have been supposed that its reward would have been secure, and that our
great deliverer would have been allowed to pursue his schemes for the
liberty of Europe, if not without opposition, at least without
hostility. But the old Royalist party had been surprised and confounded,
not broken or altogether overcome. They rallied--some from pure, others
from selfish and sordid motives--under the banner to which they had been
so long accustomed; and, though ultimately baffled, they were able to
place in jeopardy, and in some measure to fling away the advantages
which the blood and treasure of England had been prodigally lavished to
obtain.

The conquest of Ireland was followed by that terrible code against the
Catholics, the last remnant of which is now obliterated from our
statute-book. It is singular that this savage proscription should have
been the work of the party at whose head stood the champion of
toleration. The account which Mr Burke has given of it, and for the
accuracy of which he appeals to Bishop Burnet, does not entirely
coincide with the view taken by Dr Arnold. Mr Burke says--

"A party in this nation, enemies to the system of the
Revolution, were in opposition to the government of King
William. They knew that our glorious deliverer was an enemy to
all persecution. They knew that he came to free us from slavery
and Popery, out of a country where a third of the people are
contented Catholics, under a Protestant government. He came,
with a part of his army composed of those very Catholics, to
overset the power of a Popish prince. Such is the effect of a
tolerating spirit, and so much is liberty served in every way,
and by all persons, by a manly adherence to its own principles.
Whilst freedom is true to itself, every thing becomes subject