and abjuration therein prescribed;* and in 1793 its provisions were extended to Scotland by stat. 33 G. 3, c. 44. In the same year (1793), by an act of the Irish parliament, adopting a recommendation from the Crown, the elective franchise was conceded without any qualification, to the Irish Papists, and they were enabled to hold commissions in the army;† and in 1795 the College of Maynooth was founded" for educating at home the Roman Catholic Clergy."

During the French Revolution a large number of emigrant French clergy and exiled monks and nuns took refuge in England, and they enjoyed such an exemption from all restraints, that in 1800, a bill passed the House of Commons "to prevent any addition to the number of persons belonging to certain foreign religious orders or communities lately settled in this kingdom, and to regulate the education of youth by such persons:" but in the House of Lords Bishop Horsley opposed the second reading, and it was lost.

In 1801, the year following the union of Great Britain and Ireland, Mr. Pitt made the admission of Roman Catholics to political power under certain restrictions a condition of his continuing to hold office. But George the Third's conscientious regard for his coronation oath‡ constrained him to deprive himself of the political services of Mr. Pitt, who had been at the head of the cabinet for more than seventeen years, rather than forego what he looked upon as his duty. In 1804 however, a season of great danger to the country, from the increasing am

* The oath inserted in the bill as passed by the House of Commons contained the following clause. "I do also, in my conscience, declare and solemnly swear, -that no foreign church, prelate or priest, or assembly of priests, or ecclesiastical power whatsoever, hath or ought to have, any jurisdiction or authority whatsoever within this realm, that can directly or indirectly affect or interfere with the independence, sovereignty, laws, constitution, or government thereof, or the rights, liberties, persons, or properties of the people of the said realm or any of them." This, though in conformity with the protestation of the general body of Roman Catholics, adopted in 1778, (see the note in p. 42 of the Magazine for February,) and sanctioned by " the Catholic Committee,” consisting of laymen, was condemned by three out of the four Vicars Apostolic, or titular bishops, to whom the court of Rome delegates its authority over the English Papists; and ultimately the oath required by the act of 1778, with some slight alterations, was substituted, in which the corresponding clause is: "I do declare that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or preeminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm." The difference between the terms of the two clauses is material and important.

66

See Bp. Horsley's Speeches, p. 48, &c.

+ Notwithstanding these favors the vilest arts were used and succeeded in exciting a Popish rebellion in Ireland in 1798.

See the part of it, relevant to this subject, in No. XXVIII, of the publications of the Protestant Association.

bition and power of Buonaparte, Mr. Pitt returned to office without insisting on any condition.

In the session of 1805 was first brought forward the general question, which began to be miscalled the Emancipation of the Roman Catholics, upon the presentation to the two houses of parliament of the first petition from the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The prayer of that petition, which in fact amounted to this, that they might be made capable of being any thing in the state but king, was resisted in the House of Lords by Bishop Horsley,* who had been a strenuous supporter of the preceding measures for their relief from the penal laws; and in the House of Commons Mr. Pittt opposed the motion "that the petition should be referred to a committee of the whole house."

* Bp. Horsley's views appear from the following passages in his Speech :"My mind is so unfashionably constructed, that it cannot quit hold of the distinction between toleration and admission to political power and authority in the state. The object of toleration is conscientious scruples. I conceive that the Roman Catholics already enjoy a perfect toleration: the statutes which exclude them from offices of high trust and authority in the State are not penal; such exclusions are not penalties; and the relaxation of those statutes, would not be toleration; it would be an indulgence of a very different kind." Again. "My mind is not yet brought to that modern liberality of sentiment which holds it to be a matter of indifference to the State of what religion the persons may be who fill its highest offices: I hold, that there is danger to the State, when persons are admitted to high offices who are not of the religion of the State, be it what it may."—pp. 490, 492.

+ The following passages in Mr. Pitt's speech explain his views and the position of the question at that time: "I observe with pleasure, that the application made by the petitioners has not been advanced as a claim of right, but of expediency.. That is the ground upon which I feel the measure ought alone to be discussed: for I cannot allow that, at any time, under any circumstances, or under any possible situation of affairs, it ought to be discussed or entertained, as a claim or question of right. I have never been one of those who have held that the term emancipation is, in the smallest degree, applicable to the repeal of the few remaining penal statutes to which the Catholics are still liable.

