if Great Britain does not take a part against them, are able enough to preferve their establishment, their power and property, and their connexion with Great Britain, in defiance of the threats or rebellions of Irish Romanists; and no doubt can be entertained that Great Britain has power fufficient to do the fame: fo that the conclufion, that Great Britain is not bound to support the Irish Proteftant more than the Irish Romanift, unlogically deduced from one falfe, andone hypothetic premifs implying a falfity, falls to the ground. But the affertions, that Great Britain is not bound by any specific principle to fupport one more than the other; and that as he is only bound to fecure Ireland to the British Crown, without being bound to any specific measures for so doing, the may effect this, by giving her fupport to the Romanists, and crushing the Protestants in Ireland; require fome further animadverfion.

King James the Second was driven from his Throne by the Revolution of 1688, for attempting to place Romanists, both in Great Britain and Ireland, on an equal footing in respect to all civil privileges, with his Proteftant fubjects; and his Romish iffue, if any he had, together with all the next heirs of the Crown, being Romanists, on the demife of his Proteftant iffue without iffue, were declared by Act of Parliament incapable of fucceeding to the Crown, and the fucceffion limited to his next Protestant relations, the iffue of the Princess Sophia, grand-daughter of King James the First, as if the intermediate Romish heirs were dead: and his prefent Majefty, whom God long preferve, under that title, now fits on the Imperial Throne of the British Empire. Here then is a King dethroned, the hereditary fucceffion interrupted, and turned

into the Proteftant channel, merely for the purpofe of fe curing a fucceffion of Proteftant Monarchs to Great Britain and Ireland: a fundamental principle of our conftitution is varied by a condition, to wit, that the next heir fhall fucceed to the Throne only on the terms of his being a Proteftant. Does not His Majefty hold his Crown by this Proteftant title, and is he not bound to fwear at his Coronation, that he will to the utmost of his power inviolably maintain the Proteftant Religion as established in Ireland, as well as in Great Britain? Are not His Majefty and his fucceffors bound fo to fwear, as well by the Act of the 1st of William and Mary, as by the Articles of the Union of England and Scotland, and the A&t confirming them? Why was the Crown limited to the Protestant heirs only, and why was fuch variation made in our ancient law of Hereditary Succeffion? Was it not to prevent, as far as human wisdom could provide, all future attempts to give Popery an establishment, either in Great Britain or Ireland? Is not Great Britain bound by a fpecific principle to support the Proteftant Religion, in oppofition to Popery, within herself? And is the not bound by the same specific principle to the fame conduct in Ireland to the utmost of her power? How then can this Gentleman fupport his pofition, that Great Britain is not bound by any specific principle to fupport the Proteftant Religion, rather than Popery, in Ireland? It is an instance among many to be found in his pamphlet, how far men of good abilities may be led to advance the most unwarrantable positions, when they endeavour to deduce conclufions unfupported by the substantial pillars of Reason and Fact. Such is the nature of all his arguments of intimidation in favour of an Union.

I once heard it roundly afferted, that if the Houses of Lords and Commons should agree on a bill for fubverting the Proteftant Establishment in Ireland, His Majesty, notwithstanding his Coronation Oath, would be bound to give it the Royal affent, and thereby establish it as a law, because his Coronation Oath in all particulars is fo to be construed, that it is not binding against the opinion of the two Houses. I never can agree with fuch reasoning-I cannot find any fuch faving in the Coronation Oath: it is an abfolute Oath; and I never can allow that the two Houses of Parliament have any fuch power, as that of difpenfing with the obligations of pofitive Oaths: I believe and hope, that the Parliament never will affume the power of abfolving from the obfervance of Oaths: it would thereby affume the power arrogated by the Pope, which is so much and fo justly reprobated by all good Christians. And as His Majefty is bound by his Coronation Oath inviolably to maintain the Proteftant Religion as it is now established in Ireland, fo is he bound to resist all conceffions of privileges to any clafs of his fubjects, which would impair or weaken that establishment; though perhaps they would not be at first attended, or immediately followed, by its total fubversion.

This Gentleman has also stated very erroneously, as a known hiftorical fact, that the Irish House of Commons was framed with the fole view of excluding Roman Catholics. The fact is quite otherwife: the affertion is a flander on the Irish House of Commons, invented by our modern Jacobin Reformers of Parliament; and is refuted by all history and records. (See Carte's Hiftory of the Duke of Ormond, pages 11. 13. 18. 19.) I am fur

prifed

prifed that he could be hurried into fuch strange mistakes: I have heretofore fully refuted this affertion, in my An"fwer to Mr. Grattan's Addrefs,' from undoubted authority of history and records; and any person who wishes to be informed on this head, may be fatisfied by reading part of that anfwer, under the title of Remarks on Mr. Grattan's "Account of the Creation of Boroughs.' Romanists were excluded from Parliament by tefts impofed by Acts of Parliament a demonftration, if Hiftory had been filent on the point, that the Houfe of Commons was framed antecedent to the exclufion of Romanifts: and these tefts were imposed from neceffity; the Romanifts by rebellions and maffacres, which had their origin in their religious principles, having proved the impracticability of communicating the fupreme authority of the State with them. Romanifts are excluded from feats in the Parlia ment of Great Britain by the imposition of the fame test oaths. Will this Gentleman affert, that the British House of Commons was framed with the fole view of excluding Romanifts? He has many other objectionable paffages in his pamphlet, of which his antagonist, the writer of • The Cafe of Ireland Re-confidered, has not failed to take the advantage: I am very forry that the merit of many excellent arguments in favour of an Union contained in it should be leffened by fuch crudities; particularly as I have a great respect and esteem for the fuppofed author of it and I would not have taken any notice of his pamphlet, except to commend it, had not his antagonist availed himself of the mistakes and mistatements in it, and thereby put me to the neceffity, in exposing his mischievous pofitions, of animadverting in fome degree on this performance.

It

I once heard it roundly afferted, that if the Houses of Lords and Commons should agree on a bill for fubverting the Proteftant Establishment in Ireland, His Majesty, notwithstanding his Coronation Oath, would be bound to give it the Royal affent, and thereby establish it as a law, because his Coronation Oath in all particulars is fo to be. construed, that it is not binding against the opinion of the two Houses. I never can agree with fuch reasoning-I cannot find any fuch faving in the Coronation Oath: it is an abfolute Oath; and I never can allow that the two Houses of Parliament have any fuch power, as that of dispensing with the obligations of pofitive Oaths: I believe and hope, that the Parliament never will assume the power of abfolving from the obfervance of Oaths: it would thereby affume the power arrogated by the Pope, which is fo much and fo juftly reprobated by all good Christians. And as His Majefty is bound by his Coronation Oath inviolably to maintain the Proteftant Religion as it is now established in Ireland, fo is he bound to resist all conceffions of privileges to any class of his fubjects, which would impair or weaken that establishment; though perhaps they would not be at first attended, or immediately followed, by its total fubversion.

This Gentleman has alfo ftated very erroneously, as a known historical fact, that the Irish House of Commons was framed with the fole view of excluding Roman Catholics. The fact is quite otherwife: the affertion is a flander on the Irish House of Commons, invented by our modern Jacobin Reformers of Parliament; and is refuted by all history and records. (See Carte's Hiftory of the Duke of Ormond, pages 11. 13. 18. 19.) I am fur

prifed