should we go and expose ourselves to the annoyance and expense, and all the other evils attending a contested election, without the slightest hope of success?" But if they could be told that one or two thousand electors in a borough had taken the pledge, it would inspire in them such a fair hope of success as would be a reasonable inducement for them to come forward.

And is there any objection to such a pledge? Now, Sir, I know that this is a touching point-the matter of pledges. I hate delegates; I like free representation; and I would ask no gentleman to pledge himself in those matters of human policy which are fairly open for change, and on which a humble, free-thinking, upright man, may conscientiously change his opinion. Upon such questions I would ask no pledge. But, Sir, I think that Protestantism is not an open question; and here is exactly the difference. We hold that this question between us and Rome is not an open one; we hold that holy Scripture has closed it; and what we ask is, to have representatives of that opinion.

We say, gentlemen, we do not want you to pledge yourselves upon other points. You may, on any matter of human policy, be of one opinion now, and circumstances may arise to change that opinion next week or next month. In such matters our own minds may change also. But here is a question on which there has been spoken a word that cannot be changed-God's own Word; here is a question on which we do not admit the possibility of a Christian man changing his mind.

Not on

What! will you tie up a Christian in his religious sentiments? all points. Here, again, a distinction must be taken. There are points, and points connected with the outworks of religion too, concerning which a Christian man may change his mind. But can a Christian man so change his mind as to sanction bowing to an image? I would ask. Can a Christian man so change his mind as to join in saying prayers to a woman, however blessed that woman may be?

We

call her blessed," and fulfil the prophecy, that "all generations should call her blessed;" but it is one thing to "call her blessed," and another thing to ask her to bless us. And I would ask, “Can any English Christian change his mind upon the point of an undivided allegiance to an English Sovereign?"

We hold, then, that this is a closed question, and that in asking a gentleman to bind himself here, we are not fettering him in his Parliamentary duties, as a free representative on every other subject.

But it will be asked, Sir (as it has been asked), "Are you about to commit yourself? Suppose a Socinian come forward, and offers to take the pledge, will you vote for him in preference to a man who professes himself a Churchman, and refuses to take the pledge?" There is a distinction between a moral and a political difference. I believe this card pledges the man who signs it to vote for any man who will take the pledge, however differing from the voter politically. But mark, he is only to vote for such a man in preference to a man who will not take the pledge. If the difference between him and the candidate be a moral one, he need not vote at all. A "moral" difference refers to what I have just alluded to-a Socinian candidate. If we had the misery of finding on the list of candidates that the only one

who would take the pledge was a Socinian, we would bow before the will of God, and say, "We will not vote at all." If all the candidates took the pledge, then we should choose among them on other grounds, just as if no pledge were taken; but if one man will take the pledge and the others will not, then from no political difference should we shrink from voting for that man.

This is the basis of the compact; and if it be not honestly entered into with this understanding, it would be better not to enter into it at all, because it would be a misunderstanding and a deception. The pledge is, to give your vote in favour of any candidate pledging himself to resist the endowment of Popery, and all its advancements and claims, in preference to any man whatsoever who will not give that pledge. But you will notice that there is not an absolute pledge to vote at all. However, when I say there is no pledge to vote at all, I think there is an absolute pledge to vote, if the difference be only political. I think honesty requires that from us in circulating the card.

In corroboration, Sir, of the great principle on which I ventured to ground this proposal-the intolerance of Rome-I would take the liberty, with your permission, if I do not weary the audience, to read an extract from the "Times " newspaper. It is headed, "Protestant

or Popish Ascendancy," and it runs thus :

"The question daily forced upon us by the indefatigable enemies of the Protestant religion, involving with it the most valuable and most sacred of all our civil institutions, is not, strictly speaking, the question of Popery, or no Popery. It is Popish subjection to the State, or Popish supremacy over it. If the Papists by the whole course of their political action have proved that the Romish religion and its ministers deem no condition of Popery worth their acceptance but that which enables them to domineer over and put down every other faith, why then it is they, and not the Protestants of this land, who put the alternative of Popery or no Popery.'

It may be asked, Sir, how long is it ago since the "Times" published this? That will be shown in the course of this extract,

"The Protestants are ready enough to tolerate Papists; but they will not tolerate us."

