The state of the Question with which I have been honoured, supposes that the requisition now made is a direct violation of the Statute of 30 Car. II. st. 2.

It certainly is inconsistent with that Law, and if it shall be yielded to, will, in effect, repeal it, though that Law, when it was made, was looked upon by the Legislature, as nécessary for the more effectual preserving the King's person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. How far that law still continues a fence for the Church as by Law established, must be judged of by those who are to act on the proposed repeal, if such a measure should be brought forward. Those who think it is an important and necessary part of the defence of the Established Church, may also think that the Coronation Oath was meant to provide against the King's consenting to the Repeal; for though an Act for repealing the Statute of Charles II. would not in itself break in upon the Established Church, yet it would facilitate steps which might afterwards follow for that

but in an Oath for another person to take, it is always a rule, to express the thing plain."

Sir Thomas Clarges." Whilst a sort of men, that professed the Protestant Religion, joined with Popery lately in the Declaration, and write, and profess that the Penal Laws ought to be taken away, now you are making an Oath honestly and plainly, to explain it to the world."

A

purpose, as by this means Papists might constitute a majority of each House of Parliament.

It cannot well pass observation, that the whole system of Laws, as to the purpose of the present Inquiry, was to guard against the possible introduction of Popish Influence into any branch of the Legislature. As far as respects the Sovereign, it is guarded by the Oath he takes, and with respect to the Houses of Parliament by the Declaration in 30 Car. II.

I am not aware what Clauses in the Bill of Rights are supposed to be broken in upon by what is suggested as likely to be proposed.

The Statute of 12 and 13 W. c. 2.* shows the great anxiety the Legislature then had to guard against Popery. But here again the question recurs, how is the supream power of the Country bound? -The two Houses of Parliament are not under any promissory Oaththat obligation has been extended to the King only. This statute of W. III. has done no more, as far as respects the present Question, than the former statutes had done.

The Paper I before sent stated, I believe, what then occurred, and all that at present occurs on the Statute of Union.

* Commonly called "The Act of Settlement," and intituled "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the subject.'

In short, the Question resolves itself to this: Will the proposed Act violate that Oath, which promises to maintain and preserve inviolably the Settlement of the Church of England, and the Doctrine, Worship, Discipline, and Government thereof, as it was at the time of the Union by Law established within the Kingdoms of England, Ireland, &c.

The Petition expresses apprehension of proscription, persecution, and oppression. All grounds of such apprehensions, if such there really are, may be safely removed, if the late benefits, which the Petition admits, have not removed them, without endangering the Established Church, or violating the Coronation Oath.

I will out of anxiety add one word more. It seems to me, that the judgment of the person, who takes the Coronation Oath, must determine whether any particular Statute proposed does destroy the Government of the Established Church. It seems that the Oath, couched in the general terms in which it is found, does not preclude the party sworn from exercising a judgment, whether that which he is bound to maintain will be essentially, or in any great degree, affected by the proposed

:

LETTERS

FROM THE RIGHT HONOURABLE WILLIAM PITT ΤΟ

THE LATE KING, WITH HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWERS,

PREVIOUS TO THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MINISTRY IN 1801.

A.-Letter of Mr. PITT to the late KING.

DOWNING STREET, Saturday, January 31st, 1801.

MR. PITT would have felt it, at all events, his duty, previous to the meeting of Parliament, to submit to your Majesty the result of the best consideration which your confidential Servants could give to the important Questions respecting the Catholics and Dissenters, which must naturally be agitated in consequence of the Union. The knowledge of your Majesty's general indisposition to any change of the Laws on this subject would have made this a painful task to him; and it is become much more so by learning from some of his colleagues, and from other quarters, within these few days, the extent to which your Majesty entertains, and has declared, that sentiment.

He trusts your Majesty will believe, that every principle of duty, gratitude, and attachment, must make him look to your Majesty's ease and satisfaction, in preference to all consi

১