Charles II., stat. 2, chap. I, was first extended to Ireland in 1692, by 3 Wm. and Mary, chap. 2, and afterwards confirmed by the act which he mentions. Lord Kenyon, in the admirable paper in which he answers this 'state of the question,' omits to observe, that the coronation oath was established in 1689; and that at the very moment it was passed into a law, Catholic peers and Catholic commoners were not prevented by w from sitting in the parliament of Ireland. Is not this simpact a complete answer to all scruFole ples upon this point, founde the coronation oath? We cheerfully leave the other parts the question to lord Kenyon.

'It is a general maxim, that the supreme power of a state cannot limit itself.

Either of the houses of parliament may, if they think proper, pass a bill up to the extent of the most unreasonable requisition that can be made; and, provided sound policy, and a sense of the duty they owe to the established religion of the country do not operate on their minds, so as to prevent their doing what is improper, there is no statute law to prevent their entertaining and passing such bill, to abolish the supremacy and the whole of the government and discipline of the Church of England, as now by law established. Our ancestors did not suppose, at the time of the Revolution, that any danger was to be feared from these quarters; and, therefore, the Statute-Book does not exact any promissory oath from the members of the houses of parliament, binding them not to receive or pass bills hostile to the reformed religion as by law established. But that is not the case of the king. Recent misconduct in the reign of king James II. had raised great jealousy; and, therefore, the Coronation Oath exacts from the king an oath to maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law,

&c. &c.

'The state of the question with which I have been honoured supposes, that the requisition now made is a direct violation of the statute of 30 Car. II., stat. 2.

It certainly is inconsistent with that law; and if it shall be yielded to, will, in effect, repeal it; though that law, when it was made, was looked upon by the legislature as necessary for the more effectually preserving the king's person and government, by disabling papists from sitting in either house of parliament. How far that law still continues a fence for the Church as by law established, must be judged of by those who are to act on the proposed repeal, if such a measure should be brought forward. Those who think it is an important and necessary part of the defence of the Established Church, may also think that the Coronation Oath was meant to provide against the king's consenting to the repeal; for though an act for repealing the statute of Charles II. would not in itself break in upon the Established Church, yet it would facilitate steps which might afterwards follow for that purpose, as by this means Papists might constitute a majority of each house of parliament.

'It cannot well pass observation, that the whole system of laws, as to the purpose of present inquiry, was to guard against the possible introduction of popish influence into any branch of the legislature. As far as respects the sovereign, he is guarded by the oath he takes; and with respect to the houses of parliament, by the declaration in 30 Car. II.

'I am not aware what clauses in the Bill of Rights are supposed to be broken in upon, by what is suggested as likely to be proposed.

The statute of 12 and 13 William, c. 2, shews the great anxiety the legislature then had to guard against popery. But here again the question recurs, how is the supreme power of the country bound?-The two houses of parliament are not under any promissory oath-that obligation has been extended to the king only. This statute of William III. has done no more, as far as respects the present question, than the former statutes had done.

'The paper I before sent stated, I believe, what then occured, and all that at present occurs on the statute of the Union.

In short, the question resolves itself to this :-Will the proposed act violate that oath, which promises to maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as it was at the time of the Union by law established within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, &c.

'The petition expresses apprehension of proscription, persecution, and oppression. All grounds of such apprehensions, if such there really are, may be safely removed, if the late benefits, which the petition admits, have not removed them, without endangering the Established Church, or violating the Coronation Oath.

'I will, out of anxiety, add one word more. It seems to me, that the judgment of the person who takes the Coronation Oath, must determine whether any particular statute proposed does destroy the government of the Established Church. It seems that the oath, couched in the general terms in which it is found, does not preclude the party sworn from exercising a judgment, whether that which he is bound to maintain will be essentially, or in any great degree, affected by the proposed measure.

If any thing be necessary to be added to his Lordship's reasoning on this subject, we should find it in the clear and masterly tract on this question, which Mr. Butler has just republished.

" to

By the first clause of the Coronation Oath, his Majesty swears govern the people according to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the realm." This was evidently meant to denote, not only the statutes, laws, and customs then existing, but those also which should afterwards become part of the national law, in consequence of any subsequent legislation of Parliament.

