have supported them: but, it is to be suspected that the character of the templars was generally bad, and that the witnesses were only giving the details of that which was commonly believed. How otherwise can we suppose that, in England and Spain, in Italy and Germany, as well as in France, the accusation was instantly credited, and the order suppressed? If the templars were innocent, then all the powers of Europe were guilty of an atrocious conspiracy, and of a judicial murder of the blackest dye.

It has been demanded, "What was the inducement for heresy? Had they been inclined to heretical conduct, they might have chosen an earlier season more suited to their interests.'

We cannot venture to reconcile wisdom with crime. Piety and virtue should be chosen for their expediency, as well as their excellence; but short-sighted mortals often indulge their immediate passions at the expence of their ultimate interests. The templars were politic enough to conceal their scepticism, impieties, and profligacy, until they were seated, as they thought, firmly in the rich possessions which they contrived to obtain in Europe; and, when grown arrogant by long prosperity, they at length threw off the mask, but happily not with impunity. It seems that they were neither pious nor discreet, and found, too late, that they lived in a generation that would no longer endure their enormities.

Then, it has been contended, that the sovereigns of Europe suppressed the templars as a part of the nobility whose power it was their interest to curb. It does not appear, however, as a matter of fact, that the aggregate power of the feudal lords was really diminished by the overthrow of the templars. The wealth they possessed (except in the instance of France) was transferred, in general, not to the monarch, but to other nobles, or to the knights of St. John: and, even allowing that such a motive had some influence, it does not sufficiently account for the transaction.

On the whole, it appears, that, however severely the templars were treated, however objectionable their mode of trial, and however culpable the motives of some of their persecutors, yet there are the strongest reasons to believe that the order deserved immediate abolition, although humanity should have spared the lives of the delinquents. The measure of punishment is not, however, the point in agitation: it is conceded that in France it was cruel. Guilt, however, there evidently existed, according to the general voice of all Europe; and their guilt was the principal, if not the only, cause of their suppression.

IN REPLY, the Openèr confessed that he was bound in justice to congratulate his opponents on the exercise of their ingenuity; but he felt obliged to say, that they had not confined themselves sufficiently to the facts of the case. They had made probable statements respecting the accusation of large bodies of men; but they had not, by so doing, proved the guilt of the templars.

When the question asked "Whether the suppression arose from the crimes of the order?" it did appear to his humble comprehension that the crimes referred to were those which formed the ground of their suppression, and not those of which they might be guilty besides. Keeping this definition in view, the opener would take the liberty of examining the principal displays of ingenuity which the addresses he had heard presented. First, no one would suppose that he was quite so much under the influence of the moon as to contend that the knights were perfectly pure, or that they preserved in the fourteenth century their pristine virtue. They were vicious, but that was not the cause of the abhorrence entertained towards them by the people. If vice could produce that effect, then the people ought to have abhorred the other orders as well as the templars; therefore, that argument availed nothing. The probabilities then urged were of too refined a nature for the comprehension of the opener. Corporate bodies might occasionally be more vicious than individuals; but that was no proof that the charge of heresy, the alleged cause for the templars' suppression, was well founded. It struck the mind of the opener as rather extraordinary, that gentlemen should first assert that a view of chivalry, and the knightly virtues, could have no weight in the question; and then waste a great portion of valuable wit and eloquence in decrying them. What this argued as to their real opinion, was for other minds to decide.

It was next argued, that the people of a nation did not frequently concur in the guilt of a whole body of men, when they were accused by the government. This mode of argument seemed to take it for granted that the whole proceeding of Philip was confined to the direct and open accusation made before the inquisitor's commissioners. Let it be remembered, that the minds of the people had been prepared by the acts of the king's emissaries, the pope, the clergy, and even himself. Let it also be remembered, that the clergy and the other orders were jealous of the power and riches of the knights; and, therefore, from that spirit of selfishness prevalent among men, they were glad to join in any scheme which appeared likely to raise themselves by the debasement of others. As to the fact of the different countries of Europe joining

in their suppression, the same remark might be made which appeared in the opening. The kings were anxious to reduce the nobility, and seized the sanction of the pope with avidity. They, however, were not so bloodily disposed as the amiable Philip; and, therefore, only deprived them of their estates, without injuring their persons.

The probability of the pope being disposed to join unnecessarily in the suppression of an order of men, who were the servants of the holy see, was next urged. It appeared very powerful certainly. If Clement had been an Italian pope, anxious for the honour of his country, and impressed with all the ideas of the Roman dignity, it might weigh in some degree; but he was a French priest, raised to the papacy by Philip, with the sole object of aggrandizing France and its kingly power. He cared not for the papacy or its dignity, but the power and profit he could thence obtain.

