MASTER GA TIVE NO. 91-80229-12 MICROFILMED 1991 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK as part of the "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States ~ Title 17, United States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: AN '%/- s ;^- '-^, -^ ,-j^ ^ JRL..«^ ^ ■"*><. •1. ■a ~. . . vT» -W I *4 /* CO -A* # 18 Restrictions on Use: COLUMBIA UNIVEI^ITY LIBRARIES PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT Master Negative U BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROrORM TARHFT Original Material as Fihned - Existing Bibliographic Record "UnTtbWidtd political powtr in +Kt Wands of Rornan catKolics, sublersive of +K 3t\V\sK consf'iTjrion^ -it^ cnurcK and slah ^nco-rnpsTilile. w'l^K 4nt txis+nnce. of uvi| rtVio'^Qos libtrfq- bq O Gandid and or ^5 i^M I. * 3^0.' ius. A'o. 1^ ©ya voTuinc orpampfilct*. TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA FILM SIZE: ^-^T^*!^ __ REDUCTION RATIO: IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA QI^ IB IIB DATE FILMED: J?V_^i5_/___ INITIALS j/'J^'J^^ FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT //x K- C Association for Information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 1 2 3 Mil iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiiiiiiinHMi rTT 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiJ 15 mm ^M I I I TTT JTTTl M] Inches .0 I.I 1.25 1^ 1^ 2.8 2.5 1^ |a2 2.2 ■ 63 |7I 3.6 "" ■ 40 2.0 u •- u liikk 1.8 III 1.4 1.6 -I '3 -.VJ MnNUFnCTURED TO RUM STflNDflRDS BY fiPPLIED IMAGE. INC. UNRESTRICTED IN THE HANDS OF ROMAN CATHOLICS, SUBFERSIFE OF THE Uvitip^ Constttutidn, IN CHURCH AND STATE ; AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OP CIVIL OR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. BY CANDIDUS. Cork: PRINTED AND SOLD BY RICHARD TIVY, BOOKSELLER, NO. i, ST. PATRICK-STREET. 1819. ADVERTISEMENT. THE DANGER OP (anrestrWetJ politttal pctoer. IN THE HANDS OF ©(DUiiSr (Bii^IIl(DM®^ TffESE Letters Jirst appeared in the Dublin Corres" pondentof I6th. March, and 5th Inst, addressed to the Editor of that Paper ; and having excited an extraor* dinary degree of interest, are now published in the present form, in compliance with the wishes of several respectable Gentlemen, desirous of submitting them ttt the serious consideration of the British Legislature* Cork, April 16, 1819. TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUBLIN CORRESPONDENT. SIR, As the general importance of the Catholic Question, and the anticipated Parliamentarj discussion of its merits, cannot fail to interest every lover of his country, 1 have taken the liberty of addressing you on the sub- ject — not for the purpose of exciting a feeling of unde- served irritation against a large proportion of my fellow i . subjects, but, that 1 might lay before the public, what 1 conceive to be just reasons for opposing that pretend- ed or mistaken liberality, which, in the exercise of a zeal more fervent than wise, would subvert the prin- ciples of the Constitution, by the unguarded concessions of unqualified Emancipation. The subject, I know, has been already exhibited in almost every point of view, through the medium of the public journals; but, in general, those who have been engaged in the contro- a2 & versyon that side of the question which I mean to take up, have been, from their official situations, or their circumstances in life, char Established Church, Of Min- isters, or their Agents, 1 know nothing. 1 have never been honoured by their acquaintance, nor enriched by their places or pepsions. My religious sentiments will Dot allow me to form a religious connexion with the Sfat(», and the political disabilities of a Dissenter will prevent me from forming a political one. 1 am neither encouraged by hope, nor intimidated by fear ; so (hat, if] di'£er from any on the sul^ect before me, 1 think in doing so, 1 am entitled to the credit of the purest con- viction . That I may communicate my ideas with the greater precision on a question of so much importance, 1 shall briefly direct your attention to two or three great prin- ciples of good government, and inquire, whether they do not fully warrant a refusal of the claims of Roman €)«'• tholics. 1 he first principle is, that no subject shouliI BE MADE to LABOR UNDER ANY CIVIL DISABILITIES, ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RCI^IGIOUS SENTIMENTS, HOW- EVER ABSURD OR ERRONEOUS THESE SENTIMENTS MAY BE, PROVIDED THAT SCCH SENTIMENTS ARt EXCLUSIVELY RELIGIOUS. 