ly fall into the hands of those who would abuse it, to the prejudice of liberty. From these premises it is evident, that the denial of privilege to any individual does not deprive him of liberty; and consequently, the Roman Catholics, in suing for privilege, fall into a gross misnomer of their claim, where they call it a plea for civil liberty. This error is, I fear, wilful, and, therefore, I need not expect that I shall be the means of correcting it; but that will not prevent me from exposing it, that those who are not yet misled by it, may guard against it. The Roman Catholics know that the cry of slavery is more likely to interest public feeling in their favour, than any sober address to the understanding of the empire. Many will respond to their plea, when they sue for liberty and emancipation, who would protest against their claims, were they urged under the more honest, but less imposing names, of power and privilege. 66 These, however, are the epithets under which the Roman Catholic ought to press his demands; and, should he find it his policy to decline the use of them for others more imposing, let not the public be deceived by so weak an artifice. "Roman Catholics will tell me, that, if the question were to be viewed as one of power and privilege, and not of liberty and emancipation, still, justice requires that they should not be excluded from either power or privilege, while Protestants are admitted to both. 66 "To this I would reply, that the connexion between Roman Catholics and a foreign prince makes a striking difference between them and Protestants. The Roman Catholics acknowledge the authority of a foreign potentate, but the Protestants acknowledge no power whatever beyond the precincts of British authority. "The whole force of this reply is supposed to be overthrown, by the readiness with which the Roman Catholic comes forward to disavow all temporal authority on the part of the pope, over the subjects of other princes; but, as the Church of Rome has always been notorious for her sophistry, we must not admit the arguments of any of her children, without due examination. When the Irish Roman Catholic asserts his conviction, that the pope has no temporal power over the subjects of other sovereigns, he wishes you to believe, that he has avowed a doctrine that decidedly disclaims all the assuming usurpations which have disgraced the annals of the pontificate: but this is all delusion; the same doctrine was always maintained by the Romish Church. She never asserted foreign temporal dominion to be any part of her constitution. When her haughty pontiffs were employed in dethroning sovereigns, alienating subjects, and dissolving constitutions, formed by the wisdom of ages, and consolidated by the loyalty of an affectionate and devoted people, they were neither claiming nor exercising temporal power. These arrogant assumptions of power were only acts of spiritual chastisement, exercised by a spiritual father towards the enemies of his spiritual children; and even in the mode in which these chastisements were administered, we can discover nothing but what is purely spiritual. Spiritual bulls were read by spiritual ecclesiastics to their spiritual children, at their spiritual assemblies, when spiritual indignation burst forth, under spiritual approbation, from spiritual superiors, until the best members and the noblest institutions of society fell a prey to its fury! "I am not attempting to ridicule the individuals whose sentiments I oppose. No, Sir, I am serious; and I challenge any Roman Catholic to point out to me a single bull, brief, rescript, canon, or decree, connected with the usurpations of authority to which I have alluded, which does not directly assert that these usurpations are acts of spiritual jurisdiction. "If, then, a Roman Catholic should tell me, that the pope's power is purely spiritual; and if I am to interpret his words by the usage of his own Church, from the first period of its ascendancy to the present moment, I understand that this declaration admits of as great a latitude of temporal assumption as ever distinguished the tyranny of Napoleon. I do not mean to say, that the Roman Catholic who makes the declaration which I have been considering, intends to deceive; but I must remind him, that, while he professes to be a member of the Church of Rome, he is not at liberty to make any declaration contrary to her laws; and, in the instance before us, these are decidedly against him-for, while he professes to disclaim the past iniquities of his Church, and promises that they shall not be repeated, she tells him, that they are acts of her spiritual authority, and that, as she never repealed the laws, nor disavowed the principles on which these acts were performed, she is at liberty to repeat them when circumstances offer a fair opportunity. Whether, in this case, the Church, or her individual members, should be believed, let the public determine. "There is another point connected with the Roman Catholic question, to which I shall next direct your attention, and that is, the leading principle on which the Roman Catholics ground their claims for power and privilege. The principle to which I refer is, the principle of equality of right. We are constantly told by the Roman Catholics, that, as they contribute to the support of the state equally with Protestants, they have an equal right to its privileges. So far as contributing to the support of the state confers a right to its privileges, the Roman Catholics certainly have a right to a participation of these