hopes indeed, but I was mistaken. "A deplorable event of which we received news about this time, redoubled all the fears of our aged companion, and confirmed our long-cherished anticipation concerning the fate to which we were destined. The execution of the virtuous princess Elizabeth, for which no pretext could be assigned, not even that of expediency, left us no doubt but it was the intention of the monsters who had butchered her, to rid themselves in the same way of all the members of the family in their power. No sooner had the prince received the fatal tidings, by means of a public paper, than he ran to us with the information (according to custom,) and added, Gentlemen, I announce to you that this is our sentence of death! There is no one left before us now; and we shall not be forgotten much longer. As to the children, they will all be poisoned! You, sir, you are already a man: you will be treated as such; you should be nineteen in a month; but I prophesy you will never arrive at that age: no, you will never be nineteen, I tell you so! you are lost! We are all lost beyond redemption!' "So accustomed were we to the wild lamentations of our unfortunate relative, that they had lost much of their effect: and though as sensible as he was of all the horrors of our position, we were blessed with a little more nerve, which we exercised in endeavouring to diminish his fears, by dissembling our own. We admitted the danger in which we stood, but we put against it the little interest which those in power could have in our destruction, while so many of our family were still in existence out of France; especially, since all of which we could be deprived had been confiscated already." But the fall of Robespierre averted their destiny. Had he lived two months longer, all that the Prince of Conti feared would have been realized. After a captivity of forty-three months, they were allowed, by the Executive Directory, to transport themselves to America. In America they joined their eldest brother, now Duke of Orleans, and remained in that country in abject poverty till about 1800, when they found means to get to London. Here they received the consolation of British hospitality, but the unfortunate Montpensier died of a consumption in May 1807, and lies interred in Westminster Abbey.* 7.-Histoire de la Revolution de 1688, &c. History of the Revolution of 1688 in England. By F. A. J. Mazure, Inspector General of Studies. Paris. The great Revolution of 1688, the most important event in the history of the British empire, has never yet been treated with that care and attention which the subject demanded. M. de Mazure has executed his task His younger brother, Beaujolais fell a victim to the same disease at Malta, in the following year. Of the other persons mentioned, the Prince of Conti died at Barcelona in 1814, aged 80, and the Duchess of Bourbon at Paris in 1822, aged 72; so much easier is it to break young hearts and youthful constitutions, than to snap the thread of age with its confirmed habits and hopeless uniformity. task with considerable ability; he has carefully consulted all the known authorities, and cited them with much impartiality; and he has been fortunate enough to discover some very important papers in the archives of the castle of St. Germains, the residence of James II.: they throw a new light upon many facts, and display, in the most unequivocal manner, the escobarderie of James and his advisers, and most important discrepancies between the memoirs of James intended for the public eye and his own private notes which he was unwise enough to preserve and leave behind him. It is the best and most complete of any work extant on the same subject, the notes, confirm the truth of what we have advanced as to the character of James, and enrich the domain of history with several important facts. The first note relates to the declaration of Bossuet, in reply to the question addressed to him by James, whether he could conscientiously engage, or rather whether he was bound by his declaration already made, to protect and defend the Church of England. This declaration, it will be recollected, was the result of a treaty entered into by several noblemen with James, at St. Germains: they stipulated for eight articles— 1. That the charters of the cities and towns should be preserved as in the reign of King Charles. 2. That the test act should subsist until Parliament should otherwise determine. 3. That Ireland should be governed on the same footing as under Charles II. 4. That the King should confirm what had been done by parliament, during his absence, touching law-suits and the affairs of private individuals. 5. That he should grant a general pardon, save to those who should oppose his return. 6. That the king of France should engage to withdraw his troops immediately after the reestablishment of his Majesty. 7. That he would honourably send back the Queen and the Prince of Wales. 8. That the British nation should not be charged with his Majesty's expenses in France. The King ratified all these articles the 12th of January 1693. by the advice of Louis XIV. and Colbert, and sent his proclamation accordingly to Lord Middleton, who published it at London the 17th of April following. The ink was scarcely dry when James meditated the infraction of the treaty, and he proposed to four English Catholic priests three cases of conscience. 1 Whether he could declare and promise to protect and maintain the Church of England, as established by law, and fill up vacant bishoprics by Protestants. 2. Whether he could declare on his royal word, that he would protect and defend the English church as by law established, and guarantee it in the possession of all its privileges. 3. Whether the King could promise to give his assent to all the laws which might be proposed for the greater security of the Church of England. The four priests unanimously replied in the negative. James, encouraged by their opi nion, flattered himself that French theologians would give the same decision, and that this would be a sanction for him in the eyes of Louis XIV. for his bad faith. James felt it requisite to have some such authority in his favour, as the French King had only promised his assistance on the condition that he, James, should subscribe to just and reasonable terms, capable of rendering his authority stable, and conciliating it with the jast privileges and liberties of Great Britain. On the point of religion, Louis expressed himself in those memorable terms: M. Mareschal knows perfectly that his Majesty has nothing more at heart than the good and advantage of the Catholic religion; but as the exercise of it cannot be re-established in England, save in removing from the people the impression that the king is resolved to make it triumph, and give the principal offices to those who profess it, he ought to dissuade his Majesty from saying or doing any thing which may authorize or augment this fear; the more so, as it ought to suffice to good Catholics to worship God in peace, and preserve their property in fulfilling their duties, without seeking for offices or dignities which are not necessary to their salvation. James therefore subscribed the proclamation, which was made the 17th April; but, still anxious to justify to himself his mental reservation, he communicated the case of conscience to Bossuet, as, if Bossuet decided like the English priests, his treachery would acquire a high sanction, which he hoped would excuse him in the eyes of Louis XIV., from whom he carefully concealed his sinister projects, and in particular that of getting the Prince of Orange assassinated, as we shall see in the sequel. Bossuet's opinion does honour to him; and the reprinting it at this moment may offer a salutary lesson to those who are so ardently endeavouring to disturb the public peace in Ireland : "The declaration demanded from the King of England in favour of his Protestant subjects, consists principally in two points "The first is, that his Majesty promises to protect and defend the Church of England as it is at present by law established; and that he will secure to its members all their churches, universities, colleges and schools, with their immunities, rights, and privileges. 