1 presume, that every Catholic, and every advocate for the Emancipation of Catholics, will admit the truth of thLs principle, as it is the foundation of all the argu- ments which have been urged in favor of that measure ; but I hope to be able to prove that Catholic Emancipa- tion does not necessarily follow from the most unqualified admission of this valuable political axiom. In considering (he nature ot (his important principle. we should ascertain precisely what religious sentimenU are. They arc the judgments which we form of spiritual things, as these stand connected with God and eternity. Mow, if any subject of a State should be placed under civil disabilities, on account of such sentiments, how- ever ridiculous they may be, 1 should view his case as aa instance of political injustice and religious persecution. With religious sentiments, in this restricted form, no State has a right to interfere, either directly, or indi<. 'fa j\g - redly; because such sentimenti relate exclusively to God and eternal things, the utmost limits of sentiment purely religious. But there is another way of viewing religious senti- ments. They may be viewed as the judirmtnls which we form respecting the connexion (hat subsists between spiri- tual and eternal things and our outward conduct. In this point of view our sentiments cease to be purely lelji^ious and immediately become the subject ot Stale cognizance because they may interfere with the frame of society, and the economy of the body politic. Should it be found, on inquiry, thai, according to the last and widest sense of the phrase, the religious sentiments of an indi- vidual do not interfere with the frame of society, or the economy of the body politic ; disabilities, in that case, would prove as decided a mark of injustice and perse- cution, as in the instance formerly adverted to. But, on the contrary, should the result of inquiry prove, that the religious sentiments t>f any individual embrace principles detrimental to the frame of society, or the economy of the body politic, it is the imperative duty of the state to lay him under such civil disabilities, as will prevent his principles from operating to the injury of the community : such disabilities cannot, without the greatest perversion of words, be denominated perse- cution, either civil or religious.— The last is the case of the Catholics. They labour under disabilities, not be- cause they hold certain sentiments, purely religious i according to the strictest acceptation of the phrase— nor, because they hold sentiments of a more mixed character, according to its wider acceptation ; but, because they hold sentiments which militate against the consti- tutional POLITICS OF the empire. If this be proved, the cry of religious persecution, so often raised in connexion with the Catholic Question, must be view- ed as the offspring of iajnorance, or as an artful attempt to give the sacred name of religion to a cause that dare* not appeal to the tribunal of sound and enlightened policy, without endeavouring, by unlawful means, to bias its Judges in its favour. I have said, that the Catholic labours under disabi* lities, because his religious sentiments militate against the principles of the Constitution ; and, I think, the truth of the assertion is capable of the clearest demon- stration. — The Church, established by law, is a part of the Constitution ; and, though the Catholics profess to have no intention of overturning' it, yeiy I must remind them, that their profession is flatly contradicted by their religious principles. With regard to other reli- gious systems, the uniform language of all the standard documents ot the Catholic Church is — anathema. Its Hierarchy, its Government, its Discipline, its Creeds, are all founded on the same common principle of exclu- sive intolerance. From the Vatican of Rome to the meanest cabin in Ireland, one Church is the watch-word of Catholicity. — Catholics cannot consistently acknow- ledge any other; nor arc they at liberty to nt with in- difference in any assenibly, where the interests of ano- ther Church are promoted. If, on being admitted into Parliament, they were to act according to their prin- ciples, their first effort should be to abolish the Church of England, and establish the Church of Rome. 1 do not mean to blame them for this ; but I blame them for denying it. Let them como forward as Catholics — but let them come as Catholics who wish to be consistent, and let them candidly declare, that their principles are such as io require the overthrow of the present Church Establishment, and the setting up of their own — and, then, let the Legislature judge of the true character of their claims. I may be told, that the Catholics disavow the inten- tion which I have laid to their charge. 