"As to the chance of carrying the question at present with general concurrence, of gratifying the Catholics without offending the Protestants, of confirming the affections of the one without raising the suspicions and exciting the fears of the other, not only in Ireland but in England, I confess there appears to me to be none.....I ask any gentleman whether he does not believe, looking to the opinions of the members of the established church, of the nobility, of the men of property, of the middling and respectable classes of society-I ask him, whether he does not believe, looking at the sentiments of the mass of Protestants of this country and of Ireland, that there is the greatest repugnance to this measure, and that even if it could now be carried, so far from producing conciliation and union, it would tend, on the contrary, to disappoint all the prospects of advantage which under other circumstances would be derived from it ?....I am sure I shall not be contradicted when I say, that ever since the union this subject has in a very considerable degree attracted public attention, aud that of late, notwithstanding the other events which have occupied the public mind, it has been the subject of much conversation both in public and private, particularly since the Catholic petition has been presented, and since the honorable gentleman" (Mr. Fox) "has given notice of his present motion; and I should disguise my real sentiments, if I did not say that at present the prevailing sentiment is strongly against this measure."-Pitt's Speeches, vol. 3, p. 427-428.

In 1807, Lord Howick (afterwards Lord Grey) introduced a bill for enabling persons of every religious persuasion to receive commissions in the army and navy in Great Britain as well as in Ireland: this proposition led to the dismissal of Lord Grenville's administration, and the accession of Mr. Perceval to office. Numerous addresses from various parts of the kingdom, including the two Universities, and the corporation of London, were presented to the king, strongly expressing thanks for his conduct: and the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge discharged upon this occasion an important function of a Protestant association by holding a special general meeting, at which was passed a resolution expressing their thanks to the King for his resistance to the proposed dangerous change in the constitution, and their readiness to co-operate with him.*

In 1808 the general question was again brought before parliament, and a concession respecting the appointment of their bishops was submitted to the House of Lords by Lord Grenville, and to the House of Commons by Mr. Grattan, but in September of the same year the Popish bishops of Ireland came to the resolution of refusing to allow a veto to the Crown in the nomination to their bishoprics, which their agent in England, Dr Milner, had authorized their advocates in parliament to propose.†

In 1809 in consequence of this obstacle the question slept, but was discussed again in 1810 and 1811, on petitions from the Irish Roman Catholics.

In 1812, (the Regency having commenced in the preceding year,) there was "a petition of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland to his royal highness the Prince Regent," praying for "an equal participation of the civil rights of the constitution." And motions were made in both houses "to take into consideration the claims of the Catholic body, for the removal of the disabilities they laid under," but were negatived. Mr. Canning then moved that the House of Commons "would early in the next session of parliament take into its serious considera

* The resolution was published during the general election which ensued on the change in the administration; and it called forth a letter of remonstrance to the Secretary from Lord Grenville. See Ann. Reg. 1807, vol. 49, p. 624-626. He remained, however, an attached member of that Society until his death in 1834.

+ See Lord Grenville's Letter to the Earl of Fingall, in the Quarterly Review, Feb. 1810, vol. 3, p. 114. "When last I had the honour of addressing the house," said Mr. Grattan, "in behalf of the Catholic claims, I then stated that the Catholics were willing to concede to his Majesty the right of veto on the Catholic nomination of their bishops. I am sorry to say, that I cannot now affirm that such are the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of Ireland upon that subject. Whether I have misinformed the house, or the Catholics have been guilty of retraction, is a question which I shall never agitate, it being my fixed principle never to defend myself at the expense of my country."

tion, the state of the laws affecting his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland, with a view to such a final and conciliatory adjustment as might be conducive to the peace and strength of the United Kingdom and the stability of the Protestant establishment, and to the general satisfaction and concord of all classes of his Majesty's subjects." While this motion was under discussion, "the Catholic Board" in Dublin passed resolutions demanding the unqualified concession of their claims as a matter of right: and it was carried by a considerable majority, though the house had rejected the motion for the immediate consideration of the question; and a similar motion was carried in the House of Lords by a majority of One.

