issued for Dr. Kalley's apprehension, in virtue of the decision already mentioned. He was allowed bail. SECTION II.-Seventeen months after the last-mentioned event, the residence of three blameless and honourable British ladies in Funchal was, on the 2d of August, 1846, besieged for ten hours by a Portuguese mob, which the authorities did not attempt to disperse. It was assaulted about midnight, and entered by fifty or sixty armed ruffians, two of whom were arrested WITHIN THE HOUSE, and committed to prison. The British Consul was urged to insist on the punishment of the rioters, but REfused. The Portuguese authorities RELEASED THE PRISONERS NEXT DAY WITHOUT EXAMINATION. Thus encouraged, the rioters paraded the streets with music, threatening other British residences with still greater outrage, and no attempt was made to suppress, or even restrain them. Dr. Kalley, though unconnected with the outrages of the 2d, was especially threatened, and on the 3d, by the advice of Her Majesty's Consul, he appealed to the Portuguese authorities for protection; but no restraint being put upon the rioters, and threats becoming more alarming, he on the 7th, urgently appealed for protection to the REPRESENTATIVE OF HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY; and A CORRECT PROGRAMME OF THE INTENDED OUTRAGES WAS PUT INTO HIS HAND, by Dr. Kalley, ON THE DAY PRECEDING THEIR PERPETRATION. The protection guaranteed by Article I., of the Treaty of 1842,* was PROMISED: a guard of soldiers was placed at Dr. Kalley's door : after midnight he, and other witnesses, saw them in familiar intercourse with masked ruffians, and heard them conversing about murdering him. He and his family withdrew from the house unobserved. On the 9th of August, the day appointed, the mob was allowed to meet in the place, at the hour, on the signal, and to attack Dr. Kalley's house in the manner mentioned in the programme, THEN IN THE BRITISH CONSUL'S HANDS: the Consul was at his country seat. The civil authorities were present at the assault, and they stood quietly by, while the mob threw Dr. Kalley's property from his windows, and burned it on the public road. They had the power to DISPERSE THE RIOTERS, but REFUSED to do so, though urged by the British Consul, who had been sent for, and arrived while the work of devastation was going on. The civil Governor rejected aid offered by the Military Commandant, saying, it was NOT NECESSARY. He declared to the British Consul that nothing but Dr Kalley's expulsion would PACIFY that mob, which he had REFUSED ΤΟ DISPERSE. The Consul URGED DR. KALLEY'S IMMEDIATE DEPARTURE, who reluctantly complied. The mob threatened to burn the British Consulate, the representative of British Majesty, came off to the ship with the ringleaders, and asked Dr. Kalley to exhibit himself to the mob. (To be continued.) "The subjects of each of the high contracting parties shall in the dominions of the other, enjoy all the privileges, immunities, and protection enjoyed by the subjects of the most favoured nation." THE SETTLEMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION IN 1688. THE crisis of the Constitution, at the memorable epoch of 1688, is best described by the declarations of the only legislative bodies then extant in the State, and the only organs, through which the people could then express their will. The two Houses of Parliament in England came to the following Resolution : * "That King James the Second having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of this kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people; and by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws; and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant." The Convention in Scotland † subsequently drew the same conclusion, viz., the vacancy of the throne, from premises and in language more bold and intelligible. "The Estates of the kingdom of Scotland find and declare, that King James the Seventh being a professed Papist, did assume the royal power and acted as king, without ever taking the oath required by law; and hath, by the advice of evil and wicked councillors, invaded the fundamental Constitution of this kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited monarchy to an arbitrary despotic power; and hath exercised the same to the subversion of the Protestant religion, and the violation of the laws and liberties of the nation, inverting all the ends of government; whereby he hath forefaulted ‡ the crown, and the throne is become vacant." The vacancy having been filled up by the offer of the crown to William, Prince of Orange, who had married Mary, King James's eldest daughter, and his acceptance of the same, the Parliament (including the king) proceeded to enact laws for guarding the throne from the danger and degradation to which it had been exposed. The first Act passed with that view was the 1 W. & M., statute i. c. 6, "An Act for establishing the Coronation Oath," by which it is enacted (section 3), that part of the Oath to be "administered to every King or Queen who shall succeed to the Imperial crown of this realm, at their respective coronations, by one of the Archbishops or Bishops of this realm of England, for the time being, to be thereunto appointed by such King or Queen respectively, and in the presence of all persons that shall be attending, assisting, or otherwise present at such their respective coronations," shall be as follows: 66 ARCHBISHOP OR BISHOP. "Will you, to the utmost of your power, maintain the laws of God, the true profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant religion established by law? And will you preserve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and to the churches committed to their charge, • Commons' Journals, 28th January and 7th February, 1688, O. S. 1 Bl. Comm. † Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, 4th April, 1689 and see Tyndal's Continuation of Rapin, vol. iii. p. 71, fol. ed. p. 211. Forefaulting was an old obsolete word, used for a bird's forsaking her nest.Ibid. p. 70, note (1.) all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them, or any of them?"" 66 KING AND QUEEN. "All this I promise to do.""