Now, Sir, we have shown ourselves ready to tolerate,-nay, more, to give freely; the Protestant nation has shown herself tolerant-the Protestant Church has shown herself tolerant. What more would they have? They want more; there are Bills going on this very day in the House of Commons, aiming at more. I hope they will be stopped this very day too. They are not contented with what they have got. And what do you think they are aiming at now, in a Bill this very day before the House? Legalizing bequests for certain pious uses, which our law holds to be unlawful, because superstitious. According to a Bill passed some years ago, a bequest was made for these uses, and, besides the uses mentioned in the Bill, was specified the saying of prayers for the dead. The matter came to be tried in our courts of law, and a decision was come to, that for certain things mentioned in the will, the bequest held in law, and was good; but for other matters mentioned, the bequest did not hold in law, because the things specified were superstitious. The object of this Bill is to remove that

hindrance out of the way, so that bequests for spiritual purposes may be legalized in England. Then you would have large sums left for saying masses for the souls of the dead, according to British law.

"We gave them," this extract continues,-" we gave them political power as a shield for themselves; they have turned it into a sword wherewith to attack and destroy their benefactors."

I ask, Sir, What more would they have? There is something more that they want; and I protest that, upon the principles advocated in the House of Commons, I do not see how it can be kept from them. On what principle, maintained on either side of that Honourable House, can the Act of Settlement be kept? Is it not an insult to our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, that the Sovereign on the throne cannot be a Catholic? Is it not an insult to that Church, that the Lord Chancellor cannot be a Catholic? Oh, shame on these enlightened days! Why retain such a rag of intolerance on the Statute-book? Why is it absolutely necessary that the Sovereign should still be a Protestant? It is very easy to applaud such a question, but I should like to get an answer. Why should it be? I would not wish to involve you, Sir, in any more trouble than is forced upon you, but I should be exceeding glad if you would ask Sir Robert Peel or Lord John Russell to tell you, and to tell the country, on what principle must the Sovereign be a Protestant still? I think the answer to this question would involve a principle very inconvenient to the Right Hon. Gentlemen at other times. There is a great principle involved in that question, and I should like to hear it stated; it would do the country good to hear it stated. It would be a very awkward question for them to refuse to answer,-it would be a very awkward question for them to answer,—and it would be a very proper question for you, Sir, to put.

The "Times" proceeds:—

"In the speech of Sir James Graham to the people of Glasgow, delivered a few days ago, on receiving the freedom of that important city, the Right Honourable Baronet employs the following language with reference to the conspiracy now disclosed and proclaimed by the Roman Catholic leaders throughout Great Britain and Ireland against the Protestant religion, which he justly calls the foundation of the British monarchy, as professedly recognised by all our national statesmen since the expulsion of the Popish tyrant James :-'You have referred in your address to my attachment to our national Protestant religion. The pillar of our greatness rests, as I think, on this religion, established in these realms. This is the source of all moral and intellectual improvement, and if you allow the foundations to be shaken, the superstructure must fall. But it will be said, Why mingle religion with political strife? My answer is, that the national religion is studiously blended with all our national institutions; that it was the avowed object of our forefathers to render the State itself an oblation not unworthy the Most High; and this connexion between the Church and State is the ancient policy of these realms, under which our native land has consolidated her strength, matured her happiness, and acquired her glory.'"

Such was the language of Sir James Graham when he was appointed Rector of the University of Glasgow-I think in 1839.

"The Right Hon. Baronet proceeds to show, that every occasion during the last three centuries, since the soul of man within Great Britain was released, and his reason set loose from the shackles of Popery,-'since Luther and Calvin taught men to think, and Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley, left them an example how to suffer and to die'-the power which moved the national mind of this country in all great crises was religious feeling. The Reformation, says the Right Hon. Gentleman-the great Rebellion-the union with Scotland-the Act of Settlementthe union with Ireland, are one and all evidences of this main truth. The Scotch Covenanters fought for their national religion against Charles; those who politically were Jacobites sacrificed James II. to their zeal for the national religion; for the sake of the Kirk and Pres bytery, recognised by Parliament, the Scotch, justly proud of their national independence, consented to an incorporating union with this country for the sake of securing the Protestant Establishment in Ireland, the Protestants of both islands brought about the union of 1801. It is vain and childish, therefore, to preach to the sound sense of Great Britain about 'voluntary' principles, or 'harmless' Poperyabout new experiments in religious institutions, heretofore untried by fact, though condemned by the clearest à priori reasoning-or about old experiments, which, having been tried for ages, are too well known from their disastrous consequences to be further hazarded at the price of civil and intellectual liberty, of practical morality, and eternal truth." O Sir, these are weighty words; but the extract contains the words of another Right Hon. Gentleman :—

