Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

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 Remanists; and no doubt can be entertained that Great Britain has power sufficient to do the same : so that the conclusion, that Great Britain is not bound to support the Irish Protestant more than the Irish Romanist, unlogically deduced from one false, andone hypothetic premiss implying a falsity, falls to the ground. But the assertions, that Great Britain is not bound by any specific principle to support one more than the other ; and that as fhe is only bound to secure Ireland to the British Crown, without being bound to any specific measures for so doing, the may effect this, by giving her support to the Romanists, and crushing the Protestants in Ireland; require some further animadversion.

King James the Second was driven from his Throne by the Revolution of 1688, for attempting to place Ro-, .' manists, both in Great Britain and Ireland, on an equal

footing in refpe&t to all civil.privileges, with his Protestant
subjects; and his Romish issue, if any he had, together
with all the next heirs of the Crown, being Romanifts, on
the demise of his Protestant issue without issue, were de.
clared by Act of Parliament incapable of succeeding to the
Crown, and the succession limited to his next Protestant
relations, the issue of the Princess Sophia, grand-daughter.
of King James the First, as if the intermediate Romißh
heirs were dead : and his present Majesty, whom God
long preserve, under that title, now fits on the Imperial

Throne of the British Empire. Here then is a King de-
throned, the hereditary succession interrupted, and turned

H 2

into

into the Protestant channel, merely for the purpose of se: curing a succession of Protestant Monarchs to Great Britain and Ireland : a fundamental principle of our constitution is varied by a condition, to wit, that the next heir shall succeed to the Throne only on the terms of his being a Protestant. Does not His Majesty hold his Crown by This Protestant title, and is he not bound to swear at his Coronation, that he will to the utmost of his power inviolably maintain the Protestant Religion as established in Ireland, as well as in Great Britain ? Are not His Majesty and his successors bound so to swear, as well by the Aą of the ist of William and Mary, as by the Articles of the Union of England and Scotland, and the Ad confirming them? Why was the Crown limited to the Protestant heirs only, and why was such variation made in our ancient law of Hereditary Succession ? 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 specific principle to support the Protestant Religion, in oppofition to Popery, within herself? And is she not bound by the same specific principle to the same conduct in Ireland to the utmost of her power? How then can this Gentleman support his position, that Great Britain is not bound by any specific principle to support the Protestant 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 unsupported 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 asserted, that if the Houses of Lords and Commons should agree on a bill for subverting the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, His Majesty, notwithstanding his Coronation Oath, would be bound to give it the Royal assent, and thereby establish it as a law, because his Coronation Oath in all particulars is so to be construed, that it is not. binding against the opinion of the two Houses. I never can agree with such reasoning-I cannot find any such saving in the Coronation Oath: it is an absolute Oath; and I never can allow that the two Houses of Parliament have any such power, as that of dispensing with the obligations of positive Oaths : I believe and hope, that the Parliament never will assume the power of absolving from the observance of Oaths : it would thereby assume the power arrogated by the Pope, which is so much and so justly reprobated by all good Christians. And as His Majesty is bound by his Coronation Oath inviolably to maintain the Protestant Religion as it is now established in Ireland, so is he bound to resist all concessions of privileges to any class of his subjects, which would impair or weaken that establishment; though perhaps they would not be at first attended, or immediately followed, by.its total subversion. .

This Gentleman has also stated very erroneously, as a known historical fact, that the Irish House of Commons was framed with the sole view of excluding Roman Catholics. The fact is quite otherwise : the assertion 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 History of the Duke of Ormond, pages Ib. 13. 18. 19.) I am sur

prised

into the Protestant channel, merely for the purpose of securing a succession of Protestant Monarchs to Great Britain and Ireland : a fundamental principle of our constitution is varied by a condition, to wit, that the next heir shall succeed to the Throne only on the terms of his being a Protestant. Does not His Majesty hold his Crown by this Protestant title, and is he not bound to swear at his Coronation, that he will to the utmost of his power inviolably maintain the Protestant Religion as established in Ireland, as well as in Great Britain ? Are not His Majesty and his successors bound so to swear, as well by the Act of the ist of William and Mary, as by the Articles of the Union of England and Scotland, and the A& confirming them? Why was the Crown limited to the Protestant heirs only, and why was such variation made in our ancient law of Hereditary Succession ? 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 specific principle to support the Protestant Religion, in opposition to Popery, within herself ? And is she not bound by the same specific principle to the same conduct in Ireland to the utmost of her power? How then can this Gentleman support his position, that Great Britain is not bound by any specific principle to support the Protestant 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 conclusions unsupported by the substantial pillars of Reason and Fact. Such is the nature of all his arguments of intimidation in favour of an Union.

It is now time to refute the parts of the Romilh au. Continua-thọrs. pamphlet, in which he attempts, rather to infi- 5 inuate. than prove, that the late Rebellion in Ireland was on The

** Case of not a Romish Rebellion. He knew, if he ventured, to Ireland

Re-consis make such an assertion dire@ly, he laid bimself, open to a direct refutation, and provoked its he therefore chose ra... .ther to make use of a mode of desultory, argument on this.. weak side of his defence of Irish Romanists, from the top. well founded objections to their pretensions, arising from their open aets of hoftility against their Protestant country": men, by aiming detached strokes of accusation against fome reputed Protestants, who were, concerned in, the Rep bellion. This mode of defence of his party is contrary to the general tenour of his argument 3 which is, than the Irish Romanifts are excluded from equal privileges with, their fellow-subjects, that their number and property en. title them to these privileges, that the exclusion therefrom warrants their hostility to the State, and that their propen- . fity to such hoftility will continue as long as the exclaqong, and will break out into open acts of violence on every proz, per opportunity, and that the late Rebellion was the consequence of such exclusion, thereby in fact, admitting, that it was a Romith Rebellion. In page 22 he has the following paragraph : ! No doubt 4. connexion with - France has lately been renewed, but those who took the « lead in it were of all descriptions, but persons chiefly • Presbyterians and Protestants ; of five men who com

posed the (Irish) Directory, four: were Protestants, ale.. * though of any other five men in the country, four were • Catholics. In page 11 he thus writes: May, not the

present misfortunes of Ireland be rather ascribed to the s efforts of a party (the Proteftants) to force on us again our childish trammels which we had outgrown? This,

to accounts

« ElőzőTovább »