and the clause, which succeeded to it in the new form, is of equivalent force.-" Archbishop "or Bishop. 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. All this "I promise to do."

It appears, therefore, not only that it is not to the people, as represented by Parliament, that the Oath is taken, but that a part of it is not taken to the people at all.

There is, indeed, an argument often brought forwards, which, if sound, would fully meet the difficulty. It is said, that, all the estates of the realm being represented in Parliament, whatever is done by Parliament must be taken as done freely by all. So far as to give to an Act of Parliament the full assent of the general will of the people, this cannot be questioned; but whenever the nature of the case requires the particular assent of individuals, or of bodies of "to the Churches committed to our charge," &c. And the King answereth, "With a willing and devout heart I promise, "&c. and that I will preserve and maintain to you, &c. and "that I will be your protector and defender, to my power, by "the assistance of God, as every good King in his kingdom

ought to protect and defend the Bishops, and the Churches "under their government."

men, then that particular assent must be obtained, if not to make the act legal, at least to make it what it professes to be, the voluntary act of such individual, or bodies of men.

If the doctrine of virtual representation is to hold in such cases, the consequences will be most absurd, as well as most iniquitous. For instance, if a person petitions against a railroad, or enclosure, bill, and the bill passes in spite of him, he may be told that he has no right to complain, for he himself consented to it, by Parliament, which represents the will and power of all the estates of the realm. An act of attainder, in the same way, may be said to have the consent of the party punished by it. Nay, to bring the matter closer to our present subject, if this doctrine be true, the Roman Catholics throughout the empire, especially those of Ireland, have no grievance whatever to complain of; for they have themselves freely consented, and they continue to consent, to the existing state of the law, by that Parliament which represents them, as well as every other class and description of his Majesty's subjects.

What, then, it may be asked, is the question of concession to the Roman Catholics to depend, after all, on the consent of the Bishops and Clergy? Most certainly not nothing so

extravagant was ever contemplated. All that is contended for is this, that the King being bound by his Coronation Oath to the Bishops and Clergy to preserve their rights and privileges, the two Houses of Parliament cannot absolve his Majesty from that obligation; on the other hand, whenever those rights and privileges are affected or endangered, the Bishops and Clergy have no right to prescribe to his Majesty what particular course he ought to pursue, but the decision must be left to his own conscience, under the awful sanction of the Oath which he has taken.

66

To sum up the whole, the King has sworn in his Coronation Oath to Almighty God, that "he " will, to the utmost of his power, maintain the "Protestant reformed religion established by "law." From this Oath no earthly power can absolve him. He has also sworn to the Bishops and Clergy, that " he will preserve to them and "to the Churches committed to their charge, all "such rights and privileges as by law do or "shall appertain to them, or any of them." From this Oath it is not in the power of Parliament to absolve him.

I have felt it necessary to state this matter more largely than it may seem to require, because, by means of it, frequent attempts have

of late been made to get rid altogether of the obstacle which this Oath presents to the schemes of our modern innovators. Dr. Milner has suggested a Bill to be presented by the two Houses of Parliament to his Majesty, "declaring, in "the name of his subjects, that they no longer "hold him bound to the obligations of the "Oath, which they had formerly exacted of "him; on the other hand, the King, by pass

ing such an act, would declare that he ac"cepted of this remission of his obligation."* Such is the mode of discharging the Royal conscience which the late Roman Catholic Bishop of the midland district was so considerate as to devise. A learned Layman of that communion, Mr. Dillon, seems to prefer proceeding in a somewhat different way. "Why," says he, "should not both Houses of Parlia"ment, the constitutional organs of the public "voice, pass a resolution upon the subject cal"culated to remove at any period all scruples "in the Royal mind upon a point of such im

66

portance to the tranquillity and prosperity of "the empire?" Or, if it be determined to proceed by Bill, he would rather "that the three "estates of the realm in Parliament assembled

* Case of Conscience, p. 76.

"shall present a Bill to his Majesty, praying that the disabilities to which the Catholics "are liable may be removed;" to such a Bill, he adds, " surely his Majesty may grant his royal sanction, since the very form of the Bill

46

expressly states, that the measure is proposed "with the advice and consent of his subjects." Mr. C. Butler would approve any one of these methods; for, as he affirms, (with all the force that uncial letters can give,) that "the Coro"nation Oath is made to the people, as repre"sented by Parliament," he very consistently argues, that the people, represented by Parliament, being the persons, and the only persons, entitled to the benefit of the Oath, have full power and authority to release the Monarch who took the Oath, and all his successors, from its obligations.

These are the ingenious devices of Roman Catholic casuists, clerical and lay. Our Protestant lawyer, Mr. Jeffrey, proves his admirable fitness for the office of "Keeper of the King's "Conscience," by a much more effectual expedient, by a bit of special pleading, which he may safely challenge any one of his English brethren in Westminster Hall, or at the Old Bailey, to equal. "The thing promised," says he, "is, "to support the religion established by LAW,

K