privileges; and, were there no counteracting disqualifications, that right would be inalienable-but, as counteracting disqualifications do exist on the part of Roman Catholics, their right is suspended. But its existence is by no means denied, though a just and wise policy has prohibited its exercise. it not the same constitution which has, according to Roman Catholics, unjustly and oppressively reserved the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons for Protestants, which they say they will gladly support, in reserving the privilege of sitting on the spiritual benches of the peerage for the bishops of the Church of England? Where is consistency here? I confess I cannot see it. In short, the Roman Catholics should either take in the rights of their bishops into the principle of their complaints, or relinquish the plea of equality of privilege, and seek new ground for their claims. I know of no principle on which I could grant the Roman Catholics a seat in the House of Commons, which would not require a similar privilege for their bishops in the House of Lords. A place in the peerage for their bishops is, perhaps, too much for Roman Catholics to require at present; but I cannot avoid concluding that this must be the subject of a future demand. "There is another imposing argument often employed by Roman Catholics, when discussing the merits of their claims. We are told that there never can be an equitable representa tion of the country, until they are admitted into parliament. We are told that three-fourths of the population of Ireland have no representative in the legislature, while Roman Catholics are excluded. "Here I would remark, that there are two kinds of representation-that which represents the people, who, in this country, are chiefly Roman Catholics; and that which represents the property, which, in this instance, be "But, if it were granted that the Roman Catholics have not only a right to the privileges of the constitution, but that that right should also be exercised by them-and this is what they demand-why do they not pre-longs chiefly to Protestants. serve consistency in stating their claim? There is one privilege which they have studiously thrown in the back ground, in making their complaint. They have never ventured to claim a place in the spiritual peerage of the realm, for their hierarchy. Is this following up their plea of equality of privilege? They may tell me, that that privilege is reserved by the constitution for the hierarchy of the Church of England; but, on their own principle of equality of privilege, which is the very foundation of their claims, why would they allow a reserve in the House of Lords, which they cannot endure in the House of Commons? Is Now, a fair representation of the country would secure, at the same time, the rights of the people and the interests of property. The question then is, will these two objects be more effectually accomplished by a Roman Catholic than by a Protestant representation? The Roman Catholics will say, that it is not their intention to exclude the Protestant from the representation of the country; but where the mass of the people are Roman Catholics, this must ultimately be the case. If there are many in that body who are not qualified to vote at elections, it would not be difficult, on the princi ples of the present election laws, to tend to effect religious changes in favour of their own system; this would overthrow their claims for ever: and yet, if we do not take one of these two things for granted, no advantage can ever be anticipated from the granting of their claims. To say that union in the country would be the effect of the measure, is delusive in the extreme. Instead of union, I am convinced that division would be the result; as there would be endless contests between the numbers of the Roman Catholics, and the influence and property of the Protestants, in order to secure a predominant interest in the representation of the country. It has been said, that the Roman Catholics never could return a majo qualify them; and, in that case, the country would soon become decidedly Roman Catholic in its representatives. In the event of such an occurrence, the country would be much more partially represented than it is at present; for though Protestants could legislate with impartiality, even for Mahometans and Hindoos, yet, such is the known character of Catholicity, that its conscientious votaries cannot look with complacency on any who are not within the pale of the Church of Rome. If I am wrong in this, let the Roman Catholic shew me any standard document of his Church, that recognizes the face of a Christian in any individual who is not of his community, and I am satisfied. I must therefore insist, that Protest-rity of their community to the Imperial ants are better calculated to represent the country than Roman Catholics, as they can do more for the Roman Catholic population, than the Roman Catholic representative could in his conscience do for the Protestant property of the kingdom. "In order to obtain popularity for the claims of Roman Catholics, all ranks of the community have been taught to expect the highest and most important advantages from their being granted; but these boasted advantages I have never been able to foresee. The measure cannot possibly affect the lower orders of Roman Catholics, unless we are to suppose one of two things, and, to suppose either the one or the other, would be to injure the merits of the Roman Catholic question. We must suppose, either that Protestants are incapable of doing justice to their Roman Catholic countrymen, or that, should Roman Catholics be admitted into parliament, they intend to use their newly acquired privileges for the purpose of effecting religious changes. If we suppose the first, namely, that a Protestant legislature cannot do justice to Roman Catholic countrymen, though the Protestant religion has nothing of the anathematizing spirit of Catholicity; what shall we say of a Roman Catholic legislature, under the unrestrained influence of the comminating bigotry of the Church of Rome? Would they be more likely to act with equity towards Protestants, than Protestants are to administer justice to Roman Catholics? Were we to suppose the second, namely, that Roman Catholics in 78.