1 know they disavow it ; and I know also, that they disavow the principle of intolerant religious exclusion, which I have ascribed io (heir system ; — but how istbedisavowal made ? It is made by individuals who have no authority to make it. The character which I have given to Catholicity has been drawn for it in the Bulls of Popes, and in the Canons and Decrees of Councils ; but it has been disavowed by indixiduals only^ or by bodies of Laity not competent to make such disavowal, or by un- authorised meetings of Clergymen, equally incompetent. The claims of ancient Catholicity have been dexter- ©usly lowered, or raised, according to the spirit and i II 9 circumstances of the times : but nothing has been changed. All has been reserved for future exigencies* Every one will admit, that the obnoxious and intolerant principle to which I have adverted, is to be found in the Bulls of Popes, and in the Canons and Decrees of Councils; and yet, 1 am certain that none will affirm, that, authority equally competent, has been employed to disavow it. To say (hat Individuals do so, or even bodies of individuals, is saying nothing to the purpose. If any man, or body of men, the subjects of this realm, should propose entering into a commercial contract with me, which an Act of the British Parliament had pronounced to be illegal, would not the public consider me a fool, were I to embark my whole property in such a contract, merely because the individuals concerned had said, that they did not acknowledge the obligation of the Act referred to ? Would I not act more consis- tently with my own interests, were I to tell them, that however promising the results of the contract might be, considered in itself, yet, as their disavowal of the law that made it illegal, would be of no avail in a day of trial, I could not enter on the contract until that law should be repealed by the same authority by which it ^ was at first enacted? Common sense would, in this in- stance, approve my conduct. 1 would act the same part in the question of Catholic Emancipation. Let the Church of Rome, by Bulls of Popes and Decrees of Councils, remove from her standards her anathemas ■ 10 njraiiist those Cliiirclies which clifTcr from her ;— for. until this he donfy those Constitutions of which such Churches form a part, arc bound to exclude Catliolics from such a participation in their privileges, as might give them an opportunity of doing those Churches an injury. From what hai, been stated, 1 think it is evident, that no Catholic could bold a place in any Government, \\betber Protestant, Mahometan, or Pagan, without feeling it bis duty to use bis influence for the aggran- dizement of his own religious system ; and, as the be- ginning and the end of that system ever have been, as they still are, ANATHEMA and monopoly, every Ca- tholic must, on having it in his power, lay his fellow- subjects under civil disabilities— nay, and uncitil pe- nalties too— on account of sentiments p^/re/^ religious, nnless these sentiments arc in unison with the dogmas of the Vatican ; and, as this would be a violation of the principle with which I set out, it lorms the ground of a strong objection, on my part, to Catholic Eman- cipation. It may be supposed, that I intend to defend the Established Church, and that, notwithstanding my professed independence, I am still arguing under the influence of system. 1 am sure, Sir, that though you are a Churchman, your candour will bear with me while 1 reply to such a surmise with all the plainness of a consistent Dissenter, 1 do not intend to defend tho / . i. u Church of England — were this my intention, I would be a member of it, but, I decidedly prefer living under a Constitution with which the Church of England is con- nected, to living under one willi which the Church of J{ome migJit.be connected. 1 dissent from the Church of England, and that is a constitutional mode of expressing my disapprobation of its principles; and, were 1 a member of the British Senate, I would move for leave to bring in a Jiill for its abolition— not, however, io establish a religious system of my own — for, while I consider it the duty of the State to guard against the political evils of every religious system, I consider it to be quite foreign from the province of civil g-overnmcnt to provide a legal establishment for any. I have made these observations, to remove any -jilea that might be raised against my arguments, on the ground of inconsistency. Permit me now, to direct your attention to a se- cond general principle, on which I feel myself fully warranted to take the negative side of the Catholic Question. Itisthis — tue majority, in eveiiycivil COMMUNITY, HAS A RIGHT TO FORM AND MAINTAIN TJIfi CONSTITUTION, BY WHICH ALL ARE TO BE GOVERNED. Whatever evils may, in particular cases, attend the execution of this principle, it is the admitted f^ound a- tion of all good government in every civilized com- munity. The principle itself requires neither ex- planation nor defence ; I shall, therefore, confine 12 13 Hiyself to its application to the present circumstances of the Catholics. The principle 1 have just laid down, though theo- retically admitted, has been practically denied by the Calhoiics, wherever they have had it in their power to violate it. Where their itifuence, when a minority, has exceeded that of a majority, they have uniformly employed it in direct opposition to the equitable principle before us. This, however, is consistent with their principles as Catholics. Let me instance the case of Rome. What was it that gave the