Having, in the foregoing brief analysis, endeavoured to shew the purposes for which the Grant to Maynooth was originally made, and having also, as faithfully as we could, placed before the reader the circumstances and conditions under which it was given, we now come to inquire more particularly into the second question proposed—" Was it right or judicious, or in accordance with the great principles of the British Constitution, to make a grant of the public money for the establishment of such an institution ?”

It will have been noticed, that, as we passed along, we endeavoured to demonstrate, not only the inconsistency, but the folly and fatuity of a Protestant Government in any way assisting the avowed agents of the Pope, in their endeavours to establish and perpetuate his authority in Great Britain, by founding a seminary for the education of young men, of mean origin, in the principles and practices of the Romish religion-more especially as it had been clearly ascertained that wherever such persons had gained a footing, acting as his vassals and instruments, they invariably introduced or perpetuated, anarchy, hatred, and ill-will, amongst the inhabitants, by their endeavours to upset the Protestant institutions of the land. That Mr. Pitt was grossly deceived, by the Priests and Prelates of Rome, in the statements laid before him having reference to the College, we have also shewn distinctly; for while it was their wish to establish such an institution, in order to promote the interests of the fraternity,

and of the Roman Pontiff, the more respectable classes of the people of Ireland were by no means favourable to the measure. We also expressed our

opinion that had Mr. Pitt listened to the voice of history, or attended to the warnings given him by the best friends of Great Britain and Ireland; nay more, that had he even, in place of sending to

*The voice of history would have taught him, by example, that it was perfect madness to give any assistance to Popery. It would have informed him that from 1560 to 1593 there were murdered in France simply because they were Protestants, 39 princes, 382 noblemen, 147,518 gentlemen, and 760,000 of the common people—and not to refer more particularly to the deeds of horror perpetrated in Ireland—that in November, 1641, 200,000 English Protestants were massacred in cold blood, "with a degree of barbarity unequalled in any other nation, and at which credulity is startled"-that by the revocation of the Edict of Nantz, 1685, one-twentieth of the whole body of Protestants in France were barbarously murdered-800,000 having made their escape into foreign lands.-See Russell's Mod. Eur. v. iii. p. 289.

Need we, as a further proof of our position, refer to the fact that during the insurrections in England in the reign of Elizabeth, Pius V. addressed a letter to the people of the district, telling them "to persevere in the work, not doubting but that God would grant them assistance; and that if they should die in asserting the Catholic faith, and the authority of the see of Rome, it were better for them, with the advantage of a glorious death, to purchase eternal life, than by ignominiously living, with the loss of their souls, shamefully to obey the will of an ungovernable woman.”--Pii. V. Epist p. 290. That in the 13th year of her reign, Clement VIII. fulminated the Bull of Excommunication, declaring her to be a heretic, and the favourer of heretics. "We declare her," said he, "to be deprived of her pretended title to the kingdom aforesaid, and of all dominion, dignity, and privilege whatsoever; and also the nobility, subjects and people of the said kingdoms, and all which have in any sort sworn unto her, to be for ever absolved from every such oath, and all manner of duty, of dominion, of allegiance, and obedience. We also command and interdict all and every the noblemen, subjects, and people, aforesaid, that they presume not to obey her, or her monitions, mandates, and laws, and those which shall do to the contrary we do likewise anathematise." Elizabeth, annoyed by this insolence, procured an act, declaring it to be high treason to affirm that the Queen was not a

foreign universities, consulted some of the Romish writers of that day in England,* on the subjects on which he required information, there could be little doubt he would never have placed the country in the anomalous and perilous situation of giving pecuniary support to a system which the King, Lords, and Commons had each and all sworn to be damnable and idolatrous, and which he himself knew to be a curse to any country.

In a speech delivered in the Irish House of Commons, in the year before the memorial relative to Maynooth was presented, the Right Hon. John Foster, Speaker of the House, in referring to the

lawful sovereign, or to bring bulls, indulgences, or absolutions from the Pope into Great Britain or Ireland.

