32. The Peers represent their Baronies. 33. The Peers alone form a judicial tribunal, and they give judgment by an hereditary right. 34. The law, may be read, but its interpre-! tation must be taken from the proper judges. 35. The nation decisively speaks by the voice of its Parliament. 36. The King and Parliament are the highest authority in the empire, and from their decision there lies no appeal. 37. A wilful breach of any imperative law of Parliament, is the crime of Felony. 38. A rebellious opposition to the authority of the State, is the crime of Treason. It was my intention to have here closed this article, but some observations I have received from a most-respected and highly-esteemed Correspondent, whose letter will be seen in a subsequent part of this number, obliges me to make a few more remarks upon the subject. It is with much pain I differ from so intelligent a writer, but with all due deference to his great and extensive knowledge of the matter in question, I am of opinion he does not exactly understand the true state of the case. But first I must observe that I am not aware that I have permitted any unwarrrantable reflections to be inserted in my Journal, as I have too high a veneration for the Holy See, willingly to permit such an abuse of the press.― That some of our brethren in the sister island have been too severe on the Representative of our illustrious Pon 24. The Pope has also his Cardinals, who form his perpetual chapter. 25. With their advice he issues bulls and decrees. 26. With their advice he also ratifies the canonical acts of national and provincial synods, in the remotest dioceses of the Church. 27. Every defined article of faith must have been defined in a general council, and have been approved by the Pope. 28. Without the approbation of both no decision is a defined article of faith. 29. Every article of faith is founded on the word of God, written or unwritten. " 30. The one is derived from immemorial tradition; by the other we understand the scriptures and the decrees of general councils. 31. The hierarchy of the Church consists principally of two orders- Bishops and Priests. stiff I am willing to admit, and I have therefore been desirous of avoiding that which I deemed improper in others. With respect to the document itself, I shall content myself with shewing, by a plain statement of facts, that it was an improper interference in the civil concerns of the Catholic laity of this kingdom, over which no foreign power has any controul.-The case in dispute, when the document was issued, stood thus. The Catholics had fre quently petitioned for a redress of the grievances, under which they have long laboured. The request, after many a hard-fought battle, was at length taken into consideration, and a Bill was brought into the Senate professing to relieve them from their disabilities. But upon the Bill being made public, it was found to be more pernicious than beneficial in its effects, inasmuch as it restricted the Clergy, and would our Religion. 'Tis true, there existed among us, a small band of individuals, who, anxious to get their privileges, were not very scrupulous, how they obtained them.-And for this purpose, they had been currying favour with those who hated their faith, and in. stead of combating the prejudices which the enemies of their religion were daily heaping upon it, they thought to overcome them by a pliancy equally unworthy of their own cha racters, and those of their ancestors. To this small body those who pretend. ed to be the friends of our emancipation paid the greatest deference; but the firm and unequivocal determina. tion of the vast multitude who had declared against its. insidious views, had silenced all further apprehension of danger, and the greatest anxiety entertained was to see how the new Petition would be received in Parlia ment, since, the clear and explicit language it was couched in was consi dered as a touchstone whereby we might discover who were the sincere friends of Civil and Religious Liberty, and who those were who supported Catholic Emancipation in the hopes of creating a Government influence. Such was the actual state of the subject in dispute, when the Rescript of M. Qua, ultimately have made them the tools of the existing Government.-The consequence was, that it was condemned by the Clergy, and justly execrated by the Laity; and in order to avoid any such measures being again attempted, the nature of the petition was altered, and the prayer of it was for unconditional and unrestricted rights. At the same time, in order to separate the spiritual interest of the question from the temporal, the Laity resolved, that no measure would be satisfactory to them which at all involved the interference of Parliament in the appointment of their Bishops. Here then was a clear case. The petitioners say-You have no right to interfere in the affairs of our Church, for which you can have no respect.We know you would like to have the appointing of our Prelates, but it is a concern you have no business with; and the example you have given us in the choice of those of your own establishment is a convincing proof that the Religion which we now hold so dear, and for which we have suffered so much, and are still willing to suffer more, will soon become like your own, but little better than a name.No; we have given you sufficient proofs of our attachment and loyalty, give us a complete repeal of the dis-rantotti was communicated to the Laabling laws, and the free exercise of our religion, or let us remain as we are; but no intriguing with our Clergy. Could any thing be more proper, or more disinterested on the part of the Laity. Knowing it is a precept of our faith, that the Laity cannot interfere in spiritual concerns, and finding a disposition on the part of our law-written in such terms as could not fail givers to make it the sine qua non of of being peculiarly grating to the our being admitted to the civil privi feelings of the latter. Can we then leges of the Constitution (which we wonder that a language rather warmer are called upon to support, equally than the respect due to the writer was with the rest of our fellow-subjects), used? Can it be a matter of wonder, to give the executive government an when we have been accused of paying influence in the appointment of our a slavish and implicit obedience to the Prelates, we rejected the boon, and decrees of Rome, and are therefore declared that we were determined to deemed unworthy of enjoying the pri remain as we are, before we would ac-vileges of a free Constitution.