tive of long speeches, in which the orators, wishing to be heard only for the sake of being read, appeal not so much to the members in the house, as to the reporters in the gallery: all which may answer the purposes of faction, but does not inform the senate, nor improve the people. It is a mi nor evil, but still an evil, that we are forced, by a sort of social necessity, to toil through columns of debate, in which there are twenty dull speeches for one that is tolerable. Nor is this all; for if we dare to comment on these speeches in such terms as they frequently deserve, we are liable to be called in question for a breach of privilege, and may have the advantage of a cell in Newgate and how this can be consistent either with liberty or justice, I do not comprehend. In former times, to which our demagogues are in the habit of recurring for constitutional perfection (without however specifying the exact period they would select), parliamentary debates were not divulged: either then let the ancient system be re-established, or, if they must be published, at least let us be permitted to form our judgment, and utter our opinion of them; if we must take the poison, let us also have the antidote. With respect to the case immediately before us, there cannot be a doubt that these party orators have encouraged the expectations, and abetted the demands of the Roman Catholics; and the latter would have been less violent in Ireland, if their advocates in England had set them the example."

Speaking of the absurdity of agitating the whole nation of Ireland, because the mass of the people are excluded from thirty-two places of high rank and important trust-the author says, Ireland was as turbulent and restless in former times as she is at present: that she had her white boys, her peep-of-day-boys, her associated plunderers, assassins, and incendiaries, long before these Popish claims were broached or dreamt of. Whether the distemper is produced by natural or civil causes, or both combined, I will not pretend to say, but it is so inveterate and epidemical, that a sportive etymologist might be tempted to suggest that Erin, the an tient name of Ireland, was derived from a Greek word [Epis] signifying discord. Be that however as it may, the incapacity of Popish Peers and gentlemen to hold certain offices of State has so little connexion with this disease, that I am confident a dram of whiskey or usquebaugh, would do more to conciliate an Irish peasant, than any of the concessions we are now called upon to make."

Whatever may be the expectation of Roman Catholics of rank or fortune who embrace the military profession, it is clear that" as to the augmen tation of our army, the lower ranks of Roman Catholics do now enlist in it as freely as the Protestants, and these brave soldiers, (braver, I believe, do not exist) actually fight the battles of their King and country, without

caring whether the nobility and gentry who stay at home, be seen at Westminster and Dublin."

In another part of the Pamphlet, the author again touches on this subject." An appeal is made to our gratitude forsooth, because we have Roman Catholics in our army. Now, mark the versatility with which these arguers shift their ground; first, we are to comply, in order to conciliate and coax the Roman Catholics to fight for us; and now we are to make them Members of Parliament and Judges of Assize, because they do fight: really I cannot help thinking, that when any of these brave soldiers has distinguished himself in an action, he would be suited better with a sergeant's scarf than a sergeant's coif, and would lead a piquet better than a debate."

The gabble that we hear about securities (we heartily wish the Committee of the House may find these desiderata, which are probably deposited in the same iron chest that contains the universal remedy and the philosopher's stone, together with the problem that squares the circle, and the model of the perpetual motion), the gabble with which our ears are dinned about securities, is thus managed :-the English partizans of the Papists pledge themselves" to provide ample securities for the Protestant religion. What securities? I wish they would throw aside enigmas, and tell us plainly what they mean, if, indeed, they mean any thing specific: the question has been long enough afloat, and if they have not yet discovered a safe anchorage, it can only be because none is to be found: if they have discovered it, why will they rot communicate the secret? The existing laws are a protection to which we cling, because we know it to be effectual; whereas the only substitute hitherto suggested, the royal Veto' would be totally inadequate. However, inadequate or not, the Roman Catholics spurn the very mention of it: nay, they will hear of no securities at all, will accede to no conditions. How is this discordance to be harmonized? supposing a plan could be devised which would satisfy the Protestants, you would not satisfy the Papists by forcing it upon them a gainst their will. Here are three parties; one who, like alchemists in search of the philosopher's stone, hunt for securities, and never find them, a second who, if any could be found, would not allow them; and a third, who would think them insufficient."

Tres mihi convivæ prope dissentire videntur,

Poscentes vario multum diversa palato.

Quid dem? quid non dem ? renuis quod tu, jubet aller ;

Quod petis, id sane est invisum acidumque duobus.

"Mr. Canning, indeed, in a late address to his constituents, told them, be" was sanguine enough to think, that he saw his way to such arrange

"ments as might allay the discontent of one party, and quiet the scruples "of the other." If he can see all this, he must have the optics of a Lynx: but it is a comfort to hear, that we shall have at last something tangible to examine he added, that "in effecting such an arrangement, the mature "conviction and assent of the Protestant community, form, in this view, "an essential part." If Mr. Canning live as long, as I earnestly hope he will, his hair will be very grey before this essential part can be obtained.” Some people feel sore at the petitions which have been sent into Parliament, and continue to be sent." They deprecate an appeal to the people of this country, and they are prudent in so doing; for every man who has a plan to carry, deprecates opposition to that plan, and especially such an opposition as must effectually defeat it: but I would ask these gentlemen, what right or what reason they have to hope that the people of England should be silent when assaulted? Popular clamour is an instrument of which, it seems, they would usurp the exclusive property; they are accustomed to manufacture it, and brandish it over our heads to trighten us ; they use it whenever it suits their purpose; but if we dare to employ it for our own protection, they exclaim that it is contrary to the jaws of war, and assail us with the whole vocabulary of Billingsgate. Such also are the tactics of Buonaparte, who makes every thing lawful that he thinks expedient, but reprobates even the lawful expedients of his opponents."

The Duke of Norfolk met with an agreeable surprise the other day, when he desired the petition of the ward of Billingsgate to the House of Lords to be read. Billingsgate deserves a new character, even in the estimation of his Grace. This mention of the "vocabulary of Billingsgate" is the only expression in the tract that offends us.

