Supplement to No. 21, Vol. Vill-Price 10d

quences the safety and independence of e of candid investigation. When I hear it asserted, Sir, that the privileges asked for by empire, be ultimately settled on such frivothe Catholics, are to them, but a trifling lous grounds, I cannot help exclaiming, farewell to the justice and liberality of Priconsideration, which will extend only to a tain!-But, Sir, I do not despair, of seeing the small proportion of their body; and at the delusion, which clouds the understandings same time, that a compliance with this petition, will make them, not a part of the of many of my countrymen, completely removed: I have too good an opinion of the state, but the state itself; when I am told, that the King and his official advisers, should English character, to imagine, that it will be be of the same religion, though I find per- ever disgraced by gross and obstinate error. To correct mistakes, to check misrepresensous, who, by education and habit, are detation, to tear off the disguise thrown over cidedly hostile to the church of England, admitted not only to parliament, but to places the plainest facts, and hold up to the inspec of trust; when I am informed that the no- tion of my country, the fair form of truth, bility and gentry of Ireland, have lost all are the only objects of my humble endeainfluence over the lower classes of people, vours; and as my views are fair and honourremarks my and yet, if the petition be granted, that we able, it may be presumed, that shall have a catholic legislature, and a prowill be received with the same condour, with which they are written.-It is, Sir, a testant King; when I hear the most solemn matter of curious observation to review the professions of encouraging toleration to its fullest extent, and yet observe a determina-leading arguments which were employed by tion to exclude four millions of my fellowsubjects, not only from places of trust, but from the right of representation, and this not on political, but religious grounds; when I consider these positions, and many others, which your parliamentary report supplies, I am amazed, lost, and confounded, amidst such a series of inconsistencies, absurdities, and contradictions. From this temper of mind, I cannot easily recover, by farther observing, that in your reported speeches of these politicians, facts are often misrepresented and distorted; sophism supplies the place of argument, and declamation that of sound sense.

The boldest and most extravagant assertions, are there made, apparently with no other view; than to raise a prejudice in the public mind, against the claim of the petitioners; the most animated appeals are addressed to the passions for the same interested view, garbled and mutilated extracts are given, from old councils and musty records; even idle stories, which a man of sense would be ashamed to relate in a polite circle, are told with an air of serious contern. Such, Sir, is the general view, exhibited in your report, of the sentiments and speeches of most of those, who oppos ed the Catholic Claims. In all this, where are we to find, any vestige of that political wisdom, which we expect in statesmen of eminence? where is to be discovered even that share of moderation, which these distinguished personages affected to display? I must own, that I read your report of these proceedings, with a feeling of shame, for the injured honour of my country; and if the event of the debate, is to be considered as the final decision of this momentous concera; if a question, involving in its conse

the

opposers

of the Catholic Claims, to disappoint the hopes of the petitioners. The conduct of those, who bore an active part in the revolution of 1688, the principles ou which that event was accomplished, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement, the conditions on which the present family holds the throne; all these topics are introduced into the debate in the most solemn and affecting manner; as if a modest and respectful petition to parliament, were directed against its authority, and tended to subyert the constitution of Britain. It is to me. a matter of the greatest astonishment, how men liberal, and, in many respects, well informed, can give such a distorted representation of a plain fact. If the principles of the revolution, and the conduct of its leaders had been hostile to the civil claims of the Catholics, what induced King William, after he had been seated on the throne of England, and taken the present coronation oath, to offer the Irish Catholics before the battle of Aghrim, the free exercise of their religion; half the churches of the kingdom; half the employments civil and military too if they pleased, and even a moiety of their ancient properties. (See a letter of Sir Charles Wogan to Dean Swift, quoted in the Hon. H. A. Dillon's excellent Strictures, p. 27.) This offer was rejected with scorn; but the Irish were afterwards reduced to sign the capitulation of Limerick; and, by the articles of that memorable treaty, were suffered to enjoy more than they at present demand. (See Smollett Vol. IV. Edit. 4. B. 8. c. 3.) They were placed in the situation, in which they had stood before the enactment of penal laws. The violation of those articles, occasioned by the spirit of the

