relief from fuch difability properly explained. This difability confifts chiefly in their exclufion from Parliament.

Against this exclufion the author contends, that "it is no maxim of law, it is no principle of the British conftitution, that thofe who concur in the enactment of laws fhould profefs the religion of the state." The facramental teft, he ftates, is not required as a qualification to fit and vote in Parliament; and all defcriptions of diffenters, even the most inveterate foes to epifcopacy, are admitted to both houfes indifcriminately, Catholics alone being excluded.

He also urges, that this difability is created by a statute diftinct from the rest of the penal code, and enacted during the general delufion excited by the perjuries of Titus Oates, and might be removed by the omiffion of a few words in the Parliamentary oaths, objectionable even to Proteftants themfelves.

The fecond clafs of difabilities, affecting not only the Roman Catholics, but all other diffenters, is ftated to arife chiefly from the Teft Act, and to relate not to the difcharge of legiflative functions, but to the holding of civil and military offices under the crown.

To the difability arifing from the Teft A&t the author does not strongly object. It does not, he obferves, create any dif ability which renders a Roman Catholic, or a diffenter of any defcription, incapable of taking an office in the first instance. It only obliges the parties appointed to take certain oaths, and to conform to the Church of England within fix months after their appointment. He adds, that it does not extend to offices to be exercifed abroad.

With regard to the Teft Act itself, the author remarks, that its operation is annually fufpended as a matter of courfe. This arrangement he flates to have been made by virtue of a tacitly im plied compact, it being understood that, while the diffenters conduct themselves properly, the Legislature will not allow them to be molested in office. Some old ftatutes, indeed, rendered Popi Recufauts incapable of taking any office: but thofe ftatutes (the author alledges) were repealed by the Catholic Toleration Act of 1791.

From the foregoing circumstances the author infers, that the Crown may legally appoint Catholics, as well as Protestant Dif. fenters, to any offices within the purview of the Teft Act, trufting to their fubfequent conformity, or to the indemnity which they may obtain under the ftatute annually paffed for that purpofe. He does not therefore object to the continuance of the Test Act, but argues a modification of the Oath of Supremacy, fo as to enable Roman Catholics, as well as Proteftant Diffenters, to fit in Parliament. This relief, he thinks, fhould be fpontaneous, and independent of any petition from that body. Of thofe pesitions," he admits, he has not always approved, and has re gretted the language ufed in fome of them,"

Such

Such is the fubftance of the first Memoir; the fecond is chiefly employed in anfwering the objections that occur to the author's propofition; which he defends with confiderable ingenuity, but on grounds which we do not think tenable; for, although the prefent Oath of Supremacy (as it is, perhaps, improperly called? does not exprefsly affert the fupremacy of the King in fpiritual concerns, it certainly excludes the fupremacy of any other Prince, &c. and confequently of the Pope; and as to the author's fecond argument, it is manifeft that Roman Catholics in general, and Irish Romanifts in particular, do not, by any means, con fine the jurifdiction of the Roman Pontiff to abftract points of religious faith and doctrine. The foundation of the argument, therefore, appears to us wholly to fail; fince we cannot adniit that Romanifts, who profeffedly bow to a foreign jurisdiction, can be compared to Proteftant Diffenters, who difclaim any fuch authority equally with the members of the Eftablished Church.

The rest of this (fecond) Memoir confifts of an attempt, rather fpecious, we think, than folid, to excufe the inconfiftency of the Romish Bifhops in Ireland in retracting their offer of conceding a veto to the Crown. Yet the author thinks fuch a condition very reafonable, though not neceffary to the fecurity of the state.

The fubjoined Effay on the Coronation Oath was originally published in 1807, and was noticed by us in Vol. xxxii. p. 191. To which we must refer the reader for our opinion on that fubject. The Appendix relates, in part, to the late petition in behalf of the English Roman Catholics; of which (for reasons therein ftated) the author difapproves, and in part to the author's opinion on the subject of the Veto; the grounds of which are kere more fully explained.