-Can cept our rights at the hazard of losing we wonder, I ask, if the indignation ity, by means of the hireling papers of the metropolis. This rescript, the first of the kind I believe ever published in such a way since the Reformation, was a complete echo of all the views of the lesser body, in opposition to the sentiments of millions of the greater part of the laity, and was felt should be loud and deep, on find- it limited to those whom, of course, it ing a Rescript inserted in the public then concerned, we should not have papers, laying claim to the power heard of those warm discussions which which we have always denied, even have taken place upon it.-But, who under the solemnity of an oath?— are those who have expressed themFor my own part, I must confess when selves so strongly against the docuthe learned prelates and theologians ment and the writer of it? Are they took upon themselves to DECREE not men who are anxious for the pre"that the Catholics ought to receive servation of the purity and independ"and embrace w th content and gra- ence of their Clergy? Are they not ❝titude the Law which was proposed those who are willing to forego their "last year for their emancipation," I own temporal interests rather than see conceived them to have overstepped their venerable pastors shackled by an the bounds of their jurisdiction and heterodox Government, and liable to authority, and therefore they were be tempted to betray their sacred trust? liable to censure for it.--I wish it to Why then so ready to blame an efferbe observed that I am not alluding vescence of mind laudable in itself, beto any part of the rescript relating to cause it is grounded upon an apprehendoctrinal matters-I leave that to the sion of danger to the only thing dear proper tribunal. But I consider my- to us as Christians and as Men? Had self fully competent to judge whether indeed the censures passed upon the the Bill of last year (the offspring of conduct of M. Quarantotti been done designing lay-men) was likely to be with an intention of bringing contempt nefit either the purity of my Religion or upon the Catholic Religion, instead of the Liberties of my Country; and as an ardent desire to support its purity, I think it inimical to both in the high- then, indeed, the parties would be est degree, I cannot help regarding richly deserving of reprehension, and this DECREE as an unwarrantable as- I would be the first to record my dissumption over my opinion, which has approbation of such irreligious atalways been FREE.-The question in tempts.-Catholic writers have not dispute, as far as I am able to under- been very delicate in censuring the stand it, was not so much about doc- vices of such Pontiffs as have disgraced trine as it was about policy. It was the apostolic chair by their public not whether the Veto could be grant- crimes. Nay, they have been very ed; but whether, if it was granted, strong in condemning the scandals from the known materials of which the thereby heaped upon the Catholic Government is composed, it would church; nor have such animadversions not be highly injurious to the safety been thought derogatory of respect to of the Catholic Religion in this king- the Holy See, but, on the contrary, dom, and incompatible with the civil have displayed the virtuous indignation liberties of the nation? Now, the of the writer, and his desire of preCatholic Prelates in the Empire had serving the veneration due to the Chair decided that the measure was inexpe- of St. Peter. Surely, then, it cannot dient; and the Laity had declared that be criminal to expose and condemn jt was at variance with, and dangerous the political errors of a Vice-prefect to, the principles of the British Con- of the Propaganda, who undoubtedly stitution. What necessity then was outstepped the limits of his authority. there for this Rescript? What right-I am far from approving of the had M. Quarantotti to interfere in a matter which regarded the Protestant part of the community, in its political relations, as well as the Catholic? Had the rescript been confined to spiritual matters only, and the promulgation of abusive language which has been heaped upon M. Quarantotti in the public prints of the sister island; there is no need for such proceedings, and nothing of the kind I believe is to be found in my Journal, nor does the cause we are engaged in require any such aid. But, really, to be blamed by those who should rather approve of the generous and disinterested attach ment shewn for the character of our truly excellent Pastors, and our desire to see the Religion of Christ pure and undefiled; and, on the other hand, to be accused as sowers of sedition and traitors by our enemies, who wish to see those Pastors and our Religion trampled on, because we are deter mined strictly to adhere to PRINCIPLE in the pursuit of our civil rights, is a trial which none but Catholics ever experienced, and which, I am firmly persuaded, none but Catholics 'could ever bear. THE PETITIONS.