* In the following year was passed an "Act for declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the Crown." (1 W. & M., Sess. ii. c. 2.) The preamble sets forth the declaration delivered by the Lords and Commons, to the Prince and Princess of Orange, 13th Feb., 1688, O. S., called the Bill of Rights,† containing a statement of the means by which King James II. had endeavoured to subvert the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of the kingdom, and an assertion of their ancient rights and liberties. The first declaratory clause declares, that "All and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration, are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom." The two following clauses acknowledge the right of King William and Queen Mary to the throne, and provide a limitation and succession of the Crown. The fourth clause provides, "That all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to, or shall hold communion with the See of Rome, or shall profess the Popish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Crown and Government of this realm, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same, or to have, use, or exercise any regal power, authority, or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be, and are hereby absolved of their allegiance ; and the said Crown and Government shall from time to time descend to, and be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and enjoyed the same, in case the said person or persons, so reconciled, holding communion or professing, or marrying as aforesaid, were naturally dead." The fifth clause provides, "That every King or Queen of these realms," of the age of twelve years, "shall on the first day of the Meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the Crown," or attaining the age of twelve years, as the case may be, "sitting on his or her throne in the House of Peers, in the presence of the Lords and Commons, therein assembled, or at his or her coronation, before such person or persons who shall administer the corona This provision was re-enacted by the eighth section of the "Act for an Union of the two Kingdoms of England and Scotland," 5th Anne, c. 8, A.D. 1706. By the fourth and fifth sections of that Act, the Sovereign is required at his accession to the crown to swear that he will inviolably maintain and preserve the settlement of the true Protestant religion as professed within the kingdom of Scotland at the time of the Union, with the government, worship, discipline, rights, and privileges of the Scotch Church, as established by the laws of Scotland in prosecution of the claim of right. † One of its recitals begins thus :-"Whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the Government, and thereby the throne being vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange, whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make. the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power," &c. tion oath to him or her, at the time of his or her taking the said oath, (which shall first happen,) make, subscribe, and audibly repeat the declaration* mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles II., intituled, An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament." † By the sixth clause, the assent of the King and Queen is given to the preceding; and they are enacted accordingly. In the year 1700, after the deaths of Queen Mary, and of William, Duke of Gloucester, the only surviving issue of the Princess Anne of Denmark, the youngest daughter of James II., in pursuance of a recommendation from the throne that a further provision should be made for the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line, for the happiness of the nation, and for the security of the Protestant religion, the Stat. 12 and 13 Will. III. c. 2, called the Act of Settlement, was passed, "For the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject." The first section limited the succession of the Crown to Princess Sophia, Electress and DuchessDowager of Hanover, daughter of the Princess Elizabeth, late Queen of Bohemia, daughter of King James I., and to the heirs of her body, being Protestants. The second section re-enacted the fourth and fifth clauses of 1 W. & M., Sess. ii. c. 2; and the third section enacted, “That whosoever shall hereafter come to the possession of this Crown, shall join in communion with the Church of England, as by law established." The conclusion of the matter, flowing from the above recital, may be expressed in the language of the great commentator on our laws, in his chapter "On the King and his title."