coronation oath, is bound to govern his people according to the statutes in parliament agreed on (that is, agreed on by king, lords, and commons, the king in his legislative capacity being an integral part of the parliament), but not according to bills depending in parliament, and which may perhaps have been agreed on by a najority of the members of the two houses of parliament; for stone's Commentaries, octavo edit. 1st vol. page 228, 229]; and adverts only to the coronation oath as settled by the 1st of William and Mary, without at all adverting to the additions inade to that oath by 5th of Anne,. or the act of union between England and Scotland. He then draws the following conclusion from these garbled premises, that the last clause can only mean the protestant reformed religion, as from time to time, un-such bills are not laws nor statutes, nor in der the legislation of parliament, it should be the church establishment of the country: that, as to the constitutional interpretation of the clause, it would be absurd in the extreme, unconstitutional, and, perhaps even treasonable, to contend that the last clause precludes his majesty from concurring with both houses of parliament in any legislative act whatsoever; and even if it did preclude him from such a concurrence, it would be no objection to his repealing the laws remaining in force against the Irish romanists, as the repeal of them will not interfere with the legal establishment of the church, with any part of the hierarchy, or with any of its temporal or spiritual rights and privileges. I have already remarked the disingenuity of the author of the pamphlet in respect to his garbled quotations of the coronation oath, and his total omission of the additions made to it, by the act of union of England and Scotland, by which the king is obliged to swear at his coronation, to maintain and preserve inviolably the church of England, the act of uniformity, and all acts in force at the time of that union, for the perpetual preservation of the church of England in its doctrine, worship, discipline, and government (the act already mentioned of the 30th of Charles II. among the rest, whereby all members of both houses of parliament are bound to take the oaths previous to their sitting or voting in the houses), as it stood at the time of the union of England and Scotland, and consequently not to make or consent to the making any alteration in its doctrine, worship, discipline, and government, as it then stood. But the first deduction of the author from the clauses in the coronation oath, as partially quoted by him, that they can only mean, the protestant reformed religion, as from time to time, under the legislation of parliament, it should be the church establishment of the country, is founded on a sophism, to wit, the fraudulent assumption, that bills depending in parliament, and which have, perhaps, passed the two houses, are acts of parliament or statutes. The king, by his any manner binding on prince or people, till they have been agreed to by the monarch, and received the royal assent, without which they become waste paper.-It is sincerely to be hoped, that there will be such harmony always subsisting between the king and both houses of parliament, that no bill will be ever offered to his majesty for his assent, which he shall deem it expedient to reject; especially such bills, as he is bound by his coronation oath, and by the express conditions of the two unions consolidating the British empire, to reject. But I cannot agree with the doctrine of some bold innovators on the British constitution, who have asserted, that the king is bound to assent to every bill which has passed through the two houses of parliament. Such doctrine is, in my opinion (to use the words of the author of the pamphlet), absurd in the extreme, unconstitutional, and perhaps even treasonable; as it teaches, that the king in his legislative capacity is a merė cypher. If (which God forbid!) the two houses of parliament should pass a bill containing clauses in direct contradiction to his majesty's coronation oath, and in violation of the articles of the two incorporating unions of England and Scotland, and of Great Britain and Ireland, and tender such a bill to his majesty for the royal assent, who will assert that his majesty is bound to give that assent in violation of his coronation oath, and the public faith? Such a crisis I have the firmest hope will never happen; if it should, I have no difficulty in asserting, that the king is bound by every principle of religion, and by every true principle of the constitution, to refuse his assent; though by such assertion, I incur the guilt of treason in the opinion of the Annotator on Coke on Littleton! I acknowledge no power, in either or both houses of parliament, of dispensing with the obligation of lawful, positive, solen oaths. I will not admit, that any man, or body of men, on the face of the earth, is invested with such a power. King James II. was chased from his throne for attempting to dispense with the laws of the land; necessity of taking the oath of supremacy, .are what punishment is too great for those who would attempt to dispense with the laws of God? Leave such doctrine to romanists and the court of Rome! it is not a protestant doctrine!-It may not be improper to observe here, that in the purest æra of the constitution in the reign of William III. the royal assent to bills which had passed both houses of parliament has been more than once refused by the sovereign. In 1693, that king refused his assent to a bill to render all members of the house of commons incapable of places of trust and profit: the commons, in their resolution on that occasion, state that the royal assent had been refused to several public bills, and by that king in particular. [Harris's Life of William III. page 398.-William refused his assent, in 1695, to another bill for the further regulation of elections of members to serve parliament, Ibid. p. 437.