times upheld the faith and devotion of our forefathers." It is true, that Knox, the fanatical plunderer, accused the Catholic clergy of crime, to extenuate the baseness of his own wickedness in robbing them of their property. In after times the infidels. of France copied his bright example. But, writes Edmund Burke:-" It is not with much credulity I listen to any when they speak evil of those whom they are going to plunder. I rather suspect that vices are feigned or exaggerated, when profit is looked for in their punishment. An enemy is a bad witness; a robber is worse." Or to employ the more homely words of Bishop Godwin:-"Strongly disposed to promote a reformation that would turn the penny, it was thought necessary to lessen the reputation of those they meant to oppress." 11. The last allusion that I shall now make to the celebrated lectures of Dr. Chalmers, (which deserve to be notorious), shall be directed to the very pleasant account he gives us, of the felicitous effects of the union, between the state and the Protestant Church of England. In Catholic times, a man who did not appear at the service of the Church, was hardly to be met with; he would have been a complete anathema among his brethren. Daily attendance was very generally given; mass was heard before work was commenced; the earth was not tilled, nor the ground watered, until the morning blessing had been asked at the altar of Him who alone can bestow the increase. Weekly worship was not denied even by the most lukewarm; bodily presence was not refused by the depraved. As for church room, you need only, sir, read of the numberless churches in every town and city of Catholic England; you need only compare the number of churches in the ancient, with those in the new parts of London, to see how completely provided were temples to the divine praise for every single soul in every respective parish. Wherever a new town or even hamlet was built, the spire of the newlyerected church pointed silently to heaven. But what now is the case? Deploring everywhere the want of church room, Dr. Chalmers tells us, in page 28, that, particularly in the more recently populated parts of the kingdom, there exist thousands and thousands, comprising often a great mass and majority of the common people, whom a deficient establishment has left without the means of attendance at religious worship; and that it will be found on examination that in this surplus territory, both in town and country, the great bulk and body of our ordinary workmen are neither church-goers nor chapel-goers. And then, in page 35, he adds immeasurably to the debt of gratitude which was already owing to him, for his strange kind of advocacy of the cause of the Church of England, by making another very pleasant and liberal acknowledgment, of the thorough excellence of our present Church and state system. "It cannot be dis guised" he informs us, "that with many and illustrious exceptions, the clergy as a body have not, during the whole of the last century, done what they might, or done what they ought, for the cultivation of the vineyard made over by the state to their care, and which, in return for their maintenance, they should by this time have put in order. But we must not lose sight of the goodness of the machine in the badness of the working of it." 12. Adieu, Dr. Chalmers; this is quite enough. "Permit me (with Junius), to pay my tribute to Scotch sincerity, wherever I find it." The working of the machine, however much you may with it thrash poor John Thorogood and the Dissenters, according to your own acknowledgment, neither procures temples for worshippers, worshippers for temples, nor faithful ministers to do the duty of the sacrifice and ministrations in the temples. Only permit us respectfully to differ with you upon one point. We are poor, ignorant, and unsophisticated men, who do not comprehend any of the new systems of enlightenment. We are thus unable to judge of the comparative value of the old and new machinery, but by comparing the effects of the working of both. Hence we prefer the old, which filled our forefathers with good things, to the new, which sends many quite empty away. 13. Well, indeed, might Mr. Gladstone say, that Dr. Chalmers "has, it may be apprehended, put forth much questionable matter has surrendered the condition without which all others fail." While also "in other parts of his published lectures he has laid down principles, we fear, not less seriously detrimental to our cause. Wishing you, therefore, happy Dr. Chalmers, another as felicitous a labour of love, on your next visit to the metropolis, as you enjoyed on your past; in deep gratitude for the services you have unconsciously, though equally good-naturedly done to our cause, we will serenade thee on parting with a verse sung to the silver lyre of Cowper. "We therefore pleas'd, extol thy song, Though various, yet complete, We deem the bard, where'er he be, And howsoever known, Who would not twine a wreath for thee, Unworthy of his own." CHAPTER VI. "Surely it is high time that a word which denotes falsehood should be exchanged for one that speaks truth; and the abject spirit which implores or accepts toleration, should give place to the nobler spirit which claims and demands, as a just, sacred, and inalienable right, in all religious concerns, 'absolute liberty, just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty."-Dr. Parr. SIR, 1. In the year 1829, when Mr. O'Connell and the most peaceable, yet powerful demonstration of the strength of a whole people which was ever made in any country, seemed to threaten to break down the doors which closed their entrance into the temple of the British legislature, the portals of the senate were thrown open to the Catholics, by an intimidated government. Scarce, however, had men of the brightest talents, of the most untiring zeal, and of the most patriotic politics, availed themselves of their honourable privilege, of taking that seat amongst the highest of the land, which had been voted them by their admiring countrymen, but an attempt was made to restrain them in the exercise of the inalienable rights possessed by every member of the British parliament, by preventing them from voting upon Church questions. According to Blackstone, and other eminent legal writers, the very attempt to trammel members of parliament in giving their votes and opinions upon all subjects, which they individually and conscientiously consider to regard the public weal of the country, is un-English and unconstitutional. So that even the member of parliament, who takes an oath to use none of his own civil privileges, which he possesses or acquires as a subject, to the