cession of the Roman Catholic Claims. This it would not be, if it did not affect the King in his legislative character; for as there is no other way than through the Legislature by which the Roman Catholics can attain the objects sought by them, if the Oath afford no impediment there, in no other way can it be conceived to "extend to the present case." If the passing a Bill for the admission of Roman Catholics would have the effect ascribed to it, it would, upon the same principle, have had the same effect in the hour in which it was taken by William and Mary, as at the present time. That effect would be to reduce the Oath to a nullity upon the occurrence of that event, against which this dispensing argument presupposes it to have been intended as a provision, namely, the King's being required to concur to the admission of Roman Catholics. The barrier would fall when, and when only, it could have been designed to be of any use whatever! That any single lawgiver should propose an expedient so futile, is scarcely conceivable; but to contend that the Coronation Oath is such an one, is to stultify the Legislature of 1688, and of every succeeding timeit is to stigmatize the Act for Establishing the Oath and the Acts of Union (so far as the latter enjoin the taking of the Oath, and render it a fundamental article of those compacts) as so many monuments of legislative folly!

SECTION XIII.

MR. BUTLER'S AUTHORITIES FROM HISTORY, IN SUPPORT OF THE LAST OBJECTION, EXAMINED.

IN support of the position, that the Coronation Oath offers no obstacle to the King's assenting, if he think proper, to any Bill which may be passed by a majority in Parliament, the learned author of the "Letter on the Coronation Oath," produces several examples of "the conduct of His Majesty's august predecessors.' In matters of such notoriety, the writer fears not to be charged with presumption in noticing what appear to him to be discrepancies and errors in that statement. In material points it is surely the honester part not to refrain from expressing dissent from the conclusions, even of those for whose capacity and erudition we entertain the highest respect, if we feel that we have just grounds for considering those conclusions erroneous. Should we be wrong in our views, it is probable that men of real liberality of sentiment will entertain more respect for our errors, than for the admissions and acknowledgments of that numerous class of persons, with whom

"Black's not so black; nor white so very white."

Sach of the three Church of England, Elizabeth, swore

ert the Catholic Re...ished. Each prowe established another. in defence of these

... religion by the mopreserve it, except

susented to the change, red the monarchs from

or Coronation Oaths?" So, at the outset, fail to person, (however unin

very strange, that afteranded the Protestant the Protestant Edward

>g him should have sworn Segre de Catholic Religion as it was www.sky?" The truth is, as the reader ***** that he swore simply to support 、 of God." This, every Roman • Vide ant. p. 42.

Catholic, of course, understands to mean exclusively "the Holy Roman Church;" but Mr. Butler has not enabled his readers to discriminate between the simple fact and his inference from it. Even with this explanation his statement is erroneous, for what Mr. Butler means by "the Catholic Religion," was not then the established religion--but let that pass. Mr. Butler has coupled the case of Elizabeth with that of the others, from which we are to infer that he considers they are to be judged pari ratione, and must stand or fall together. His proposition then amounts to this, that those Sovereigns having been so absolved from their Oaths by the consent of their parliaments to the changes they effected, cannot be charged with having broken those Oaths; and the conclusion thus obtained, he applies to the present case, for if this defence was available in those cases, why is it not" (he concludes)

66

equally available in the present?" Grant it to be so, and then let Mr. Butler testify how far he himself thinks that this defence is available. He observes in his Letter (in the Book of the Roman Catholic Church) on the reign of Elizabeth,* that "the Roman Catholic Bishops all (except the Bishop of Carlisle, by whom she was crowned) refused to assist at the ceremony of her Coronation. They considered it * Letter XV. page 229. Second Edition.

H

to be certain either that she would not take, or would not observe, the Oath which the Kings of England took at their Coronation-to maintain the laws, honour, peace, and privileges of the Church, as in the time or grant of King Edward the Confessor.' But the Bishops did not make the smallest opposition to her Coronation," (what more effectual opposition could they have made than they did?) "they immediately did homage to her, and acknowledged her title to the crown. They afterwards saw her break her Coronation Oath, and establish the Protestant Church on the ruins of the national religion!" To enter into an exculpation of Elizabeth, there is here neither room nor occasion; it is sufficient to know what Mr. Butler thinks of the obligation she incurred, and what was the effect with respect to that, of the conduct she pursued. As to that obligation, however, we may observe, by the way, that in putting together in one sentence the substance of several distinct clauses of the ancient Oaths, some difference in the effect seems to be produced. The reader has seen by one form† (what will be found in all the versions of the old Oaths) that the engagement was to confirm and observe the laws, cus

*

* See Rev. G. Townsend's Accusations of History against the Church of Rome. Letter XV.

+ Vide ant. p. 46.