their determination, let them not mislead them by representing these concessions as just and them acknowledge, that, in making them, they violent changes, and departing altogether f maxims. They are bound in consistency to whole system of our election laws; to adopt un and open the door of Parliament to every class, cation and without exception. "Otherwise observe the consistency of our proc one class comes up to us, and would vote as el lators, we say to them, you are too poor; you wealth which we require as a qualification: we ha of suspicion against you, but we cannot depend we will not confide a place of trust into your han having sternly driven them from our doors, we t receive into our arms those who avow themselves like the parent who should cast off one child 1 had no opportunity of proving his attachment another whom nothing but want of ability has ] being a parricide."-See p. 49 of a Pamphlet, e Admission of the Catholics into the Legislature with Constitutional Principles, and of advantage to Priesthood."-Hatchards, 1827. "IX. Whether the eulogies pronounced upon ou tion and Government, so long as the Roman Cathol land know it only by its disfavour to them, must not so many insults to their feelings, and incitements to content." ANSWER.-The fault is not in the eulogies, and feelings. We are to respect right, and not wrong. I relic feelings of Papists are insulted, and their de them correct such improper feelings, and discontent. If they leave their souls in unison and fellowship with his Protestant and a Legislator. ns made in this Consideration, felt were improper. Supposing e synonymous with the Church that Church to be now, at this mmanding part of the United s reasonable to suppose that it at the present restrictions may esent prosperity of the Church: it needs must always remain so; ust always remain so, it is not vay the securities, which have hile the friends of the Church periority. Again, the Protesis dependent upon Protestant iament; and Protestant majoarliament are dependent upon mons, who could regulate any ity to create Peers, and overof Peers: but the Protestant is dependent upon many circumd wrong motives; upon many strong changing, but always operating with the degree of deference they may s difficult, therefore, to say, as immajorities in the first Consideration, it majority of electors in England, the end that Protestant majority ng Papists, as we find them, incapa huly sw consig it is reasonable to anticipate om the character of the tinue, upon that pre equal subjection, however severe: the object of the privilege being itself a continual solicitation to their uneasy feelings." ANSWER. I cannot collect the inference Mr. Davison would draw. REMARKS. It is assumed, that when one subject sees other subjects elected to exert powers for the exertion of which he is not himself eligible, this continual solicitation to his uneasy feelings, whether right or wrong, is to be removed. It is assumed, that there can be what there never yet has been -a state of liberty to which the epithets, 'partial' and 'unequal' are not applicable in a greater or less degree. The nearest approximation to such a state of liberty that I am aware of, is in some of those states of America, which are not slave states: some, if not all, of those states which are not slave states, are yet bound to deliver up the fugitive slave to his owner. It does not appear practicable that any state should exist, in which liberty, if it existed at all, would not be partial and unequal. The most abject servitude is a modification of liberty: the wisest and only true liberty is a modification of servitude. If the general proposition implied by Mr. Davison were conceded him, he would not pursue it to all its levelling inferences: it behoves him, therefore, before he uses it as an argument, to cut it down, by particularizing the method and extent in which he thinks it applicable: and then he descends to fair and debateable ground. However valuable the privilege may be which Mr. Davison here mentions, it is evident that concessions do not conciliate good will; and have been made a continual solicitation to the uneasy feelings of the Irish Papist, in a manner dwelt upon by Sir R. H. Inglis, p. 122, 129. “XI. Whether Protestant ascendancy, and the Constitutional freedom of the Roman Catholic subjects of the empire, may not be reconciled, and exist together." ANSWER. Many think not, who, when satisfied of their mistake, will support the privileges of those who cannot then be called Papists, because they will have broken the bondage of the Pope. REMARKS. It is not wise to legislate upon what is not, but only may be : for it may not be. When this reconciliation and co-existence is proved not only possible, but probable, the Legislature may take the concessions into consideration. The burden of proof lies upon the innovators. The definition of Protestant ascendancy given by Lord Eldon, p. 6, and that cited by Sir R. H. Inglis, in the note, p. 133, are substantially the same, and, in common with every other definition that has appeared to me just, preclude Mr. Davison's proposed reconciliation in his sense of his words. He has not himself defined Protestant ascendancy: and it is difficult to understand how a Legislature, in the least degree Popish, can be called Protestant, as much as one that is not in any degree Popish. To the best of my judgment at this present time, the Constitutional freedom of the Popish subjects of this empire is reconciled, and does exist, together with Protestant ascendancy; and the Constitutional freedom of the Protestant subjects of this empire is endangered in a double degree by the measures now in progress, which, in operation, will take away certain powers and privileges from Protestants, and also give them to Papists. "XII. Whether Protestant ascendancy may not rest securely upon the Protestant succession to the Crown, great Protestant majorities in both Houses of Parliament, and the Protestant faith of the larger and more commanding part of the United Kingdom." ANSWER.-It appears not: for Protestant ascendancy is now in danger; and if Mr. Davison think it not so, he should have proved the three assumptions upon which he implies its security to rest. REMARKS. Here, as elsewhere in these Considerations, it is wisely taken for granted that the Church of England is an exact synonym with the Protestant faith; so that the former must exist as long as the latter. 66 It seems fair to consider Mr. Davison as thinking, what appears to myself very far from the truth, that assuming the numbers of our Peers at 400, and our Commons at 650, at any given time, the proportion of one Papist in ten would not endanger in either house the Protestant ascendancy in that house or out of that house but would be not only corrected, but entirely neutralized, by the nine Protestants. If the influence of the one Papist were only corrected, it would not satisfy the condition involved in the securely" of Mr. Davison's argument, for the Popish influence would be at work. And if it be, granting that it was neutralized, it is evident that the Protestants have only eight where they had ten; and that ascendancy cannot be as secure, cannot be the same in power and operation, when founded upon eight, as when founded upon ten, and that ten entirely their own. The clear water we drink might possibly be no worse for some portion of salt; and might possibly, were that portion of salt very small, deserve the name of fresh water still: but it is not thereupon advisable to put salt into our fresh water; especially when there is some danger, however slight, that the "wells of living water" may so begin to be neglected, as our taste grows more and more depraved, until they are choked up by disuse, or built over; and the only drink left for us may be the salt sea, and the “broken cisterns," which hold no pure water. That our drink then will be the universal drink, may be true; but we need not make ourselves worse off, because we are now better off, than our neighbours. It must be added, that Great Britain is the strong hold of Protestantism, and has received an important trust from the King of Kings; for the due discharge of which, her legislators are more immediately responsible: and a Popish legislator is surely less likely to discharge such a trust well, than one whose private and public thoughts, exertions, and prayers, |