ART. 21. The Nature and Extent of the Demands of the Irish Roman Catholics fully explained, in Obfervations and Strictures on a Pamphlet, entitled, "A Hiftory of the Penal Laws against the Irish Roman Catholics." By Patrick Duigenan, LL.D. M.P. 8vo. 247 pp. 75. J. J. Stockdale. 1810.

Our opinion of Mr. Parnell's arguments, in his "Hiftory of the Penal Laws against the Irish Roman Catholics," has already. been given in our account of that very exceptionable work. They are combated in the book before us with fimilar obferva tions, though, as might be expected, with fomewhat more of vehemence and afperity. The fophiftical reafonings and grofs mifreprefentations of Mr. Parnell deferved indeed fome animadverfion. His account of the " treaty of Limerick,'

as he terms it, which he reprefents not as a capitulation made by a fingle garrifon of rebels (who properly could only ftipulate for themselves and the detached parties under their influence), but as a folemn agreement of the Government, with the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics, binding upon all future Kings and Par

liaments,

liaments, is accordingly reprobated by the prefent writer in terms which, though coarfe and violent, can fcarcely be deemed too fevere. It is juftly remarked, that the firft article (the only one applying to Irish Romanifts in general) was never fanctioned by the legislature. The fincerity of King William, in his endeavours to procure a parliamentary confirmation of that article, is alfo ftrongly afferted by Dr. Duigenan, in oppofition to Mr. Parnell; and the comparative ftrength of the two parties, previously to the capitulation, is very differently represented in the prefent work. But whether the fituation of the Irish Romanists in Limerick was, as fuppofed by Dr. Duigenan, wholly defperate, or whether as Mr. Parnell represents, they inight for a confiderable time have baffled the arms of King Wil liam, at all events, to call that capitulation "the great charter of the Irish Roman Catholics," as it is termed by * Smollett and Mr. Parnell, is extravagant and abfurd.

With no lefs juftice, in our opinion, has Dr. Duigenan oppofed the inference drawn by Mr. Parnell from an expreffion in the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, namely, that " every Member of the Houfe of Commons of the United Kingdom, in the first and every fucceeding Parliament shall, until the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths as now enjoined to be taken." From these expres fions Mr. P. has inferred, not merely that it was in contemplation to new mould the parliamentary eaths hereafter, but that the legiflature was thereby pledged to alter them, for the purpose of admitting Roman Catholics to feats in Parliament.

He has alfo, we think, fuccefsfully vindicated Mr. Pitt. from the charge of having deluded the Irish Roman Catholics by promifes, which he did not fulfil. Whatever his inten tions may have been, it appears certain, that he never gave them any promife; and though, had circumftances been favourable, it is probable he might have propofed fome measures for their advantage, they would undoubtedly have been accompanied with additional fecurities for the established Church, to which it is now equally clear, the Romanifts would not have acceded.

But the character of that admired and lamented Minister, and his conduct in the prefent inftance, have been defended by Lord Caftlereagh with a force and juftice that admit not, we think, of even a fpecious reply +.

In other points our opinion agrees with that of the writer before us; but to fome of his doctrines we cannot ac

*The want of candour in Smollet, as an hiftorian, has become almoft proverbial; and it is certainly no recommendation of Mr. Parnell's caufe, that he takes him as his guide.

See his fpeech on Mr. Grattan's motion in behalf of the Irish Roman Catholics. Brit. Crit. for Dec. 1810. P. 641.

cede.

cede. The Irish rebellion, in 1798, did not, we conceive, arife from the previous repeal of the Popery laws; but was kindled by the emiffaries of France, and of the Jacobin faction in Ireland; and although it might, in one fenfe, be termed a Popish rebellion (fince it raged moft violently in diftricts where the Romanifts most abound, and was directed lefs against Loyalists than Protestants), yet it was originally initigated by perfons who cared as little for one religion as the other.

Upon the whole, we confider this work as an effectual anfwer to the principal topics infifted upon by Mr. Parnell, and a fufficient exposure of his chief mifrepresentations; but, on the general fubject, we cannot approve the author's coarfe and vehe ment declamation, nor pledge ourselves for the accuracy of every affertion which he has ventured to make.

