tenant of Ireland in favour of the Papists, though certainly very properly silenced here, yet it seems not to have been viewed in what seems to me the strongest point of view, its militating against the Coronation Oath and many existing statutes. I have therefore stated the accompanying queries on paper, to which I desire the Lord Kenyon will, after due consideration, state his opinion in the same manner, and should be glad if he would also acquire the sentiments of the Attorney-General on this most serious subject. GEORG. R.'

The following are the queries referred to in the above letter: they are printed from the original in the king's hand.

"The following queries on the present attempt to abolish all distinctions in religion in Ireland, with the intention of favouring the Roman Catholics in that kingdom, are stated from the desire of learning whether this can be done without affecting the constitution of this country; if not, there is no occasion to view whether this measure in itself be not highly improper.

The only laws which now affect the Papists in Ireland, are the Acts of Supremacy and Uniformity, the Test Act, and the Bill of Rights. It seems to require very serious investigation, how far the king can give his assent to a repeal of any one of those acts, without a breach of his Coronation Oath, and of the articles of union with Scotland.

'The construction put on the Coronation Oath by the Parliament at the revolution, seems strongly marked in the Journals of the House of Commons, when the clause was proposed by way of rider to the bill (28th March, 1689, Commons' Journals*), establishing the Coronation Oath, declaring that nothing contained in it should be construed to bind down the king and queen, their heirs and successors, not to give the royal assent to any bill for qualifying the Act of Uniformity so far as to render it palatable to Protestant Dissenters, and the clause was negatived upon a divi

* The extract from the Common's Journals alluded to by his Majesty:— Jovis, 28 die Martii. 1 Willielmi et Mariæ." (A. D. 1689). 'Coronation Oath.-The bill for establishing the Coronation Oath was read the third time.

A proviso, engrossed, was offered as a rider, to be made part of the bill, which was read the first time, and is as follows:

"Provided always, and be it hereby declared, that no clause in this act shall be understood so to bind the kings and queens of this realm, as to prevent their giving their royal assent to any bill which shall, at any time, be offered by the Lords and Commons assembled in Parliament, for the taking away or altering any form or ceremony in the established Church, so as the doctrines of the said Church, a public Liturgy, and the Episcopal government of it be preserved."

A debate arose thereupon.'

'The debate upon the proviso offered to be made part of the bill for establishing the Coronation Oath was resumed, and the question being put-"That the proviso be read a second time," it passed in the negative.'

Resolved, "That the bill do pass; and that the title be,' An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath."

sion. This leads to the implication that the coronation oath was understood at the revolution to bind the Crown not to assent to any repeal of any of the existing laws at the revolution, or which were then enacted, for the maintenance and defence of the Protestant religion as by law established.

'If the oath was understood to bind the Crown not to assent to the repeal of the Act of Uniformity in favour of Protestant Dissenters, it would seem to bind the Crown full as strongly not to assent to the repeal of the Act of Supremacy, or the Test Act, in favour of the Roman Catholics.

Another question arises from the provisions of the act limiting the succession to the Crown, by which a forfeiture of the Crown is expressly enacted, if the king upon the throne should hold communications with, or be reconciled to the Church of Rome. May not the repeal of the Act of Supremacy, and the establishing the Popish religion in any of the hereditary dominions, be construed as amounting to a reconciliation with the Church of Rome?

Would not the Chancellor of England incur some risk in affixing the Great Seal to a bill for giving the Pope a concurrent ecclesiastical jurisdiction with the king?

'By the articles of union with Scotland, it is declared to be an essential and fundamental article, that the king of Great Britain shall maintain the Church of England as by law established, in England, Ireland, and Berwick-upon-Tweed.

'The bargain made by England in 1782, by Yelverton's act, gives rise to the question, whether the repeal of any of the English statutes adopted by that act would not be a direct violation of the compact made by the Parliament of Ireland with Great Britain.'