The feelings of the Protestants in England were strongly roused by the result of Mr. Canning's motion, and by the conduct of " the Catholic Board" and the Irish demagogues: and though the ministers in the following session of 1813* were divided in opinion upon the question, the feeling in the country exhibited. itself by petitions against the Roman Catholic claims from all quarters. A bill, conceding those claims, with certain conditions and restrictions, was however introduced into the House of Commons; but in committee the clause for admitting Papists to sit and vote in parliament was rejected upon the motion of the Speaker, Mr. Abbot,† and in consequence thereof the bill was given up by its promoters.

Charles Butler, in his "Memoir of the Catholic Relief Bill passed in 1829," justifies this course of the advocates of the Roman Catholic claims by the following observations :

66

Napoleon was at this time in the zenith of his power, and made every nation on earth feel that she wanted for her preservation the active and cordial exertions of all her subjects. This feeling argued powerfully in favor of the Catholic claims. Thus at this time good policy made it wise to insist on the whole of the Catholic claims, while at a subsequent time the same policy might dictate the prudence of withholding a part of them."

In the mean while the Popish demagogues in Ireland continued their efforts to inflame the people, and the alarming spirit manifested by them made a deep impression upon the minds of men.

In this crisis was formed the Protestant Union, with the avowed intention of opposing further concessions.

* In this year the order of Jesuits was re-established by the bull of Pope Pius VII., dated August 7th. Mr. Whitbread, advocating the Roman Catholic claims in 1812, asked this (among other questions,) with the confidence of one who would have deemed it absurd to suppose that an affirmative answer could be given: "Was there any apprehension of the Jesuits being restored "?

Afterwards created Lord Colchester.

(To be continued.)

THE REVEREND HUGH Mc NEILE.

"Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you Falsely, for My Sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad : for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before of you."-MATTHEW v. 11, 12.

It is impossible for our readers to have read the ministerial (or we fear that we might say, as a synonymous term, the Popish) papers during the recess, and the parliamentary debates lately, without having noticed the singularly malignant and libellous attacks that have systematically been made upon the Reverend Hugh Mc Neile, for his fearless and masterly exposures of Popery. We might let these gross and self-refuting accusations pass without comment, and if such a feeling were lawful, with contempt. We might leave the public to judge whether these attacks were not caused by soreness which they might be expected to emit in the minds of debated conspirators and convicted perjurers. But justice to Mr. Mc Neile, a warm feeling of admiration for him, and gratitude to him for his noble efforts, call on us to speak out openly on these matters, and to appeal to the people of the country in vindication of one of the most valuable and uncompromising champions of the faith that God has been pleased to raise up since the blessed Reformation.

One of the charges against Mr. Mc Neile is indeed a wonderful one-quite perfect of its kind. Some profound newspaper conjurors have discovered, it appears, that when Mr. Mc Neile, in his splendid speech at Whitchurch, (a speech worthy of the great meeting at which it was delivered,) exclaimed, "What peace, so long as that woman Jezebel lives?" He alluded to whom, do our readers think? Mirabile dictu! To the Queen! This charge Mr. O'Connell, a fit authority, a person precisely qualified to speak on such a subject, says, he believes," in his conscience,' (that's the word) is true. But perhaps Mr. O'Connell, in the speech in which he cited the new authority from his conscience, falsified a quotation from Mr. Mc Neile's speeches, or rather jumbled and strung together as if they came literally from one and the same speech, two or three short but garbled extracts from many speeches. Perhaps this Mr. O'Connell (the man, our readers will remember, with "a vow in heaven,") is not in the eye of our readers, quite so infallible as the Pope he obeys and represents; so we beg to request that all who think it probable that the man who called the Duke of Wellington "chance victor of Waterloo," and "a stunted corporal," may sometimes be equally wrong in his opinions as he is in his facts, will read, not Mr. O'Connell's balderdash again, but Mr. Mc Neile's speech on Jezebel, delivered at Market Drayton, on the 19th December, as