&c. The supposition that the object of the Oath was not to bind the sovereign, "in all times to come," to the observance of definite principles of legislation, with respect to the national religion, is as irrreconcileable with the tenour of this preamble, as with the whole policy of the Legislature.

With respect to the duty of maintaining the Church Establishment, as regards Protestant Dissenters, it is irrelevant to the design of this work to consider whether the granting to them the absolute repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts would be consistent with that obligation or not. We know that some of the ablest advocates the Roman Catholics have had in Parliament have considered that to be a distinct question; and we know also how they have expressed themselves upon it. Mr. Pitt's opinion was, that "toleration could by no means be considered as an equality; for it only consisted in a free exercise of religious tenets, and in the enjoyment of the protection of the laws. The indispensable necessity of a certain permanent Church Establishment for the good of the State, required that toleration should not be extended to an equality; for that would inevitably endanger such an establishment." As however the laws relieving Dissenters from all impediments to the full enjoyment of their religious rights (the Toleration Act, and the Act

for altering the Oath of Supremacy) have been • sometimes triumphantly referred to as proofs that the oath cannot be maintained to be an obstacle to the concession of the Roman Catholic claims, we have briefly noticed the enactment of those laws. It has, it is hoped, been shown, that whether we consider their intrinsic nature, or the expressed intention of the Legislature in enacting them, they affect not in the slightest degree the position, that the Roman Catholic claims cannot be conceded consistently with the Coronation Oath. If it could be established that every man has as much right to the unrestricted exercise of political power, as to that of his religious worship, it might be fair to reason from the removal of restrictions upon the latter, to the concession of the former. If it could be disproved that at the time of establishing the Coronation Oath the case of the Roman Catholics and that of the Dissenters were, and ever since have been treated by the Legislature as distinct, the topic we have adverted to would not perhaps so entirely, as it seems to do under actual circumstances, pass by the question "as the idle wind which we regard not."

F

SECTION IX.

THE PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT RESPECTING
THE OATH..

By way of conclusion to these observations, the following statement of the sentiments expressed by the framers of the Coronation Oath, in the debates on the subject, will not, it is hoped, be considered irrelevant. How far those sentiments accord with the principles here attributed to the Legislature of 1688, and with the proposed measure of arming the Roman Catholic interest with political power, the reader will best determine for himself.

It will be recollected, that at the period the Coronation Oath was passing under the consideration of Parliament, a Bill of Comprehension (which, by altering some of the ceremonials of the Established Church, might extend its pale, so as to include many then Dissenters) was in contemplation. The measures also, shortly after carried into effect, for the relief of Protestant Dissenters, were in a state of progress. Hence a doubt occurred to several members of the lower House, whether the words in the Oath, "by law established," were not of too binding

a nature, and might not raise a scruple in the royal mind, which would stand in the way of an object generally desired. To obviate this difficulty, it was proposed that the words, "shall be established by law," should be adopted.

That

In the debates* which ensued, nothing can be more clear than that upon the essential points which are material to the present question, no difference of sentiment existed. the amendment was proposed with reference to any thing else, than the measures then in contemplation, for consolidating the Protestant interest, cannot be inferred with any justice, ast those who proposed it were strenuous upon the necessity of supporting the Established Church, by the exclusion of Popery, as a means of preserving the Protestant religion. Mr. Howe first objected to the words, "Protestant religion established by the law," in the following terms: "I think this is in opposition to Popery, but not that the King shall defend no part of the Protestant religion, but what is established by law."

Mr. Hampden, junior, (the principal supporter of the amendment,) stated his opinion of the objects of the Oath in the most forcible manner. "The King," said he, swears positively to

* Debates in the House of Commons, 25th and 28th of March, 1688.

the true profession of the gospel, that is, the Christian religion,-no latitude in that;—and then comes to the Christian religion, as it is against Popery, and this is the stress of all your oath. Protestant is looked upon as a word honourable, and not the word only, but the thing to the last drop of blood! It is every body's endeavour to keep up the Reformation, and avoid returning to Popery." The terms in which he urged upon the House the importance of the subject under consideration tend distinctly to show, that the principle upon which this Government is constituted is the same with that of which he declared the maintenance to be "the stress of all the Oath." "This Coronation Oath (said he) is the very touchstone and symbol of your Government!"

The amendment was rejected. Mr. Finch, the principal speaker in opposition to it, concurring with the other side entirely, in their general views, strongly objected to the amendment, as loose and indefinite. He urged that it was unnecessary, as of course, the Legislature would not be precluded from carrying into effect the objects of the Oath, by any additional provisions it might deem expedient for that purpose; and, moreover, he considered the terms of the amendment liable to be misconstrued, and to raise more scruples than it would allay. "No man," he said, "can have any colour,