Such is the character of the policy adopted towards the Protestant and towards the Roman Catholic people of Ireland-to the one discouragement and wrong-to the other lavish concession, impunity, and indulgence. In disregard and defiance of solemn engagements to the contrary, aggressions have been made on the Established Church. Municipal Corporations, created for the defence of Protestantism, have been given over, it may be said, into the power of the Church of Rome; and in the arrangements for carrying into effect the new collegiate system, designed, as it was professed, for purposes of united education, it is found that, in the selection for high office, religious distinctions have been taken into account, and the profession of a particular creed recognised as a ground of preference. A principle of discrimination like this tends to keep the people of Ireland divided and apart, and, as it has been applied, must tend to give superior power to members of the Church of Rome, and to depress and degrade Protestants.

Such are the circumstances under which the Protestant Alliance has been founded. If in name or principle, a character of exclusiveness seems impressed upon it, the blame is not ours. Gladly would we live in union with our fellow-subjects of every religious denomination, and admit no principle of distinction in the discharge of social and political duties, unless that of a generous rivalry who best should serve their countrymen and their country. Gladly do we entertain the hope, that, in the agency of our Society, we shall give proof of an earnest desire to befriend men of all creeds (Roman Catholic as well as Protestant), and thus to show that in the construction of the Protestant Alliance we are governed not by choice but by necessity. We unite in order that agencies which begin by inflicting upon Protestants indignity and wrong, may not enable adversaries eventually to accomplish their destruction.

We unite at a time when no sane person can esteem such an apprehension chimerical. The following facts are notorious:

There exists in Ireland a confederacy embracing among its members and instruments a large majority of the population, and having, as its great end, to effect an alteration in law and government; such as, in the words of Her Majesty's Prime Minister, would make Great Britain a fourth-rate power, and Ireland a savage wilderness.

There exists a secret Society-the wide ramifications and baleful activities of which have been but too fully proved in courts of justice, and before Parliamentary Committees-contemplating, as its leading object, the utter extermination of Protestants.

And, whether in connexion with this foul conspiracy, or independently of it, a system of outrage, daring and sanguinary, has erected itself into a despotism which, by continued and still increasing progress, is overspreading our country. Its agents, in the perpetration of the most heinous offences, are insensible to remorse, are unrebuked by the abhorrence which, wherever human sympathies prevail, should be manifested towards the murderer, and are thus placed beyond the reach of laws, which, assuming that conscience and public opinion will lend them aid, are unsuited to a state of society where these strong influences are against them.

At a time when our lives and properties are thus menaced, and our

religion put to rebuke, we call upon the Protestants of Ireland to unite. We would form an union just and wise-not for any ephemeral purpose-not for any personal interest or advancement-not in obedience to any sudden passion or caprice-not for the displacement or the elevation of a Minister-but for the maintenance of our rights-for the safety of our religion-for defence of life.

For these great ends let our personal resources be employed, our political privileges ascertained and asserted. Let us be faithful at the registries and at the hustings-let us avail ourselves of all just means at our command to make known to the people of this great empire what we are-what we seek-what is denied us; and let all this be done in strict submission to the law, and in a spirit which, in the endeavour to assert our own rights, will inflict no wrong upon our neighbours. We would not employ injustice to attain a just end. We would not defend a religion of love in a spirit of intolerance. We would not, therefore, molest or injure any man on account of his religious opinions, but, on the contrary, would extend to every peaceful and well-conducted fellow-subject, whatever his religious profession may be, such aid as we can afford in promoting his welfare, and protecting him from violence and oppression.

RODEN, Chairman.

SOMERSET R. MAXWELL, Hon. Sec.

DANGERS THAT THREATEN.

(Continued from page 128.)

WE must either then, as we before said, conclude, that our Governors are become ashamed of their religion and of the Protestant name, or that they are become so cowardly or altogether indifferent to religion, that they are afraid to insist on the same liberty of worshipping God, according to their established church, in foreign lands, as is allowed to the Popish subjects of foreign powers in England, whenever or wherever they please, without fear either of "imprisonment or expulsion."