Reference was then made to the knights having fled to their fortresses in Spain, to avoid the fury of the populace. Now, could that be a proof of their guilt? Would they have proved their innocence by allowing an enfuriated rabble to tear them asunder? When a regular tribunal was appointed, they readily appeared before it, and suffered the punishment it awarded.

The idea of the mob being rarely, if ever, excited to violent measures without cause, was extremely droll. There never were, perhaps, such things as Grecian, Roman, or London mobs! They were always found meek and humble; or, when they did rise, it was entirely from a love of virtue, and from no wish to obtain plunder!

Probability was again used as an argument. It was not probable that an order such as this would have been suppressed, unless the order had been notoriously guilty of the crimes imputed. If this guilt was so notorious, no one could have been more aware of the fact than Philip; and it would have been unnecessary for him to have wasted the little money he had in seizing the order throughout France on the same day. Yet, with all his ingenuity in prepossessing the minds of the people against them, he found it necessary to take that very extraordinary step.

Nothing like argument had been advanced to prove the charge of heresy; and, therefore, it was needless to make any remarks on that point.

The opener, with all due deference to the authority of his opponents, would say, that the character of Philip was of great importance in the present question; and, as the example of a criminal court had been mentioned, he would meet theu on that point. In a doubtful case, the character of the ac

cuser, and the witnesses, were always to be regarded. If they were such as to excite suspicion, it was certainly not unfair to allow the accused the benefit of that circumstance.

The case of Henry the Eighth proved nothing. It was undoubtedly true that the Reformation was beneficial; but it was no less true that great injustice was committed in carrying it into effect. If we were here inquiring whether the suppression of the knights was beneficial to Europe, the question would be very different; but, while it remained what it was, the arguments adduced were of no avail.

Another example was employed for the illustration of the argument, in the attornies of Norfolk and Suffolk. Now, supposing, which heaven forefend, that it should be for the benefit of society that one-half of the present existing attornies should be suppressed; however beneficial, it was clear that great injustice must be done to individuals, although the country at large would be benefited.

As to the statement, that Peter of Bologne was examined six months before the arrest of the grand master, the opener could not pretend to say whence that information had been obtained; but it was rather strange that Mons. Dupuy, the fiery and ingenious champion of Philip, did not mention it. Indeed, it seemed impossible that it should have been so; for the general assertion of all the writers on the subject was, that, after the reception of the two informers' evidence, all the knights were seized throughout France on the same day. The fact, however, proved nothing. As to the non-use of torture in the first instance, it was a contested point. Although it might be granted that the unhappy culprit was not placed on the rack, it did not thence follow, that the rack was not shewn him, and its use threatened.

"If their secret rites were innocent, why did they not unfold their nature?" They were forced to confirm the statement of Noffo Dei and the prior of Montfauçon; and if they had attempted to make any assertion different to that which the inquisitors required, the rack or the stake would have ended their examination.

The opponents of the opener were mistaken in saying, that the knights were put to death by all the sovereigns of Europe. It did not appear that the knights were put to death any where but in France. Besides, the opening shewed that they were completely acquitted in many places.

Some very ingenious suppositions then followed as to the probabilities of the knights being guilty of heresy. These he would leave for the opinion of the audience.

Lastly, as to the increase of the power of the crown in

6

the various countries of Europe, whatever might be the opinion of the other side, the suppression of a powerful body of nobility, and the reduction of them to the situation of private persons, must increase the power of the

crown.

Reviewing all the facts and circumstances of the case, the opener hoped that the arguments he had taken the liberty of adducing would entitle the knights to a decision in their favour.

SERENADE.

LADY, lady, give me back

That poor heart you've kept so long,
Torn on expectation's rack:-

List thee, lady, to my song;

Give me back that heart of mine,-
Send it whole, or send me thine.

Ah! thou hast no heart, or I

Had not sigh'd so long in vain!
Then, lady, let thy captive fly
To his dreary home again,
O'er its bleeding wounds to pine;
Send it, lady, or send thine.

In my soul's keen agony

I have call'd aloud on Death,
(He who oft comes unbid,) to free
Me, hapless, with his icy breath.
Alas! he hath no frown like thine:
Kill me, or send that heart of mine!

The moon-beams on thy casement shine,
And coldly shines, my fair, on thee;
And I, who 'neath thy lattice pine,
So feel thy glances fall on me.
Couldst thou so chillingly resign
My heart, I'd scarcely own it mine!

But what's the moon's pale beams to me?
She does but deal a borrow'd light:

O! could I think the same of thee,
I'd live in hopes of beams more bright;
Disown then those cold looks of thine,
Or send me back that heart of mine.