when the troubles will end, if so frantic, so absurd an attempt at settlement, be further persevered in!

What a mistake, we say again in conclusion, to regard the question as settled, on the part of Protestants! Come what come may, let us still, rather, in the darkest hour remember this; that THE QUESTION IS NOT SETTLED, No. Let Popery usurp the altar, the senate, the throne: never can the question be settled, till the Gospel be again triumphant; till the representation of the country be purged; and till a constitutional king be fetched back from the land of his exile, yea, if need be, brought down from the stars, or plucked up from the bottom of the sea, to be once more placed by a rejoicing people, with triumphant shouts, on the throne of Protestant England!

THE BIGOT.-NO. II.

Supporters of Catholicism Catholics.

WELL: all are giving way; so the Bigot must give way among the rest. That terrible Association! What was the use of resisting it? Not that I felt alarmed. Pray do not think that. But it was advisable to yield. "Expediency" required it. So farewell, Bigotry. If I do change, I change in good company. Security we will have, of course ; yes, ample security. The time is now come for concession.

And canst thou think it, reader? I pardon thee. We are poor, infirm, unstable creatures, at best. And, so many have gone of late, no wonder, if some should suppose that the Bigot would go with them. But, no! I am a Bigot still.

"But, if you will not change altogether, surely you might give up something. For instance: you said once, I do not always use the word Catholicism, as a substitute for Popery Surely, now, you might yield in this. Why not say Catholicism? Why not say Romanism? It sounds so much more kind and charitable."

My dear sir, I would oblige you if I could; but the matter involves a principle. Now you, for instance, say, kind-hearted man! that the religion has very much changed, that Popery is no longer Popery. I say, that it is still the same. If a change had really taken place, we might alter names; and the alteration from Popery to Catholicism, might well express the difference. But here we are at issue: and, as I say it has not changed, I cannot give up the name, without giving up the point.

Are you old enough to recollect the proverb, "A penny saved is a penny got?" The modern one, which has taken its place, is, "A sovereign saved is a sovereign realized." Please to observe the gradations by which the change was effected.

First it was, A penny saved is a penny got.

Then, "got" being vulgar, A penny saved is a penny gained.
Then, A guinea saved is a guinea gained.

Then, A sovereign saved is a sovereign gained.

And lastly, A sovereign saved is a sovereign realized.

On which please to observe only this: that, though the terms are changed, the principle is still the same. The language is finer, but there is still the same old sordid, selfish, money-getting, money-saving principle. This is a just sample of all modern refinement. Under the modern version of the proverb, "A sovereign saved is a sovereign realized," there is perhaps as much or more hard bargaining, as much or more oppression of workmen and servants, as much or more grinding the faces of the poor, than there was under the old version, “Ă penny saved is a penny got."

Or take another instance: " Intermediate ale." This was, originally, "small beer." Here also mark the change.-Do not begin to laugh, sir, and then charge me with unbecoming levity; but mark the change, I say. It is characteristic, and shews the spirit of the age. First, Small beer. Then, Table beer. Then, Table ale-All these changes I can recollect-Then, Intermediate ale. And some have even got a step further, and make it Parliamentary ale! But observe. This high-sounding beverage, this intermediate ale, this parliamentary ale, is, after all, very little more than the identical, original, small beer. Nay, I question if much of what was once drunk at tables in this land, under that plain, old-fashioned name, was not the better beverage of the two.

Now thus it is that you want me to change Papist and Popery, to Romanist and Catholicism. The thing, I assert, is not changed, and therefore I like sometimes to use the old name: not wishing, when I use it, to employ needless obloquy; but to express a principle, to assert a fact. And even when I employ the modern words, I still mean to convey the old idea. When, therefore, I say, Supporters of Catholicism Catholics," I mean just this, that the supporters of Popery are Papists. To this point let us now proceed.

