the Jews to Christianity was an enterprise in which he took a lively interest. Nor was his support confined to words. In his house was to be found a collecting box specially set apart for contributions towards that object, and he never referred to the Jew without expressions of "pity and compassion for the obdurate and stiff-necked Hebrew, for his narrow views and defective creed !"

In commenting upon this feature in the character of this self-deceiver, let me carefully guard myself from the imputation of speaking slightingly of either object, or of the labours of those earnest-minded and true-hearted men who strive to promote it.

To be instrumental in bringing the Jew to the acknowledgment of the Messiah; to have any share, however humble, in rescuing the heathen from the bondage of idolatry, well befits those whose belief in their own creed is hearty and sincere. Those who hold religious truth to be priceless cannot avoid the attempt to proselytise. A lukewarm Christian is A

PARADOX.

One would not deal harshly with the memory of him whose account was so heavy, and who,

K

under such awful circumstances, passed to meet it. But his career teaches two solemn truths-the uselessness of all Scriptural knowledge which is confined to the lip: the mockery of that acquaintance with Holy Writ, however intimate, which does not bridle the vicious impulses of the heart and the question will recur again and again, did not his last hours-the deliberate and reiterated falsehoods with which they were laden-his elaborate attempts to mislead his spiritual advisers, and the manner in which, on the confines of the grave, he distorted Scripture and dissembled with his God, present a scene in which we may well suppose the TEMPTER to have rejoiced and triumphed?

CHAPTER XV.

ONE SIN THE PARENT OF MANY.

The Perreaus. 75

"What folly for a man to do that Now which he must certainly undo again by repentance, or—be undone for ever!” ADAMS OF WINTRINGHAM.

To this hour considerable mystery hangs over the motives and misdeeds of the unfortunate Perreaus. Let the guilt of Daniel be admitted, still grounds exist for doubting whether Robert, the medical man, was not misled by his devoted attachment to, and measureless confidence in, his brother. Might he not, immersed in the cares and responsibilities of active professional life, and giving implicit credence to his brother's representations, be a victim to the art of a singularly clever and most designing woman?

This conclusion is not fanciful. It was shared by many. Certainly the seventy-eight

leading bankers and merchants of the city of London held it when they petitioned for his pardon. An effort which assumes greater significance, when it is remembered that no kindred representation was made for his brother Daniel.

:

Again the character he received at his trial from persons of the first consideration for strict integrity, candour, and veracity, must raise a presumption in his favour.

Nor was it other than the action of a man who knew himself to be innocent, to take the initiative, to challenge investigation into the affair, to seek himself the presence of a magistrate, and to be the very first to bring under legal cognizance the strange transaction.

This is not usually the line of conduct adopted by culprits. The last party of whom such individuals generally crave audience is a police magistrate. But who hung the brothers? Whose evidence sealed their fate? Who brought them, by her arts and practices, to the fatal tree?

She, whose connection with one of them neither religion nor morality, neither the laws of God nor the laws of man, could sanction.

Will men never admit that "nothing worth having is got by sin; nothing worth keeping is lost by holiness?"

Is this brief and pregnant assurance the very last they choose to credit, "the way of transgressors is hard?"

On a March afternoon, in the spring of 1775, an elegantly dressed woman, accompanied by a gentleman, entered the public office, Bow Street, and inquired for one of the magistrates. Mr. Addington being then in his private room, the parties were shown in. The gentleman gave his name as ROBERT PERREAU, an apothecary, residing in Golden Square, where he had been successfully engaged in practice for a considerable period. He stated that he now came forward, in self-defence, to deliver up his companion, Mrs. Rudd, who had given him a bond for £7500, which was nothing more nor less than a forgery. The lady instantly denied the charge, and mutual upbraidings ensuing, Mr. Addington thought proper, as both parties seemed more or less implicated, to remand both to Tothill Fields Bridewell, for further examination. On the following day a variety of circumstances transpired, all leading to the