testants have a right to possess, but they ought to possess it, not by the exclusion of their fellow subjects from a participation of civil liberty, but in virtue of their superior numbers and property. Sir, in the provision for the royal autho rity being exclusively Protestant, the Protestant interest has another great and wise security for the maintenance of its ascendancy. The admission of the Catholics to their civil rights will be entirely co-existent with the maintenance of the Protestant ascendancy; and, by granting that admission, you will strengthen and fortify the whole empire. To grant the Catholics their privileges, will be to iden petitioners assert, that the Catholics want power, in order to make laws for the Protestant church. No, they only desire, as I have before stated, not to be taxed without their own consent-not to be tried by partizans, nor juries called by partizans. Their prayer is, that the Protestant church should be governed, not by Catholics, but by Protestants; for the Catholics know, and the Protestants know, that under any circumstances, and after any concessions, the majority in this House must be Protestants, and that, by that majority, the laws for the Protestant church must be made. But the members of the Protestant church, who have petitioned us, desire to make laws exclusively for the Ca-tify the people; for it is by granting them tholic church. They wish to controul the conscience of the Catholic, as well as to bind him in other respects. They are willing to receive the tithes of the Catholic labour, but they desire to exclude the Catholic from a participation in the blessings of the constitution. Their argument is this, the persons who regulate the Protestant Church should be of that Church.' Why, then, all the Scotch members of this House ought be sent away. All who do not profess to hold the doctrines of the church of England ought to be sent away. The tendency of the argument of these gentlemen is, that we ought to have a church government. But ours is not a church government, it is a representative government: it in cludes all classes, all religions, all descriptions of persons, except the Catholic and the churchman. The principle on which these gentlemen insist will prove fatal. If you confine the enjoyments of the coustitution to the limits of the church of England, you will endanger the empire; if you extend it to all religious persuasions, you will place the empire in a state of security. The parliament is justly called imperial. It is not a partizan. The Catholics of Ireland make a part of the third estate. Is it not so? Is not the great body of electors in Ireland Catholic? Does it not follow that a part, and that no inconsiderable portion, of the third estate is already Catholic? And can we, for a moment, suppose that this is incompatible with the genuine principles of the British constitution? But the fact is, bir, that the Protestants will and must have the ascendancy in the state. The great population of the empire is Protestant-the great property of the empire is Protestant. This ascendancy the Pro their rights that you must expect to identify them, and not by keeping them in chains. To grant the Catholics their privileges, maintaining the just ascendancy of the Protestants, will be much more effectually to support the state, and much more effectually to support the church, than either can be supported by a monopoly of power, and without that identification of the people of the two countries, which such a measure alone can insure. Superficial, indeed, are the arguments of the opposers of emancipation. They think that the admission of five or six individuals (such men as lord Fingal, and other enlightened members of the Catholic body) into parliament, will be productive of injurious consequences, but, to the alienation of four or five millions of persons out of parliament they attach no importance! A right hon. gentleman has talked of the pains and penalties which, as he thinks, were justly inflicted on the Catholics at the time of the Revolution. They were not, however, the effects of the Revolution, but took place long after the reign of queen Anne. As to the exclusion of the Catholics from political power, at the period of the Revolution, that was not an original idea at that period, but arose out of and was founded on the fabricated plot of Titus Oates, the severities occasioned by which were even mitigated at the Revolution. And will parliament make the madness of that time the rule by which the liberty of their fellow-subjects is to be regulated at all times? But,' say the Anti-Catholics, toleration in England is greater than in any other country.' Sir, I know very well, that the principles of every established church are in some de Sir, the Catholics of the present day have evinced their principles by their oaths. They have abjured every criminal tenet attributed to their ancestors. In taking an oath, framed by a Protestant, enacted by a Protestant parliament, and going into the minutiae of rejection, the Catholics have acquitted themselves, by a solemn obligation, of the principles formerly imputed to them. They nevertheless, maintain, that there is no difference of opinion between them and their ancestors, because they maintain, that their ancestors were charged un gree hostile to toleration: there is scarcely | quote Catholic writers, who have said that any church which will tolerate so exten- the fathers and they hold the same opisively and liberally as a wise parliament nions; and on this the Anti-Catholics ought to do; but when it is maintained found a monstrous mis-statement. that toleration in England exceeds that of any other country-that it is perfect-I must declare my opinion to be the reverse. Abroad, in Catholic countries, persons professing