The modern advocates of the Catholic claims, calling themselves Protestants, are seen in two points of view. One is that in which they are seen by themselves, the other that in which they are seen by us bigots. According to their own view, they advocate them on the common principles of fairness and liberality: they have no particular partiality to Popery: they are not disposed to palliate its abominations: or they are even ready to denounce them. But, according to the view taken by us bigots, they either have a conscious and decided though secret preference for Popery; or else, unconsciously, more or less of the leaven of Popery; or else, which comes to the same thing, more or less of a mitigated, of a reconciled feeling towards Popery: so that they belong to the Popish party, in one sense or the other. And the course which they take, as to the Catholic question, confirms us in this sentiment.

First, in the number of those called Protestants, who advocate emancipation, there are Papists, in the strictest sense of the word. We might almost call some of them avowed Papists: with such amazing effrontery do they avow Popish principles, whether in palliating the errors of Romanism, or in assailing the doctrines of the Gospel as preached amongst us. Others, on the contrary, are concealed Papists; and have at this very moment formed, and advanced far on with a plot, to unite the Church of England and the Church of Rome.

Other Protestants, however, we can call Papists only in a more limited sense. But then there are different degrees of Popery, amongst the Papists themselves.-Some, for instance, of those who support emancipation, may be devout men: But then we must conceive that they have rather misty views; and, at least with respect to their conduct in this matter, have shewn that they have not very clear notions of right and wrong. Well. Within the Roman-Catholic church, then, we have a particular class of persons, answering to these: devout men, also, according to their way; adhering to Romanism because they were born and bred in it; getting on, in this adherence, as well as they can; and not seeing the evils of Popery in their full extent. Therefore, the sort of Protestants just described, I class with theɛe; as in their misty views they accord with a misty religion.

Some supporters of Popery, again, who call themselves Protestants, belong to the liberal class. Well. Here again we can match them. We have liberal Roman-Catholics: united with whom, the liberals amongst ourselves find their proper place. For, where we see true religion rejected, and superstition embraced; indulgence to professions of faith in general, but enmity against one, namely, the Gospel; a great toleration of books of all sorts, infidel, blasphemous, and impure, but a great hatred of the Bible; there we see the liberal at home.

Other supporters of the Catholic claims, again, are infidels. Shew me any number of infidels, of declared, open infidels, who do not support them. Why, what a secret does this betray !-These infidels, then, have also their fellows, in the party which they support. There are infidels, many infidels, amongst professed Roman-Catholics. Thus it seems as if, in joining and aiding this church, every foul bird finds its fellow. Numbers there are, amongst ourselves, who profess not to believe in any religion, but to follow that which they find established, for decency's sake, to maintain conformity, for the sake of order, and so forth. Now just such a character is the infidel Roman-Catholic. He despises, but conforms: looks on and takes snuff at the offering of the Mass: crosses himself at the appointed time: and kneels in the mud, as often as he meets the host. In fact, as the object of the infidel, in making profession of a religion, is altogether exterior, the RomanCatholic religion, being all for shew, is just made for him. In Catholicism, then, the infidel also is at home. Moreover, these infidels, like the liberals, hate Evangelical religion, while they profess indifference as to all religion. The Papist hates it too.

Thus we trace them HOME. Many, I suspect, of these advocates of emancipation, received their first impressions in its favour, abroad; at Naples, at Paris, at Rome: and thus their conversion to the popish cause, took place in those countries which are the seat of the popish religion. This shews us where they really are. They pretend, indeed, that their views are simply political, and have nothing to do with religion. But this is only an additional point of contact. For the Papist also pretends, that his political duties have nothing to do with his religious allegiance to the Pope.

Every thing, in fact, like advocacy of the Catholic claims, on the part of professed Protestants, I must regard as an approximation to Popery because it is sure to be attended with mitigated views of the popish RELIGION. I think the popish religion so bad, that all who profess it are unfit to have a share in the government of the country. You do not. Your view, then, of the popish religion, is a mitigated one. Besides, how much has the argument turned on the true character of Popery! How much have we heard at different times, from the advocates of emancipation, in defence, or at least in palliation, of the Roman-Catholic faith!

