influence exercised by men in power, which we could not avoid thinking unreasonable; and the Bill in question, be it remembered, renders Roman Catholics admissible to power and place. But the Letter tells us (page 14)" admissibility is not admission." We must have the whole of this sentence. "I have no intention of denying that I should think it a great misfortune to see the principal offices of the state administered by Roman Catholics. They must, of necessity, be indifferent, to say the least, to the interests of the Protestant Church."

This were scarcely short of a miracle; and if it should happen, would argue little in favour of the nature of that society, by coming in contact with which the wonder might be effected. It would fill our hearts with joy and gladness, could we behold these members of our national councils converted from what we sincerely believe to be "the error" of their ways, and becoming indeed " of us," one fold, and under one shepherd; but to see them in a state of mean, moral, and mental degradation, cannot be the subject of our "hope," notwithstanding" the authority of opinion" before us. It is painful to reflect what the state of our country might be, with wretches so utterly debased and demoralized among her legislators.

We again repeat, that such is not our opinion. We dare not, we will not, we cannot, thus think of our Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. But, if we be mistaken, and they really are so unmindful of the most solemn ties by which human nature can be bound, we cannot conceive any character that would render an individual more unfit to be intrusted with influence among his fellow-men; unless, peradventure, some one could be found, who, believing them to be so depraved, would assist them in acquiring power.

But we return to the Letter, and, in page 20, find the following: "The Roman Catholic will certainly acquire additional power. But he will acquire no power which he can use, except in the way of argument and reasonable influence." What the precise meaning of "reasonable influence," in the present day, may be, the writer of the Letter is perhaps competent to explain. We have lately witnessed a degree of

should have conceived, on the contrary, from what we have heard and seen of Roman Catholics and their religion, that it would be utterly impossible for them, in such a situation, to feel any thing at all like indifference! But let us finish the quotation ;"And we might wish it to be impossible, that those who have influence in their hands, should not employ it to the advancement of true religion. But, in the first place, it is very unlikely that a Roman Catholic should be ac tually called to an important situation in the government of this country. Admissibility is not admission; and, in a practical view of the question, this difference must not be left out of consideration. It is not probable, then, that the Sovereign should select Roman Catholics for his chief minis ters."

We sincerely hope not: But the conclusion to which the Bishop thus jumps on the subject, does not appear necessarily to follow from any thing that has gone before. It would, he acknowledges, be a misfortune, were any Roman Catholics to attain to those stations, to which he has, in the House of Lords, declared they have an equal right with their fellow countrymen; and to compass which, he has, by giving his vote, rendered them all the assistance in his power. But-hold! This great statesman and ecclesiastic has a saving clause-" Admissibility is not admission." Oh, no! The man who destroys the river's bank in summer, when the waters are low, most certainly does not give them admission, but only "admissibility," into the meadows. If he be but a sojourner in the vale, he may, perchance, enjoy his little day, and depart therefrom before the torrent shall arise; and

the reflection must be extremely consolatory to his feelings. He may enjoy a secret satisfaction."

With respect to the indifference of Roman Catholicofficers of state to "the interests of the Protestant Church," we cannot discover any reason for supposing that they would, if in power, exercise more liberality toward our establishment, than the present government is disposed to shew towards them, according to the Bishop's account in page 10; where, after speaking of the Roman Catholic priests, and the "plausible temptations to license" and "to pay them their salaries from the state," he says, these measures" were steadfastly resisted, on the express ground that a Protestant government could not in this manner consistently recognise or legalise the Roman Catholic religion." We cannot, therefore, avoid feeling some notion, that a Roman Catholic government might hesitate about the propriety, consistency, or "expediency" of recognising" a religion which it believes to be corrupt, and of a ministry which it believes to be awfully dangerous to the persons placed within its influence." We here use the words of the Bishop, when speaking of the Roman Catholic priests.

We now come to the admission that "the Prime Minister may be a Roman Catholic," p. 16. "We will admit," says the Letter, " that, notwithstanding the precautions which have been devised to secure the proper disposal of preferment, he has interest enough with the Archbishop of Canterbury, for the time being, to nominate whom he pleases. All this I can venture to admit; and I find it taken for granted, more universally than charitably, or even reasonably. Still there remains a safeguard, which the omnipotence of a Prime Minister itself cannot set aside."

