ments of individuals led by their own impulses to come forward, and commonly possessing neither the discretion nor the ability to come forward effectively. But it is plain that Jesuitism, made once more thoroughly effective, will ever seek its principal objects of attack among adherents of a scriptural faith. Such religionists are likely to take a full share in the warfare against infidelity; but their influence, and even their existence, always menace with absolute extinction such articles of faith as have no surer warrant than tradition, and such religious usages as are palpably akin to downright heathenism. The inherent rottenness of the system that labours under these objections, appears from few things more clearly than from an instinctive clinging to organized combinations during many ages, and as society advanced, from its urgent need of a combination so versatile and so perfectly organized as that of the Jesuits. In this proteiform body, individuals are merged in the whole. Their personal sense of moral responsibility even is liable to be seriously impaired by the share of it seemingly thrown upon a superior; and the superior himself is exposed to a similar evil from confidential communications with select counsellors, and from his dependence upon the recorded principles of his order. In the end, undoubtedly, such a society can hardly fail of injuring the cause that it may temporarily serve. When success has aroused a grasping ambition in itself, and a jealous hostility in others, all its proceedings are likely to be regarded with a suspicion greater even than the necessity requires, and the exertions of individual members are very liable to be undervalued. The men are known to be tools artfully used by others, and the purposes to which they are applied may be thought such as the parties themselves, if honestly under their own guidance, would not have more than half approved. § 7. Among the results of the restoration of papal authority, was a settlement of ecclesiastical arrangements in France. Pius had been allowed little more power in that country, under "His holiness, since the publication of this bull for the restoration of the society, has twice formally signified, that it was not his intention that it should have the effect of restoring it to any state which should not recall it, or express a wish for its return." (Butler's Hist. Mem. iv. 350.) How, then, come fraternities of Jesuits into Britain and Ireland? Surely the state has not "recalled the order, or expressed any wish for its return.' "" the imperial government, than the privilege of granting institution to prelates nominated by Napoleon. This sanction, however, he was found in many cases unwilling to give. In 1811 no fewer than twenty-seven bishops were ineffectual suitors for it. Indignant at such a disregard of his choice, Buonaparte declared the Concordat at an end, and called a council of French and Italian prelates to Paris, to provide a remedy for existing evils'. But they came to no determination, during their first session in June. At a second, in the following August, they determined, that unless the pope should institute within six months of the imperial nomination, that power should devolve upon the metropolitan. After many conferences, the pope confirmed this decree, but, for some unknown reason, the emperor would not receive it. In 1813 Pius was again plied with negotiations for a new Concordat, and Napoleon actually signed certain articles as the basis of one. The pope, however, though a prisoner at Fontainbleau, annulled this plan, and declined all farther intercourse with the imperial court, until he should be restored to liberty. Buonaparte's other affairs now became so urgent, that he had no leisure to think much of the church, and accordingly, Lewis XVIII., on his restoration, found ecclesiastical questions in a very unsatisfactory state. It was not until after various negotiations, protracted into 1817, that they were placed upon a permanent footing. It was then agreed that the Concordat of 1801 should wholly cease, and that the religious concerns of France should stand hereafter upon the basis that had been settled between Leo X. and Francis I. At the same time were founded seven new archbishoprics, and twenty-five bishoprics, to be endowed, as before, with stipends out of the public revenue; a wretched substitute for the ease and independence which France, in earlier times, had conferred upon her clergy'. § 8. When the nineteenth century opened, the Romanists of Britain and Ireland entertained sanguine expectations, from former concessions, the progress of liberality, and rumours of the minister's favourable intentions, of a complete release from 7 Coote, 320. • Collins, 223. their civil disabilities. It was even believed that Mr. Pitt had given positive encouragement to such anticipations, when intent upon the legislative union of the two islands. The real encouragement, however, given by him amounted to no more than an observation in the speech by which he brought the articles of union before the House of Commons, that, until that measure should be carried, “full concessions could not be made to the Romanists, without endangering the state, and shaking the constitution to the centre"." This language, which is at farthest ambiguous, and might be little else than a rhetorical amplification, was naturally taken by the parties anxious for relief as an explicit declaration in their favour. They talked, accordingly, of a promise made, but Mr. Fox candidly expressed a belief, in 1805, that such was not the fact'; and in 1810, Robert Stewart, viscount Castlereagh, (afterwards marquess of Londonderry,) negatived in the House of Commons current reports of a pledge given, in the fullest and most unequivocal manner. That able