a difference of religious sentiments, enjoy, not only toleration, but qualification at home, in a Protestant country, persons professing a difference of religious sentiments are not only disqualified, but hardly tolerated. Abroad, sectaries enjoy toleration, united with qualification-here, they have a scanty toleration, united with pains and penalties. In France, for instance, no man is dis-justly with entertaining criminal opinions. qualified on account of his religious opi- This defence of their ancestors has been nions. In Hungary, toleration and quali- converted into a crimination of themfication are completed. I will read an selves; and they are suspected of mainedict issued by the Hungarian diet, intaining doctrines, an adherence to which 1791. It declares," that all persons shall they deny on oath. have free exercise of their respective re ligions, with full liberty to build churches, erect steeples, found schools, form churchyards, &c. without impediment." So much for religious toleration! Now for civil qualification. The edict proceeds to say, that "the public charges, offices, and honours, high or low, great and small, shall be given to native Hungarians, who deserve well of their country, and who are hold without any It is said, by the Anti-Catholics, that the Catholics have been, and are always the same. The Catholics allow that a true Catholic was and is always the same; but they add, that a criminal Catholic is not a true one. "But the Catholics are enemies to the Church of England." Believe me, Sir, it is a very hasty and imprudent assertion; it is one calculated to make the Catholics that which they are regard to their religious persuasions not-enemies to the Church of England. This is the declaration of a Popish diet, This proceeds from one of those nations which, according to the Anti-Catholics, has no idea of toleration, as compared with this country! This Catholic government gives not only toleration, but qualification, and the Catholic church acquiesces in the gift. We give toleration without qualification; and we accompany that toleration with pains and penalties. The AntiCatholic petitions require, that those pains and penalties should be continued. The petitioners seem totally ignorant of the real state of things. They declare generally (mayors and corporations) that the principles of the Catholics are the same as they were at the worst of times. They state, and they state it after the demolition of the Vatican-after the prostration of the inquisition-after the fall of the Pope, that religious toleration and that civil qualification ought not to be granted, which is allowed in every great country in Europe, England excepted. They assume that to be true in argument, which is false in fact. They (VOL. XXIV.) If it proceeds from high authority, it might be seriously dangerous; but coming as it does, from persons, however respectable, whose opinions are not entitled to very serious consideration, it may be comparatively innoxious. Sir, why should the Catholics be enemies of the church of England? If the endeavours of the Catholic to obtain his civil liberties be opposed by the church of England, then it is not the Catholic which is the enemy of the church of England, but the church of England which is the enemy of the Catholic. What is it, Sir, which is to make a Catholic an enemy to the church of England? Is it his doctrine? Is it the doctrine of penance, of absolution, of extreme unction? The affirmative would subject the affirmer to the most just ridicule and scorn. So much for the hostility of the Catholics to the church! But,' it is said further, the Catholics are enemies to the state.' [Some honourable members on the other side of the House observed, that they were so in principle?')-In principle! Sir, I deny it. How are principles to be ascertained but (3 C) by actions? If they are enemies to the state, let us go into the committee; and let those who allege that the Catholics are enemies to the state, support their allegations by evidence. If they plead the canous of the council of Lateran, of Constance, of Trent, I will produce authority of a much higher description; I will adduce the testimony of the parliament of the united empire. I will quote the thanks of that parliament unanimously voted to armies, of which a large component part was Catholic, for the most important service rendered to the state. Sir, the opponents of the Catholics go on to assert, that they are enemies to li. berty. What! the authors of Magna Charta enemies to liberty! And have the Catholics shewn no other attachment to liberty? I say that the very Declaration of Rights, which, on the motion of the right hon. gentleman opposite, was read by the clerk, sufficiently shews the attachment of the Catholic to liberty: for what does that declaration? It does not enact new laws, but it re-affirms those which the declarers found already established; and by whom were they established? Who were their authors? The Catholics-those alleged enemies of the church-those alleged enemies of the state-those alleged enemies of liberty! Why did the legislature, at the period of the Revolution, go no further than to declare the law? Because the Roman Catholics had not only been friendly to liberty, but had established the principles of liberty by statute, that the wisdom of the reformers could not exceed their distinct enactments.. Sir, what is the amount of the charge now preferred against the Catholics? That they are governed and swayed by all those canons which, they contend, have been grossly misinterpreted; but which, however interpreted, they have forsworn. They are accused of maintaining the deposing power of the Pope-of cherishing regicidal principles, and of asserting the right of perjury. On these assumptions, and in this enlightened age, the Catholic is not only not admitted to the constitution, but formally excluded from it. Sir, I defy those who are hostile to Catholic concession to support their positions by any thing but by these canons -nugatory, contemptible, obsolete, and denied by the Catholics themselves. What were the answers made by the Universities of Salamanca, Paris, Alcala, | Louvain, Douay, and St. Omers, to the questions put to them? "1. Has the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence w batsoever, within the realm of England? "2. Can the Pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his Majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever? 3. Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics may break faith with Protestants, or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transaction, either of a public or a private nature?" They were asked whether the Pope had a deposing power, and whether it was a tenet of the Catholic religion to hold no faith with heretics? Sir, on the best authorities, I can assert that those learned bodies were disposed not to deny, but to ridicule, the opinions imputed to themnot to reject, but to scorn them. They, however, answered, that the pope had no such deposing power, and that, as to the supposition that the Catholics would keep no faith with Protestants, they were al most ashamed to say any thing on the subject. Sir, a book has been alluded to, used by the students at Maynooth; and it has been adduced as decisive evidence, not only of the criminal principles of the Catholics, but as a proof of the criminal principles, which the posterity of the existing Catholics were doomed to imbibe, by its being rendered available to the purpose of their education. These criminal principles are the authority of the Pope to depose royal authority; the consequent regicidal disposition of the Catholics, and the tenet that no faith is to be kept with heretics. The work I allude to, Sir, is called Tractatus de Ecclesia; and, with the permission of the House, I will read several passages to shew how baseless their assertions are. [The right hon. gentleman here read some extracts from the book in question. They stated that Christ had not granted to St. Peter direct nor indirect power over the temporal con. cerns of kingdoms; that, by the kings and emperors of states alone, the supreme temporal establishment of them ought to be held. That the declarations of pontiffs were not to be considered as infallible, nor as points of faith which it was neces, sary to salvation to believe.] Here, then, Sir, is a book which has been traduced as a concentration of evils; and it appears that it enjoins principles, directly the reverse of those which have been ascribed to it. When such are the misrepresentations which are circulated, the result is not surprising. But there is another work of higher authority to which I wish to refer. I mean the Common Prayer Book of the Catholics. [The right hon. gentleman here quoted several passages from the Catholic Prayer Book; the tenor of which was, to declare that no general council, much less a papal consistory, had the power of deposing sovereigns, or absolving subjects from their allegiance; -that the Pope had no authority, direct or indirect, over temporal affairs;-that, notwithstanding any papal interference, all Catholic subjects were bound to defend their king and country, at the hazard of their lives and fortunes, even against the Pope himself, should he invade their country; and, that the alledged duty of Catholic subjects, to murder their princes, if excommunicated for heresy, was impious and execrable, being contrary to all the known laws of God and nature.] I have another instance with which I shall beg leave to trouble the House, and which will go to complete the chain of proofs which shew the Catholics are not without principles of allegiance, and which will acquit them of every charge and imputation on their loyalty. I mean the oaths which are prescribed to be taken by Catholics by the 31st and 33d of the King. The oath of the 31st, which must be taken by Roman Catholics in England, runs as follows: “I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion. "I, A. B. do swear, that I do abjure, contemn, and detest, as unchristian and impious, the principle that it is lawful to murder, destroy, or any ways injure any persons whatsoever, for or under pretence of being a heretic and I do declare solemnly before God, that I believe, that no act, in itself unjust, immoral, or wicked, can ever be justified or excused by or under pretence or colour, that it was done either for the good of the church, or in obedience to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever I also declare, that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, neither am I hereby required to believe or profess, that the Pope is infallible, or that I am bound to obey any order, in its own na ture immoral, though the Pope, or any ecclesiastical power, should issue or direct such order, but, on the contrary, I hold, that it would be sinful in me to pay any respect or obedience thereto : I further declare, that I do not believe, that any sin whatever committed by me can be forgiven, at the mere will of any Pope, or any person or persons whatsoever; but that sincere sorrow for past sins, a firm and sincere resolution to avoid future guilt, and to atone to God, are previous and indispensable requisites to establish a well-founded expectation of forgiveness; and that any person who receives absolu tion, without those previous requisites, so far from obtaining thereby any remission of his sins, incurs the additional guilt of violating a sacrament; and I do swear, that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement and arrangement of