'church and state, according to the principle, but varying the mode, which the wisdom of our an'cestors had adopted to prevent danger. The 'measure I intended to propose, I think, would 'give more safety to the church and state.'

pa

Mr. Pitt did not live to try the experiment of obtaining this more consistent and rational security, which, keeping still to the principle of our ancestors, was to give greater safety both to church and state. But it was tried, perseveringly and tiently by Lord Grenville, the most eminent of those persons who acted with Mr. Pitt at that time, and himself the person who must have been best acquainted with Mr. Pitt's intentions. And we know that he agreed with him concerning the necessity of such securities: if tranquillity and 'union be our object,' said Lord Grenville, all due provision must be made for the inviolable 'maintenance of the religious and civil establish- · ments of the United Kingdom; such at least 'have always been my own declared opinions.' To the form of such securities he attached, he said, comparatively little importance; but that there was a necessity for them, he distinctly stated. Accordingly under his auspices provisions were proposed, such as had been acquiesced in by the Papal Church in its arrangements with other governments, and to these the most considerable of the Roman Catholic titular bishops expressly and formally consented. It was urged upon the mind * of the Pope as a reason for obtaining his consent to that arrangement, 'that such was the returning

Digest, part ii, 209. Dr. Murray's Evidence (titular Archbishop of Dublin).

'spirit of kindness evinced by the British govern 'ment towards the Irish Roman Catholics, that it " was not at all improbable that in the event of 'emancipation being granted, the Catholic 'bishops might be allowed to take their seats in "the House of Peers.' The Pope believed this, and if Dr. Milner may deserve belief for any thing which he asserts, the titular bishops also 'were 'really led to believe that upon these events taking place, their church would not only be protected 'and honoured, but also that it would, in a sort "of subordinate way, become the established church

of Ireland!' Accordingly, the Pope would have consented to the veto, as the titular bishops had done. The public cannot need to be assured that no such hopes were ever held out to the Roman Catholics by any member of the British or Irish government, nor indeed by any persons except those of their own communion, who look for the complete re-establishment of their intolerant church in all its pretensions, and to the utmost of their power are labouring by any means to bring it about. But it may be needful to remind the public at this time that the leading persons of the British and Irish Roman Catholics, having twice consented to the veto, twice retracted that consent, after they had authorized their advocates in parliament to signify it, and to bring in a bill founded thereon.

"When last I had the honour of addressing the "House in behalf of the Catholic claims,' said Mr. Grattan, 'I then stated that the Catholics were 'willing to concede to his Majesty the right of the ❝ veto or the nomination of their bishops. I am

sorry to say that I cannot now affirm that such ⚫ are the sentiments of the Roman Catholics of Ire land upon that subject. Whether I have mis informed 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.'. With what propriety those Roman Catholics, with whom Mr. Grattan had communicated, could be called his country, it would require some of his peculiar logic to explain.

་

་

Mr. Keogh did not speak so calmly concerning the prelates of his church on this occasion; he said that to the propositions of granting the veto, and receiving a salary from the treasury, they gave a private, dastardly, partly insincere, and partly' 'corrupt assent. Altogether insincere it was shown to be, by their own after-conduct, but private it was not; and assuredly there has been nothing dastardly in their proceedings: they have not wanted robur et as triplex for saying or unsaying anything with perfect intrepidity. Lord Eldon has said truly that during the many years which have elapsed ⚫ since this question has been contemplated, no man has yet found out what securities he could propose on the part of the Protestants, which the Roman Catholics would give as the price of what they were to receive.' Wherefore, indeed, should they be content to receive upon conditions that which they expect to obtain unconditionally, and to be courted to accept, and to be rewarded for accepting? They have calculated always upon the continued support of their friends in Parliament, being sure of the principles upon which that support is given to them

by some; and with regard to others who both profess and feel a sincere attachment to the Protestant Church as by the constitution established in these kingdoms, bearing in mind the old observation, that quos Jupiter vult perdere prius dementat, and looking upon them as thus demented. Hitherto they have not been deceived in that confidence. Whatever duplicity they have practised, whatever assurances they have broken, whatever agreements they have retracted, these faithful adherents, they knew, were at any time ready to renew the question for them, and plead for them, and vote for them again; and, if need were, to pledge themselves for them again, and to be again and again deceived by them, and again and again stultified and insulted. Patient Grizzle was but a type of such emancipa tionists!

In fact, any securities that might be proposed or accepted would not be worth a rush. To say that the Roman Catholics, as a body, are not to be trusted upon their declaration and their oaths, would in these days expose the person who should assert it to a full-mouthed cry of' Hear! hear!' in parliament, and to a charge of bigotry, intolerance, calumny, and ungentlemanliness, from the Roman Catholic press, and that part of the press which, without being Roman Catholic, is decidedly antiProtestant. The assertion, nevertheless, is true. They are not to be bound in their dealings with a Protestant state by any declarations or oaths, however solemn; and this is no secret part of their system, for it has been decreed and pronounced by popes, canons, and councils, that no such oaths and declarations are binding. It is upon the religious

sincerity of other men that you have your surest reliance; but in exact proportion as the Roman Catholics are sincere in their religion, must they, upon any point in which the interests of their church are concerned, be distrusted. Corruptio optimi pessima. The better, the sincerer, the more religious they are, the more effectually are they disqualified by their creed. They are told in their decretals, that Non est observandum juramentum quo malum incaute permittitur: that Non omnia promissa solvenda sunt: that Non observentur juramenta quæ fiunt contra divina mandata: and that Aliquando non expedit promissum servare sacramentum. To these authorities their creed binds them; and of their application of such maxims history affords abundant examples. In the bull t whereby Pope Innocent III. excommunicated Count Ramon of Thoulouse, and absolved his subjects from their allegiance, the maxim that faith is not to be kept with heretics is there distinctly stated as canonical.. Juxta Sanctorum 'Patrum Canonicas sanctiones ei qui fidem Deo non servat, fides servanda non sit.' It was part of the Coronation oath in Arragon, that the king should, upon no pretence whatever, expel the " Moriscoes, nor force them against their wills to be baptized; and that he should neither directly ' nor indirectly ever desire to be dispensed with as to the said oath; or in case a dispensation should ❝ be offered to him, that he should not accept of it; and that, if he did, whatsoever should be done by 'him thereupon should be null and void, This

P. 9. Caus. 22. Quest. 4.

Catel. Hist. des Comtes de Toulouse, p. 242.