simply and at once, before I proceed to argue as to the policy of adopting it.

The security, then, which I have to propose, is the enactment of a legal disqualification, in the statute intended to relieve the Roman Catholic from his disabilities; such disqualification to prevent him from voting upon any measure affecting the interests either of the United Church of England and Ireland, or of the Church of Scotland.

...I propose to arrange the observations which I wish to submit to your consideration, under the following heads:

I. The examination which has led to the selection 1 of this security.

II. The manner in which the Coronation Oath bears upon the subject.

III. The additional securities afforded by the Constitution to the Protestant Religion and to the Established Church.

IV. The demonstration that no valid constitutional objection can be pleaded against the proposed enactment.

TS

V. The distinction between Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, in reference to the prin ciple of the proposed legislative disqualification.

VI. The nature of the Parliamentary Legislation which may be best calculated to give effect to the proposed security.

VII. The absence of any ground of reasonable objection on the part of Protestants.

VIII. An analysis of the effect produced by the appropriation of property to the maintenance of a Protestant Church Establishment, showing that the Roman Catholic Proprietor is not specially aggrieved by such appropriation.

IX. The effect of the proposed security, as bearing upon the recorded objections of his Royal Highness the late Duke of York, and of the late and present Lord-Chancellors.

X. The more effective character of the security now suggested, as compared with those which have been proposed on former occasions.

XI. General observations.

I. The examination which has led to the selection of the proposed security...

In considering the question of the practicability of framing a security of such a character as I have de

scribed, it has appeared to me that the first point to which attention ought to be directed is, a careful analysis of the objections made by those who oppose the measure, in order to discover some main and principal point in which all concur, without adverting to those varieties of opinion which, according to the constitution of individual minds, may be detected in such an inquiry. I have taken the period from May, 1817, till the end of the Session of 1827, a period of ten years. I have carefully examined the debates of both Houses of Parliament during this term, and I find that the conclusive impediment to the settlement of this question appears to be the apprehension that Roman Catholic legislation would endanger the interests of the Protestant Church-in other words, a fear that the removal of the remaining disabilities would, by permitting such legislation, lead to consequences fatal to the property of the Protestant Church in some part of the United Kingdom, and that the general interests of the Protestant Reformed Religion would be proportionably hazarded. In illustration of this statement, I beg to refer to the Appendix A, containing extracts from the speeches of H. R. H. the late Duke of York, Lord Chancellor Eldon, Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, the Duke of Wellington, the Earl of Liverpool, Earl Bathurst, the Earls of Mansfield and Roden, Lord Redesdale, Lord Colchester, the present Bishops of London, Worcester, Salisbury, Bath and Wells, Lichfield 2 ROISI

and Coventry, Peterborough, Chester, and Ossory, Lord Lowther, Mr. Peel, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. G. Dawson, Mr. Leslie Foster, &c. &c., and also from a recent charge of the Bishop of Peterborough. I shall, however, more specifically advert to the proof of this proposition in the concluding part of this Letter.

II. The manner in which the Coronation Outh bears on the subject.

Blackstone, in the 6th chapter of the 1st book of his Commentaries, discusses the question of the original contract between king and people. He considers that this original contract was founded on the reciprocity of protection and subjection; that there were certain duties incumbent on the king by the constitution, in consideration of which duties his dignity and prerogative were established by the law of the land. He then adds, that, as the terms of that original contract were much disputed, being alleged to exist principally in theory, and to be only deducible by reason and the rules of natural law, it was judged proper, after the Revolution, to declare those duties in express terms, and to reduce the contract to a plain certainty, and not to let it rest on the deductions of different individuals. He then proceeds to state that he apprehends the terms of the original, contract between king and people to be now couched in the coronation oath, which by

the statute 1st William and Mary, stat. 1. ch. 6. is to be administered to every king and queen whó shall succeed to the imperial crown of these realms, by one of the archbishops or bishops of the realm, in the presence of all the people, who, on their parts, do reciprocally take the oath of allegiance to the crown. It is impossible to deny the solemnity and importance of the coronation oath after reading these observations*.

* The Oath is couched in the following terms :

"The Archbishop or Bishop shall say, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this kingdom of England, and the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the laws and customs of the same?-The King or Queen shall say, I solemnly promise so to do.-Archbishop or Bishop. Will you, to your power, cause law and justice, in mercy, to be executed in all your judgments? King or Queen. I will. Archbishop or Bishop. Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant Reformed Religion established by the law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them ?—King or Queen. All this I promise to do."

Thus stands the Coronation Oath as prescribed at the time of the Revolution; but Blackstone observes, in the close of the chapter to which we have referred, By the Act of Union, 5 Ann, c. 8., two preceding statutes are recited and confirmed; the one of the parliament of Scotland, and the other of the parliament of England; which enact, the former that every king, wat his accession, shall take and subscribe an oath to preserve the