-See also Commons' Journals.]-The author of the pamphlet asserts, that the repeal of all the laws complained of by romanists would not in-kingdom, would be justified in the surrender terfere with the church establishment, or with any of its temporal rights and privileges. I trust it has been already proved, that though the present measure, if adopted, would not be immediately attended by the subversion of the present church establishment, yet the subversion of that, as well as of the civil establishment, would be the certain, and not very remote consequence of such adoption. The author of the pamphlet then puts the following query: "What system of casuistry made it lawful for his majesty to assent to the repeal of the large proportion of penal laws, repealed by the acts of 1782, 1788, and 1793, and now makes it unlawful for him to assent, to the repeal of the small proportion of those laws yet remaining unrepealed; or, that made it lawful for him to sanction a partial repeal of the test act in 1782, and makes it unlawful for him to sanction a total repeal of it in 1801?" To this question it is answered, that the repeal of the parts of the popery code (which the pamphlet styles penal laws, but which are, in fact, remedial laws only)| at the periods mentioned, does not confer any very considerable portion of political power on the Romish sect even in Ireland; and the repeal cannot be followed by consequences subversive of the constitution in church and state; and therefore his majesty might give the royal assent to such repeal consistently with the obligations of his coronation oath. The partial repeal of the test act exempts romanists in Ireland from the 66 of it to a cruel, merciless, and unrelenting enemy, because it was deemed advisable, for the better defence of the place, to slight some weak and unimportant outwork, and permit the foe to possess themselves of it?— The author, after the preceding train of reasoning, seems to abandon it all for the purpose of introducing one conclusive argument against the obligation of the coronation oath, which he deems irrefragable. All this discussion," says he, "is superfluous ;— the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the first of William and Mary; at that time Roman catholic peers had 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 Roman catholics: 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. Now the coronation oath can only refer to the system of law which was in force when the act which prescribed it was passed; but the Irish laws meant to be repealed are subsequent to that act; to these laws therefore, or to any similar laws, the coronation oath cannot be referred."-Before I expose the absolute errors in fact in the premises from which the author deduces his conclusion, I will examine the justice of the conclusion, supposing the premises to be true. The coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary binds the king "to the utmost of his power to maintain the laws of God, the true profe ditable to an Annotator on Coke on Littleton to support the cause of his party by the quibbling of special pleading.-It is necessary however to make a few remarks on what the author has adduced as facts to support his argument. He states that the coronation oath was fixed in Ireland by the 1st of William and Mary; true it is, it was fixed. as well for England as Ireland, by the English statute of the 1st of William and Mary; but the author has totally omitted to state the additions to the coronation oath introduced by the act of union of England and Scotland, the 5th of Anne. By this act the king is obliged at his coronation to sion of the Gospel, and the protestant reform- | ed religion established by law." Shortly after the accession of William and Mary, it was deemed necessary to add further fortifications to the established religion by statute in Ireland. The test and corporation acts passed in England in the reign of Charles II. and in the 30th year of the same king's reign, the act passed enjoining the taking the oath of supremacy, and repeating and subscribing the declaration, by all members of both houses of parliament, previous to their sitting or voting in either house: by the coronation oath, as settled by the 1st of William and Mary, the king swears, that he will to the utmost of his power maintain the pro- swear (as is already noticed) to maintain testant reformed religion established by law; and preserve invoilably the settlement of the the obligation of this oath extends to Ire- church of England, as specified in that staland, so that he is bound to the utmost of tute, for the unalterable security of that his power to maintain it in Ireland, as well church, and the doctrine, worship, discias in England, as then established in Eng-pline, and government thereof, as in that land by law; and all the barriers for its support erected in England previous to the 1st of William and Mary. The English parliament in the 3d and 4th of William and Mary passed an act enjoining all members of both houses of parliament in Ireland to take the oath of supremacy, and repeat and subscribe the declaration, the parliament of England at that time exercising the power of binding Ireland by its acts; not for the purpose of making any addition to, or alteration in the protestant religion established by law in that kingdom, but to give that establishment an additional security. How then does it follow from the premises laid down by the author of the pamphlet, that his present majesty or any future king of Great Britain and Ireland, having taken the aforesaid coronation oath of the 1st of William and Mary, can, consistently with thated; for the aforesaid additions were made oath, consent to the repeal of the aforesaid English statute of the 30th of Charles II. or the above-mentioned statute of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary? His present majesty swore to maintain to the