statesman was the principal conductor of the union in Ireland, and during the two years that it was in agitation, he carefully abstained from compromising Mr. Pitt in any manner, as to the Romish question; a silence which near observers interested in its concession interpreted unfavourably, and, in consequence, much of their influence was exerted to preserve the Irish legislature. Leading Romanists, accordingly, were surprised to see Mr. Pitt and his friends assigning the impossibility of obtaining royal consent to the removal of Romish disabilities, as a reason for breaking up the ministry, in 1801'. It is, indeed, probable that this was not the true reason; that rather lying in the difficulties of making peace, experienced by a cabinet which had long bound up its interests with war. Had the assigned cause been the real one, Mr. Pitt could hardly have abstained from advocating the question, when unfettered by office. He did, however, so abstain, and when again in office, that abstinence continued; probably from respect for George the Third's conscientious scruples. But Romish disabilities could not be connected, however inaccurately, with the retirement of a cabi Bp. Phillpotts's Letter on the Coronation Oath. Lond. 1828. p. 136. 1 Ibid. 138. 2 Ibid. 141. net, popular above most recorded in English history, without giving to the question of their removal an importance in the public mind, that had been hopeless during a long interval of time. Nevertheless, petitions from the Irish Romanists, presented to Parliament in 1805, though leading to animated discussions, were defeated by considerable majorities. Their principal advocates were the Whigs, then in opposition; and that party coming into power on Mr. Pitt's death, in the beginning of 1806, thought itself bound in honour to use its improved position for the furtherance of that great concession to Romanism which it had strenuously though ineffectually supported under less favourable circumstances. There were, however, strong prejudices against concession, both in the king, and in a majority of the people. The Whig ministry, therefore, only proposed a partial measure of relief. As the law stood in Britain, no Romanist could be even a subaltern in the army; all officers being liable to the operation of the Test Act. In Ireland, by an act passed in 1793, papists might hold any situation in the army, except that of commander-in-chief, master-general of the ordnance, or general on the staff. On the 5th of March, 1807, Charles, viscount Howick, afterwards the second earl Grey, moved a bill in the House of Commons, to enable persons of every religious persuasion to hold commissions in the army and navy, without any other condition than the taking of a specified oath of allegiance repugnant to no religious opinion. When the draught of this bill was submitted to the king, as is usual in matters of importance, he made several objections, but at length his opposition was overcome, and leave was obtained to propose the measure. He was not, however, fully aware of its operation, until this came out in the debate'. He then saw, that the measure would remove Romish disabilities to a greater extent than he calculated, and being apprehensive that his coronation oath was inconsistent with it, he would no longer countenance the bill. Finding him immoveable, the ministry determined upon relinquishing their plan; but permission was requested for the lords Grenville and Howick, both to detail in parliament their * Bisset's George H. vi. 98. 4 Alison, vi. 183. opinions upon the general policy of such a measure, and to submit the matter again, when circumstances should invite, to the royal consideration. The latter stipulation proved so highly disagreeable, that in its place the king required a written pledge, that nothing of the same kind should ever be brought forward by them again. This being declined by the ministers, as unconstitutional, and irreconcilable with their oaths as privy councillors, they were abruptly dismissed. They then formed immediately an opposition, placing concession to the Romanists in the fore-ground of its party warfare. § 9. The Whig party, however, which thus patronized the very sect that it had formerly laboured so strenuously to crush, was far from popular. Hence repeated motions made in parliament for Catholic Emancipation, as the phrase ran, were negatived by considerable, but decreasing majorities. At length, Mr. Canning, habitually the advocate of Tory politics. came over to the other side, on this much-agitated question. With all that splendid eloquence which was at his command, he moved, on the 22nd of June, 1812, that the house should pledge itself to take into serious consideration, early in the next session of parliament, the Roman catholic disabilities, with a view to such a final conciliatory disposal of them as might conduce to the national peace and strength, the stability of the protestant establishment, and the general satisfaction of all classes. This motion was carried by a decisive majority of 235 against 106. In the Lords a similar motion was defeated only by a single vote: but such was the turn now taken by public opinion, that many people thought no disappointment whatever likely to have met the Romanists in the upper house, had not a recent meeting in Dublin claimed relief as a matter of right, and menaced opposition with exemplary vengeance. The session of 1813, accordingly, was opened with appearances very much in favour of the Romanists, and their cause went victoriously through some very hard parliamentary fighting; but when it seemed on the point of complete success in the House of Commons, Charles Abbot, the speaker, afterwards lord Colchester, moved, that, among the concessions, a seat in Butler, ii. 211. Bisset, vi. 341, |