who is a Master of Arts in some English university, than if all that we knew about him was, that he had a fifth of the profits of the living. The object is, to fix a good clergyman in a parish. The law will not trust the non-resident rector to fix both the price and the person; but fixes the price, and then leaves him the choice of the person. Our plan is, to fix upon the description of person, and then to leave the price to find its level; for the good price by no means implies a good person, but the good person will be sure to get a good price.

Where the living will admit of it, we have commonly observed that the English clergy are desirous of putting in a proper substitute. If this be so, the bill is unnecessary; for it proceeds on the very contrary supposition, that the great mass of opulent clergy consult nothing but economy in the choice of their curates.

It is very galling and irksome to any class of men to be compelled to disclose their private circumstances; a provision contained in and absolutely necessary to this bill, under which the diocesan can always compel the minister to disclose the full value of his living.

After all, however, the main and conclusive objection to the bill is, that its provisions are drawn from such erroneous principles, and betray such gross ignorance of human nature, that though it would infallibly produce a thousand mischiefs foreseen and not foreseen, it would evidently have no effect whatsoever in raising the salaries of curates. We do not put this as a case of common buyer and seller; we allow that the parish is a third party, having an interest*; we fully admit the right of the Legislature to interfere for their relief. We only contend, that such interference would be necessarily altogether ineffectual, so long as men can be found capable of doing the duty

We remember Horace's description of the misery of a parish where there is no resident clergyman.

"Illacrymabiles

Urgentur, ignotique longâ Nocte, carent quia vate sacro."

of curates, and willing to do it for less than the statutory minimum.

If there be a competition of rectors for curates, it is quite unnecessary and absurd to make laws in favour of curates. The demand for them will do their business more effectually than the law. If, on the contrary (as the fact plainly is), there is a competition of curates for employment, is it possible to prevent this order of men from labouring under the regulation price? Is it possible to prevent a curate from pledging himself to his rector, that he will accept only half the legal salary, if he is so fortunate as to be preferred among an host of rivals, who are willing to engage on the same terms? You may make these contracts illegal : What then? Men laugh at such prohibitions; and they always become a dead letter. In nine instances out of ten, the contract would be honourably adhered to; and then what is the use of Mr. Percival's law? Where the contract was not adhered to, whom would the law benefit?-A man utterly devoid of every particle of honour and good faith. And this is the new species of curate, who is to reflect dignity and importance upon his poorer brethren! The law encourages breach of faith between gambler and gambler; it arms broker against broker:- but it cannot arm clergyman against clergyman. Did any human being before, ever think of disseminating such a principle among the teachers of Christianity? Did any ecclesiastical law, before this, ever depend for its success upon the mutual treachery of men who ought to be examples to their fellowcreatures of everything that is just and upright?

We have said enough already upon the absurdity of punishing all rich rectors for non-residence, as for a presumptive delinquency. A law is already passed, fixing what shall be legal and sufficient causes for non-residence. Nothing can be more unjust, then, than to punish that absence which you admit to be legal. If the causes of absence are too numerous, lessen them; but do not punish him who has availed himself of their existence. We deny,

error is to end. Is it confined to religion? or does it extend to war and peace, as well as religion? Would it be tolerated, if any man were to say, "Abstain from all arguments in favour of peace; the court have resolved upon eternal war; and, as you cannot have peace, to what purpose urge the necessity of it?" We answer, — that courts must be presumed to be open to the influence of reason; or, if they were not, to the influence of prudence and discretion, when they perceive the public opinion to be loudly and clearly against them. To lie by in timid and indolent silence, to suppose an inflexibility, in which no court ever could, under pressing circumstances, persevere, and to neglect a regular and vigorous appeal to public opinion, is to give up all chance of doing good, and to abandon the only instrument by which the few are ever prevented from ruining the many.

-

It is folly to talk of any other ultimatum in government than perfect justice to the fair claims of the subject. The concessions to the Irish Catholics in 1792 were to be the ne plus ultra. Every engine was set on foot to induce the grand juries in Ireland to petition against further concessions; and, in six months afterwards, government were compelled to introduce, themselves, those further relaxations of the penal code, of which they had just before assured the Catholics they must abandon all hope. Such is the absurdity of supposing, that a few interested and ignorant individuals can postpone, at their pleasure and caprice, the happiness of millions.