-The Irish Peti tions it seems are not to undergo a dis cussion this session, notwithstanding the anxious desire of the Petitioners that their case should be heard. This is a great disappointment to me, as well as to the millions who are interested in the cause. With respect to the discussion which might have been created, if the measures had been brought forward, I felt very little anxiety about it; it was the DIVI SION which I wanted to see. The present General Petition is different from all others: it was drawn up by the pen of a Protestant; it is signed by millions of Catholics; and it prays for a complete and unconditional re peal of the Penal Laws as far as they affect his Majesty's subjects of ALL Religious persuasions. There are certain individuals in the Senate who assume to themselves the title of "Friends to Civil and Religious Liberty and they supported a Bill last year, which went not only to establish an undue influence on the part of the Executive in regard to the appoint ment of Catholic Prelates, but it also deprived them of the benefits of the Constitution.The petitions of this year, however, speak in plain and unequivocal terms, and they ask for no more for the Catholics and also for the Dissenters from the Established Church of this kingdom, than what has been granted by a Catholic King of France to the dissenters from the Catholic Church of all persuasions in his dominions. Here then was a fair opportunity for these gentlemen to prove to the nation and to the world at large how far they were sincere in their professions, and how far they merited the appellation which they have assumed. In short, the petitions might be considered as a sort of touchstone, I always thought them to be so, and the manner in which the peti tioners have been treated by these "Friends to Civil and Religious Li 66 1 berty" have confirmed me in my opinion. I am convinced that these friends to liberty are desirous of yields ing to the prejudices of their bigotted opponents, who will not be satisfied with any thing short of the complete overthrow of the Catholic religion in these realms, and as these friends have solemnly declared that they believe that the Catholics are superstitious and idolatrous, it is natural to suppose that they care very little about the preser vation of the Catholic religion. "It therefore behoves those who know the value of that Holy Faith, and how necessary it is to eternal salvation, to guard against any encroachments which may be made against its purity. And hence then the necessity of every Catholic, in a future application to Parliament, pursuing the same open and undisguised conduct which has been adopted by our Irish brethren; which will, at no short period of time, bring the matter to a straight and plain course of adjustment, divested of all Lay-Ecclesiastical Boards, Double Vetos, &c&er &c. 1 This course of proceeding is happily begun by some spirited individuals in Liverpool, which I sincerely trust will be followed by others in the different districts.-And here I cannot help congratulating the Catholics of Lancashire for the lead they have taken at the present day in support of the Orthodoxy of their holy faith. Lancashire furnished many holy Missionaries who suffered mar tyrdom under. the penal laws for the propagation of the Catholic faith, and may we not suppose that the prayers of those heroic saints have prevailed in raising a similar disinterested spirit in this Catholic county, for the preservation of the purity of their Religion, which has been nurtured by the blood of so many virtuous victims to the fury of its enemies. Mr. M'Donnell, a gentleman of the greatest abilities, and eminent for his zeal in the cause of his religion, at the late aggregate meet-parently, a tolerable good match.ing for Cork, is said to have recom. mended his Countrymen to hold no communication or co-operation whatever with the English Catholics; and the reason he gives is, the pliancy of the English Catholics during the reign of the eighth Henry, and the near approximation of their conduct at the present day to that which they then adopted. Indeed, when I read his speech, an extract of which will be found in the epitome to this number, I felt the full force of his arguments, and must allow that he was warranted in the conclusions which he drew from them.-But, my Catholic countrymen, there is a way to prove that he is mistaken as far as regards our future conduct; and I think we ought to shew our Irish brethren that if we tition containing our unalterable determination, and this I hope will be done by every English Catholic previous to the next Session of Parliament. MR. COBBETT.This gentleman, who stands unrivalled as a political writer, has lately taken it into his head to engage in religious topics, in which, when he had to contend with those as well-informed as himself, he was ap were guilty of a dereliction of our duty at the birth of the Reformation, we are resolved not to fall into the same error again. Let us then unite with them, But a gentleman, who has also obliged me with many valuable articles, conceiving Mr. Cobbett's remarks to be very fallacious, sent him an article, signed "A Constant Reader," which Mr. C. inserted in his Register, on the 26th of February last, accompanied with some remarks of his own, still more fallacious than the arguments which occasioned the communication, and afforded another convincing proof that Protestants, however acute and skilful on other subjects, are most woefully deficient in that most useful of all knowledge--RELIGION. My Correspondent, however, fearing that Mr. C. might probably mislead some of his readers, and feeling himself bound to support the propositions contained in his first letter, sent that gentleman a second a few days after the appearance of the first; but this answer Mr. C. has never noticed to this day: the consequence is, that an impression has probably been made among his readers, that his "Constant Reader' has become a convert, or has felt himself unable to answer him. Thus shut out from what he had been led to expect was a free Press, being conducted by a person who had always apparently supported the doctrine of FREE DISCUSSION, the writer transmitted a copy of it to me, for insertion in my Journal. On perusing the reply of my respected Correspondent, I do not much wonder at the con duct of Mr. Cobbett, for, to use his own expression, it was a clencher-he could not answer it, and therefore he thought it most prudent, I suppose, to |