To these queries, lord Kenyon returned the subjoined answer; and it will be observed, that it must be taken not only as the answer of his Lordship alone, but as that also of the then AttorneyGeneral, Sir John Scott, since Lord Chancellor, and now Earl of Eldon. We may here observe by the way, that the latter noble and learned Lord, to the best of our recollection, has never deviated from the opinion here expressed concerning the extent of the coronation oath. We may add, that the same opinion appears to have been uniformly held by the earl of Liverpool, who went even so far in the debate on the Catholic Bill of 1825, as to say, that the objections to the measure which were founded on the coronation oath, were not deserving of a moment's serious consideration. We return to lord Kenyon.

'Lord Kenyon received your Majesty's commands when he was in the country. He came immediately to town, and encloses what has occurred to him upon the question. He has conferred with the Attorney-General, and believes there is not any difference in opinion between them.

"They are neither of them apprized what was the extent of the alteration meditated to be made in Ireland.

'Your Majesty's most obliged and dutiful subject,

11th March, 1795. KENYON.' 'The act for the union of England and Scotland has made the church

establishments in the two countries essential and fundamental parts of the union, and has declared, that the acts of the two countries for securing the respective Church Government, shall be and continue, at all times coming, part of the terms of the union that I understand to be the necessary construction of the words of the 11th section of the act.

The Coronation Oath, enacted in 1 William and Mary, requires the king to maintain the Protestant reformed religion established by law.

The 8th + section of the Act of Union shews, that by religion established by law, is meant the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the church. This includes the king's supremacy and the various orders of ministers, and the provision which the state makes for the decent support of the clergy. The doctrine and discipline are regulated, inter alia, by the Acts of Uniformity, and the Liturgy as it stands enacted by the statute of 13 and 14 Car. II.

To overthrow any part of the church establishment, as I have now stated it, would, as it seems, militate against the Coronation Oath, as settled in the stat. 1 W. & M., and the Act of Union, and contravene an essential and fundamental part of the Act of Union.

In order to preserve the established church, several laws have been

* 5 Anne, c. 8, s. 11. "And be it hereby further enacted, that the said act, passed in this present session of Parliament, entitled An Act for securing the Church of England, as by law established,' &c., and also the Act of Parliament of Scotland, entitled 'An Act for securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government,' &c., be, and shall for ever be, held and adjudged to be and observed as fundamental and essential conditions of the said Union, &c. &c.; and the said act passed in the present session of Parliament, &c. and also the said Act passed in the Parliament of Scotland, &c., are hereby enacted and ordained to be, and continue in all times coming, the complete and entire Union of the two kingdoms of England and Scotland."

+ S. 8." And be it further enacted, that for ever hereafter every King or Queen succeeding and coming to the royal Government of the kingdom. of Great Britain, at his or her coronation, shall, in the presence of all persons who shall be attending, &c., take and subscribe an oath to maintain and preserve inviolable the said settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, and town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, and the territories thereto belonging."

The 7th section recites part of the act entitled, 'An Act for securing the Church of England, as by law established,' of which the following is an extract:-"That an act made in the 13th year of the reign of Queen Elizabeth of famous memory, entitled An Act for the Ministers of the Church to be of sound religion;' and also another act made in the 13th year of the late King Charles II., entitled An Act for the uniformity of the Public Prayers,' &c., and all and singular other acts of Parliament now in force, for the establishment and preservation of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, shall remain and be in full force for ever.'

enacted, subjecting those who dissented from the established church to penalties or disabilities: and these have pressed sometimes upon one denomination of sectarists, and sometimes upon another, as the temper of the times or the supposed necessity of the case required-Papists and Conventiclers have in their turns felt the rigour of statute law.

The statute of 22 Car. II., c. 1, for preventing conventicles, and other statutes of like tendency, existed at the time when the Coronation Oath was framed and enacted by I W. & M., c. 6; yet in the same session of Parliament the law called the Toleration Act was made. Several indulgences both in England and Ireland have been since granted to several denominations of persons dissenting from the church of Engand. Those regulations have been supposed by the makers of them not to be hostile to the church of England as by law established, but merely to repeal or lessen the rigour of penal statutes, which, though thought necessary at one season were deemed inexpedient at another time, and under different circumstances.

'So long as the king's supremacy, and the main fabric of the Act of Uniformity, the doctrine, discipline, and government of the church of England, are preserved as the national church, and the provision for its ministers kept as an appropriated fund, it seems that any ease given to sectarists would not militate against the Coronation Oath or the Act of Union.

