Oath. In fupport of his arguments he quoted the authority of Blackstone, and recited the Coronation Oath under the ftatute of 1ft William and Mary. "The patrons of this meafure (continued the Learned Doctor), aware of thofe impediments, have fedulously endeavoured, by fophiftical arguments, cafuistical diftinctions, mifreprefentations of fome facts, fuppreffion of others, and suggestions of falsehoods in pam. phlets and newspapers, to fap the foundations of this barrier, which they are unable to furmount. One pamphlet of this fort deferves particular notice; it is written by a Charles Butler, Efq. of Lincoln's Inn, a lawyer and conveyancer, of the Roman Catholic perfuafion, whom I understand to be a perfon of fome reputation. It is entitled, A Letter to a Nobleman, on the propofed Repeal of the remaining Penal Laws in Force against Catholics.' The author states, that he is lefs acquainted with the Irish Popery Laws than with the English, (obvious enough from his book) and proceeds to give, what he ftyles, an outline of them; but, in truth, it is an odious, monftrous, and deteftable caricatura of the provisions and effects of the Irish Popery Acts of the 2d and 8th of Queen Anne. The whole fcope of these two wife Acts was to prevent Romanifts from acquiring landed property in Ireland; their antecedent rebellions and barbarous maflacres of the Protestants of Ireland having rendered fuch a prohibition, at that time, not only expedient but abfolutely neceffary. The pamphlet admits thofe statutes are now repealed, but its main drift is against the obligation of the Coronation Oath. It praifes the loyalty of the Irish Romanifts during the war, and states, that of the five Directors of the United Irish only one was a Romanist: but it should have stated, at the fame time, what the truth is, that the other four were defperate Jacobins and Infidels, with which fpecies of people the Irish Rebels had closely connected themfelves; and that nearly the whole mafs of Irish traitors, in that rebellion, were Romanifts, not one in five hundred of them being of any other fect; and that they massacred, in cold blood, all the Proteftants, men, women, and children, that fell into their hands, giving no other reason for their barbarity, than that the victims were Proteftants and heretics. The Reports of the Secret Committees of both Parliaments are fome years publifhed. The confpiracy for rebellion, and the dreadful and dangerous mutiny of the Irish Romanists in the British Fleet, are fully exposed in these Reports; yet the author of that pamphlet has the confidence to affert the loyalty of those Irish Romanists, and say there were none more active in repelling the French invaders under Humbert; and that among the men of influence and pro

perty

perty engaged in the rebellion, not three Catholics are to be found. But what is the fact ?-Humbert landed, with one thoufand French troops, in a part of the country moftly Romanifts, who immediately joined him in a mass, on his first encounter with the King's troops. The greater part of an Irith militia regiment, alfo Romanifts, deferted to him; all the Romanists of influence and property in the adjacent districts joined him. What then could induce the author fo lavishly to commend the loyalty of thefe Romanifts? He ftates, too, that the folitude of British camps and fleets would be frightful indeed if Irish Romanists did not flock to your ftandard!!! Poor Britain !-Irish Romanists, according to this pamphlet, are your only defenders. Not above one-half the Irifh in British fleets and armies are Romanifts, and the Proteftants of each country would fufficiently man both if Romanifts were entirely excluded. Since the mutiny in the fleet the recruiting officers for the marine refused to enlist Romanists. The merit of Romish common foldiers, enlifted for bounty and pay, ferving under Proteftant officers in our army, nine-tenths Proteftants, remote from their native land, and the baleful influence of their priests, is fo minute as fcarcely to be eftimated; and as to the mere fpiritual fupremacy of the Pope, I have already proved that a vaft fhare of temporal influence and authority is infeparable from fpirituals. With refpect to the Coronation Oath, by which this pamphlet argues His Majefty is not bound to refift this meafure, the argument rests on the claufe in the Oath, which binds His Majesty "to govern the people according to the ftatutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and cuftoms of the realm," to which it adds a mutilated extract from the next claufe, that His Majefty fwears "to maintain the Protestant Religion, eftablished by law," adverting only to the Oath fixed by the Ift of William and Mary, omitting the additions in the -5th of Ann, or the Scotch Union Act. He then concludes, from thefe garbled preniifes, that the last clause means only the Proteftant Reformed Religion, as from time to time, under the legislation of Parliament, it should be the Church Eftablishment of the country; and that as to the conftitutional interpretation of the claufe, it, would be extremely abfurd and even treasonable to contend that the laft claufe precludes His Majesty from concurring with both Houfes in any Act of Legiflation whatever; and even if it did fo preclude him, it could be no impediment to his repealing the laws in force against the Irish Romanifts, as it could not interfere with the