The foregoing, taken in connection with the following extract from the 4th Council of Lateran, will shew what Protestants might expect should Popery by any dispensation of Providence, ever be permitted to have any power in these lands" All heretics and schismatics, although they practice the Christian virtue of charity in its fullest extent; and although they shed their blood for Christ, yet they will most indubitably partake of eternal fire with the devil and his angels, unless before the end of this life, they shall be incorporated with, and reconciled to the Catholic Church; for neither baptism, or charity, however copious, or even martyrdom, can give any chance of salvation to any man, who does not hold the unity of the Catholic Church."-See Fourth Con. Lat.

That the worst persecution would be revived in this country were Popery again in power, is evident from what took place whenever the popes regained any power they had lost. In May, 1815, Pius VII. compelled the small congregation of Protestants which had collected in Rome to flee to Naples-he revived the order of the Jesuits to assist him-and again put in operation the infernal Inquisition. The more recent doings of the present Pope and his predecessor are too fresh in the memory of all to require particular notice. The case of the Madias furnish a practical comment of the manner in which heretics would be treated should they dare to read their Bibles.

* See pp. 16, 17, and 18.

acts of the English Minister relative to the Relief Bill, sounded the note of warning. He observed

"He never blamed the Irish Government, nor did he blame them now; they could not act otherwise; the measure began in Britain, but he should never cease to think it was extreme folly, or indiscretion in the British Ministry, to rouse the question here."

Again, addressing the members of the House"You are trustees for your constituents, they are Protestants, have you the power to destroy their rights, by overwhelming them without their consent: for his part he received his seat in the House, and the trust which he brought with it, from Protestants, under a Protestant king, a Protestant constitution, and a Protestant ascendency, and by the blessing of God, he never would give up their rights till they should desire him."

And again, in reference to the ultimate objects of the priests of Rome, he observed

"His opinion remained unshaken-he was still more confirmed in it, by considering the circumstances of their clergy-their oath of ordination bound them not as our Monarch was bound, merely to maintain, but to extend and promote (pro posse, he believed was the phrase) the interests of their church. And all history concurred in proving their zeal; they have sent missionaries to propagate their religion at great expense, trouble, and hazard, to almost every part of the world-extension of its doctrines, and its powers, is the duty of its professors; their habits of life, too, urge them to it; they are bound to celibacy; strangers to all the comforts of domestic life, their passions find no resting place, their home had not the allurements of love and of content, to engage and occupy their mind. Human passions are ever alive; if love don't engage them, ambition will; the experience of ages, shews us the am

bition of the Romish clergy, and when that ambition is fired by a religious zeal, and by the certain consequence of great temporal emolument and dignity, who can say to what extent it may go-their oath, their interest, and their ambition, all concur in rousing them to exert every power and watch every opportunity of effecting this change; and however unpleasant to advert to circumstances of which the authors seem to have repented, he cannot avoid, as it is so apposite to the argument, to notice how eagerly and early their prelates shewed their ambition, by claiming their titles of archbishops and bishops in their signatures to their petition the other day to this house, contrary to the existing laws; titles which they would not have presumed to have asserted, but from the influence of that ambitious zeal, which over-bore their judgment. They foresaw their own ascendancy so strongly in the very first dawn of Catholic power, that they actually believed themselves in the possession of it.”

And still further, in reference to the little amount of dependence that was to be placed on the oaths of the Romanists, he says—

"Nothing tends more to perjury than the want of knowledge of the nature of an oath; and their superiors had expressed their opinion as to the lower order of Catholics upon this point. In their petition to the throne, they had stated that numbers of catholics preferring perjury to famine, submitted to oaths which they utterly disbelieved. What were these oaths which they had utterly disbelieved? The oaths of allegiance and supremacy. Were these the men whose loyalty was so highly praised, and who were to be admitted into the legislature? and yet this is their character drawn by those who know them best. When their friends say they think so lightly of an oath, as to prefer perjury to famine, can you doubt they would take false