THE OMNIPOTENCE OF A PRIME MINISTER ITSELF! Is this, then, the "reasonable influence" which the Roman Catholic was alone to acquire? We have no right to doubt that the Bishop has a very firm conviction of the truth of what he writes: and, for our own part, though far removed from the polluted and polluting atmosphere of courts, we verily believe, that, if any mortal can perform miracles, that mortal is the Prime Minister of Great Britain. We know that, by some strange and talismanic power, he

exercises, what we suppose we must call a "reasonable" influence, inasmuch as it seems to affect the reason of men, to change their opinions, and to compel them to utter, like Balaam, far different words than those which they previously intended to speak. We dare not hazard any surmises relative to the precise causes of this "omnipotence." It is among the hidden things; and, probably, in some way connect ed with those "circumstances" which "occur in the course of social and political life," "which cannot and need not be pointed out, but which often lead men to act in a very different way from what, on abstract principles, might be expected."

Admitting the omnipotence of the Prime Minister to be even as the Bishop himself might wish, what is this "safeguard" which even he, after he shall have corrupted the Archbishop of Canterbury, "cannot set aside?"

Let us bend down our heads, and listen to the words of wisdom.

"He" (the omnipotent Prime Minister) "can only nominate those who are qualified by law to hold preferment; he can only nominate clergymen of the Church of England; and this is a complete security to the Church." Seeing that the aforesaid Archbishop of Canterbury hath the power to ordain whomsoever he thinketh fit, and seeing that John Bird, Bishop of Chester, is inclined" to hope and believe" that "the Roman Catholics" (as in other cases we are too often obliged to fear or to lament) will

66

I not always act, or speak, or think, in exact accordance with the articles to which they have assented, or the words and formularies which they recognise as their own,"-seeing these things, we marvel that the "Letter" writer should have cast forth his sheetanchor of "complete security" on such a shifting quicksand. Let him, who can talk now of" the omnipotence of a Prime Minister," and, mayhap, exult and plume himself in consequence of that" omnipotence"-let him reflect on the probable result of its being in the possession of a Roman Catholic, when Roman Catholics are admissible and admitted into place and power. Can he then place his hand upon his heart, and say, that he steadfastly believes that every bill, having a tendency to remove the yet few remaining disabilities, will be" thrown out ?"

Is there the smallest probability, that, in such a state of things, considering the natural and "reasonable influence" of power and patronage, the laws would or could remain as they are? Without the assistance of a single member of the Romish Church in either House of Parliament, the great barrier of exclusion has been thrown down; and we are now, according to the "Letter," to have eight peers and fifty members of the Lower House of the Popish faith. If such a victory has been gained under such circumstances, what may we not anticipate under the omnipotence of a Romish Premier, when the Church of England shall have to look for protection only to a recreant Archbishop of Canterbury? for such must be the true cha racter of the man with whom the Popish Prime Minister can "have interest enough to nominate whom he pleases."

It appears to the eye of commonsense, that, under such a government, the number of Popish members, in both houses, must, necessarily, increase; and, as a matter of course, that they will endeavour, by argument and reasonable influence, to ameliorate the condition of all connected with them in the unity of that church which professes itself to be one and indivisible.

Supposing, however, the present laws to remain unchanged, let us enquire how this" complete security to the Church" is to produce the desired effect. Again we copy from the "Letter."

"There have been times when this would not have proved a sufficient security. During the reigns of Elizabeth or James the First, within fifty years of the Reformation, many, no doubt, who conformed to the Church, were secretly inclined to the principles and practices of Popery. At that period a Roman Catholic could not have been safely intrusted with any interest in ecclesiastical preferment. He might by degrees have cherished up and introduced into the Church a body of clergy hostile to the reformed religion. The case is now completely different. The minister most strongly inclined towards Popish tenets could find no candidates for promotion who would assist his wishes and designs." P. 17.