Ι

lawful

lawful Church Eftablishment, with any part of the Hierarchy, or with any of its temporal or spiritual privileges. But this argument is founded upon the fophifm of a fraudulent affumption, that Bills pending in Parliament, which may perhaps have paffed both Houfes, are Acts of Parliament, but concealing the true conftruction of what an Act of Parliament is, namely, an A&t agreed on by the three Estates of Legislature, King, Lords, and Commons; for no other can be binding on Prince or People. I trust that fort of har mony will ever fubfift between the King and his Parliament, that no Bill ever will be offered for his Royal affent, more efpecially a Bill againft his Coronation Oath, which he fhalt deem it expedient to reject. But I cannot accede to the bold, and indeed abfurd and treasonable doctrine of fome writers upon the Constitution, who affert that the King is bound to affent to every Bill paffed by both Houfes; for this would render the King, in his legiflative capacity, a mere cypher. For who can affert that His Majefty is bound to give an af fent in direct violation of his Coronation Oath? I shall ever maintain the contrary principle, although I thereby incur the guilt of treafon, in the opinion of this annotator upon Coke on Littleton; and I leave fuch doctrines to Romanifts and the Court of Rome 'tis no Proteftant doctrine. William III. in the pureft æra of the conftitution, in 1693 and 1695, refused his affent to two Bills which had paffed both Houses, one to difqualify Members of Parliament from holding Places, and the other for the further Regulation of Elections The pamphlet inquires, By what cafuiftry is it rendered ununlawful for His Majefty to affent to a repeal of the fmail portion of the Penal Laws remaining, after affenting to the repeal of all the former? To this I anfwer, That the repeat of the former does not confer any confiderable portion of political power upon the Romanifts even in Ireland, and could not, as in the prefent cafe, be productive of confe→ quences fubverfive to Church and State, because it does not place within their grafp those offices of the State in which the Executive Power is lodged, unless they perform the requifites of all other His Majesty's fabjects. The powers therefore remaining to be ceded, though small in bulk, are great in their importance, and indifpenfable to the fecurity of the conftitution. What commandant of a strong fortrefs, the chief defence of a kingdom, would be juftified in furrendering it to a cruel, mercilefs, and unrelenting enemy, because it was deemed expedient, for the better defence of the place, to flight fome weak and unimportant outwork, and permit

the

the foe to take poffeffion of it?" But (fays the author) all this difcuffion is fuperfluous; for the Coronation Qath was fixed in Ireland, by William and Mary, at a time when Roman Catholic Peers fat and voted in the Houfe of Lords, and Commoners were eligible to the Houfe of Commons. All civil and military offices were open to them, and they were not deprived of thofe rights until the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the ift and 2d of Ann. Now the Coronation Oath can only refer to the fyftem of laws in force when the Act paffed which prescribed it: but the Irish laws, meant to be repealed, are fubfequent to that Act; and therefore the Oath cannot refer to thofe or to any fimilar Acts." Now, in answer to this, I contend, that not only by the 1ft, 3d, and 4th of William and Mary, but by the 30th of Charles II., the King is bound by his Coronation Oath to maintain, to the utmost of his power, the Church, as established by law in England and Ireland, in the fame manner as he found it on his acceffion; and this obligation is ftill further fortified by the fifth article of the Union between Great Britain and Ireland; nor can I think it creditable to the annotator of Coke upon Littleton thus to attempt fupporting the cause of his party by the quibbles of fpecial pleading.

I am not fufficiently converfant with the journals of the Irish Houfe of Lords to afcertain whether Romish Peers were or were not excluded from feats in that House, previous to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, unless they took the Oath of Supremacy. They certainly were not fo by any Irish Statute: but very few fuch Peers could have fat in the Irish Parliament from the Restoration to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, excepting the Romish mob affembled in Dublin by King James II. after his abdication, and by him and themfelves styled a Parliament; for the Romish Peerage in Ireland, previous to 1641, was not numerous, as almost the whole of them were attainted as traitors, having joined in that wicked Romish Rebellion and Maffacre of the Irish Protestants in 1641, and the remainder for their rebellion in 1689 -90, and-91. But it is a grofs misstatement to fay, that Romanifts were eligible to feats in the Irish Houfe of Commons, previous to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, without taking any oaths whatever, and particularly the Oath of Supremacy;-as by a refolution of the Irith Houfe of Commons in 1642, all Members were obliged to take the Oath of Supremacy or vacate their feats; and by another refolution in 1661, all Members were not only obliged to take that Oath, but

I 2

but to receive the Sacrament according to the ufage of the Established Church, or vacate their feats. The Author's affertion, that all places, civil and military, were open to the Romanifts in Ireland, previous to the acceffion of William and Mary, fmells of the fame artifice with his former affertions, refpecting feats in the House of Commons. It is true that fuch offices were indeed open to Romanifts then as they are now, if they performed the acts required of all others His Majefty's fubjects, but from their univerfal rejection of which, they difable themfelves from holding fuch offices. The author cannot refort for his authority, to the unlawful, riotous affembly convoked at Dublin in 1689, by King James after his abdication, and by him ftyled a Parliament: they confifted entirely of Romanifts unlawfully elected, after he had deftroyed all the Proteftant Corporations, and driven out of the country, or into the Proteftant armies, all the Proteftant nobility and gentry,-after he had himself ceafed to be King, and had no authority to convoke a Parlia ment. Under an Act of William and Mary, this mock Parliament was declared to be an unlawful affembly, and all its Acts condemned to the flames, and publicly burnt accordinglyHaving, I truft, already proved that the doctrines, political, moral, and religious, profeffed in that Petition, and ftated to be thofe of the Roman Catholic Religion, are the very reverse of those principles taught and inculcated by the Canons, Decrees of General Councils, by all writers, lay and cleric, of the greatest authority amongst the Romanists, and adopted by the univerfal practice of their Church from the time of the Lateran Council to the present day; and which their modern writers, fuch as Dr. Troy and Mr. Plowden, affert, are the religious principles of Roman Catholics, being unchangeable, and applicable to all times; and that if any one fays or pretends to infinuate that the modern Ro man Catholics differ in one iota from their ancestors, he either deceives himself or wishes to deceive others; and that femper eadem is emphatically defcriptive of their religion.

With refpect to the argument, used in the courfe of this debate, relative to the establishment of the Roman Catholic Religion in Canada, because it has produced no bad effects there, it is rather premature to form any decided opinion of what effects may hereafter flow from it: befide, the establishment of it there was not a matter of choice but neceflity, as it was upon the exprefs ftipulation of that meafure that Canada furrendered to the British arms; and that the Roman O Catholic Religion fhould be for ever preferved inviolate there: