correct; that of The Courier is so in | crimes? Then why clamour against the actions of a sovereign, the commencement of whose reign was marked by lenity and forbearance, till the turbulence and vio 1 part, but the most conspicuous circumstances are suppressed. If the clauses of the riot act of the late reign were revived, it must have been in consequence of the treasonable re-lence of reforming rebels compelled bellions of the duke of Suffolk and her councillors to recommend a sir Thomas Wyatt, in which latter system of rigour, to secure the the presumptive heir to the throne peace and happiness of her loyal Elizabeth was concerned.--Of the subjects? Mary began her reign on cruelties said to be practised, I shall the 6th of July, 1553, on the 13th not become the defender, because I of August following a dagger was abhor severity of punishment in all thrown at one of her preachers at St. cases; but the editor of the Cou- Paul's cross. In January, the suc rier, as well as the rector of St. An- ceeding year, began Wyatt's rebellion, drew and St. Ann, should know, that and the duke of Suffolk's second inRidley and Latimer, with many of surrection. On the 8th of April in this their compeers, were guilty of TREA-same year, "a cat," says Stowe, "with SON, and therefore were as deserv- her head shorn, and the likeness of a ing of death, as the Derby trai- vestment cast over her, with her foretors, Brandreth, Ludlam, and Tur-feet tied together and a round piece ner, who suffered last year, with of paper like a singing-cake betwixt this difference, however, that te them, was hanged on a gallows in former were guilty of actual, and in Cheape, near the cross."-On the the latter were condemned for 10th of June following, says the same constructive treason. Ridley openly writer, "Dr. Pendleton preached at preached rebellion at St. Paul's, Paul's cross, at whom a gun was nevertheless he was not led forth to shot, the pellet whereof went very execution for more than two years near him, and lit on the church wall. after his offence, nor would he or his But the shooter could not be found." fellow-sufferers in all probability On the 15th of the next month, Elizahave been consigned to the flames, beth Crofts stood upon a scaffold at had not the seditious spirit of the St. Paul's for uttering seditious words meek reformers urged the ministers against the queen, the prince of of Mary to adopt severe measures Spain, the mass, confession, towards the leaders, in direct op from the wall of a house in Aldersposition to the opinion of the queen, gate, to which she had been moved though, through the liberality of pro- by others. These seditious transactestant feeling, she has been branded tions caused measures of severity to with the merit of them. But let me be resorted to in this country, but it ask, if any of the prelates of the es- was the unprincipled fautor of treatablishment, or any other member of son, not the faithful minister of relithe church, should have the temerity gion, who felt the effects of them. to oppose the right of the next pre-In lielaud, throughout the whole of sumptive heir to the crown of these Mary's reign, the catholics were so realms, and endeavour to stir up the little infected with the genius of relipeople to acts of resistance and re-gious persecution, and such was the volt, as was the case with Cranmer, spirit of toleration shew to those who Ridley, and Latimer, is there any one had embraced the doctrines of the so foolish as to imagine that he or reformation, that many English famithey would not be instantly consigned lies took refuge in that country, and to the punishment due to their there enjoyed their opinions and wor c. ship without molestation. And in good thing itself, and because the return for this, Mr. Saunders not only chief source of this vicar's uneasi reviles and caluminiates the religiou ness is thereby removed. You have and allegiance ofher people, but he ex- repeatedly mentioned his persecuhorts "every man, woman, and child, tions at board meetings and in public who values liberty and peace, and advertisements, but it is within my can rightly appreciate the worth of knowledge that he only laughs at our constitution." (with I suppose as these, and is better pleased with the much precision as they do the scrip- votes of censure, than be could be tures) to sign petitions in opposition with the thanks and commendatory to their just claims. But I must apo- testimonials of our degenerate arislogize to the reader for the length of tocracy, as long as they shew them-> this article, and conclude with re-selves disposed to barter spiritual commending the tri-centenarians to things for things temporal. He has stick with a little more exactness to even laughed, to my certain knowledge, at those threats of personal the spirit of their fifteenth taveru- and all would be well. But from the WM. EUSEBIUS ANDREWS. London, Feb. 20, 1818. For the Orthodox Journal. MR. EDITOR,1 join in your congratulations and those of the Midland pastor with the catholic public, at the union of the other prelates with our apostolical vicar on the two grand subjects of controversy among them, the Blanchardist schism and Sir J. Hippisley's projected reformation of our religion. I rejoice for the violence which some consistent cain the discharge of his professional tholics have exhibited against him, moved his expulsion at one catholic duty one of whom, the same who meeting, jumped out of his seat on the floor, at another, in the attitude of Mendoza to challenge him to battle. Brave northern hero, to box with his bishop! There are, however, some desertions, where he had a right to expect support, some mortal stabs of envy and malice, which their authors dare not avow, and same shocking instances of immora lity, practised againt him, which, I know, wound him to the quick and almost disgust him with life. The following is an instance of the latter kind. Soon after he had circulated his brief memorial among members of parliament, concerning the irreli gious and tyrannical bill of 1813, against which another bishop has also lately published, he received at Wolverhampton, by the London post, what is presumed to be the most obscene publication in the Eng-. lish language. This presumption. rests on the circumstance of Wilks having been expelled from his seat. in parliament, in punishment of his being the original editor of it. This was not only an affront to our bi shop, of a real diabolical nature, but also a serious pick-pocketing rogue, ry, as the charge of a book received 1 4 by the general post, amounts to much For the Orthodox Journal. prejudices, was ushered into public notice. Its nameless author purports to refute Mr. Dallas' Defence of the Jesuits, and, at the same time, to give a history of that order; but jesuitism and catholicity are so closely identified in the work, that it is difficult to discover against which its author levels his principal attack. The jesuits will thank the anonymous scribe for the compliment, but there are others, who will condemn the association as unnecessary and unnatural. Though the book be dedicated to the honourable speaker of the house of commons, I cannot think that it will have a wide circulation. It is replete with cafumuy and defamation, and to a reasoning mind, it must® appear to be the clumsy job of some dull logician. I will adduce a specimen of the work, and as I am convinced that few readers will proceed farther than a few of the first pages, I will venture a few remarks on one SIR,-Intolerance has ever been ofthe author's first attempts at reasona predominant feature in the esta-ing. The remaining part of the blished religion of the British emwork is of a similar nature. pire. Ever since its commencement in the days of the virgin Elizabeth, the few catholics who remained true to the faith of their ancestors have suffered every species of insult, privation, and persecution. The stern gripe of power has at different periods relaxed some of its rigours, but its pressure is still painful and excruciating. Not only has the established government stood against us, but the pulpit and the press, those powerful engines of good and evil, have been constantly employed to accomplish our utter extinction in this land of boasted toleration and unlimited liberty of conscience.The rancorous eloquence of orthodox preachers still re-echoes from the pulpit; and the press is still employed in multiplying falsehood and calumny against us. A few months ago, a new publication, whose only. object is to keep alive anti-catholic The author asserts, that the present pope closely imitates the tyrannical example of his remote prede cessors, who dethroned kings and absolved their subjects from their oath of allegiance. Hence he infers that catholics, who are subject to the papal jurisdiction, are dangerous subjects of a protestant king.→ The inference is false, even if the assertion were true; for during the brightest days of pontifical power, English catholics were never known to fail in loyalty, though popes did attempt to absolve them from their oath of allegiance. But how does the author demonstrate his assertion Pius VII crowned Buonaparte, though he was an usurper, consequently he dethroned the lawful sovereign and absolved every Frenchman from his oath of allegiance. The unknown author of the book before me, being an Englishman, 1 he did well to conceal his name. In his zeal against catholicity he has forgot the subject's duty, and whilst with one hand he spreads his shield over the established church, with the other he makes an unmeaning of the realm.Vide Introduc. p. 13.) The author will do great credit to his patron in dedicating to him so valuable a production. During the whole of the first pages the author's main attempt is to blacken the character of the vene rable pontiff. Besides the assertion noticed above, there are others equally malevolent and equally inconsistent. He complains loudly of papal injustice, when Pius VII. agreed with Napoleon that the re-' venue of those French bishops who had fled during the revolution should remain in the hands of those who will agree with me, that the great body of the people have a just right to elect their own king or their own royal family. If this proposition be not true, why did the English people reject the family of the Stuarts, and place the present fa-pass at the established government mily on the throne? In acting thus every Englishman will allow that the people exercised a right, of which no power on earth could deprive them. The French, then, had the same right, and in uniting to accept of Buonaparte for their sovereign, they exercised this right.The great majority of France acquiesced in the government of Napoleon, and he was at different times acknowledged by the European powers as the governor of France. The British king himself acknowledged him as first consul, which at