pow

vernnient, the habitual sentiments, the prac tices, the modes of education, peculiar to the adherents of these two churches, are so different, that light and darkness are scarcely more opposite. Yet amidst this di versity of religious belief, not only is our parliament filled with the Scottish presbyterians, but the first offices of the state are

times, is a foul blot on the honour of England. To the credit however of King William, and his able minister Lord Somers, it should not be forgotten, that they made every effort, which the spirit of the times would admit, to enforce the execution of the articles of Limerick.-As to the Bill of Rights, there is not in that celebrated declaration, a single word, from which the small-open to that class of men. The noble lord est objection can be raised against the prayer of the petition, It is on the contrary incontestably true, that the spirit and even the letter, are friendly to the cause of the Catholics. The object of the bill of rights is, to prevent the encroachments of the prerogative, to secure the er of the legislature, and to protect the liberty of the subject. In the conclusion of this memorable instrument it is said, that all the liberties asserted in this declaration, are the ancient and indubitable rights of the people of this kingdom. If, Sir, these words have any meaning, and I presume that they are intended to convey the ideas which they express, on what principle of stice, honour, or policy, can four millions of our fellow subjects, be debarred from the enjoyment of those advantages, which are declared to be the ancient and indubitable rights of the people of this kingdom. I must therefore be allowed to maintain, that the violators of the bill of rights, are not those, who ask for an equal participation of civil advantages with their fellow subjects; but those, who pertinaciously exclude one fourth of the united kingdom, from even virtual representation in that parliament, of which the rights are secured by the celebrated act under consideration. But it is asserted, that by the act of settlement the King must necessarily be of the Protestant religion, and that it is a direct consequence of this limitation that his immediate advisers should be of the same persuasion. "What," says a noble lord could be more preposterous in a government of law where the law is above the crown, than to compel the King under the pain of forfeiture to be of the established church, and to allow the ministers, the chan. cellor, the judges of the land to be of any religion the most hostile to the establishment." (Lord Hawkesbury's speech on the Catholic petition Vol 4th Parl. Debates p. 670). However preposterous such a circumstance may appear to the noble lord, it happens unfortunately for his lordship's argument, that this wonderful phenomenon frequently appears, What, let me ask, Sir, can be more hostile to the episcopalian church of England, than the presbitery of Scotland. The ideas concerning church go

may, without any painful effort of memory, bring to his recollection a very considerable number of this description of persons, who, in the present reign, have been the immediate advisers and official servants of the crown. If his lordship alleges, that these persous qualified themselves for their situations, by complying with the provisions of the test act; my answer is, that he must easily know the contrary to be the fact. For why does he, as a member of the legis lature, annually concur to grant a bill of indemnity to all, who have not obeyed the law in this particular, if its provisions were' adhered to? Why does he contribute to the annual suspension of this celebrated act, if those in power are willing to conform to its injunctions, and if it be so necessary, as some would imagine, to the existence of the church establishment. The fact is undoubted, that the King and his advisers are frequently not of the same religion; and consequently the elaborate reasoning of his lordship falls to the ground. Still the noble lord asks, if a Protestant King should be surrounded by Catholic counsellors; and what security there would then be, that the church would not be endangered? In real truth, Sir, this question is too trifling to meet with a serious reply. For it presupposes, that the Catholies ask for every official situation under government, to the exclusion of his Majesty's Protestant subjects, in order to introduce every species of innovation in church and state. But let the noble lord reflect, that if the prayer of the petition, should be complied with, his Majesty's choice of his ser vants would be perfectly unfettered; and whatever number of Catholics night be introduced into the cabinet, they would want both the inclination and the power, to entertain designs hostile to church or state. For under the circumstances of a Protestant King, and a Protestant parliament, an adviser of his Majesty, professing the Catholic religion, must certainly unite in his character, the extreme of folly and insanity, if he were to embark in any plan inimical to the established order of things. He must be sensible that, by such a proceeding, he would not only occasion his own immediate removal and disgrace, but that his conduct

