" and while Ireland continues a separate kingdom, full "concessions can be made to the Catholics without en

dangering the State and shaking the Constitution to the "centre." Is not this saying that, after the Union should have taken place, full concessions might be made to Ireland without danger?

2. The Member who proposed the Union expressed himself

in similar terms.

3. Such, also, is the language of the Act of Union. It enacted, "That every of the Lords and Commons of the "Parliament of the United Kingdom, in the first and every

66

66

succeeding Parliament, should, UNTIL THE PARLIA"MENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM SHOULD OTHERWISE PROVIDE, take the Oaths then pro“vided to be taken." Is not this an explicit intimation that a change of Oaths, after the Union, in favour of the Catholics, was then contemplated? Was not a sure and certain hope of it held out to them by these words? Is it not incontrovertible proof, that all the statesmen who favoured the Union were convinced that Catholic Emancipation might be granted without affecting the Coronation Oath?

4. In the debate in the House of Commons on the petition of the Irish Catholics, on Wednesday the 25th of May, 1808, Mr. Elliot thus expressed himself:-" I do not rise "for the purpose of entering into any discussion on the "general topic, but in consequence of what has fallen "from my noble friend opposite, (Lord Castlereagh), merely "to advert to the circumstances of the Union, of which "I may be supposed to have some official knowledge, and "of the expectations held out to the Catholics, in order to "conciliate their acquiescence in that measure. My noble “friend has said, that no pledge was given to the Catho"lics that their full emancipation was to be the immediate consequence of this measure, in consideration of their "support. It is true, indeed, that no bond was given to "the Catholics on that point; but there were certainly expectations, and something like promises, held out to them, which, in my mind, ought to be more binding

68

66

"than a bond. So strongly was that idea felt by my noble “friend, and by my right honourable friend (Mr. Canning), "and by a right honourable gentleman now no more (Mr. "Pitt), that they quitted office because they could not carry the measure; and when, upon Mr. Pitt's return to "office, he opposed the going into a committee, it was not from any objection to the measure, but to the time."

66

Here, but with all the deference due to his Majesty's advisers, who are supposed to be hostile to the present bill, is it not lawful for me to ask, whether, when so much is said of the Coronation Oath, some regard should not be had to the expectations held out to the Roman Catholics at the time of the Union; and by which, most confessedly, their co-operation in that measure was obtained?

VIII.

Strange, however, as after so much has been said on the subject it must necessarily appear, all this discussion, so far as Ireland is concerned in it, is absolutely superfluous-a mere waste of words.

The Coronation Oath was fixed in Ireland by the 1st of William and Mary. In Ireland at that time, Roman Catholics held their seats and voted in the house of Lords; Roman Catholic commoners were eligible to the House of Commons, and all civil and military offices were open to them. They were deprived of these rights by the acts of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the 1st and 2d of Queen Ann. It is most clear that the Coronation Oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the act that prescribed it was passed. Now, all the Irish laws meant to be repealed by the present bill are subsequent to that act. To those laws, therefore, or to any similar law, the Coronation Oath cannot, with a semblance of propriety, be referred.

IX.

To the Bill of Rights, none adhere more constitutionally than the British Catholics.

All they claim is, that it should be legitimately interpreted; and that no interpretation should be put upon it, that amounts to legislation. Nothing is more dangerous to the state, than this mode of interpretation: it is treason to the constitution.

HERE, at length, I finish my legal disquisition on this important subject. Permit me to add, that whatever may be the opinion of his Royal Highness upon it, his wishes must, I am confident, be favourable to the cause of the Roman Catholics? How many of them have been his companions in arms? What multitudes of them have fought and bled in the service of their King and country? His Royal Highness must know and feel that his Majesty has no subjects more attached to his sacred person and government; and that, if the hour of danger should arrive-(and the horizon is not without clouds that threaten it), there are none whose loyalty would be of greater value, or more to be depended on, than those sought to be relieved by the present bill. With the following historical fact, and one observation upon it, I shall close this discussion.

The Chancellor Michél de l'Hospital was the greatest magistrate whom the kingdom of France has produced. "By his conduct," says the President Hénoult," the conduct of every succeeding magistrate has been always tried." By his counsels and exertions peace was made between the Catholics and Calvinists, and the latter were admitted to the free exercise of their religious worship, and the full enjoyment of their civil rights. Some selfish leaders of the Calvinists could not conceal the vexation which this edict gave them." "This single stroke of a pen," they said, "is the ruin of more of our churches, than armies would have destroyed in ten years." The English having taken the town of Havre, the King and

Queen mother proceeded in person to the siege, and the Chancellor accompanied them. They were received with acclamations of joy. On one occasion the Chancellor remarked to them the ardour and bravery of the troops in mounting a breach. "Which of them," he exclaimed to the monarch," are Catholics-which are Protestants? " which are your bravest soldiers, your best subjects? All are equally brave and good. This is the effect of the edict, against which you were cautioned. See how it re"unites the royal family, restores to us our brothers, our "relations, our friends, and leads us out hand in hand against our enemy, and makes him feel how respectable 66 we are for our virtue and power when united among our"selves!"

66

66

Might not some friend of the Roman Catholics address. his Royal Highness in these very terms?

"Favour then," might he not respectfully say to his Royal Highness, "the humble prayer of the Roman Catholics! Let not the penal code, which yet remains in force against them, continue to torment such meritorious subjects. Is not our excellent constitution a system of comprehension and humanity? Does it not prescribe that the genius, the talents, the valour, the industry, and the labour of all his Majesty's subjects, should have equal openings to exertions, equal shares of rewards? This, and nothing but this, your Roman Catholic subjects petition for. This and nothing but this, is granted them by the present bill."

CHARLES BUTLER.

Luke Hansard & Sons,

near Lincoln's-Inn Fields, London.

By the same Author.

HISTORICAL Memoirs of the English, Irish, and ScoтTISH CATHOLICS, since the Reformation:-With a succinct History of the Principal Events in the Ecclesiastical History of this Country, antecedent to that period; and of the Histories of the Established Church, and the Dissenting and Evangelical Congregations:

AND

Some Historical Minutes respecting the Temporal Power of the Popes-The Separatists from the Church of Rome before the Reformation—the Society of Jesus-and the Guelphic Family.

Printed and Sold by John Murray, in Albemarle Street.