Pope the supreme temporal dominion in the Capitol ? Was it not the violation of the principle for which I am contending ? It was asserted, that, by a pretended right, derived from St. Peter, a mino- rity of one should dictate to the descendants of the ancient Romans: and, to give weight to this mino- rity, a Conclave of Cardinals were added, elected by the Pope, and returning the favour by electing him— thus extinguishing the influence of the many in the undue preponderance of the few, and com- pletely destroying the maxim, that the majority j>hould dictate for all. This is the case in Rome to r -,- Pope first received his triple Crown by a spiritual title, and by a spiritual title he still holds it, and will continue so to hold it, until the competent autho- rities change h^'s title — or, in other words, until Ca- tholicity is changed. In Rome, then — and let it never be forgotten, that the nature of every plant is best know^n when it is examined in the clime that gave it birth — in Rom©, a temporal dominion has been established on rights exclusively spiritual, and an ambitious Prelacy has exalted itself to a measure of temporal power, not inferior to that for which Caesar lost his life. To subject the nations to the same authority, is the direct tendency of Catholicity, and the man who denies it is not a Catholic. Let any Catholic shew me a standard document of his Church that contradicts a single statement 1 have made, and I will retract it ; but, until he does so, I must deny his right to the Emancipation which he claims, as I consider it directly calculated to subject the rights of the many to the controul of the few. I miffht have carried these observations farther; but I am afraid I have already trespassed on your . columns. — I shall, therefore, conclude, by directing your readers, if their patience will follow me, to one principle in addition to those which I have mention- ed already — and that is, that when the minority OF ANY COMMUNITY PERSEVERE IN URGING A CLAIM WlHCU THE MAJORITY HAVE FOUND IT EXPEDIENT r■JJ^':^£^^i^AS&&': ?4*Si^lil^:^.- 14 TO DENY, THE MAJOUITY SHOULD EXERCISE .\ WATCHFUL JEriLOUSY OVER THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH A CLAIM IS PRESSED BY THE MINORITY. 1 have already observed, that, in every commu- nity, the majority should be the legislators ; but I do not intend to say, that the minority, on this account should be denied the right of expressing their dissent in every constitutional way ; nor do I intend, even to insinuate, that they should not peti- tion for a repeal of the deed of the majority — but, as the manner in which the minority express their disseut and present their petitions, is calculated to throw a light on their motives and views, I think it is the duty of the majority to watch carefully the spirit and conduct displayed in the petitions or re- monstrances of the minority. Were I to apply these criteria to the Catholics, J should be led most di- rectly to a refusal of their claims. In their petitions to the Legislature, they have been of late much milder than on former occasions ; but in their pub- lic Meetings, they still display the same intempe- rance of language and sentiment that marked the assemblies of their fathers. The refusal to accede to their wishes, has been ascribed by them, at their public Meetings, to a union of the basest motives that ever combined to sink and deteriorate the character of the most abandoned nations. Venalitv, besottedness of principle, persecution, corruption 15 of character, tyranny, and contempt of the just rights of the subject, lorm the black catalogue of crimp, with which the great mass of the British em- plie are charged at the meetings of Catholics, where these epithets are received by the grazing multitude with thunders of applause. I speak not from report. I speak of what I have seen and heard over and over again ; nay, 1 speak of the general temper and conduct of Irish Catholics, as displayed in their speeches, their pamphlets, their public meetings, and their private conversation. Now, Sir, when the Catholics — a minority, small, indeed, when compared with the population of this great Empire — when the Catholics address such lan- guage as this to the respectable majority who oppose their claims — for there is still a vast majority in the reabn against thcra — when, I say, they address such language as this to them, they deserve not the privileges which they so arrogantly claim. I might have added many other observations, for the subject is capable of the most ample discussion ; but, lest I should trespass too long upon your patience, I shall conclude, by expressing my wish, that the Catho- lics would turn their attention to another subject as a preliminary to Emancipation. Let thern direct their petitions to the Vatican^ before they address them to London. Let them pray their Holy Father to convene a General Council, the only authority univcrsalli/ al- 16 lowed to be