religion; but almost immediately afterwards he assented to a bill, which altered the oath of supremacy from a positive affirmation of the Crown's ecclesiastical supremacy in this realm, to a negative assertion, that this supremacy was not possessed by any foreign power. This substitution of one oath of supremacy for another, admitted into power, place, and all other civil rights of subjects, a numerous description of persons who, till that time, had been excluded from them. King William's assent to this bill must therefore be considered to be a breach of his Coronation oath, unless our interpretation of it be admitted.

3. At a subsequent time the same monarch took an oath to maintain the church of Scotland, which was at that time Episcopalian; but he soon afterwards made a new settlement of the Scottish church in the Presbyterian form. This was a total alteration of the constitution of the church of Scotland, and only justifiable, in respect to the Coronation oath, by our interpretation of it.

4. When, in the reign of Queen Anne, Scotland was united to England, an oath was formed by the Parliament of Scotland, by which every King was required at his acceseion, to take an oath to preserve the Protestant religion and Presbyterian church government in Scotland. This Act was confirmed by the Act of Union.

Notwithstanding these acts-notwithstanding his own Coronation oath, his late Majesty gave his sanction to the acts of the 18th, the 31st, the 33d, and the 57th years of his reign, for the relief of his English, Irish, and Scottish Catholic subjects. If the pains, penalties, and disabilities, repealed by these statutes were numbered, it would be found that they amounted to more than three-fourths of the whole penal code.

Grateful beyond expression as the Roman Catholics

truly are, for the large extent of relief which these legislative acts of wise policy and beneficence have successively extended to them, they yet presume to inquire what objection can lie, from the Coronation oath, to the repeal of the small remaining number of the penal acts, that did not apply, in some manner at least, to each of these salutary acts of his late Majesty?

It is said that these acts did no more than confer on the Roman Catholics the blessings of toleration; but that the relief now solicited would confer on them political power. Taking for granted, but not allowing, this to be the fact, did not the Act of Toleration admit the Protestant Dissenters of England-did not the Act for the settlement of the Protestant religion in Scotland admit the Scottish Presbyterians to a full participation of political power with his Majesty's other Protestant subjects? Never did the kingdom abound with abler lawyers-never did the crown possess more able or more constitutional advisers-never was an opposition to the crown more active or more jealous than at the periods in which these laws were passed. Yet, was a murmur of disapprobation of them heard? Was the Coronation oath so much as mentioned?

VI. The claim of Ireland to the relief solicited by the present bill is particularly strong.

1. When Mr. Pitt proposed the Articles of Union to the House of Commons, he thus expressed himself :— "No man can say that, in the present state of things, and while Ireland continues a separate kingdom, full concessions can be made to the Catholics without endangering 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 succeeding Parliament, should, until the "Parliament of the United Kingdom should otherwise "provide, take the oaths then provided 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 circum"stances 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

66

66

acquiescence in that measure. My noble friend has said, that no pledge was given to the Catholics that "their full emancipation was to be the immediate conέσ sequence 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 than a bond. So strongly was that idea felt by my noble friend, and by my right honourable friend

66

66

66

(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, 66 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.”

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 66 measure was obtained?"

VII. 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 Anne. 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.

VIII. 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 Michel de l'Hospital was the greatest magistrate whom the kingdom of France has produced. By his conduct," says the President Hénault," 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 branch. "Which of them," he exclaimed to the monarch," are Catholics-which are Protestants? "which are your bravest soldiers, your best subjects?