But it is high time for English Protestants to ask themselves, whether matters of this nature are likely to be much better or not under Sir Robert Peel's administration? If Englishmen have not become altogether blind, it is sufficiently evident that, instead of being improved, these matters have fallen even into worse hands, and are likely under his impressible disposition to be much more perilled.

Instance the letter of the Lord Primate of Ireland to Sir Robert Peel, in which he is constrained even to beg for common justice for the scriptural schools of the Church of England and Ireland. And be it remembered, that besides 13,500 Protestant Dissenters, no less than 32,900 Roman Catholics voluntarily attend these schools. The Church members, the nobility and gentry of Ireland, support these schools-last year

at an outlay of 33,000l.-and yet nothing will move the Premier from his evidently expressed determination to restrain as much as possible the spread of Protestantism, and to encourage that of Popery in that unfortunate and abused land.

How can any love of true Protestantism, or protection of even the Church of England, be expected at the hands of Sir Robert Peel?

"Tis true, as reported, that he has said something at times unfavourable to Tractarianism; but has he acted as if he was in reality opposed to it? He may speak as he pleases, but his acts seem oddly to contrast with his speeches. Are his appointments to office tokens that our colonies will be rescued from Popery, and that true Protestantism will be maintained and supported, in favour of our Established Church, her scriptural education, and the curbing of Popish error and superstition? Certainly not, while the offices most influential in these matters are filled up with Tractarians. The Secretary and Under-Secretary of the Colonies, Tractarians; and the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, if not much belied, almost a Papist.

And again, Sir Robert Peel's plans with respect to Ireland; how are they developing themselves every day more and more?

Remember, who emancipated the Papists of Ireland, and that too under a shew of fallacious arguments, and false securities to the Church of England; all which false securities are now even to be totally destroyed, by the Bill which Sir James Graham declares the Government of the country has prepared, whose object is to do away all the yet remaining penal enactments which stand on the statute-book of England.

What are we to expect, when a Member of the House of Parliament could have the hardihood, in the very face of truth, to express his surprise how any one could oppose the establishment of the several monkish orders in England, which this new Bill is intended to ensure, those whom, he says, are only anxious to visit our shores, "to teach virtue and morality and holiness."

We cannot, however, forget the character of those boasted virtues which Rome teaches, and as to the virtue of monasteries and nunneries, let the Noble Lord inquire what the fruits of that virtue, morality, and holiness, taught at the nunnery of Manchester, have been, and I suspect he will in future be a little more discreet; perhaps silent altogether, on subjects of which he appears to be so totally ignorant.

What then! are we patiently to submit to these attempts of men, which so evidently tend to the utter destruction of our Protestant constitution, both in Church and State; indeed, eventually to endanger the Crown of our beloved Queen, and the Protestant succession to the throne of these kingdoms?

By no means. We must in short speak out. The enemy and his abettors speak very plainly. And there are those who unfortunately have in these days great power and influence, who, if it would in any way forward their political views, would readily join with any party either Popish or Infidel, to promote them; and even some who would, if it were now possible to do so, consent to a Stephen's death, because he did not deliver his heavenly discourse in a surplice; or to that of Jesus himself for the sake of his seamless coat, that they might blind the nation first, and then lead its people, with themselves, into everlasting destruction both of soul and body.

Feb. 13, 1846.

VERITAS.

MURDER AND THE MURDERER RECONCILED!!!

THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIGION.

"A great company of the priests were obedient to the faith."—Acts vi. 7.

A Letter from the Rev. Roderick Ryder, to Dr. Cantwell, Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath, Ex-Dean of the Royal College of Maynooth.

