." The bulk of the people had borne all the complicated tyrannies of the feudal system for nearly 150 years,-king, and baron, or lord were equally guilty, and by this righteous clause were equally bound to let "the oppressed go free," at least to the extent which the laws allowed.

Twenty-five barons are ordered by the charter to be securities for the fulfilment of its provisions, with full power to wage war upon any one, king or subject, who refuses to conform thereto.

The great charter concludes with these words:

"It is also sworn, both on our part and that of the barous, that all the aforesaid shall be observed in good faith, and without any evil intention. Witnessed by the above, and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow which is called Runimede, between Windsor and Staines, this 15th day of June, in the 17th year of our reign."

Instead of his signature, the king's seal is appended thereto, according to the custom of that period.

As reference has been made to serfdom, villenage, or slavery, under the Saxon or Norman kings, the following extract from a lively historian may be accepted:

Macaulay, remarking upon the state of England in the time of Wycliff, the Bible translator, and of Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet, says (Hist. Eng., vol. i. p. 22):—

"Meanwhile a change was proceeding, infinitely more momentous than the acquisition or loss of any province, than the rise or fall of any dynasty. Slavery, and the evils by which slavery is everywhere accompanied, were fast disappearing.

"It is remarkable, that the two greatest and most salutary social revolutions which have taken place in England, that revolution which, in the thirteenth century, put an end to the tyranny of nation over nation, and that revolution which a few years later put an end to the property of man in man,- were silently and imperceptibly effected. They struck contemporary observers with no surprise, and have received from historians a very scanty measure of attention. They were brought about neither by legislative regulation nor by physical force. Moral causes noiselessly effaced, first the distinction between Norman and Saxon, and then the distinction between master and slave. None can venture to fix the precise moment at which either distinction ceased. Some faint traces of the old Norman feeling might, perhaps, have been found late in the fourteenth century. Some faint traces of the institution of villenage were detected by the curious so late as the date of the Stuarts; nor has that institution ever, to this hour, been abolished by statute.

"How great a part the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics had in the abolition of villenage, we learn from the unexceptionable testimony of Sir Thomas Smith, one of the ablest Protestant councillors of Elizabeth. When the dying slaveholder asked for the last sacraments, his spiritual attendants regularly adjured him, as he loved his soul, to emancipate his brethren, for whom Christ had died. So successfully had the church used her formidable machinery, that, before the Reformation came, she had enfranchised almost all the bondmen in the kingdom -except her own, who, to do her justice, seem to have been very tenderly treated." C.

Windsor.

THE CLAIMS OF A GRATUITOUS MINISTRY.

To those who habituate themselves to close thinking, it were superfluous to attempt to describe the peculiar trials, and the many difficulties, which beset the path of the gratuitous labourers in the vineyard of the Lord. But there are thousands to whom they minister, and who, but for that ministry, would never, or very seldom, hear the gospel through a Methodist ministry-the major part of whom never take the trouble to consider the many privations which most of the brethren have to endure, in order to discharge the responsible duty which devolves upon them. On this account the following remarks are written, with the view of assisting them to an appreciation of an unpaid ministry, and of the claims it has upon their sympathy.

Of all who minister in the word and doctrine, it is expected that they shall be able to expound the word of God, instruct and interest the people, and so break to them the bread of life, that each may have a portion of spiritual meat, accord