to the protestant church, no intolerant deed or doctrine of roman-catholic individuals, however eminent in rank or character, should be attributed to the roman-catholic church.

Surely the archbishop must have forgotten the just rebuke, which, not long before this time, he himself had given to a clergyman for a want of charity. Being wrecked on a desolate part of the Irish coast, he applied to a clergyman for relief; and stated, without mentioning his name or rank, his own sacred profession. The clergyman rudely questioned it, and told him peevishly, that "he doubted whether he knew the number of the "commandments. "Indeed I do," replied the archbishop mildly, "there are eleven." "Eleven!" said the clergyman, "tell me the eleventh, and "I will assist you." " Obey the eleventh," said the archbishop, "and you certainly will." A new "commandment I give unto you, that ye love "one another."

LETTER XVIII.

CHARLES II.

SIR,

FOR some passages in the chapter of your work at which I am now arrived, you have my sincere thanks; to others, I object. The principal of these I shall now proceed to mention :-I. I shall first notice your defence of Charles II.'s violation of his promise at Breda to the roman-catholics and the protestant dissenters. In a note I shall show a near resemblance between this conduct of Charles, and the conduct of the British government towards the Irish roman-catholics at the time of the Union :II. I shall then shortly advert to some of your criminations of the roman-catholics in your present chapter:-III. Then, briefly notice the Corporation and Test Acts:-IV. Then, suggest to you some considerations on the act of the thirtieth of Charles II. which disables roman-catholic peers and commoners from sitting and voting in parliament:---V. Then, mention Oates's plot :-VI. Then, notice James II. the Bill of Rights, and the Acts of Settlement :VII. Then, conclude my letter, with some observavations upon your repeated charges against us of superstition and Idolatry.

X

XVIII. 1.

Doctor Southey's Defence of Charles II.'s Violation of his Promise, at Breda, to the Roman-catholics and Protestant Dissenters.

66

PERMIT me to mention, that I have read with surprise this defence. "A fair promise,"-I copy your own words," was held forth, in the declara"tion, that the most conciliatory measures should "be pursued." It was then said,-" because the "passions and uncharitableness of the times have "produced several opinions in religion, by which "men were engaged in parties and animosities against each other, which, when they shall here"after meet in a freedom of conversation, will be "composed or better understood, we do declare "a liberty to tender consciences; and that no man "shall be disquieted or called in question for dif"ference of opinion in matters of religion, which "do not disturb the peace of the kingdom; and "that we shall be ready to consent to such an act "of parliament, as, upon mature deliberation, shall "be offered to or for the full granting that indul

You say, that "Charles was sincere in this pro"mise that it arose from a just and honourable "sentiment of shame, that laws so severe against "the roman-catholics should continue to exist, "after the political necessity for them had ceased."

"But Charles," you afterwards say,-.“ did "not think himself bound by his declaration from Breda, to say any thing more upon the subject of religion, than to pass such an act as the parlia"ment might think proper to offer."-None was offered, and Charles was, therefore, in your opinion altogether unaffected by his promise.

But, was the promise thus understood at Breda ? Could the catholics, so much of whose blood had been spilt, so much of whose money had been wrenched from them, so many of whose estates had been confiscated in the cause of Charles's father and his own ;-could the protestant dissenters, who had been so active in promoting the restoration, and, without whose conspiration, it could not have been effected;-could any of Charles's council, who knew the views, the feelings and the expectations of the parties;-could any man then acquainted with the circumstances of the case,—have put this construction upon the monarch's word? A construction under which the protestant dissenters must have remained open to the inflictions of the statutes of recusancy, and under which the roman-catholics must have continued subject to these, and also to the rack and the gibbet?

Did not the promise at Breda imply, that all the influence of government should be used in procuring such an act of parliament as it mentions? Were not all the powers of government used to the contrary? Were not new restrictions and new penalties inflicted, both upon the roman-catholics

and the protestant dissenters ?-Could this be the fair construction of the act?

Unfortunately, however, it was adopted; and the monarch quietly consigned both the protestant dissenters and the roman-catholics to the subsisting pains, penalties and miseries.-In this you think him justified!

Thus," to use the language of Hume," all the king's fine promises and indulgences to tender "consciences were eluded and broken! It is true "that Charles, in his declaration from Breda, had "expressed his intention to regulate that indul

gence by the advice and authority of parliament; "but the limitation could never reasonably be ex"tended to a total infringement of all his arrange"ments." No one knows better than yourself that Hume's inclination led him to defend the monarch à toute outrance; and that nothing short of the highest degree of glaring criminality would have induced Hume to condemn him*.

* The conduct of the British government to the Irish roman-catholics, at the time of the Union, has been said to resemble the conduct of Charles II. to the roman-catholics and protestant dissenters, after his restoration.

That a prospect of emancipation was held out to the Irish catholics, to induce them to support the government measure of the union, seems to be undeniable.

66

1. When Mr. Pitt proposed the articles of union to the house of commons, he thus expressed himself:-" No man can say, that, in the present state of things, and while Ireland "remains a separate kingdom, full concessions can be made "to the catholics, without endangering the state, and shaking