utmost of his power the church established by law in England and Ireland, as he found it established by law, at the time of his accession, and not as it was established by law in the 1st of William and Mary; though in fact it is the very same church, which was established by law in England and Ireland at that time, and which has received an additional barrier in Ireland since, by the enaction of the said English statute of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary for that country. I apprehend I have taken up too much time in refuting this absurd argument, and shall only further observe, that it is not cre statute specified, within the kingdoms of England and Ireland, and the town of Berwick upon Tweed." The statute particularly specifies, that the act of uniformity, and all other acts for the perpetual preservation of the church of England (among which are the aforesaid English act of the 30th of Charles II. enacted for Ireland in the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, and the test and corporation acts), shall be unalterable and perpetual. The author was either ignorant of these additions to the coronation oath, or designedly omitted them : if inserted, they would have completely overturned his quibbling argument, that the king is not bound by his coronation oath, to resist the repeal of any law for the support of the established church, which was not a law at the time the coronation oath was fix to the coronation oath by the 5th of Anne, many years subsequent to the 3d and 4th of Wm. and Mary, and also subsequent to the 1st and 2d of Anne; by which acts, he states, that romanists were deprived of their rights to seats and votes in the houses of lords and commons in Ireland. He admits also, that the coronation oath refers to that system of law which was in force, when the acts which prescribed it were passed; that is, that the king cannot conscientiously consent to the repeal of any of the acts for the perpetual security of the established church which had passed previously to the fixing of the coronation oath: that oath was ultimately fixed by the 5th of Anne; and therefore of the author's own shewing, the king cannot conscientiously consent to the repeal of the 3d and 4th of William and Mary, or to that By another resolution of the Irish hou commons in the year 1661, all the r bers were obliged to take the oath of s macy and the oath of allegiance of the James I. and receive the sacrament ac ing to the usage of the church establi or to vacate their seats. The commo the first parliament assembled in Ir after the accession of William and M in the 3d and 4th year of their reign, proceeded to any business whatsoever, the oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and peated and subscribed the declaration, d ing the resolutions of the commons be mentioned, and the English act of the of Charles II. imperative upon them that the idea that any member could s the Irish house of commons at all times vious to the accession of William and M or to the third and fourth years of reign, without taking the oath of suprem or that Irish romanists were, for the time, abridged of that alleged right, b English act of the 3d and 4th of Wi and Mary, is erroneous; they were, before that period, abridged of it by resolutions of the house of commons, ranted by the law of parliament, part o law of the land, under which that hous claimed and exercised the power of jud of the qualifications of its own mem of the 1st and 2d of Anne, so far as they enjoin the taking of the oath of supremacy and the repetition and subscription of the declaration by all members previous to their sitting and voting in either of the houses.The author ates, that at the accession of William and Mary, Roman catholic peers had 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 Ro-mediately on their meeting, and before man catholics. In respect to Roman catholic peers, I am not sufficiently conversant in the journals of the Irish house of lords to ascertain, whether Romish peers were, or were not, excluded from seats or votes in that house, unless they took the oath of supremacy, previous to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary; they certainly were not so excluded by any Irish statute: but very few such Irish peers could have sat in parliament in Ireland, from the restoration to the 3d and 4th of William and Mary (excepting in the Romish mob assembled in Dublin by King James II. after his abdication, and by him and themselves styled a parliament); for the Romish peerage in Ireland was not numerous previous to the year 1641; and almost the whole of them were attainted as traitors, having joined in that wicked Romish rebellion, and massacre of the Irish protestants, which broke out and commenced in the year 1641; and the remainder for their rebellion in 1689, 1690, and 1691. The author displays much artifice in his assertion respecting Romish commoners: he states that previous to the accession of William and Mary, and till the 3d and 4th years of their reign, they were eligible to seats in parliament; they certainly were so, and are so still, and may occupy these seats, and vote in the house of commons, provided they will take the oaths prescribed to be taken, not by them particularly, but by all his majesty's subjects sitting and voting in the house of commons: but the idea the author means to convey to his readers is, that romanists, antecedent to the 1st of William and Mary, were capable of occupying seats in the Irish house of commons, and did sit therein, without taking any oaths whatsoever, particularly the oath of supremacy. This is a gross mistatement. By a resulution of the Irish house of commons in the year 1642, [see the Journals of the Irish house of commons, vol. i. page 434, page 568. Vol. ii. page 443.] all the members were obliged to take the path of supremacy, or to vacate their seats. ; The author's assertion, that all civil military offices in