You admit this bill did not compel the King to elect Catholic
officers, but only gave him the option of doing so if he pleased;
but you add, that the King was right in not trusting such dangerous
power to himself or his successors. Now you are either to suppose
that the King for the time being has a zeal for the Catholic
establishment, or that he has not. If he has not, where is the
danger of giving such an option? If you suppose that he may be
influenced by such an admiration of the Catholic religion, why did
his present Majesty, in the year 1804, consent to that bill which
empowered the Crown to station ten thousand Catholic soldiers in any
part of the kingdom, and place them absolutely at the disposal of
the Crown? If the King of England for the time being is a good
Protestant, there can be no danger in making the Catholic ELIGIBLE
to anything: if he is not, no power can possibly be so dangerous as
that conveyed by the bill last quoted; to which, in point of peril,
Lord Howick's bill is a mere joke. But the real fact is, one bill
opened a door to his Majesty's advisers for trick, jobbing, and
intrigue; the other did not.

Besides, what folly to talk to me of an oath, which, under all
possible circumstances, is to prevent the relaxation of the Catholic
laws! for such a solemn appeal to God sets all conditions and
contingencies at defiance. Suppose Bonaparte was to retrieve the
only very great blunder he has made, and were to succeed, after
repeated trials, in making an impression upon Ireland, do you think
we should hear any thing of the impediment of a coronation oath? or
would the spirit of this country tolerate for an hour such
ministers, and such unheard-of nonsense, if the most distant
prospect existed of conciliating the Catholics by every species even
of the most abject concession? And yet, if your argument is good