As to the feeling of irritation with which such continued discussion may inspire the Irish Catholics, we are convinced that no opinion could be so prejudicial to the cordial union which we hope may always subsist between the two countries, as that all the efforts of the Irish were unavailing,that argument was hopeless, that their case was prejudged with a sullen inflexibility which circumstances could not influence, pity soften, or reason subdue.

We are by no means convinced, that the decorous silence recommended

upon the Catholic question would be rewarded by those future concessions, of which many persons appear to be so certain. We have a strange incredulity where persecution is to be abolished, and any class of men restored to their indisputable rights. When we see it done, we will believe it. Till it is done, we shall always consider it to be highly improbable — much too improbable to justify the smallest relaxation in the Catholics themselves, or in those who are well-wishers to their cause. When the fanciful period at present assigned for the emancipation arrives, new scruples may arise. fresh forbearance be called for — and the operations of common sense be deferred for another generation. Toleration never had a present tense, nor taxation a future one. The answer which Paul received from Felix, he owed to the subject on which he spoke. When justice and righteousness were his theme, Felix told him to go away, and he would hear him some other time. All men who have spoken to courts upon such disagreeable topics, have received the same answer. Felix, however, trembled when he gave it; but his fear was ill directed. He trembled at the subject he ought to have trembled at the delay.

Little or nothing is to be expected from the shame of deferring what it is so wicked and perilous to defer. Profligacy in taking office is so extreme, that we have no doubt public men may be found, who, for half a century, would postpone all remedies for a pestilence, if the preservation of their places depended upon the propagation of the virus. To us, such kind of conduct conveys no other action than that of sordid avaricious impudence:

it puts to sale the best interests of the country for some improvement in the wines and meats and carriages which a man uses - - and encourages a new political morality which may always postpone any other great measure- and every other great measure, as well as the emancipation of the Catholics.

We terminate this apologetical preamble with expressing the most earnest

These articles were signed by the English general on the 3d of October, 1691; and diffused comfort, confidence, and tranquillity among the Catholics. On the 22d of October, the English Parliament excluded Catholics from the Irish Houses of Lords and Commons, by compelling them to take the oaths of supremacy before admission.

The war carried on in Ireland against King William cannot deserve the name of a rebellion :-it was a struggle for their lawful Prince, whom they had sworn to maintain; and whose zeal for the Catholic religion, whatever effect it might have produced in England, could not by them be considered as a crime. This war was terminated by the surrender of Lime. rick, upon conditions by which the Catholics hoped, and very rationally hoped, to secure to themselves the free enjoyment of their religion in future, and an exemption from all those civil penalties and incapacities which the reigning creed is so fond of heaping upon its subjugated rivals.

By the various articles of this treaty, they are to enjoy such privileges in the exercise of their religion, as they did enjoy in the time of Charles II.: and the King promises, upon the meeting of Parliament, "to endeavour to procure for them such further security in that particular, as may preserve them from any disturbance on account of their said religion." They are to be restored to their estates, privileges, and immunities, as they enjoyed them in the time of Charles II. The gentlemen are to be allowed to carry arms; and VOL. I.

Catholics were disarmed-and then all the priests banished. After this (probably by way of joke), an act was passed to confirm the treaty of Limerick, the great and glorious King William totally forgetting the contract he had entered into, of recommending the religious liberties of the Catholics to the attention of Parliament.

On the 4th of March, 1704, it was enacted, that any son of a Catholic who would turn Protestant, should succeed to the family estate, which from that moment could no longer be sold, or charged with debt and legacy. On the same day, Popish fathers were debarred, by a penalty of 500l., from being guardians to their own children. If the child, however young, declared himself a Protestant, he was to be delivered immediately to the custody of some Protestant relation.-No Protestant to marry a Papist.-No Papist to purchase land or take a lease of land for more than thirty-one years. If the profits of the lands so leased by the Catholic amounted to above a certain rate settled by the act,-farm to belong to the first Protestant who made the discovery.-No Papist to be in a line of entail; but the estate to pass on to the next Protestant heir, as if the Papist were dead. If a Papist dies K