possibly experience (though he possessed every worldly enjoyment) in this state of his being. Though our conversation was sometimes directed to the literary or theological publications of the day, or to the actions, demeanour, or conduct, of his more distinguished contemporaries, of whom he related numerous, and most interesting anecdotes; yet the more fre quent topics of our conversation were derived from the possible or probable approach of the period when the body should be committed to the ground, and the spirit return to its Maker. He delighted to dwell on these subjects. The questions which appeared to interest him more than any others, were - whether the soul slept in the grave, with the suspension of its faculties, till it awoke, with the re-animated body, in the morning of the resurrection or whether (as he steadfastly believed) it passed in some mysterious manner into the more manifested presence of God immediately upon the dissolution of the body—the nature of the future happiness, and future misery - the continuance of the existence of the mental habits which are formed in this state, and which constitute in some manner our future condition the extent of redemption and the opposite opinions of Christians, respecting the invisible state; these and similar considerations were alternately discussed in these calm and silent hours; and he uniformly concluded these discussions by observing, "I know not, and I care not, what may be the real solution of these questions; I am in the hands of a merciful God, and I resign myself to His will, with hope, and patience." All our inquiries indeed upon these subjects, though they may be very interesting, are merely speculative, and are always unsatisfactory. We cannot raise the veil which conceals the future. We must die before we can understand death; yet the sight of an old man, full of days, riches, and honours, at the close of a religious, and well-spent life, patiently expecting his end, abounding in every virtue which can adorn mankind — in humility, in patience, in kindness, in charity to all, in serene submission to expected death, in implicit dependence upon the mercy of a God, whom he believed to be his Friend, and Father, by the Atonement, which had been accomplished by the Mediator of the New Testament. the image of such a

man can never be obliterated from my memory; and the continued enjoyment of his conversation, till within a few weeks of his death, while the strength of his body was gradually declining, and the intellectual, though not the spiritual, powers were decaying; that is, while he was beginning to be more averse to worldly business, and more intent upon devotional exercises, was a privilege which I cannot too much appreciate, and which may be justly envied by all who can delight in the society of the wise and good; or who would contemplate the triumph of the spirit of man over the weakness of the mind, and the infirmities of the body."

CHAP. XXXII.

PASSING OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION BILL AND FEELINGS OF THE PROTESTANT PUBLIC RESPECTING IT.

1829.

In the autumn of 1829 the public mind was agitated throughout Great Britain by reports that it was the intention of the Duke of Wellington to make Roman Catholic Emancipation a Cabinet measure, and to support it in both Houses of Parliament by the whole weight and influence of Government.

It was also stated that Mr. Peel, hitherto the firm and unflinching opponent of emancipation, had yielded to the same reasons which had swayed the Duke's decision, and was prepared to bring a bill to this effect into the House of Commons, and to give it his unqualified support.

The first impression of the Protestant public was incredulity; but when the fact became unquestionable, it naturally gave a violent shock (the more violent in consequence of the quarter whence the measure emanated) to their most deeply rooted principles and feelings.

A sentiment of indignant hostility to the proposition was general among the great majority of the members of the Church of England, and pervaded also no inconsiderable portion of the Dissenters, so that petitions against it poured into both Houses of Parliament from every part of the country, issuing from public meetings equally numerous and influential, and attended not only by the Clergy and the higher and leading members of their flocks, but also by large bodies of respectable tradesmen and yeomanry.

As long as the measure was in its progress through the House of Commons, an active warfare continued to be maintained against it out of doors and among those who lifted a warning voice to the nation, the Bishop of Salisbury was indefatigable. He addressed a series of letters on the subject to the Duke of Wellington in one of the newspapers, in which he strenuously denounced the intended measure as in a constitutional sense suicidal, and pregnant with future mischief and danger to the country. These letters, some of which were, in the first instance, transmitted in a written form to the Duke, led to a correspondence between himself and the illustrious Premier. The letters of the latter are written with his characteristic decision and energy; but the reasons which he urged in support of his intentions all resolved themselves into considerations of political expediency, arising

out of the state of Ireland. The Bishop's opinions, on the contrary, were in the spirit of those of our Protestant ancestors, who were ready to incur any danger rather than to compromise those principles which identified opposition to the Roman Catholic religion, not only with the safety of the British Constitution, but with their zeal also for the Truth of God and the Glory of his Gospel.

On the 2d of April, 1829, in one of the debates on the question in the House of Lords, the Bishop, after saying that he could not reconcile it with his conscience to give a silent vote against the Bill, stated, in a brief but forcible manner, his principal objections.

He dwelt, in the first place, on the danger to be apprehended from the influence of that supreme spiritual authority by means of which the Pope extends his influence into foreign countries, and interferes with the temporal authority of sovereigns and states.

He then expressed his entire dissent from those who treated the question as one of mere political expediency, and maintained that it was impossible, upon any just principle, to view it separate from religious considerations. Did not the first canon of our Church denounce the Roman Catholic religion as idolatrous and superstitious? Regarding and treating it as such, had they not all in that House repeatedly made a declaration, and bound themselves by a solemn oath against Popery

an