- "The title to the Crown is at present hereditary, though not quite so absolutely hereditary as formerly. . . . . . Formerly the descent was absolute, and the Crown went to the next heir without any restriction; but now, upon the new settlement," above recited, "the inheritance is conditional. . When such an hereditary right, as our laws have created, and vested in the royal stock, is closely interwoven with those liberties, which we have seen are equally the inheritance of the subject; this union will form a Constitution, in theory the most beautiful of any, in practice the most approved, and I trust, in duration the most permanent. ..... It is the duty of every good Englishman to understand, to revere, to defend it." + But that the Legislature should in the forty-sixth year of the nineteenth century, and that too in the face and in defiance of the solemn declaration made by the Sovereign at her coronation against transubstantiation, vote away tens of thousands of the public money, not only for the teaching and propagation of the fearful idolatry of transubstantiation, but various other abominations of the Church of Rome, would not in after generations be believed, were it not for the painful fact of their faithlessness and treachery being too well established. * This is the declaration against Transubstantiation, which was made, subscribed, and audibly repeated by Members of Parliament, under the 30 Car. II., statute 2, c. 1, until the year 1829. It is given at length in a former number of our Magazine, see No. 13. reasons which led to my separation from the Church of Rome. I know you are all able to appreciate whatever is given from an honest heart, and that there are noble faculties within you, albeit they sleep in 'durance vile.' Therefore I do not despair. I hope I will have the pleasure of seeing you all casting away the trammels of Popery, for then, and not till then, will you indeed be free men. "In the first place, I deny that a Romish priest has the power to change bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ in the sacrifice of the mass. My friends, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was ordained for a continual remembrance, and not for a continual repetition of the sacrifice of the death of Christ; and in proof of this we read, ‘For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come.' (1 Cor. xi. 26.) Now, according to the Creed of Pope Pius IV., there is offered unto God a true, proper propitiation for the sins of the living and the dead; but what does St. Paul say in his Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. x. 11), that any sacrifice which needed to be offered continually, could never take away sins. He also that Christ says was once offered to bear the sins of many' (Heb. x. 28); and, by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.' (Heb. ix. 14.) In the first Epistle of Peter, iii. 18, we read that Christ hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God;' and oh! what an insult it must be to him when your priests deny that the one suffering of Christ is sufficient, and endeavour to immolate him every day on their altars. Now, without shedding of blood there is no remission (Heb. ix. 22), and it is clear to all that in the mass there is no shedding of blood, consequently it cannot procure the remission of our sin. I deny the applicability of the word 'sacrifice' prefixed to the mass, except for one reason that the priest sacrifices his senses and understanding to Mammon, if at the mass he believes that a bit of paste and a goblet of wine, or other mixture, are really and substantially the body and blood of our Lord. "I mean to show you, from our Lord's own words, that the wine underwent no change; for, at the Last Supper, when he gave it to his disciples, he said, 'I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it anew with you in my Father's kingdom.' (Matt. xxvi. 29.) In like manner about the bread, St. Paul calls it three times by that name, after it was received by the people. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show forth the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore, whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.' (1 Cor. xi. 26, 27, 28.) Thus we have the words of Christ and his apostle to counteract the absurd pretensions of Popish priests. Truly, that saying of the prophet Jeremiah is applicable to them: 'Ye have perverted the words of the living God.' (Jer. xxiii. 36.) I have often, while present at the celebration of mass, burned in my heart within, when called upon to bend my head in suppliant adoration to a piece of bread. "I now come to image worship. The second commandment forbids the making, much more the homage and adoration paid to images. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.' (Exod. xx. 4.) I well know that ignorant Romanists pay more respect to the crucifix than they do to the Lord himself; while at their devotions they will hold it in their hands, and direct all their thoughts to it alone. Is not that idolatry? Oh, my friends, read the doom that is in store for you: 'Idolaters shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.' (Rev. xxi. 8.) St. Paul, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, says, ' My dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.' (x. 14.) 'Little children, keep yourselves from idols.' (1 John v. 21.) 'Confounded be all they that serve graven images.' (Psalm xcvii. 7.) |