REV. SIR,-I have read lately in one of the newspapers of this city, a letter purporting to be written by you, and another by a priest of the appropriate name of Savage, relating to that unhappy convict, BRYAN SEERY. I can assure you, Sir, that those letters have given pain to every friend of peace and social order; whilst they have added fuel to that flame that guides the footsteps of the midnight assassin; they have convinced many, who heretofore were not willing to admit it, that there are to be found in this country, not only among the lower orders of the community, but even among those who profess to be ministers of the Gospel, persons who would not hesitate to step forward and screen the assassin, by filling the public mind with prejudice and distrust against the administration of justice in this country. Your object in writing that letter was self-evident; it was to cast an unwarranted imputation on the constituted authorities on the one hand, and on the other, to infuse a new spirit of sympathy and action into that party who were dispirited and checked by this energetic stroke on the part of the executive. You dared not to have preached openly the doctrine, "that it is lawful to kill a tyrant.” Your mitre would be but a slight shield-your crozier but a frail weapon-to defend you against the burst of public indignation that would swell and sweep along the land at the promulgation of such a doctrine. You knew this and you avoided it.

The Jesuits once taught openly in their lectures and writings, that it was lawful to kill a tyrant. Henry IV. of France was not the only king who fell a victim to this horrible doctrine. It has produced a Ravaillac in France-a Titus Oates in England-and numberless

Bryan Seerys in Ireland. The blood of many a Protestant cries to this day to heaven for vengeance against its authors. You maintain the same doctrine, sir, if not in theory, at least in practice. You are a Jesuit, not quoad rem but quoad modum. You attain the same end by different means.

You do not teach, as they did, that the end justifies the means; but you teach that the means justify the end: that is, you and Priest Savage, and your other priests, make an appeal by your letters, and from your altars, to the public in favour of Seery's widow and orphans. The means are plausible and moral, but what is the motive or end? It is to cast an imputation on the administration of justice, by representing Seery as the victim of foul play. There you show yourself a Jesuit: that betrays the cloven foot.

The first jury, you say, disagreed; therefore Seery ought to get the benefit of their disagreement. Should Seery on that account go at large? should he be suffered to try his hand on some other Protestant, who may not be possessed of that chivalrous bravery displayed by Sir Francis Hopkins? You would approve highly of that lenity, and you consider it an injustice to have him placed immediately on his trial a second time, although you know that the custom and the law is to swear a second jury where the first disagree. But why did the two Roman Catholics disagree with the Protestants on the first trial? I will tell you, sir. Few Protestants know it—but they must know it. It is because, by the doctrines of their Church, they are justified in not finding a verdict according to evidence, though sworn to do so! Every Roman Catholic book of theology-Liguori, Delahogue, Dens, and Bailly (see Bailly, page 145)-teach that there are four causes which dispense from the obligation of an oath :-to wit—the honour of God-the utility of the Church-the welfare of society-and the utility of a religious community. Now, we all know that the greater the number of immoral men who profess any religion, the greater the contempt entertained for that religion; but by finding a verdict for a Protestant, against Seery, a Roman Catholic, the Roman Catholic jurors would have added to the number of reputed immoral men professing the Roman Catholic religion, and would in the same proportion have increased the contempt in which it is held. But their Church teaches them that, though sworn to do that, they are bound not to observe the oath; therefore, as conscientious, consistent Roman Catholics, they could not find a verdict. If the public will not believe me, or the books of Roman Catholic theology, they cannot refuse believing the professor of theology at Maynooth, and Dr. M'Hale, who certainly are the best living authorities in Ireland as to the doctrines of their Church.

Dr. Anglade, Professor of Moral Theology, at Maynooth, in his evidence before the Commissioners of Irish Education Enquiry, in 1826, gave the following answer to the following question :-" Are the Commissioners to understand the proposition about which you are now examined, as meaning simply this, that if a person bound implicitly to obey another, takes an oath which that other prohibits him from fulfilling, this discharges him from the obligation of the oath, although the person prohibiting him may commit a sin in so prohibiting him?