to the Regency Bill proposed by the Irish parliament? Had Mr. Pitt been guilty of this political error, he could not have attempted to carry on his war policy, either before or after the Peace of Amiens.

But what did occur to the Whigs after Mr. Pitt's death, when they proposed Catholic Emancipation to George the Third, and brought upon themselves loss of office, is a clear illustration, that with the crown and the people in England there existed an insuperable objection to the granting of Catholic Emancipation, which no political party or government could at that period of time overcome. Great men have treated such parts of the settlement of 1688 as demanded securities, whether from Dissenters or others, even during the days of Pitt and Fox, so as to shew that these restrictions arose not solely from religious scruples, but that they were the offspring of civil policy. But now that the Test and Corporation Acts are repealed, and Roman Catholic disabilities removed, the question of how far you are to deal with the Roman Catholics is purely one of civil policy.

It must be recollected that Mr. Pitt, when he dealt with Catholic Emancipation, adopted a different course from that of 1829, for he engaged that the state should pay the Catholic clergy.*

Mr. Pitt, in 1788, proposed certain questions to the Universities of Sorbonne, Louvain, Alcala, and Sala

* Mr. Pitt might have read St. Gregory's own confession, which runs thus:

Valdè mihi durum videtur, ut ab ejus (that is, Christi) servitio milites suos prohibeat, qui ei (that is, Imperatori Mauritio) et omnia tribuat, et dominari non solum militibus, sed etiam sacerdotibus concessit.-Lib. ii, indict. ii. epist. 103.

manca, as to the power of the Pope in temporal concerns. They were three in number. They were expressed in the following terms, and received the following answers:

"1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever within the realm of England?

"2. Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatever?

"3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature?”

The Universities answered unanimously:

"1. That the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, had not, nor have any civil authority, power, jurisdiction or pre-eminence whatever, within the realm of England.

"2. That the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome, cannot absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects, from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever.

"3. That there is no principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions, either of a public or a private nature."

The opinions of the Universities of the Sorbonne, Louvain, and Douay, were first received, and were transmitted to Mr. Pitt with the following letter:

"Sir,- The Committee of the English Catholics have the honour to lay before you the opinions of the Universities of Sorbonne, Louvain, and Douay, which have been transmitted to us in consequence of your desire.

"You will, we hope, see from these opinions, that the sentiments of the most famous foreign bodies perfectly coincide with those which we had the honour of stating to you last year as our firm and sincere

tenets.

"At the same time, we beg leave to call to your remembrance that our opinions were fully stated to you previously to the obtaining those of the foreign Universities; and that they were consulted, not as the rule by which we form our ideas of the duties of good subjects, but as a collateral proof to you that our sentiments are consonant to those of the most enlightened and famous bodies of Catholic divines on the Continent upon these subjects.

"We have the honour to be, etc."

Mr. Pitt could only have made these inquiries for the purpose of facilitating his ulterior communications with the Pope, as regarded the payment of the Irish Catholic clergy. These questions and answers involve the whole power of papal authority, as settled in 1649, as consolidated by the Catholics at the Council of Trent, and admitted by the Protestants in their Confession at Augsburgh.

Be it always recollected, that when, in 1788, Mr. Pitt proposed his plan for the payment of the Catholic clergy, the policy of civil government in the controlling the pastors of all religions, whether Christian, Jew, or Gentile, had not, as now, become so clearly the admitted system of all Europe. For it was the Code Napoleon that consolidated this system.

When Catholic disabilities were removed, when the Test and Corporation Acts were swept away, so much of the policy which Protestant religious exclusionists considered unalienable from the British constitution

no longer existed. These things were badly done. In 1829, an enlarged and proper view was not taken of the policy of 1649, which had begot that of 1688, in conjunction with the actual system of civil govern. ment throughout Europe, over teachers and pastors of all religions.

It ought boldly to have been maintained in Parliament that these restrictions were no longer applicable to the social order of Europe, and never were necessary for the maintenance, in its supremacy, of the Anglican Church, but were established in order to maintain Great Britain's independence from the temporal power of the Pope, whose aid was at that time sought by her enemies, having pretensions to the British

crown.

The practice of Continental governments from 1815 to 1829, the concordats that took place with the Pope and Catholic states in 1827, and all that occurred down to the period of time in which we are writing, shew that any fear of political power which the Pope now can exercise over Roman Catholic subjects has

long passed away. As well might persons on the Continent declare they feared the arbitrary exercise of the British Crown's prerogative, as the English the power of the Pope of Rome.

In the early part of these pages, we alluded to the misplaced jealousy of noble lords, when they complained of the dismissal of the Irish magistrates under the exercise of that prerogative; we should say the exercise of the Pope's authority, in these days, is about as much to be feared, as that the Queen's prerogative should be applied to the injury of any right, granted by law or by the British constitution. In the one case, the prerogative of the British Crown is held in check by legislative authority; and in the other, the authority of the Pope by treaties, stipulations, and compact. For two hundred years the Pope's power has been continually diminished, whilst that of the other states, who brought the people's authority within proper limits, is wonderfully increased; the privileges of Parliament, and not the prerogative of the Crown, are to be feared; it is the power and strength of foreign states, not of the Vatican, which is to be apprehended. Does it not behove Creat Britain then to place itself in a comprehensive policy with the Catholic states of Europe, as to what is to be the spiritual authority exercised by the Pope, in his episcopal character, over the Catholic community?

Looking at the actual state of Ireland, and what it has been in times past, it is impossible for any plainjudging mind not to arrive at this conclusion, that the turbulence of the Catholic peasantry and outrages against the British Government have arisen from the