"Monthly Letter" appears they give again, in paragraph 251, the same offensive paragraph, number 241, which had appeared in the November Letter, and that, too, with approval, it must be supposed, as no disapprobation is expressed. Paragraph 251, is as follows:: "From Aris's Birmingham Gazette,' Nov. 16 (inserted also in the Tablet,' Nov. 28). "MAYNOOTH.-The AntiMaynooth party seemingly intend to throw Mr. Spooner overboard. The "Monthly Letter" of the Protestant Alliance says:-"It is of the greatest importance that the Maynooth question should be ad vocated in the House of Com mons by a Member able and will ing to deal properly with a matter of national importance, and unconnected with political parties. The Committee are carefully considering the subject.""" We can assure our friends that the Anti-Maynooth party, as such, do not "intend to throw Mr. Spooner overboard;" though some may wish to see the matter in the hands of a gentleman whose ground of opposition, whose sympathies and predilections on other subjects are more in harmony with their own. Those who have longest taken an interest in efforts to get rid of the national sin involved in supporting Maynooth College, are all aware of the difficulty of working the question, whether in the House of Commons or out of it. On few other questions on which unity is desirable, are there so many points of differ nce, so many disturbing influences. It is the question of no party, and no party likes it to be brought forward. It belongs to no theological section, and no theological section, as such, supports it. The opponents of Maynooth consist of a body formed of some belonging to nearly every political party, and nearly every sect of religionists in this country. Those best acquainted with the state and feeling of the House of Commons, as regards this question, know perfectly well how difficult it would be to select any other Member to bring forward the measure, who would rally round him so much support as Mr. Spooner has succeeded in obtaining on his various divisions. Mr. Spooner took up the question when no one else did. He has brought it more nearly to a successful issue than any one before him. He has placed it in its true light before the country, and rested his opposition on safe, sound, religious principles. He deems it not only an impolitic act, and therefore a blunder, to continue the endowment, but regarding nations, as well as individuals, responsible to the Almighty for the use or abuse of the talents committed to them, he considers the continuance of the endowment to be a national sin, and that our promotion of the idolatrous, superstitious, and antisocial system of Popery is calculated to bring down Divine judgment upon this nation. He has just as much earned his position in the House of Commons upon this question, as General Havelock has earned his position in India; nor can we see the justice, fairness, policy, or wisdom, of seeking to displace either of them in favour of some new and comparatively untried per son. As to being unconnected with party is it not obvious that Mr. Spooner, acting against the known wishes of his party and the leaders of his party, at once gives the greatest pledge of his own sincerity, and a noble example to others of every party, to hold of higher importance the conscientious discharge of duty in the sight of God, than to compromise their convictions at the dictation of the leader of their party. If, however, a man had been found more able and willing than Mr. Spooner, more qualified by past successes, and by present position, to take up and successfully carry on the movement, the Hon. Member for North Warwickshire was not the man to let personal feeling stand in the way of carrying a great question. He stood in the gap, where no one else would stand, and rallied the scattered forces. By the blessing of God he will continue to do so, and we hope our friends, both in and out of Parliament, will rally round that noble champion of British Protestantism, whose conduct on this long vexed question of Maynooth has secured for him the respect and esteem even of his opponents, and the co-operation of those who on other questions are not always to be found acting with him. ROME AND AUSTRIA. THE Austrian Concordat is working well for Rome, so far as giving her an increased influence for the present over the subjects of Austria and their property. Well would it be for us if our statesmen, taking warning from what is passing in other countries, were more on the alert to detect and provide against the plots and contrivances of Rome. We must repeat again, it is not with the Pope as an individual man we have to deal, but with the Pope as the head of a system; a system unsurpassed for its towering ambition, and the unscrupulousness with which it seeks to ensure the attainment of the ends which it has in view. own If, then, statesmen are found negligent upon this grave subject, the people will feel necessitated to take the matter into their hands. There is no doubt of this. History is full of such occurrences. Whether it be right or wrong things should so take place, is not the question. The fact is found to be, that they will so take place. When kings, and princes, and rulers, and governments, abdicate their powers, the people feel impelled and necessitated to protect themselves. A wise and paternal govern ment would foresce and provide against any such contingencies. What took place in Austria a few years since was but as it were the first act of a dramawhat may be the last is beyond our province to foretell. The evil genius of Popery has been brought to bear with especial weight on the Romanists of Austria. The Protestants, however, have not escaped. They have felt the iron hoof of Popery pressing upon them, even from edicts which seemed primarily intended to affect Roman Catholics alone. Our own slumbering fellowProtestants scem but little aware of the nature, objects, and designs of the Papacy; still less are they alive to the consequences which naturally result from the principles, allocutions, and concordats of the Church of Rome. The recent Concordat, it was supposed, had no reference, directly or indirectly, to the Protestant population of Austria. But how do questions of this kind work themselves out? Let us look at the case immediately before us. What do we find? Why, the inspectors of schools being of the clerical order, and being thoroughly anti-Protestant, have objected, even in the case of private schools, to the employment of Protestant masters, even for the teaching of drawing and of dancing, and some have been actually dismissed, because the clerical inspectors objected to Roman Catholic children being brought into contact with persons not of their own faith. In Sardinia, we have seen of late, the mighty efforts used to secure in the popular portion of the Legislature, the influence of those who are in favour of the anti-national principles of the Papacy. In