"of the debate in this committee, the jesuits de"clared with much warmth, that they ought not, "nor could they with a good conscience as catho

lics, deprive the pope of his temporal authority, "which he hath in all kingdoms granted to him by God himself,' with very much to that purpose; "with which most of the temporal lords, and very

66

66

many of the seculars and regulars, were so much "scandalized, that the committee being broken "up for that time, they never attended it again; "the wiser and the more conscientious men discerning that there was a spirit in the rest that was "raised and governed by a passion, of which they "could not comprehend the ground. And the truth "is, the jesuits, and they who adhered to them, had "entertained great hopes from the king's too much

grace to them, and from the great liberty they en

joyed; and promised themselves and their friends "another kind of indulgence, than they saw was "intended to them by the house of peers. And "this was the reason that the committee was no "more looked after, nor any public address was any "farther prosecuted.

"And from this time there every day appeared "so much insolence and indiscretion amongst the "imprudent catholics, that they brought so many "scandals upon his majesty, and kindled so much

jealousy in the parliament, that there grew a gene"ral aversion towards them. And the king's party "remembered, with what wariness and disregard "the roman-catholics had lived towards them in the "whole time of the usurpation; and how little

"sorrow they made shew of upon the horrid murder "of the king, (which was then exceedingly taken "notice of): and they, who had been abroad with "the king, remembered, that his majesty had re"ceived less regard and respect from his catholic subjects, wherever he found them abroad, than " from any foreign catholics; who always received "him with all imaginable duty, whilst his own "looked as if they had no dependance upon him. "And so we return to the parliament after its adjournment."

66

With the passage which we have just transcribed from lord Clarendon's Memoirs, the account given by bishop Burnet of the consultations of the catholics at this time* seems to coincide. From the latter it appears that two propositions were made to the catholics,that they should take James's oath of allegiance, and that the regular clergy should no longer have a place in the English mission.--On these propositions, the catholics split, and their meetings were discontinued. It also appears that they were jealous of the earl of Bristol, and apprehensive of the violence of his temper.-A minute in the hand-writing of the unfortunate viscount Stafford,-(for the perusal of which, and for many other favours the writer is indebted to Mr. Edward Jerningham-a descendant from his lordship),notices the meetings at lord Bristol's, and their breaking up without coming to any settled plan of conduct. In the controversial war among the

History of his own Times, book ii. ad ann. 1663.

catholics of those times, the causes of the difference alluded to by bishop Burnet are frequently mentioned by each party, with great asperity; those, who disapproved of the proposals, branding the approvers of them with a want of orthodoxy and a due regard for religion and its best ministers; while those, who approved of the proposals, imputed to the former weakness of mind and bigoted attachment to the holy see and its stipendiaries. Burnet intimates that, from the first, it was the wish of lord Clarendon to divide the catholics among themselves. Some parts of his conduct render this accusation not improbable,--yet an advocate for his lordship might speciously contend from some of his writings*, that his lordship wished for no more, than to induce the catholics of his time to make that unequivocal and unqualified profession of allegiance which the catholics of the present, have expressed in the oaths taken by the body in the late reign.

LXV. 3.

The Fire of London.

THIS melancholy event took place in the year 1666: the fire destroyed St. Paul's cathedral and

• Particularly his "Answer to Cressy," and his posthumous publication, "Church and State," a verbose and illiberal work, but containing some interesting facts and remarks.— Surely his Lordship's charge against the catholics, in the passage cited in the text, that they disregarded his majesty in his exile, and were indifferent to his restoration, are utterly unfounded.

89 other churches; many public buildings; 13,200 dwelling-houses, and laid waste 400 streets from the Tower to the Temple church, and from the northeast gate of the city to Holborn-bridge or Fleetditch: having thus ravaged the city for three entire days and nights it stopped almost on a sudden.

"The causes of this calamity," says Hume, "were evident. The narrow streets of London, the "houses built entirely of wood, the dry season, and 66 a violent east wind which blew; these were so many concurring circumstances, which rendered "it easy to assign the reason of the destruction that "ensued. But the people were not satisfied with "this obvious account. Prompted by blind rage,

66

some ascribed the guilt to the republicans, others "to the catholics; though it is not easy to conceive "how the burning of London could serve the pur

poses of either party. As the papists were the "chief objects of public detestation, the rumour, "which threw the guilt on them, was more favourably received by the people. No proof, however, "or even presumption, after the strictest inquiry

66

66

This

by a committee of parliament, ever appeared to "authorize such a calumny; yet in order to give "countenance to the popular prejudice, the inscription, engraved by authority on the Monument, "ascribed this calamity to that hated sect. "clause was erased by order of king James, when "he came to the throne; but after the revolution "it was replaced. So credulous, as well as obstinate, "are the people, in believing every thing, which "flatters their prevailing passion!"

LXV. 4.

Lord Castlemain's Apology for the Catholics.

It appears that the animosity of the public against the catholics, in consequence of the calumnious charge of their having set fire to the city of London, rose, almost suddenly, to a prodigious height of fury; so that the catholics were justly terrified lest extreme measures against them should be immediately adopted and carried into execution. While they were in this state of agitation, lord Castlemain published the following manly and eloquent apology*, in their behalf.

"To all the Royalists who suffered for his Majestie, and the rest of the People of England.

66

My lords and gentlemen, the arms which "christians can use against lawful powers in their severity are only prayers and tears.

"Now since nothing can equal the infinity of

It seems to have been published in 1666, almost immediately after the fire.

A manuscript note, in a copy of it seen by the writer, mentions that, the "printer was diligently inquired after by "the house of commons, but not found; the printer fled, "but his presses were broken by the command of the house. "It was written, not by the earl of Castlemain, but by "one Pugh, a catholic and physician."

Doctor Lloyd, afterwards bishop of St. Asaph, republished it, and an answer to it with this title, "The late Apology on "behalf of the Papists reprinted and answered. London, 4to. "1667." The doctor divides it into paragraphs, and, at the end of each paragraph, inserts his answer to it.