'In the next clause, his Majesty swears" to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law, and to preserve to the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their care, all such rights and privileges as by law did or should belong or appertain to them or any of them." This could only mean the Protestant Reformed Religion, the churches, the rights, and the privileges, which, from time to time, should, under the actual or any future legislation of Parliament, form the church establishment of the realm.

Even if the Coronation Oath should be thought to preclude the monarch from such a concurrence, it would be no objection to his repealing the laws now solicited to be repealed, as the repeal of these laws will not interfere with the legal establishment of the church, with its hierarchy, with

any of its churches, or with any of their temporal or spiritual pre-eminences, rights or privileges. Letter on the Coronation Oath, p. 8.

Mr. Butler has another observation on this subject, which appears to us unanswerable. It throws the whole question into a nutshell.

Is it not universally allowed, that in every case where one persoN takes an oath to another, the person to whom, or in whose favour the oath has been taken, may, at his pleasure, release, either wholly or partially, the person taking the oath, from all the obligations to which he bound himself by it?

THE CORONATION OATH IS MADE TO THE PEOPLE, AS REPRESENTED BY PARLIAMENT. May I not therefore ask, whether, upon the supposition that the Coronation Oath really extends to the present case, (which, however, I must respectfully repeat that it does not), the people represented by the Parliament, being the persons and the only persons entitled to the benefit of the oath, have not full power and authority to release the monarch who took the oath, and all his successors, from its obligations?'-Letter, &c. p. 9.

We come now to that very important portion of the correspondence which passed between his late Majesty and Mr. Pitt; and again have to express our surprise that such decided and inexorable enemies to Catholic emancipation, as the present lord Kenyon and Dr. Phillpots, could have been prevailed upon to give documents to the world, which put a complete extinguisher upon some of the most favourite arguments of their party. It was but two or three weeks ago, that lord Eldon was represented to have expressed himself at the Pitt dinner, to the following effect: "His Lordship pronounced a pathetic eulogium (he has been lately in "the melting mood "), upon the memory and principles of Mr. Pitt; but remarked, with reference to their toast of Protestant Ascendancy, that he never could obtain from his lamented and illustrious friend, any adequate explanation of what were his securities for this Protestant constitution, in the event of Catholic emancipation." We have no doubt of the correctness of this report, as we have ourselves heard his Lordship utter similar observations on more than two or three occasions. We conclude, therefore, that the noble and learned lord never was in the confidence of Mr. Pitt; and that he never saw the letters which we shall now extract, before they were published by Dr. Phillpots.

LETTER OF MR. PITT TO THE LATE KING.

Downing-street, Saturday, Jan. 31, 1801. Mr. Pitt would have felt it, at all events, his duty, previous to the meeting of parliament, to submit to your Majesty the result of the best consideration which your confidential servants could give to the important questions respecting the Catholics and Dissenters, which must naturally be agitated in consequence of the Union. The knowledge of your Majesty's general indisposition to any change of the laws on this subject, would have

made this a painful task to him; and it is become much more so, by learning from some of his colleagues, and from other quarters, within these few days, the extent to which your Majesty entertains, and has declared, that sentiment.

'He trusts your Majesty will believe, that every principle of duty, gratitude, and attachment, must make him look to your Majesty's ease and satisfaction, in preference to all considerations but those arising from a sense of what in his honest opinion is due to the real interest of your Majesty and your dominions. Under the impression of that opinion, he has concurred in what appeared to be the prevailing sentiments of the majority of the cabinet-that the admission of the Catholics and Dissenters to offices, and of the Catholics to parliament (from which latter the Dissenters are not now excluded), would, under certain conditions to be specified, be highly advisable, with a view to the tranquillity and improvement of Ireland, and to the general interests of the United Kingdom.