Ireland were open to man catholics, previous to the accessi William and Mary, smells of the sam tifice with his former assertion respe the eligibility of romanists to be membe the house of commons: it is true that offices were then open to romanists (as now are), if they performed the act quired to be performed by all his maje subjects appointed to such offices what he means to insinuate is, that manists, till the accession of William Mary, and till the third and fourth yea their reign, might enjoy all such offic Ireland, without taking the oaths, &c.; assertion, in such sense is as groun as any other in the pamphlet; for person in Ireland could enjoy any offices, without taking the oath of supren as enjoined to be taken by the Irish of the second of Elizabeth; by the un sal rejection of which oath romanists di themselves to hold or enjoy such of The cautious, artificial manner in w the pamphlet attempts to convey to reader, the periods of Romish excl from the houses of parliament, induces a judicial to the British government there, yet belief, that the author, at the time of wri- the establishment of it in Canada was a matting the pamphlet, was not ignorant of the ter of necessity and not of choice; for Ca resolutions of the Irish house of commons nada surrendered to the British arms upon just mentioned, nor of the Irish act of the express stipulated conditions; one of which 2d of Elizabeth; and if he was not, what was, that the Roman catholic religion, opinion must the public entertain of his which was professed by that country before candour!-The author cannot resort to the the conquest by the British arms, should be unlawful and riotous assembly convoked at for ever preserved inviolate; and Britain Dublin, in the year 1689, by King James II. ever faithful to her treaties, was thus obafter his abdication, and by him honoured liged to establish the Roman catholic religion with the title of a parliament, in proof of in that province. As to the fidelity of the his assertions; it consisted almost entirely Canadians during the American war, it may of romanists, unlawfully elected, after he be accounted for, also by necessity on their had destroyed all the protestant corporations, side: their communication with Europe is and driven out of the country, or into the by the river St. Lawrence, which is open protestant armies, almost the whole of the to navigation for six months in the year only; protestant nobility and gentry; and after for the other six months it is blockaded by he had himself ceased to be a king, and had ice. Britain, in case of rebellion of the therefore no power to convoke a parlia- Canadians, could cut off all communication ment. By act of parliament in the reign of with Europe by a few ships stationed in William and Mary, this mock parliament the river St. Lawrence; and the Canadians was declared to be an unlawful assembly, cannot at present subsist without European and all its acts and proceedings were con- commodities, and with these they could not demned to the flames, and were publicly be furnished from the United States without burned and destroyed accordingly--I trust great difficulty and intolerable expense, beI have demonstrated to the house, that the sides infinite risk and hazard. The hon. doctrines, political, moral, and religious, member who has introduced this motion, contained in the petition, and stated to be has argued in favour of the motion from the the principles inculcated by the Roman ca- number of romanists in Ireland'; and, to tholic religion, are diametrically opposite strengthen his argument, he has represented to the principles taught and inculcated by them, in the course of his speech, somethe canons, decrees of general councils, by times to amount to four millions, someall writers, lay and cleric, of the greatest times to three millions; but in the authority amongst the romanists, and a- whole course of his reasoning he has never dopted by the universal practice of their mentioned the Irish protestants, but has church from the date of the council of endeavoured to impress on the members of Lateran to the present day; and that their this house, unacquainted with Ireland, that modern writers, such as Dr. Troy and Mr. all its inhabitants, with a few trifling exPlowden assert, "that the religious prin- ceptions, are romanists. To expose the ciples of Roman catholics being unchange-errors of the hon. gentleman in this particuable, they are applicable to all times; and lar, it is necessary to state, that a calculathat if any one says, or pretends to in- tion of the number of the inhabitants of sinuate, that the modern Roman catholics | Ireland was made in the year 1692, after the differ in one iota from their ancestors, he either deceives himself or wishes to deceive others; and that semper eadem is emphatically descriptive of their religion." It has been urged in this debate, that the establishment by the British government of the Roman catholic religion in Canada, furnishes a reason for establishing it in the remainder of the British empire, because it has not been productive of any bad effects there. It is rather premature to form any decided opinion of what effects may hereafter flow from such establishment; but even supposing that the effects of such establishment may hereafter be found to be preVOL. IV. revolution war, and that they then amounted to one million two hundred thousand only. Another calculation was made in the year 1731, as Dr. Burke, Romish titular bishop of Ossory, has informed us, in his Hibernia Dominicana; and he states, that there were then found to be in Ireland seven hundred thousand four hundred and fifty-three protestants, and one million three hundred and nine thousand seven hundred and sixty-eight romanists; so that in 1731 the romanists of Ireland did not exceed the protestants in the proportion of two to one. Dr. Burke published his book in 1762, and he makes bitter complaints, that the proportion of 3 N |