time, the presumptive heir of the Crown owes, as Duke of York, allegiance to King George IV. of England, and also owes, as bishop of Osnaburgh, allegiance to King George II. of Hanover. Has there ever been a Catholic mean enough to talk of this double allegiance of his Royal Highness? Such meanness never entered into our minds. NO! THE CATHOLIC RELIGION IS THE RELIGION OF GENTLEMEN, AND OF THOSE WHO THINK LIKE GENTLEMEN. ALL THEY ASK IS, THAT THEIR AD VERSARIES SHOULD THINK AND ACT AS GENTLEMEN IN THEIR REGARD. The duke of Richmond is duke d'Aubigni, and possesses fiefs in France. The duke of Marlborough is a prince of Germany, and possesses a German principality. The duke of Wellington is a grandee of the first class in Spain, and holds large territorial possessions in Valentia. All these illustrious persons owe allegiance to the sovereigns within whose territories their possessions are situate; all, too, owe allegiance to his Britannic Majesty. This double allegiance has not been, and ought not to be, reproached to them. But while the questionably double allegiances of all these distinguished personages has ever been passed over in silence, and perhaps never thought of, double allegiance has been invented for Catholics; and they have been criminated for it, and for all its possible or rather ideal consequences. Is this fair? Is it just? Is it honourable? No! Let us, then, hear no more of this charge. How can it enter into the mind of an honourable man to make it? 7. The belief of Alexander the Great in virtue, when he received the cup from his physician, who was accused of a wish to poison him, has been deservedly praised. Will Protestants, in respect to their Catholic brethren, never aspire to the same belief in virtue? Will they always remain blind to the loyalty of the Catholics to their immense services in their fleets and armies Will they never recollect, that if their ungenerous ac cusations should drive the Catholics from these, frightful indeed would be their solitude? Will the Protestants always forget, that, when all her Protestant colonies rebelled against England, Catholic Canada alone was true to her allegiance? Will they-but the subject is endless. If there be one thing more certain than another, it is that which we now confidently assert: THAT THE LOYALTY OF THE CATHOLICS OF THE UNITED EMPIRE IS PURE, PERFECT AND UNDIVIDED; THAT IT WILL BEAR ANY TRIAL; THAT, IN EVERY TRIAL, IT WILL BE FOUND EMINENTLY PURE; AND THAT IT IS MOST UNGENEROUS AND MOST UNWISE TO DISTRUST IT. Letter on the Coronation Oath, first inserted in the Old Times. FEW Parliamentary documents possess, in any point of view, so much importance as the speech delivered on the 25th of last month, in the House of Lords, by his Royal Highness the Duke of York, on presenting the petition of the Dean and Canons of Windsor against granting any further relief to his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Lamenting, as they must do, that his Royal Highness is so adverse to their petitions, still the Roman Catholics are grateful for his open avowal of his opinions, and of the reasons upon which they are grounded. It allows them free liberty to discuss them with the respect due to his exalted rank. Availing himself of this circumstance, an humble individual of their number trusts that he may, without offence or impropriety, submit to his Royal Highness some observations upon the following passage in his speech. His Royal Highness states in it, that he "wished to " ask whether their lordships had considered the situa" tion in which they might place the King, or whether "they recollected the oath which his Majesty had taken " at the altar, to his people, upon his coronation? He "begged to read the words of the oath. I will, to the " utmost of my power, maintain the law of God, the true "profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant re" formed religion, established by law; and I will pre 66 serve unto the bishops and clergy of this realm, and "to the churches committed to their charge, all such 66 rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them.' Their lordships, continued "his Royal Highness, must remember that ours is 66 a Protestant King, who knows no mental reservation, " and whose situation is different from that of any other person in this country; that his Royal Highness, and every other individual in this country, could be re" leased from his oath by the authority of Parliament; " but the King could not. The oath, as he had always understood, is a solemn obligation, entered into by "the person who took it, from which no act of his own " could release him; but the King was the third part of "the State, without whose voluntary consent no act of "the Legislature could be valid, and he could not relieve " himself from the obligation of an oath." 11. With the utmost deference and respect to his Royal Highness, it is suggested to his consideration, that the WOLLE expressions copied from his speech give rise to the following observations : I. Is it not the bounden duty of the Sovereign of these realms to give his royal assent to every bill presented to him by the two Houses of Parliament, which he himself believes to be conducive to the welfare of the empire? In an ancient statute, (25 of Edw. III. stat. 6), this is unequivocally expressed. It is there said, that "the right " of the crown of England and the law of the realm, is "such, that upon the mischiefs and damages which hap pen to this realm, the King ought and is bound by his " oath, with the concord of the people in Parliament as"sembled, to make remedy and law." Does it not follow, that if the two Houses of Parliament should present a bill to the Monarch, fort he repeal of the laws remaining in force against the Roman Catholics, and the Sovereign should be of opinion that not to repeal those laws would bring mischief and damage to the realm, he would be constitutionally bound, in the words of the act, to make the remedy, by assenting to the bill of repeal? Would not any oath taken by the Monarch not to assent to such a bill be a nullity? Must not every such oath be necessarily understood to be accompanied by an implied condition, that nothing contained in it should oblige him to act against the principles of the constitution, or the rights or welfare of his subjects, or to forbear from assenting to any bill which enacted any measure for their good. II. No prospective act of the Legislature can discharge the King from the paramount duty thus imposed upon him, of giving his assent to a bill presented to him by the two Houses of Parliament, which he himself approves of, and deems salutary. In this the highest authorities in the law agree. We beg leave to call the attention of his Royal Highness to what is said by Sir William Blackstone of the omnipotence of Parliament; of its uncontrollable power in " making, restraining, abrogating, and repealing laws " concerning matters of all possible denomination, " ecclesiastical or temporal." He avers most explicitly, that " Parliament can alter the established religion of "the land." This is the very strongest act of legislation that can be supposed. His Royal Highness must be sensible, that a repeal of the few laws yet remaining in force against the Roman Catholics is immeasurably distant from it. Lord Coke lays it down as a constitutional maxim, and a fundamental principle of law, that "acts against "the power of Parliament bind not." In the 21st of Richard II. (Rot. Parl. 50.52.), an oath was taken by the lords spiritual and temporal, and also by the proctors of the clergy, and the knights in Parliament, that "they would not reverse, break, irritate, " annul, or repeal any of the judgments, establishments, statutes, or ordinances made, rendered, or given in " that Parliament." "But our Lord the King," continues the record, " having advised and deliberated with the 66 prelacy and clergy of this realm, well understood that " he could not bind his successors, Kings of England, by their oath or any other means, against the liberty " of the crown." Thus stood the ancient Constitution of England.... At the Revolution, the same principle was most directly recognized. It is well known to his Royal Highness, that doubts were, at that time, suggested upon the language of the then existing coronation oath; that the Convention Parliament took into consideration the establishment of an oath which should remove those doubts; that a committee was appointed for this purpose; that |