"Thus it is," says the writer in the "Times," "that our magnificent Reform Bill, aided and followed up by a general system of Whig 'liberality,' has ended in destroying Gatton, Old Sarum, and some similar nomination boroughs, of which the patrons were Englishmen at least, while it has supplied their places by the creation of one gigantic boroughmonger-he, too, a foreigner-the never-changing foe of our monarchy in Church and State, viz., the Rev. George Spencer's spiritual sovereign, from whose hands that Rev. convert will one day receive the 'hat,' or at all events the 'mitre'-viz., his Holiness Pope Gregory XVI., who is actually patron of no less than sixtyfive or seventy seats in the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain."

I still quote from the "Times," called the "Thunderer:""Was it for this," the writer asks indignantly, "that the Legislature of our once Protestant country passed the Bill for arming Popery from the arsenal of the Constitution itself? Was it that by forsworn and perfidious traitors the weapons thus generously given might be pointed at the vitals of the monarchy?

These are hard words-"forsworn and perfidious traitors." The next passage, however, brings us to the words of the Right Hon. Gentleman to whom I have alluded, Sir James Graham, quoted in the same speech from a former speech of Sir Robert Peel :

"Sir Robert Peel, indeed, as quoted by Sir James Graham, had manifestly in his mind's eye an outline of the state of things which was to follow from the Bill of Emancipation, even at the moment when he reluctantly introduced that measure. Towards the close of his remarkable speech, the Right Hon. Gentleman, then Home Secretary under the Duke of Wellington, used the following words."

I know how tiresome reading is, but I want you to listen to these very important words, used with reference to the Bill of 1829, by Sir Robert Peel. He said,

"If, unhappily, my expectations" (of domestic peace) "shall be disappointed, if, unhappily, civil strife and contention shall take place -if the differences existing between us do not arise from artificial distinctions and unequal privileges-if, on the contrary, there be something in the character of the Roman Catholic religion not to be intrusted with a participation in equal privileges, or anything short of superiority, still I shall be content to make the trial. If the battle must be fought, if the contest cannot be averted, let the worst come to the worst-the battle shall be fought for other objects, the contest shall be on other ground; the struggle will be not for equality of civil rights, but for the predominancy of an intolerant religion; and I say, we can fight that battle to greater advantage if, indeed, these more gloomy predictions shall be fulfilled, and our more favourable hopes shall not be verified, we can fight that battle against the predominance of an intolerant religion more advantageously after this measure has passed than we could at present."

According to this showing, after yielding in the struggle, which was avowedly for equality of civil rights, the Right Hon. Bart. was prepared to stand his ground, and maintain the fight against the predominance of an intolerant religion.

Sir, this is our ground now; we ask the country to stand on this ground now; and it is precisely that we may be defended against an intolerant religion that we ask this compact for the next electionthat we have invited the signing of this electoral pledge.

Are you, then, thoroughly prepared to go through with this matter? Not simply to sign this card yourselves, or to say you approve of it, but every man to work it? Let every man determine to get at least ten or twenty electors to sign it; and ask each of the twenty you get to get ten more. Oh! my friends, take it seriously to heart that you have given this pledge, in the face of God and your country, this daythat you have not been merely amusing yourselves, spending a few hours in this hall listening to speakers, and then going away, acting as if you had heard nothing about it. It is tampering with spiritual things, it is hardening your own hearts, it is searing your own consciences, to hear and give such pledges, and then do nothing. Why should we come forward and ask you? Why should a minister of religion occupy such a place as I have consented to occupy, and have been standing in for the last hour of this day? Why, Sir, it is because everything most sacred to the interests of religion is at stake. Do you value true religion in our country, with all its great and blessed advantages? Do you value the power of sending Christian missionaries to the heathen? Do you feel that it is right for the members of the Church to combine to support the Church Missionary Society? Do you value the Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Jews? Do you value the Church Pastoral-Aid Society, for helping our over-worked pastors at home? Where are the sinews of all these glorious works to be found, if the Protestantism of England be relaxed?

I would, before I sit down, ask one favour more. I may have said