Here we, most reluctantly, close Dr. Haggitt's letter. We would willingly have gratified ourselves, and given pleasure to our readers, by increasing the number of our quotations; but we must proceed with our list of such publications as may promote the Protestant cause, which is identified with the constitution of our country.

8.

The Keys of the Protestant Establishment; or the Question Answered,Why do the Laws of England exclude a Papist from the Throne ?"

66

This is an excellent little tract, comprised in twenty-eight pages; and we cannot conceive how any one who has been seduced to favour the Po pish cause, can possibly hold out against the clear argumentation which dtstinguishes it. Papists are excluded from the Throne, the Government, and the Parliament. "THE STATUTES OF EXCLUSION ARE THE KEYS OF THE PROTESTANT ESTABLISHMENT, whoever surrenders one or both of those statutes surrenders one or both of those KEYS. The one excludes

Papists from the Throne, the other excludes Papists from the Legislature and the Government. They are correlates, or reciprocal and answering parts of ONE POLICY. The safe keeping of both of these is that maintenance of the Protestant Establishment, which the Sovereign engages to observe to the utmost of bis power." (P. 24.)

We heard a gentleman (for whose good sense we have a great respect) object to the introduction of the word "only" in the first sentence of this pamphlet. "There is no Englishman so ignorant as not to know, that the constitution of his country, which is his birth-right and his pride, has been secured to him only by the act of settlement." Perhaps it had been as well to have omitted that word in this place, but the author's intention is still sufficiently obvious. He does not mean that we have no other security whatever; he does not use the word in its ordinary restrictive sense; he would have us regard the act of settlement as that which at last completed and consummated a series of legislative ordinances, and gave efficacy and stabili ty to all that went before. "The act of settlement (says the author) was the last step and finishing stroke of that general policy which already excluded Papists from Parliament and the administration of the Government. It was not an insulated and distinct measure, a policy complete in itself; it was only the sequel and complement of a previous policy, and setting the seal upon that previous policy." (P. 5) We strongly recommend this tract to all our readers.

9. "Exclusion the Fundamental Principle of the Reformation and Revolu tion; and the Pope's Supremacy not an Article of the Christian Faith. A Letter from a Constituent to his Representative in Parliament."

The first part of this very small tract, extending only to fifteen pages,* is appropriated to the same subject, nearly, with the publication last mentioned. "Exclusion was the great fundamental principle both of the REFORMATION AND REVOLUTION. The Pope was excluded by the acts of Henry and Elizabeth, which restored to the King his sovereignty over the State Ecclesiastical. The oath of supremacy, included in the first of Elizabeth was intended to exclude the Papists from Parliament and high office, though that was not effectually secured till the thirtieth of Charles II, and by the bill of exclusion."-We shall give a short extract from the second part. The common term Catholics is improperly used for Papists. "By renouncing the supremacy of the Pope, they cease to be Papists, but they do not cease to be Catholics. Whatever Papists may themselves assert or believe, the supremacy of the Pope is not an article of the Christian faith; and is not older than the seventh century. But do the Roman Ca

* Since these sheets went to Press, we have received an enlarged and improved edition, extending to 23 pages, which we have read with great satisfaction. VOL. I. [Prot. Adv. April, 1813.]

ЗА

tholics think the renunciation of the Pope's supremacy for the King's supre macy too high a price for the privileges of the British constitution? If they do, we may quite as justly say, that all their best services, which they offer us, would be dearly bought by any concessions which should infringe the principles of the REFORMATION, and lessen the security of the Protestant Establishment."

The misapplication of the term "Catholics" was an error into which Mr. Canning had fallen if his speech was correctly reported. Mr. Plunkett (says the author) was in the same error with Mr. Canning, when he considered the renunciation of the Pope's supremacy to be "inconsistent with the essence of the Cbristian faith." The Papal supremacy is no part of the Christian faith: it has no foundation in scripture. Papists may be conscientious in their belief and scruples respecting the Pope's supremacy. But the rights of fifteen millions of subjects ought not to be sacrificed to such groundless scruples; or to the prodigal liberality of their advocates.

"Foreign Protestants, who must anxiously look to the issue of the present proceedings in Parliament, and feel that any injury to the Protestant Church of this country would be a fatal blow to Protestantism throughout the world, and must have seen with astonishment the lenity of a Government in tolerating a large portion of its subjec, in the acknowledgment of a foreign jurisdiction, will hardly credit that they should demand admission to the privileges of the Constitution, without renouncing a jurisdiction that is inconsistent with the King's supremacy.

"But it is said, that " they cannot renounce the supremacy of the Pope, without violating the integrity of their religion." If it is an article of faith with them, that the Pope is, by divine right, the Supreme Pastor of the Church of Christ; it is equally an article of our faith, that the Pope is not the Supreme Pastor of the Church; and that he has no right to such supremacy, but what is derived from the grant of an unprincipled usurper in the seventh century. If the Pope's supremacy be an article of the Roman Catholic faith, it certainly is not an article of the Christian faith. As I said before, it has no foundation in Scripture. We therefore believe such supremacy to be unscriptural and anti-christian, and to be the upholder of the grossest errors and corruptions. And why should you have more tenderness for the faith of Papists than for the faith of Protestants ?" 10. "A Counter Address to the Protestants of Great Britain and Ireland; in Answer to the Address of Charles Butler, Esq. by the Rev. Thomas Le Mesurier, M. A. Rector of Haughton, near Darlington, in the County of Durham, Domestic Chaplain to Lord Viscount Sidmouth." This vigilant defender of the Protestant religion is ready to step forward pon all occasions. He allows himself no repose; or if he does, he may