that period was only another name for emperor. Napoleon was consequently the lawful sovereign of France, and when he wished, for form sake, to have his crown put on his head by the Roman pontiff, he did not receive one atom of power which he did not possess before, Did the pope then dethrone Louis XVIII. when he put the French crown on the Corsican's head? If he did, the archbishop of Canterbury undoubtedly dethroned the Stuarts when he put the English|poleon himself; and what could the crown on the head of George L. He absolved the English nation too from their allegiance sworn to the Stuarts. If Pius VII acted unlaw fully in crowning Napoleon, the archbishop of Canterbury acted unlawfully in crowning George I.; if George I. was unlawfully crowned, he was not king; if he were not king, George II, was not king, nor is George III. our most gracious sovereign, the lawful king of England. Our author must see the validity of this consequence; if he admit that Pius acted, and as he does admit this, his assertion is not only false but virtually treasonable. Perhaps possessed them, when the concordat was made. The fugitive bishops, hè says, had still a right to them, and it was injustice to permit others to enjoy them. It is sometimes lawful and necessary to deprive subjects of rights to which they have otherwise a claim, when the public good de mands the sacrifice. Indeed, it would have been a dangerous step to dispossess the proprietors of the alienated bishoprics, even for Na 罪 pope have done by refusing his consent? If the pope held a wrong conduct, so has England frequently done. Many of the families, who were engaged in the interests of the unfortunate Stuarts, left England' when the pretender's expedition: was fortunately quashed. Their property was alienated, though they acted just as our author wished the pope to have done. Indeed, if the present property were to revert to those families who were once the just possessors of it, what a sudden change would take place throughout England! Many of our first English families would sink into wretch Hie niger est, hunc tu Romase caveto, Nov. 24, 1817. To the Editor of the Orthodox SIR, Not a week passes but we see in the newspapers same misre presentation or other of the tenets of the Roman catholic religion.Protestants without answering any question proposed to them by the catholics, in regard to their own inconsistent belief, usually endeavour to avoid controversy, by taxing fus with the most absurd doctrines, and, without fairly letting us take the field against them, plainly tell us it is of no consequence what we may advance in our defence, that what they charge us with is matter of fact, and therefore will not believe otherwise. ed insignificancy, whilst others ject. When your readers discover would wonder at their newly-acquir- such daring falsehoods and hardy ed power and unlooked-for applause. calumnies in the first pages, they But let us argue upon protestant will readily conceive that the re principles. Because queen Eliza- maining part is not worth their beth and her parliament thought perusal. They may perhaps say of that for the public good men might | the book be deprived of their just rights, they incarcerated every catholic bishop in England, and took away their revenues. And in our own days, because the present government thinks it conducive to the public good, it deprives every catholic in the empire of his birthright as a loyal subject. Ministers have preached, aud authors have written in defence of this conduct; and even the author, whose book I have now before me, is, though in contradiction to his own principles, a strenuous advocate of this doctrine. If the catholic creed should ever again be the established creed of England, does our author imagine that the government would surrender all the property which formerly belonged to the church? If these facts be true (and who can deny them) why does our author condemn the pope for holding a conduct a thousand times more harmless. It is strange, that whilst the English and the pon- But every reflecting mind must tifical governments are on such ami- perceive how notorious the contracable terms, whilst our armies and dictions of their sect are. Lately in navies have done so much for his ho- particular we have had several inliness, and his holiness expressed stances, which as they stand in such such feelings of gratitude toward the glaring colours, I shall take the li government of England and the berty of recapitulating, in hopes pation at large, there should be that you may favour my letter with a found individuals anxious to disturb place in your Journal. It appears the peace and harmony of the two that the son of the late bishop of powers. Landaff, has just published his learnMuch more might be written on ed father's life. In this are inter-' the preliminary falsehoods and in-spersed many curious anecdotes. accuracies our author, but I have adduced enough to give your readers some idea of the work. In the commencement of his book, an author is modest and circumspect; he does not venture too far on the credulity or ignorance of his readers, but leads them gradually to his proposed ob In one place a story is told of the king refusing to follow the minister in the repetition of the creed of St.' Athanasius. Strange as this inconsistency may appear, it is nevertheless true:-It plainly shews that his majesty who had at his coronation taken an oath to support the |