'For himself, he is, on full consideration, convinced that the measure would be attended with no danger to the Established Church, or to the Protestant interest in Great Britain and Ireland ;-that now the Union has taken place, and with the new provisions which would make part of the plan, it could never give any such weight in office, or in parliament, either to Catholics or Dissenters, as could give them any new means (if they were so disposed) of attacking the establishment:-that the grounds, on which the laws of exclusion now remaining were founded, have long been narrowed, and are since the Union removed;-that those principles, formerly held by the Catholics, which made them be considered as politically dangerous, have been for a course of time gradually declining, and among the higher orders particularly, they have ceased to prevail ;-that the obnoxious tenets are disclaimed in the most positive manner by the oaths, which have been required in Great Britain, and still more by one of those required in Ireland, as the condition of the indulgences already granted, and which might equally be made the condition of any new ones;-that if such an oath, containing (among other provisions) a denial of the power of absolution from its obligations, is not a security from Catholics, the sacramental test is not more so;-that the political circumstances under which the exclusive laws originated, arising either from the conflicting power of hostile and nearly balanced sects, from the apprehension of a popish queen or successor, a disputed succession and a foreign pretender, and a division in Europe between Catholic and Protestant powers, are no longer applicable to the present state of things; that with respect to those of the Dissenters, who, it is feared, entertain principles dangerous to the constitution, a distinct, political test, pointed against the doctrine of modern jacobinism, would be a much more just and more effectual security than that which now exists, which may operate to the exclusion of conscientious persons well affected to the state, and is no guard against those of an opposite description ;-that with respect to the Catholics of Ireland, another most important additional security, and one of which the effect would continu. ally increase, might be provided, by gradually attaching the popish clergy to the government, and, for this purpose, making them dependent for a part of their provision (under proper regulations) on the state, and by also subjecting them to superintendence and control;-that, besides these provisions, the general interests of the Established Church, and the secu

rity of the constitution and government, might be effectually strengthened by requiring the political test, before referred to, from the preachers of all Catholic or Dissenting congregations, and from the teachers of schools of every denomination.

It is on these principles Mr. Pitt humbly conceives a new security might be obtained for the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of this country, more applicable to the present circumstances, more free from objection, and more effectual in itself, than any which now exist, and which would, at the same time, admit of extending such indulgences as must conciliate the higher orders of the Catholics; and, by furnishing to a large class of your Majesty's Irish subjects a proof of the good-will of the United Parliament, afford the best chance of giving full effect to the great object of .the Union-that of tranquillizing Ireland, and attaching it to this country. 'It is with inexpressible regret, after all he now knows of your Majesty's sentiments, that Mr. Pitt troubles your Majesty, thus at large, with the general grounds of his opinion, and finds himself obliged to add, that this opinion is unalterably fixed in his mind. It must, therefore, ultimately guide his political conduct, if it should be your Majesty's pleasure, that, after thus presuming to open himself fully to your Majesty, he should remain in that responsible situation, in which your Majesty has so long condescended graciously and favourably to accept his services. It will afford him, indeed, a great relief and satisfaction, if he may be allowed to hope, that your Majesty will deign maturely to weigh what he has now humbly submitted, and to call for any explanation, which any parts of it may appear to require.

In the interval which your Majesty may wish for consideration, he will not, on his part, importune your Majesty with any unnecessary reference to the subject; and will feel it is duty to abstain, himself, from all agitation of this subject in parliament, and to prevent it, as far as depends on him, on the part of others. If, on the result of such consideration, your Majesty's objections to the measure proposed should not be removed, or sufficiently diminished to admit of its being brought forward with your Majesty's full concurrence, and with the whole weight of government, it must be personally Mr. Pitt's first wish to be released from a situation, which he is conscious that, under such circumstances, he could not continue to fill but with the greatest disadvantage.

'At the same time, after the gracious intimation, which has been recently conveyed to him, of your Majesty's sentiments on this point, he will be acquitted of presumption in adding, that if the chief difficulties of the present crisis should not then be surmounted, or very materially diminished, and if your Majesty should continue to think that his humble exertions could, in any degree, contribute to conducting them to a favourable issue, there is no personal difficulty to which he will not rather submit, than withdraw himself at such a moment from your Majesty's service. He would, even, in such a case, continue for such a short further interval as might be necessary, to oppose the agitation or discussion of the question, as far as he can consistently with the line to which he feels bound uniformly to adhere, of reserving to himself a full latitude on the principle itself, and objecting only to the time, and to the temper and circumstances of the moment. But he must entreat that, on this supposition, it may be distinctly understood, that he can remain in office no longer than till the