competent, and let that Council repeal (he principles so often made the subject of complaint. Let that Council disavow what Catholics, in many instances, disavow as individuals ; and then let (heir claims appear at the throne of a Protestant Monarch, sworn to defend the principles which Catholicity, in i(s present form, is direcdy calculated to undermine. Should his Holiness refuse this, I would remind the Catholics, that (he hindrance to their Emancipation is no longer in England, but in Rome ; and, in that case, 1 should leave it with themselves' to determine what steps it would be most proper to take, in order to accom- plish the object of their wishes. I am yours, &c. CANDIDUS. y i 17 TO THE EDITOR OF THE DUBLIN CORRESPONDENT. SIR, In takincr np my pen to address you a second time on the merits of the Catholic Ques(ion, I should apologize for thus intruding on your columns, did not (he vast imporfarjce of the subject afford a sufficient plea for my solicitude. In my last 1 took a view of the great outlines of Catholicity, considered in (heir general influence on civil society, and I endeavoured to apply (he remarks which I (hen made to (he present circumstances of Roman Catholics in this country ; but it afterwards occured to me, that the general line of remark which I had adopted would be incomplete, without the addition of a more minute and particular view of the subject. In attempting this, the first point of inquiry that pre- sents itself to our attention is, the real amount of the Roman Catholic (laims. We are often told that the Roman Catholics require nothing but civil liberty; and were this really the case, justice would support their claim, and, in this age of freedom, no degree of power or iiifltience could successfully oppose its being granted ; but liberty h not the object of Roman Catholic impor- tunity-forthaf, the Roman Catholics have in a perfect equality with (he Protestants. Their object is not liberlij, but privilege. These have always been viewed as differing most materially from each other. Liberty, in every well-organised community, belongs to all, if it 18 J9 is not forfeited by crime ; but prnilcgt belongs only to those, in whose hands it is not likely to prove injurious. While liberty, therefore, is enjoyed by all, privilege is justly restricted ; and that, too, for the express purpose of securing the general enjoyment of liberty ; for if privilege had no limits, while human nature is imper- fect, it would frequently fall into the hands of those who would abuse it to the prejudices 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 pri- vilege, fall into a gross misnomer of their claim, where they call it a plea for civil liberty. This error is, 1 fear, wilful, and therefore, 1 need not expect that 1 may 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 lioman Catholics know that the cry of slavery is more likely to interest public feeling in their favour, than any sober address io the understanding of the Empire. Many will respond to their plea, when they sue for liberty and emanci- pation, who would protest against their claims, were they urged under the honester, but less imposing names, of power and privilege. 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. 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 Po- tentate, but the Protestants acknowledge no power whatever, beyond the precincts of British authority. The whole force of this reply is supposed io be over- thrown, by the readiness with which the Roman Ca- tholic 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 exami- nation. When ihe Irish Roman Catholic asserts his conviction, that the Pope has no temporal power over the subjects of other Sovereigns, he wishes you to be* lieve, that he has avowed a doctrine that decidedly disclaims all the assuming usurpations which have dis- graced the annals of the Pontificate ; but this is all delusion ; the same doctrine was always maintained by the Romish Church. She never asserted foreign tempo- ral dominion to be any part of her constitution, — When her haughty Pontiffs were employed in dethrouipg 20 21 Sovereigns, alienating subjects, and dissolving consti- tutions, formed by the wisdom of ages, and consolidat- ed by the loyalty of an affectionate anil devoted people, they were neither claiming nor exercising temporal power. These arrogant assumptions of power were only acts of spiritual chastisement, exercised by a 5/;///- tual father to v\ aids the enemies of his spiritual chil- dren ; and even in the mode in which these chastise- ments were administered, we can discover nothing but what is purely spiritual. Spitiiual Bulls were read by 5/7f/77z/fl/ ecclesiastics to their spiritual children a. their spiritual assemblies, when spiritual indignation burst forth, under 5p/n7i^a/ approbation, from spiritual Superiors, until the best members and the noblest insti- tution 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 chal- lenge any Roman Catholic to point out to me a single Bull, Brief, Rescript, Canon, or Decree, connected with the usurpations of authority to which 1 have alluded, which does not directly assert that these usurp- ations are acts of spirital 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 ^ 1 understand that his declaration admits of as £;reat a latitude of temporal assumption, as ever distinguished i\ . • » / 9 4 the tyranny of Napoleon. 