What! after all we "may be allowed to hope and believe," &c. no candidates for promotion! none will

ing to assist the "wishes and designs" of the omnipotent Prime Minister ! none from the various Roman Catholic colleges and schools willing to "conform to the Church," yet secretly inclined to the principles and practices of Popery! It is pleasant to hear such a prophecy of the increasing goodness of the age. Yet, perhaps, under such circumstances, with a very trifling alteration in ceremonials, some few of the already-ordained Romish priesthood might be induced to accept of promotion by the omnipotent Premier. "Circumstances might arise in the course of social and political life to induce them." However, if they were all so "conscientious" or unconscionable, we really cannot discern why, in future, as well as heretofore," he might not by degrees have cherished up and introduced into the Church a body of clergy hostile to the reformed religion."

The period of our history which the Bishop has thought fit to allude to, and when it would not have been safe for "Roman Catholics" to be "intrusted with any interest in ecclesiastical preferment," was not, exactly, the age of darkness. We could find it in our heart to speak of human nature being the same at all periods; and of one William Shakspeare, who lived in those days, and was then a great favourite, and who yet continueth to be endured, notwithstanding the immeasurable distance between him and the "rapid march of intellect" men of our own times. There are divers other names likewise which are visible in the dim obscurity of the past:-but we dare not speak of the past; for we have not yet been able to shake off our oldfashioned prejudices, and memory tells us of even Protestant bishops, who lived in the reigns "of Elizabeth and James," and who were weak enough to endure a sovereign's frown, and eventually to perish on a scaffold, for the sake of articles, words, and formularies." These, however, are all "old almanack" matters. In those days, when the Church of England had such men among her rulers, "a Roman Catholic could not have been safely intrusted with any interest in ecclesiastical preferment;" but "the case is now completely different." We must acknowledge that the Bishop is perfectly correct in his assertion.

Our own fears, however, point to a

somewhat different mode of "introducing into the Church a body of clergy hostile to the reformed religion.' We can conceive that a Roman Catholic Premier, possessing the "interest" admitted in the "Letter" with the Archbishop of Canterbury, would look round and search diligent ly for a few individuals who would have no objection to become "candidates for high promotion, and who might be induced to assist his wishes and designs." We scarcely think that he would, himself, personally interfere in the training of a rising priesthood. That department must fall to underlings.

Let us imagine a vacancy, under such circumstances, in the bench of Bishops. It were vain to imagine that "the omnipotence of a Prime Minister" will not have a "reasonable influence" in the nomination. What description of person would then, in all probability, be selected? As the Premier himself must, according to the "Letter," "of necessity be indifferent, to say the least, to the interests of the Protestant Church," it seems natural to suppose, pursuing the present system of liberality, that the new bishop would be chosen, in the first place, from among those who might be "indifferent, to say the least, to the interests of" the Roman Catholic Church. The next enquiry would probably be respecting the precise state of schisms within the pale of the Establishment: and it would be extremely desirable to select a person who either belonged, or was suspected to belong, to one of these, always supposing "the Minister most strongly inclined towards Popish tenets," and endeavouring to find "candidates for promotion who would assist his wishes and designs?" Nothing could tend more to the disunion of the Establishment than the admission of one of these liberal schismatics, from the most obnoxious sect, into her hierarchy. The other personal qualities of the man might be thought of little importance. He would, of course, be expected to vote on the right side: and it might be desirable that he should think, that the Ministry would not, without exceeding good reasons, "embarrass themselves with a measure" which was "arduous and unpopular."

Now, from the elevation of such men, (which, of course, could not

We

happen under a Protestant Ministry,) we confess we should apprehend great danger to the Establishment. must, to say the least," fear that they would be more inclined to augment the power, and spread the opinions, of their own particular sect, than to consolidate and strengthen the Establishment itself. We should conjecture, that their liberality might be stretched to a dangerous point, in accordance with "the wishes" of a Minister: yes-even eventually to the destruction of the Protestant ascendency. The introduction of such men into the House of Lords must, at all events, be a step gained. And to us, who conceive it to be our duty to contend, inch by inch, for that which yet remains of our Constitution-to us, gradual encroachment appears far more formidable than the contemplation of any debate, at present, whether Popery shall be established among us or not. Most ardently do we wish that the question might be brought, at once, to that issue, and the voice of the nation be heard thereon. have some cold comfort, indeed, on this subject, in the "Letter," wherein the Bishop speaks of the "establishment of that (the Popish) religion on the ruin of the Protestant." P. 19. "I would not," he continues, 'say that such a measure, at any time, might not find advocates; nor would I venture to prophesy that it may never be proposed; but it is one thing to bring forward a desperate proposition, and another to carry it; and I may be permitted to doubt, whether more votes will be given in its favour after the admission of Roman Catholics into Parliament, than might have been found in its support during the last ten years." Doubtless the Bishop

66

We

may be permitted to doubt;" and, if he really doth entertain the doubt which is here implied, it must be one of the most 66 secret satisfactory doubts that ever entered doubter's head. For our own part, with all due "permission," we have no doubts whatever on the subject.