66 "The second, that his said Majesty promises also, that he will not violate the test oath, nor suffer it to be dispensed with. "I have replied, and I reply, that his Majesty may give these two articles without difficulty." And to understand the reason of this answer, it is only necessary to fix the true sense of the two articles in question. The first consists of two parts: the one to protect and defend the English church as by law established, which simply means to leave these laws in vigour, and asking to execute them according to their form and tenor. The conscience of the King of England is not wounded by this part of his declaration, because the protection and defence of the Protestant church, which he promises in it, only regards the exterior, and only obliges his Majesty to leave this pretended church in the the exterior state in which he finds it, without troubling or permitting any one to trouble it. To decide this question on principles, we must make a grand distinction between the protection one may give to a church by adhering to the bad principles it professes, and that given to it ostensibly to preserve public tranquillity. The first kind of protection is bad, because it springs from a bad principle the adherence to what is false; but the second is very good, because it has for its principle the love of peace, and for its object a thing good and necessary, which is public tranquillity. Those who treat with the King on this occasion, do not ask his approbation of the Protestant religion, because, on the contrary, they suppose him to be a Catholic, and treat with him as such. They, therefore, merely ask a royal protection, that is, an ostensible protection, such as it is proper for a King to give who has no power over consciences; and all agree that such protection is licit and lawful. The kings of France have given, by the Edict of Nantes, a kind of protection to the reformed, in shielding them from the insults of those who would trouble them in the exercise of their religion, and in granting them privileges in which he orders his officers to maintain them. It never was thought that the conscience of the monarch was interested in those concessions, inasmuch as they were judged necessary for public tranquillity, because it was that tranquillity, and not the pretended reformed religion, which was the motive. The same may be said of the King of England; and if he grant greater advantages to his Protestant subjects, it is because the state in which they are in his kingdoms, and the motive of public repose, require it. Hence those who find fault with this part of the article, only find fault with it because they pretend that it contains a tacit promise to execute the penal laws made by the Parliaments against the Catholics; because, say they, the Protestants consider those penal laws as a part of the protection they demand for the English Protestant church. But the King's words have no such interpretation. He says, we will protect and defend, &c. It is, therefore, only a question of the constitutional principles of this church, and not of any penal laws by which it may pretend to repel other religions opposed to it. Those constitutional principles of the Church of England, are First, the pretended articles of faith framed under Queen Elizabeth: Secondly, the Liturgy as approved by Parliament: Thirdly, the Homilies, or instructions authorized by Parliament. It is not asked that the King shall become the promoter of these three things, but only that he shall ostensibly leave them a free course for the peace of his subjects, which is sufficient, on the one hand, to maintain the English Church in its rights, and on the other not to wound the King's conscience. The second part of the article, in which he promises to secure to the Protestant Church and its members, their churches, &c., is still less difficult; it even modifies the first in manifestly reducing the defence and protection of the Eng lish Church to the external things of which it is in possession, and in which the King only promises that they shall not be troubled. The King in doing this is far from approving the usurpation of the churches and benefices, but he promises only that those who have usurped them shall not be troubled by hostile acts (voies de fait,) because that cannot happen without ruining the tranquillity of his state. With regard to the Test oath, it simply obliges his Majesty to exclude from office those who refuse to take a certain oath, in which there is no difficulty, because one may live humanely and christianly without holding a public office. If this appear hard to the Catholics, they ought to consider the state in which they are, and the small portion they form of the population of England, which obliges them not to ask what is impossible of their King, but on the contrary, to sacrifice all the advantages with which they might vainly flatter themselves, to the real and solid good of having a King of their religion, and securing his family on the throne, though Catholic, which may lead them rationally to expect in time the entire establishment of their church and faith. If on the contrary it be endeavoured to impose the law on the Protestants, who are the masters, the opportunity of re-establishing the King will be lost, and all the advantages which would result from it; and if the rebels succeeded, they would naturally wreak their vengeance on the Catholics. For these reasons I conclude, not only that the King might conscientiously make the declaration in question, but also that he was bound to do it, because he ought to do every thing in his power for the advantage of the Church and his Catholic subjects, to which nothing can tend more in the present conjuncture than his restoration. We even ought to regard the declaration of his Majesty as a great advantage, as it strongly recommends to Parliament an impartial liberty of conscience, which proves the King's zeal for the repose of his Catholic subjects, and altogether a favourable disposition towards them in the Protestants who accept the declara tion. I would therefore frankly say to the Catholics, if there be any who do not approve of the declaration in question, " noli esse justus multum: neque plus sapias quam necesse est, ne obstupescas." Eccles. vii. 16.* I have no doubt his Holiness the Pope will support his Majesty the King of England in the execution of a declaration which was so necessary, and that he will think favourably of the intentions of a Prince who has sacrificed three kingdoms, all his family, and his own life, for the Catholic religion. I nevertheless submit with all my heart to the supreme decision of His Holiness.-Given at Meaux, this 22d May, 1693. J. BENIGNE, Bishop of Meaux. Bossuet makes it the 17th verse, but in the English translation it is the 16th, which runs thus: "Be not righteous over much, neither make thyself over wise. Why shouldest thou destroy thyself?" |