Belgium, we have witnessed an exhibition of the like kind. Nor has Ireland been behind-hand. No. The Romish bishops alike in Sardinia, in Belgium, and in Ireland, have been busy, not in preaching the Gospel of peace and salvation-but in stimulating electors to vote for those who would uphold in the popular branch of the Legislature, the power, the influence, and the prestige of the Papacy. A recent number of the "Times" contains the following, which speaks alike of the evil effects of the Concordat, and of the influence which the Generals of the different orders in the Church of Rome have over the finances of the various conventual institutions in different parts of the world: "AUSTRIA. The Ultramontanists aver that the Concordat has in no way affected the non-Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown, but the assertion is It is difficult, positively false. and, indeed, almost impossible for a Protestant or a Greek Christian to obtain any employment under all in their power to prevent Government, and the bishops do flocks receiving tuition of any kind from persons who are not within the pale of the Roman Catholic Church. The statement may appear improbable, but still their it is a positive fact that two Protestants-the one a teacher of drawing, and the other of dancing -have just been dismissed by the proprietors of two private schools, because the clerical inspectors of those establishments objected to the Roman Catholic children being brought into contact with persons who were not of their own faith. "The Roman bishops must have a dislike to pursy monks, for they are endeavouring to deprive them of the means of increasing their bulk and shortening their breaths. The Dominic convents in Galicia are very wealthy; and the chief of the order at Rome has issued orders that any surplus funds they may have are to be sent to Italy for the relief of their poorer brethren. The turn of the Benedictines, who have a princely revenue, will come next, and the Austrian Government will soon have the pleasure of seeing a great part of the enormous revenues of the different Austrian monasteries and nunneries go to Rome, there to be employed for what is termed the 'glorification' of the Papal chair."-From the Correspondent of the Times, Oct. 29, 1857. If each reader of these remarks would but take proper steps to antagonize the influence of the Papacy, and to aid the Protestant Association in so doing, a step would be taken in the right direction. The prospects of the Papacy would be greatly diminished by presenting a firm, united, and determined attitude in resisting Papal aggression, and in promoting the cause of the truth as it is in Jesus. CONVENTUAL INSTITUTIONS. OFTEN as we have brought this subject under the notice of our readers, we must still continue to do so. There is an inherent viciousness in the conventual system which forbids any hope of amelioration. The experience of centuries is conclusive against such institutions. In our own country they may be regarded almost as an unmitigated evil. The increase, therefore, of such institutions in Great Britain must be regarded with feelings of dissatisfaction, if not of alarm. Yet the increase has been rapid; far beyond what a few years back any one could have sup-" posed. It appears that there are lishments. Supposing there to about ninety conventual estabbe only twenty, on an average we have 1,800 persons who are imprisoned for life, and that too without being found guilty A conviction of any offence. took place the other day at the assizes at Exeter. A young man, between twenty and thirty, had most cruelly illtreated a young woman, who by almost a miracle escaped with her life. A more atrocious and revolting case rarely presented to a Court and jury. What was the consequence? was The culprit was sentenced to penal servitude for life. for life. A severe punishment no doubt. But why have we drawn attention to it here? Why, but for this purpose?— to point out that many who have been guilty of no crime, 1 are as much incarcerated for life as this convicted criminal, and may be subjected to severer punishments, without the existence of any power in the law to inquire or interfere on her >ehalf! Very recently, both in England and in Ireland, this subject has been brought under the notice of the Judicial Tribune and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The following Memorial has been presented by the Committee of the Protestant Alliance to the Earl of Clarendon, and the subjoined reply received. The Memorial is worthy of careful perusal, as illustrative of the nature of Romish policy: "To the Right Hon. the Earl of Clarendon, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The Memorial of the Committee of the Protestant Alliance. Your Memorialists beg to invite your Lordship's attention to a case, the details of which are as follows::"Mary Ann King is the daughter of Francis and Mary King, both members of the Roman Catholic Church. The father died in February, 1848, leaving his widow in poverty, with five children dependant upon her. "In June, 1850, about two years after the death of her husband, Mrs. King, who is still a Roman Catholic, placed her daughter Mary Ann, in the 'Convent School of Our Lady' at Norwood, agreeing that she should remain there for two years; the child was at this time ten years old. "At the termination of the period agreed upon, Mrs. King visited her daughter, but finding nothing had been said respecting her removal, and being still in poor circumstances, left her in the convent, and made no effort for her removal till 1854. On the ceived a letter from the convent, 9th March, in that year, she restating that an advantageous position at Havre had been offered for her daughter, and asking her consent to her acceptance of it. The child was at this time under the age of fourteen, and therefore legally subject to her mother's control. On the receipt of the letter, Mrs. King proceeded at once to the convent, and refused her consent, and demanded her child. After much persuasion, however, she sented that she should remain six months longer in the convent, not at the time knowing that at the termination of that period she would (as being beyond the age of fourteen) be no longer under her legal control. "During these six months Mrs. King visited her daughter once or twice, and saw her alone. On those occasions the child expressed her wish to return home and live with her mother. "When the six months had expired, Mrs. King again demanded her daughter. She was met with various excuses from the authorities at the convent, one of which was that she must obtain a letter from the girl's patron, who procured her admission, and another, that she must provide clothes for her removal. "Having obtained the letter and the clothes, Mrs. King again went to the convent and demanded her child. At this visit she only saw the child through a hole in a partition, and in presence of one |