1 do not mean to sny, that the Roman Catholic who makes the declaration which I have been considering, intends to deceive ; but I ranst remind him, that, while he professes to be a mem- ber of the Church of Rome, he is not at liberty to make any declaration contrary to her l^ws ; and, in the in- stance 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 autho- lity, and that, as she has never repealed the laws, nor disavowed the principles on which these acts were per- formed, she is at liberty to repeat them, when circum- stances offer a fair opportunity. Whether in this case the Church, or her individual members, should be be- lieved, 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, (he prin- ciple 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 contri- buting 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 countcraciiog disqualifications, fhat right would b« 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 exer- cise. But, if it were granted that the Roman Catholics have not only a right to the privileges of the Constitu- tion, but that that right should also be exercised by them — and this is what they demand— why do they not preserve 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 privi- lege? They may tell me, that that privilege is re- served 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 it not the same constitu- tion 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 i )* / 1 23 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 cither take in the rights of (heir 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 1 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 em- ployed by Roman Catholics, when discussing the merits of their claims. We are told that there never can be an equitable representation 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 re- presentation—that which represents the people, who, in this country, are Chiefly Roman Catholics ; and that which represents the property, which, in this instance, belongs chiefly to Protesfant^. Now, a fair represent 21 tation of the country would secure at (he same time, the rights of the people and the interests of property. The question then is, will these two objects be more effectu- ally accomplished by a Roman Catholic than by a Protestant representation ? The Roman Catholics will sav, that it is not their intention to exclude the Protes- tants 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 principles of the present Election Laws, to 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 le- gislate with impartiality, even for Mahometans or Hindoos, yet, such is the known character of Catho- licity, that its conscientious votaries cannot look with complacency on any who are not wiihin the pale of the Church of Rome. If 1 am wrong in this, let the Roman Catholic show 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 satis- fied. I must, therefore, insist, that Protestants 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 i A . '^V ? 25 could, in his conscience, do for the Protestant pro- perty of the kingdom. In order to obtain popularity for the claims of Ro- man Catholics, all ranks of the community have been taught to expect the highest and most important advan- tages from their being granted ; but these boasted ad- vantages 1 have never been able to foresee. The mea- sure 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 Par- liament, 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 Catholics, tliough the Protestant religion has nothing of the anethematizing 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 intend to effect religious changes in favour of their own. system, this would overthrow their claims for 26 ever ; and yet, if we do not take one of these iw0 things for granted, no advantage Can ever be antici- pated from the granting of their claims. To say that union in the country would be the effect of the mea- sure, 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 num- bers of the Roman Catholics and the influence and property of theProtestants, in order to secure a predo- minant interest in the representation of the country. It has been said, that the Roman Catholics never could return a majority of their community to the Imperi- c^ Parliament; but that is a point which futurity alone can determine. Certain it is, that they could and zsould 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 dis- quietude, if it might not, in the end, effect many in- jurious changes. The