"The proviso, which was rejected on 28th March, 1689, as appears in 10th vol. of Commons' Journals, p. 69, might possibly be rejected as being thought unnecessary; for it is observable from printed history, that in that very year a commission issued, authorising several bishops and other learned men to revise the Liturgy and Canons, and prepare such alterations as they should think expedient.

Though the Test Act appears to be a very wise law, and in point of sound policy not to be departed from, yet it seems that it might be repealed, or altered, without any breach of the Coronation Oath, or Act of Union. The temporary bills of Indemnity, which have so frequently passed, have, in effect, from time to time, dispensed with it in some degree.

It should seem that the Chancellor of Great Britain would incur great risk in affixing the great seal to a bill giving the Pope a concurrent ecclesiastical jurisdiction with the King. It would be contrary to the Coronation Oath, and subversive of a fundamental part of the Act of Union.'

We own we do not very well understand, what either his Majesty or lord Kenyon means, by the risk that would be incurred by the Lord Chancellor, in affixing the great seal to a bill giving the Pope a concurrent ecclesiastical jurisdiction with the king. Supposing for a moment, that such a bill had passed both houses of parliament, and obtained the assent of the sovereign, how could any peculiar responsibility for such a law attach to the Lord Chancellor? We cannot answer the question. It is a mystery to our humble comprehension. Besides, what necessity would there be, in case the claims of Catholics were satisfied, for the enactment of any such law at all? It is not improbable, that something in the shape of a concordat between the government of this country and his Holiness, might be found expedient for the arrangement of the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland; but it is certain, that under that

concordat, nothing like a general ecclesiastical concurrent jurisdiction with the king could be given to the Pope, without changing the established religion of this country; which we presume, nobody contemplates. Upon all other points lord Kenyon's answers are perfectly clear, and shew the scruples of the king to be mere chimeras of the brain. The correspondence, however, does not terminate here: we shall give it in the quder in which it occurs.

'The king is much pleased with the ligence shown by Lord Kenyon in answering the questions proposed to heel but as he seems not fully apprised of the extent of the present application of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, the king has thought it best to inclose the petition received yesterday, and the state of the question as drawn up by a right reverend prelate of that kingdom; on which the king wishes to have the Lord Kenyon's further opinion in writing.

'Queen's-House, March, 14, 1795.

GEORG. R.'

Dr. Phillpots does not favour us with a copy of the petition: what his Majesty was pleased to call 'the state of the question,' however, is subjoined. We regret that we cannot add to it the name of the right reverend prelate, who was the secret adviser of his Majesty on this occasion.

'It has been confidently reported in Ireland, that, in compliance with the unbounded requisition of the Roman Catholics, a bill had been prepared to capacitate them to sit in parliament, without making or subscribing the declaration against popery, or taking the oath of supremacy. This appears to be a direct violation of the English act of 30th Charles II., st. 2, chap. 1; which enacts, that no person shall sit or vote in parliament, until he shall have taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and made, and subscribed, and audibly repeated, the declaration against popery therein contained. Which act, as far as it relates to the said oaths and declarations, was made the law of Ireland, by the Irish act of the 21st and 22d of George III., chap. 48, sect. 3. It also appears to be a repeal of the declaration of the Bill of Rights, which are expressly enacted and established,, "to stand and remain and be the law of the realm for ever." It seems to be a repeal of the Act of Settlement, "whereby all the laws and statutes of the realm for securing the established religion were ratified and confirmed." Among which statutes so confirmed, we must place the preceding statutes of Charles II., and the declaration of the Bill of Rights. It appears also to be a direct violation of the Act of Union (5 Anne, chap. 8.), by which the inviolate maintenance and preservation of the established religion in Ireland is secured, by providing" that all and singular the acts of parliament then in force for the establishment and preservation of the church, should remain and be in full force for ever. And it is further therein enacted, that this act, and all and every the things therein contained, be, and shall for ever be holden to be, a fundamental and essential part of the union." It seems also that an inviolable observation of all these statutes is made obligatory upon every king and queen of the realm, by the Coronation Oath.'

The right reverend prelate ought to have known, that the 30th