MILITARY.

ART. 22. A Sketch of the Campaign in Portugal. 8vo. 48 pp. Murray. 1810.

The object of this candid and judicious writer is to explain thoroughly the object and nature of the campaign in Portugal, and equally to reprefs the too fanguine hopes of one clafs of poli ticians, and the gloomy apprehenfions of another. By thefe op pofite errors, he obferves, the character of the diftinguished of. ficer, commanding the allied army, is equally liable to injury; fince, by the former defcription of perfons, he will be blamed for not having done enough, because he may not have realized their confident expectations; while the latter, confidering his prefent fituation as hopeless, loudly cenfure him for having un derraken that which he was unable to perform.

In oppofition to both thefe opinions, the prefent writer calls to mind the object of the late operations in Portugalich was, primarily, the defence of that kingdom; and, in the fe cond place, the diverfion of a confiderable part of the French force, which would otherwife have been employed in the fub jugation of Spain. This object (or these objects) he shows to have been purfued by Lord Wellington with the greatest judge. ment and the best effect. "How long we may be able to maintain a footing in the pepinfula, to infpire confidence by our pre fence, and promote activity by our councils (counsel) and ex. ample, he will not venture to predict; but, "he juftly obferves "every hour that we do remain, every day by which the cam. paign is lengthened, gives, not merely a greater chance, but a ground of more confident hope of final fuccefs."

No new fact is alledged, or any minute detail given by this writer; but his general view of the campaign appears to be ac

curate;

curate; and in his opinion, refpecting the conduct and result of it, we perfectly coincide.

BOTANY.

ART. 23. A Calendar of Flora, compofed during the Year 1809, at Warrington, Lat. 53, 30'. By George Crosfield, Secretary to the Botanical Society of Warrington. 8vo. 39 PP. 1s. 6d. Warrington, printed; London, Wilkie and Co. 1809.

The Botanical Society at Warrington is, doubtlefs, fomething more real than the famous Botanical Society of Lichfield, which however publifhed two octavo volumes of Linnean Botany made English. But the fociety really confifted only of Dr. Darwin, and one friend, who had neither fecretary, meeting-room, nor any regular proceedings or affemblies. Mr. Crosfield appears to be the fecretary of an actual fociety, and from its prefident, Dr. James Kendrick, he has received very valuable communications of a medical kind, which appear in the fhort notes to his book.

We agree with the refpectable Botanists, who, according to Mr. C.," have expreffed a wifh that the periods of inflorefcence, in different feafons, and in different latitudes, fhould be marked down with accuracy; and we receive, with pleasure, this effort towards accomplishing that with; in which the author has given a lift of upwards of eight hundred British plants, arranged açı cording to their earliest periods of inflorefcence, during the year 1809, in the neighbourhood of Warrington. In this lift, the two first months contain only eight plants; viz. "JANUARY 14. Ulex Europeus, common Furze. 16. Bellis perennis, common Daily. FEBRUARY 2. Helleborus fœtidus, stinking Hellebore. 12. Senecio vulgaris, Groundfel. 14. Galanthus nivalis, Snow-drop; Crocus vernus, fpring Crocus; Vinca minor, leffer Periwinkle; 26. Daphne Meżereon." On the Arbutus Urfa Urfi (May 6) Dr. · K. fays, "The tonic and fedative properties of this plant are not, I apprehend, in general fully appreciated, notwithstanding what has been faid on the fubject by Drs. Ferriar and Bourne. In many cafes I have found it not a little efficacious." The only thing to be regretted is, that thefe notes, befides being fhort, are very few in number.

ART. 24.

TOPOGRAPHY.

Some Account of the Ancient and Prefent State of Shrewf bury. A new Edition. Izmo. 557 PP. 7s. 6d. Richard

fon.

1810.

This work is very fuperior to thofe defcriptive tracts which ufually pafs under the name of Guides, yet the modefty of the au

thor