-VOL. VII. parliament: but that is a point which futurity alone can determine. Certain it is, that they could and would return a majority in the Irish representation; and that would be found sufficient to keep both the parliament and the country in a state of continual disquietude, if it might not, in the end, effect many injurious changes. "The danger of unqualified emancipation is not greater when viewed in connexion with legislation, than when we consider it in connexion with the executive government of the country. By granting what the Roman Catholics require, they will obtain admission to all the offices of the executive government, at least they will be eligible to them; and I have no doubt they will make every use of their eligibility, in order to obtain the offices to which it leads. This is very natural; and, were the Roman Catholic claims granted, I think their desire of office would be very proper; but, let us consider for a moment, what the result must be, were this desire accomplished. Were the lord chancellor a Roman Catholic, what would be the consequence of such an appointment? This may be ascertained by considering the vast amount of authority connected with the office. "The chancellor is an officer of the highest authority in the empire. He takes precedence of every temporal lord, and is, ex officio, a privy counsellor, and, by prescription, prolocutor of the House of Lords. He has the appointment of all magistrates, and is the guardian of all minors, as well as the visitor of all public institutions; 2 M besides his official jurisdiction in the Court of Chancery. "Now, if this great officer were a Roman Catholic, all his authority must, of course, be employed to promote the interests of Catholicity. "We should then have Roman Catholic magistrates-Roman Catholic guardians appointed to rear our Protestant minors for the church of Rome -besides having our national councils and the decisions in Chancery, biassed, if not carried, by Roman Catholic influence. right; he would prove his determination to act from principle, but he would, at the same time, prove that he was unfit to be the highest officer under a Protestant crown. When popery prevailed in the British empire, the Roman Catholics were well aware of the importance of the chancellorship, and, consequently, they so ordered matters, that the lord chancellor was usually an ecclesiastic. "The remarks I have made on the office of chancellor, will apply with equal force to officers in the inferior courts of the empire-such as chief justices of the courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, each of which has an extensive jurisdiction. But, lest I should be tedious, I shall leave those concerned to specify more particularly the influence which Roman Catholie emancipation would be likely to exercise over these valuable bulwarks of British jurisprudence. I shall only observe, that the man who would commit these offices of trust and authority into the hands of Roman Catholics, is either blind to the true interests of his country, or willing to betray them into hands where they cannot be safe. "The last objection which I shall mention to the full emancipation of Roman Catholics, is founded on the solemn national compacts, by which the crown is secured to a succession of Protestant kings. “I may be told, that the chancellor would always prove himself a man of principle, and therefore be incapable of acting thus. But I could not consider him a man of principle, if he did not act thus. It must not be forgotten, that the Church of Rome has always maintained, that no human being, who dies without the pale of her communion, ever can obtain a place in the upper sanctuary. Should Roman Catholics pretend to deny this, or, rather, should they attempt to conceal it, I refer again to the test, the standard documents of their own Church; and, if any one of these is found to deny what I here assert, I shall retract my assertion. Since, then, this is the doctrine of the Church of Rome, what should we expect from a Roman Catholic chancellor, of principle? As he is termed the keeper of the king's conscience, could we suppose that he would administer Protestant advice to his master, while he knew that Protestant principles form the soul of the man who maintains them for endless perdition? In the appointment of guardians for our Protestant minors, would he appoint for "The oath referred to is, in one the infant in question, a Protestant, part, as follows:-'I will, to the utwho would rear him a fire-brand of most of my power, maintain the Prohell, in preference to a Roman Catho- testant religion, as by law established; lic, who would rear him an heir of and preserve to the bishops and clerglory? In the appointment of magis-gy, and to the churches committed to trates, would he appoint Protestants, who