detriment of the crown and its lawful heirs; cannot deprive himself of the right of giving his opinion, and voting upon a measure, which he deems necessary to the safety of his country, even though that measure be inseparably connected with a change in the dynasty of these realms. "The power of parliament," says Sir Edward Coke, 4 Ins. 36, "is so transcendant and absolute, that it cannot be confined, either for causes or persons, within any bounds. It hath sovereign and uncontrollable authority in making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, repealing, abrogating, repealing, reviving, and expounding of laws concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal, civil, military, maritime, or criminal this being the place where that absolute despotic power, which must in all governments reside somewhere, is entrusted by the constitution of the kingdom. It can regulate or new model the succession to the crown, as was done in the : reigns of Henry VIII and William III. It can alter the established religion of the land, as was done in a variety of instances, in the reigns of Henry VIII and his children."-Blackstone, vol. i. p. 160. 2. During the passing of the Emancipation act, an attempt was made by a few very sapient bigots, to insert a clause into the act, refusing to Catholic members an unshackled power of voting upon matters relating to the Church of England. But Sir Robert Peel, the leading member of the government in the lower house, refused to be a party to a measure which he stated would be most highly unbecoming, and contrary to the usages and liberties of parliament. The Bill of Rights allows no man who sits in parliament to have a padlock put upon his mouth the moment that the holy Church makes her graceful appearance. You need not therefore, sir, in the passage in your work which has led me into these remarks, have so kindly informed the Catholic members of the legislature, that "the state exacts from them an obligation, binding them to follow a course as good legislators, which, I apprehend, as good Roman Catholics they are forbidden to take." For though as citizens and subjects they are, like you, bound not to use their personal privileges to weaken the settlement of the Protestant religion as by law established, you should have very well known, that when acting as members of the great council of the nation, they have as much right to vote upon all and every question regarding Church or state, as either you, or the most sanctimonious of your party. They have a full and equal share in that power of parliament which "is sovereign and uncontrollable, making, confirming, enlarging, restraining, abrogating, and expounding of laws, concerning matters of all possible denominations, ecclesiastical or temporal." What is allowed to Lord Roden, is the right of the munificent Shrewsbury; what is the inalienable privilege of Sir Robert Inglis, cannot be denied to the brilliant Sheil. Why has Sir Robert Peel, with every member of high standing in his party, refused to broach any different doctrine from what I now boldly maintain? Because, if lucklessly our opponent, he is an honourable one. If he cannot succeed in throwing the ladies out of office, he will not try to get into power by turning an old woman. I regret that any of our amiable Catholic members have deigned to reply in a certain place, to any foolish bigots, who wished their Church to be solely in their own most disinterested keeping. They should vote boldly upon every question formally brought before the council of the nation, whether by the distinguished Russell, or any other high-minded and independent member of the British legislature. Instead of stooping to repel the "abuse, decked out in all the ornaments of his pamphleteering slang" (as it was termed by the lamented Durham), of a Bishop Phil F potts; instead of regarding any of the unconstitutional sophistry of any other guardian of the domineering communion, they should let them pass by unheeded and unregarded. 3. How ruinous it would be to the constitution of our country, if every member who voted freely and independently for what he thought was for the common weal, when a bill was brought in, that would advance the liberties of the people, might be charged as guilty of violating his oath of allegiance, because what promoted the power of the Commons, would probably diminish some previous influence of the throne. To what a contemptible and degrading condition the parliament of Great Britain would be reduced, if Lord Stanley, and the party with him then in office, when, for the benefit of Ireland, he carried through both houses, a bill for suppressing ten of Elizabeth's bishoprics; if Sir Henry Hardinge, who brought forward another bill taking a considerable centage from the Church livings; if every man who supported such bills by their speeches and their votes, might be justly held up to the execration of the country, as a set of perjured villains, who had broken their oath of not injuring the Church by law established. "Salus populi suprema lex," is the rule that is to guide every conscientious member of the legislature; and if I have read aright some of the works of our best writers upon the British constitution, no oath that they take upon entering parliament, was ever intended to shackle members in the free discussion of the means, by which the rights and liberties of their fellow-countrymen, can be best guarded and protected. 4. But if Catholic members were not permitted to give their suffrage upon all Church questions with the most perfect freedom, neither might they speak upon them; for freedom of speech, a grand privilege of parliament, is not antecedent to, but grown out of, the right of voting upon every question whatsoever, that is brought forward for the common good. Now this perfect liberty of speech is what every approved writer upon law informs us, cannot be alienated from any member of the legislature. Inserted in the Bill of Rights, it was there placed as a necessary consequence of the duty of parliament, to exercise a supreme, independent, and omnipotent authority upon all questions which its members might deem beneficial to the country. Thus, the late learned Mr. Millar, in his Historical View of the British Government (vol. iii. p. 456), tells us :-"It is manifest that an unbounded freedom of debate is necessary for enabling the members of either house to perform their duty. If they have a right to determine any measure, they must, of course, be entitled to argue and reason upon it, to examine its nature and its consequences; and by placing it in a variety of lights, to prepare and ripen their minds for a proper decision. Unless |