would lead to the perpetual exclusion, from any share of political power, of all with whom he acted. A Protestant parliament, a Protestant King, and the immediate interest of the Catholics themselves, form the best and most permanent security against the s pposed danger-After what has been said, it becomes almost unnecessary, to notice a singular observation in a speech ascribed to a noble lord." It is well worthy of remark, " says his lordship," that the whole (meaning the petition) bears a strong resemblance to the memorable declaration of James the Seni, in 1887 for the liberty of conscience” (Lord Auckland's speech ibidem p. 823.) His lordship is ingenious, in finding out on

accurate resemblance between the two in

го

in this respect, in common with a large mass of his Majesty's subjects, who enjoy the full benefit of the constitution. Not even the Protestant of the church of England is called upon to qualify himself for places of trust and emolument, by admitting the King's supremacy in ecclesiastical matters, but merely by abjuring all foreign authority. The obligation is of a negative, not of a positive, nature, The only question therefore to be decided is, whether this foreign jurisdiction admited by the Catholic be of such a description, as to interfere with the rights of the Sovereign in civil concerns; to affect the liberties and independence of the country. On this important point the most ample satisfaction has been already given by the Cathics of the united kingdom. Previously to former grants, they, by a solemn oath, declared that their obedience to the Pope relates to spiritual concerns only, without any relation to temporal power, right, or jurisdiction, which can, in any manner, interfere with the claims of the Sovereign and the country. This their solemn declaration is perfectly conformable to the sentiments and belief of every Catholic in the universe; it has been confirmed by the unanimous answer of six foreign universities, who condescended to solve difficulties, which were raised by the present Minister. After this what more am

struments; but a great and essential point ́of distinction seems to have escaped his penetration. James published this declaration without the authority of parliament, and admitted his Catholic subjects to the principal offices of the state in defiance of the existing laws. The present modest and respectful petition is made to parliament, for the purpose of obtaining civil advantages. In one instance the authority of the great council of the nation is superceded; in the other it is formally recognised. In common candour, this difference should have been observed; but the manner, in which the comparison is introduced, evidently shews that the remark was made to render the petition unpopular.ple satisfaction can even bigotry demand? "It is not unworthy of remark, Sir, that those, Is it not a notorious fact that the Pope's spiwho talk most of the glorious revolation, un- ritual power is admitted by two-thirds of derstand least of its nature and spirit. Per- Europe, by whole Kingdoms and Empires secution of the Catholics, even in the more as jealous of their independance as Great gentle form of withholding from them civil Britain can possibly be? has it not been forrights, was certainly not in the contemplation mally recognized, in the face of the whole of King William, and his leading advisers; world, by a man, who not only wishes to such a motion may be very innocently en- unite in his own person the supreme power tertained by the vulgar and illiterate part of of his empire, but to subject all Europe to mankind; by an honest alderman, or a his ambitious sway? Is not this spiritual talking pastry cook; but I am sorry to see supremacy acknowledged by Catholics residthat it ever entered the mind of a distinguishing in other Protestant states of Europe, ed member of the British legislature. The main spring of that great event, was evidently a determination to preserve inviolate the constitution of this country, and particularly | to secure the parliament from the invasion of the prerogative. Of this fact, the Bill of Rights is an unexceptionable voucher.-But, Sir, it appears from the speeches of the opposers of the motion for a committee, that the Catholic is not entitled to any farther concession, because he refuses to admit the King's supremacy in ecclesiastical concerns, and obeys a foreign jurisdiction. The mannet, in which this objection is stated, clearly "démonstrates a want of candour. If the Cathole rejects the King's supremacy, he acts,

without affording the smallest uneasiness to the civil power? But, say these sagacious politicians, the power of the Pope, though professedly spiritual, cannot in many instances be separated from civil concerns. Marriage, they observe, is contracted in different circumstances from those prescribed by the laws of the country. When any doubt exists on the subject, an appeal is made to a foreign power. This mode of reasoning is truly admirable, and deserves to be held up to the wonder of surrounding nations, as a specimen of what may sometimes be expected from a British Senator, After a line of demarcation has been drawn by Government between the spiritual power of