would maintain and promote the kingdom of Satan, in preference to Roman Catholics, who would advance and vindicate the interests of the kingdom of God? "I think it is easy to ascertain how a Catholic of principle would act in these cases. He would do every thing within the sphere of his influence and authority to promote the cause of Catholicity, and, in doing so, I am certain he would do what he conceived to be "The coronation oath is so explicit in support of the present order of things in the ecclesiastical part of the constitution, that I cannot conceive how any British monarch can consent to admit into his councils any body of men connected with the see of Rome. their care, all such rights and privileges as by law do or shall appertain to them, or any of them.' This oath was solemnly confirmed, and its object more explicitly defined, by the Act of Union between England and Scotland. It was ratified also, a second time, by the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. Now, can it be said, that the king is fulfilling the terms of these great national compacts, or the terms of his own oath, by which these compacts became the pillars of his throne, when he is opening the gates of the constitution to the members of a community, whose every religious principle is wrought up into sworn enmity to the Church which the compacts alluded to were framed to support? "The facility with which Roman Catholics dispense with all these documents now, affords a specimen of what will be their conduct hereafter, with regard to other documents, not less solemn in their ratification, or less important in their character, should they obtain the object of their present wishes. "While Roman Catholics therefore submit their consciences to a foreign power, and form their principles, whether civil or ecclesiastical, under the influence of a foreign court, I cannot see how the British monarch can, consistently either with the religious or political principles of the constitution, admit them to a full participation of the powers and privileges of the state. I have expressed myself the more decidedly on this subject, because I conceive the maintenance of the British constitution to be intimately connected with the safety of Europe. As the constitution now stands, we have seen the effects which its energies, when called forth, are fitted to produce. It has maintained the balance of power in Europe, and given peace to the world. Whatever, therefore, would, either directly or indirectly, tend to its dismemberment, should be made an object of watchful jealousy by every lover of his country. "As it is not my intention to trouble your readers with any observations on this important subject in future, I cannot conclude without assuring you, that the remarks I have made have not been dictated by a spirit of antipathy to Roman Catholics. I wish them every personal and relative prosperity; and, so far as the security of the glorious constitution, under which I have the happiness to live, can be maintained, I wish them the enjoyment of every political privilege; -but, so long as I view their religious principles in the light in which they have always appeared to me, I must raise my voice, however feeble, against their holding the reins of a Protestant government. While their religion is the offspring of the Vatican, I could never repose with confidence under their authority. But could I direct the Roman Catholic to the scriptures I would there shew him a religion that would remove all my suspicions--a religion divine in its origin, simple in its doctrines, inoffensive in its precepts, sublime in its prospects, and diffusing, by its moral influence, the spirit of a most endearing philanthropy. "I would not direct him to Rome, but I would lead him to Jerusalem, and there, on the top of Calvary, would solicit his attention, not to the thunders of the Vatican announcing its anathemas, but to the dying attestation of the Prince of peace, proclaiming the reconciliation of the guilty by the merits of his blood. I would invite him to listen, while the expiring thief presents his petition, Lord, remember me, when thou comest to thy kingdom,' and while the Redeemer returns his gracious response, This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.' "The Saviour's testimony was a proclamation of his own transcendent merits, as the only refuge for the guilty; the thief's religion was a believing reception of the testimony proclaimed. What a contrast is this to the complex policy, to the worldly wisdom, of Catholicity! "Let the Church of Rome again resume her former arrogance; let her once more draw the sword which she has so often bathed in the blood of the martyrs; let her rekindle her ancient fires; let her recall her miraculous powers, and rouse the shades of the victims she has immolated, to sing the glory of her triumphs; let her multiply her altars as the stars of heaven, and her worshippers as the sand on the sea-shore; let her clothe her pontiff with the majesty of the earth, and build his throne on the graves of his enemies; and let her bring the record of such a series of wonders, written with a pen from the wing of a seraph, to the dying bed of a spirit, before whom the awful glory and near approach of eternity have eclipsed all the attractions of timewhat consolation could such a document then inspire? A potent Church, a dignified priesthood, and a splendid ritual, may form the basis of a delusive confidence in time, but their importance vanishes on the advance of eternity.-I shall conclude by exhorting |