This then is what I mean, when I call the supporters of Catholicism, Catholics; or the supporters of Popery, Papists. If at the beginning, reader, I seemed about to change, be assured, at the end, of thisthat the events of the last three months have made me, more than ever,

A BIGOT.

THE BIGOT.-NO. III.

The Revolution.

History records the past. Prophecy reveals the future. For my own part, I think we are most in the dark as to the present. Let this serve as preface to a few remarks, upon "the progress and present stage of the Revolution in this country." Yes. I have given my attention to the time present: I have watched events: I have marked the changes in opinions, in politics, in legislation: and I have at length made a discovery. Our country, is, at this moment, in a state of revolution.

And here, of course, I shall be misunderstood. It will be supposed that I speak with an allusion to the revolution which took place amongst us at a former period: when King James was dethroned, and King William took his place. The reader will remember, if versed in English history, how, during the reign of the Second Charles, the king's brother and next heir, the Admiral of the English fleet, betrayed dispositions favourable to Popery, which caused a bill for his exclusion to be brought in, and actually carried through the House of Commons and which, after his brother's death, soon expelled him from the throne: an example to all succeeding ages; and a warning to all succeeding princes, royal brothers, heirs to the throne, and admirals of the fleet, that Protestant England will have a Protestant king. I can pardon the reader's mistake; but this is not my present subject.

My subject does not now refer to the revolution which once took place in this country; but to that which, within the memory of man, took place in France. I say, that a revolution in many things resembling the French Revolution, is now in progress amongst ourselves. What do we mean by a revolution? In one sense of the word, there is a revolution always going on in every country. The immediate cause of it lies in the minds of men. These are never stationary. There is a constant revolution of opinions: and, as opinions gradually change, institutions change with them: so that the change is always proceeding,

But at times this process becomes more rapid. The gradual decomposition becomes fermentation; the fermentation, explosion; the explosion, combustion and conflagration. Changes then proceed forward with a swiftness that beggars calculation. Events follow close upon events, all of stupendous magnitude. Men think, at first, that the process will go only to a certain length, and then stop. But this is not found to happen. It is in the nature of such changes to proceed.— And now another element of mischief begins to work. The minds of men become highly excited. Hence follow party rage, bloodshed, cruelty, proscription, and destruction. Such was the revolution in France.

There are many points, in which the French Revolution, and that now proceeding in this country, may be compared. Let us look only to some of the tokens, which appeared in the neighbouring country as preliminaries. A question may be raised, indeed, as to the comparative intensity of the process amongst us. But still we shall see reason to conclude, that the process itself is one and the same. Amongst the preliminary tokens, then, of the French Revolution, one was general distress. This, going to a great extent, hardened and exasperated men's minds, rendered them desperate, and prepared them for any thing. We have the same symptom amongst ourselves. The weight of general distress under which our country is at this time groaning, amongst her tradesmen, amongst her merchants, amongst her agriculturists, amongst her mechanics and the whole body of her labouring poor, amongst the population of her large towns, and especially of the metropolis, is beyond knowledge, beyond calculation, And here, also, the effects are becoming similar to those in France. None can declare or conceive what is at this time ready to break forth, in the minds and feelings of the suffering population of England.

At the commencement of the French Revolution, again, there was great financial embarrassment. How far the parallel holds good in this respect, I shall not at present attempt to shew. The time may soon come, when there will be no need.

Another point of resemblance lies in the rapid changes of the ministry. Who, that reads the history of the early period of the French Revolution, and compares it with the events of the last two years amongst ourselves, can avoid seeing the correspondence here?

I might insist on many points besides: for instance, the general corruption of manners. This was very remarkable in France; and in our own country it has of late been so rapid, that many persons are