property in this country, as established by the laws now in being; I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure, any intention to subvert the present Church establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its stead; and I do hereby solemnly swear, that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government in this kingdom.So help me God." But the oath of the 33d of the King, which is particular to Ireland, I beg the House to pay every attention to: "I, A. B. do hereby declare, that I do profess the Roman Catholic religion. "I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to his Majesty, King George the 3d, and him will defend to the utmost of my power, against all conspiracies and attempts whatsoever that shall be made against his person, crown, or dignity: and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against him or them and I do faithfully promise, to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown; which succession, by an act, entitled, An Act for the further limitation of the crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject,' is, and stands limited to the princess Sophia, electress and duchess dowager of Hanover, and the heirs of her body, being Protestants; hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto | thor, would he be suffered to produce the any other person claiming or pretending canons in his defence? Would my lord a right to the crown of these realms: and Ellenborough or any other judge, suffer I do swear, that I do reject, and detest, as him to extenuate the offence, by citing an unchristian and impious position, that the decrees of the council of Constance, it is lawful to murder or destroy any per- or the council of Trent? No! But the son or persons whatsoever, for, or under author might urge in his defence, that he pretence of, their being heretics or infi- had no particular meaning injurious to dels; and also that unchristian and im- lord Fingal or sir Thomas Bellew, but pious principle, that faith is not to be kept only to four millions of his Majesty's Cawith heretics or infidels: and I further tholic subjects. But there is another redeclare, that it is not an article of my futation of such a charge against the Cafaith, and that I do renounce, reject, and tholics-the impossibility of its truth: it abjure the opinion, that princes, excom. amounts to such a pitch of moral turpi municated by the Pope and council, or tude, as would burst asunder the bonds of any authority of the see of Rome, or by civil and social intercourse; it would be any authority whatsoever, may be deposed a dissolution of the elements of society, or murdered by their subjects, or any per- and of the elastic principle which binds son whatsoever: and I do promise, that I man to man. It is not merely unfounded, will not hold, maintain, or abet any such but monstrous; it is not in the nature of opinion, or any other opinions, contrary man, but in the nature of sects, which, to what is expressed in this declaration: when they contend for power, charge and I do declare, that I do not believe each other with what they know to be that the Pope of Rome, or any other fo- false. reign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm: and I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words of this oath, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation whatever, and without any dispensation already granted by the Pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, or any person whatever, and without thinking that I am, or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the Pope, or any other person or authority whatsoever, shall dispense with, or annul the same, or declare that it was null or void.--So help me God." But there is yet another answer, which some of those learned divines, who have acted so conspicuous a part of late, would do well to make themselves more familiar with, before they persist in such monstrous charges against their Catholic brethrenthe Christian religion. I speak of the account which they give of that religion when they pray-and then I will give their account of the same religion when they petition. In their prayer they say that their Redeemer was sent as an atonement for the whole human race, but in their petitions they say that Christians in general are monsters. They add, that the Deity has been deaf to all the nations of the earth except this; and that here the knowledge of the true religion is confined to certain colleges and corporations-that this is done by certain barriers-and that those barriers are nothing more than the restrictions by which they keep all the power and all the profit to themselves. He is not the same God when they pray and when they petition, and therefore the charges in this Petition must be false. Now I ask what further answer you require to the charges urged against the Catholics? There is a further-an indictment or information-a criminal proceeding is the only answer. The petitioners against the Catholics may say what they I beg here again to profess great respect choose as to their good intentions, but for the petitioners. I hope the time is not with respect to the pamphlets, which far distant when the Catholics and Procharge them with murder and treason as testants shall be one people, and when their creed, they must charge them with they will act together against a common perjury also. If such a pamphlet were enemy in a common cause. But what is written against my lord Fingal or sir Tho- the proposal of these petitioners? To exmas Bellew, the printer would say in vainclude for ever a great portion of their felthat he did not mean such an imputation. low subjects from the constitution. This Suppose lord Fingal should indict the au is a pretty strong proposal. Why do they |