We had almost forgotten to notice, that when the Bishop affirms "it is very unlikely that a Roman Catholic should be actually called to an important situation in the government of this country," he, among other reasons of a like calibre, gives us this: "Their education, to speak generally, must be

very different from what it has been hitherto, before they can be capable of filling high offices to advantage; and, if their education is to be very different, it must be sought among Protestants." P. 15. We have no comment to make. This logical and conclusive method of reasoning "must be" properly appreciated by the reader, "if" he be "capable" of judging "to advantage."

We have already far exceeded our intended limits; and nothing but the quarter from which it comes, could be a sufficient excuse to our readers for "dwelling so long," as the auctioneers have it, on such a Letter. Yet there are still one or two matters worthy of notice, as proceeding from the study of a Bishop of the Church of England. We copy again from p. 26. "Is the avowed object of preserving Protestant ascendency reconcilable with the duty of doing unto others as we would they should do to us, of not seeking our own, of preferring one another in honour ?"

Again we repeat, that this sentence was written by John Bird, Bishop of Chester, and addressed to the clergy of his diocese! And yet there are those who tell us that the Church is not in danger! The Establishment of the Church of England has its existence only in Protestant ascendency. That ascendency was gained by prayers, and tears, and watchings, and blood, and strugglings unto death, and longprotracted torture. At length the mighty power of Rome was overthrown, and we were delivered from spiritual, soul-debasing thraldom. Her “damnable doctrines" were driven from the land. The victory was achieved over oppression and delusion, and the name of that victory was Protestant Ascendency; and the Establishment formed, in consequence thereof, was the Established Church: and now a Bishop of that Church makes it a question, whether the "preserving Protestant ascendency" is reconcilable with Christian duty!

Never did we expect to hear such a question. Our reply must be brief. Yes: we do think it worth preserving, because it is, under heaven, our only ground of hope for protection against error, and ignorance, and false doctrine. By its preservation alone can our beloved native land remain separate and great among the nations of

the earth. Protected by that mild ascendency, every man hath been at liberty to worship God according to his conscience, dwelling beneath "his own vine and his own fig-tree, none daring to make him afraid." Under that benignant ascendency, learning, and the arts, and science, have made a progress among us-which never could have been effected, had Rome continued in the ascendant-and the liberty of the subject has been secured. Under the powerful protection of that ascendency, came the victims of Romish persecution, flying from her sanguinary edicts, and escaping from her outstretched and vengeful arm; and here, in Britain, they found a resting place and safety which the continent of Europe could not have afforded them, and which must have been denied them, even here, but for Protestant ascendency. Our commerce and our manufactures owe their extension to this ascendency; and the freedom of the press, and the muchvaunted march of intellect-where would they have been but for its genial influence? Could they have existed or flourished under the soul-benumbing tyranny of Popery? We cannot proceed:-if more be needful, let the pages of English history be opened and let them, in mute eloquence, revive the memory of the pious, the noble, and the valiant dead, and answer this Bishop of the Reformed and Established Church.

We have looked in vain through the "Letter" for any substantial ground for expecting that "great and positive advantage" which the Bishop anticipates for Ireland. He speaks of

or

a legitimate vent" being created, "through which the popular humours may escape, without injury to the constitution." This "vent,' safety-valve, or plaything, or tub to the whale, most likely is intended to indicate, in a "humorous" way, the "admissibility" which he—as a member of the senate-has given to Roman Catholics to the principal offices of the state, but which, notwithstanding, he has "no intention of denying that he should think it a great misfortune to be administered by them." It is possible that this " legitimate vent" for "humours" may allude to the humours of elections, respecting which the Bishop speaks in a manner which does not carry conviction to our