dang:er of unqualified emancipation is not greater, when viewed in connexion with legislation, than when we consider it in connexion with the Ex- ecutive 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 /' iiti ii iff I I. fe- 27 which it leads. This is very natural ; and, were the Roman Catholic claims granted, 1 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 ChancMlor 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 autho- rity 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 ; 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 PrO" testant Minors for the Church of Rome— besides hav- ing our national councils and the decisions in Chan- cery biassed, if not carried by Roman Catholic influ- ence. I may be told, that the Chancellor would always prove himself a man of principle, and therefore, 2S 29 be incapable of acting thus. But I could not con sider 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 Ro- man Catholics pretend to deny this, or, rather should they attempt to conceal it, 1 refer agjiin to the test, the standard documents of their own Church, and, if any one of these is found to deny what I here assert, 1 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 he would ad- minister 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 infant in question, a Protestant, who would rear him a fire-brand of hell, in preference to a Roman Catholic, who would rear him an heir of glory ? In the appointment of Magistrates, would he appoint Protestants, who .would maintain and promote the kingdom ot Satan, in preference to Roman Catholics, who would ad- vance and vindicate the interest of the kingdom of God? /' Mi- "lis*' fix 'if: 'V «'' V I think it is easy to ascertain how a Catholic Chancellor 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 right ; he would prove his determination to act from principle, but, he would at the same time, prove that hp 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 ot the Chancellorship, and, consequently, they so ordered matters, that the Lord Chancellor was usually an Ec' clesiastic. The remarks I have made on the office of Chancel- lor, will apply, with equal force, to offices in the infe- rior Courts of the Empire — such as the Chief Justices of the Courts of King's Bench and Common Pleas, each of which has an extensive jurisdiction. But lest 1 should be tedious, I shall leave those concerned to specify, more particularly, the influence which Roman Catholic emancipation would be likely to exercise over these invaluable 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 cither blind to the true interests of his country, or willing to betray them into hands where tbev cannot be safe. ( so The last objection which I shall mention to the full emancipation of Roman Catholics, is founded on the solemn national compact, by which the Crown is se- cured to a succession of Protectant Kings. The Coronation oalh is so explicit in support of the present order of things in the Ecclesiastical part ol the Constitution, that I cannot conceive how any British Monarch can consent to admit into his councils any body of men connectt^d with the sec of Rome. The oath referred to is, in one part, *as follows :— " I will, to the utmost of m^j poxcer^ maintain the Protestant Religion, as by law established ; and preserve to the Bishops and Clergy and the Churches consigned to 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 ex- plicitly defined, by the Act of Union between England and Scotland. It was ratified, also a second time, by the Act of Union between Great Britam and Ireland.— Now, can it be said that the King is fulfilling these .v" ' - ','?-'-- ^ 'iS.<'f.'- ."peg*- 31 The facility with which the 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 eon- sciences to a foreign Power, and form their principles, whether civil or ecclesiastical, under the influence of a foreign Court, I cannot «ee how the the British Monarch can, consistently either with the religious or political principles of the Constitution, admit them to a full par- ticipation of the powers and priyileges of the State. — I have expressed myself the more decidedly on this sub- ject, because I conceive the maintenance of the British Constitution (o be immediately 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. Jfc-bas maintained the balance of power in Europe, and given peace to the world. Whatever, therefore, could either directly or indirectly tend to its dismemberment should be made an object of watchful jealousy. As it is not my intention io trouble your readers with any observations on this important subject in future, I cannot conclude without assuring you, that the remarks J have made have not been directed by a spirit of anti- pathy to Roman Catholics. 1 wish them every personal 32 •wr 33 and relative prosperity, and so far as the security of the Glorious Constitution, under which 1 have the happi- ness to live, can be maintained, 1 wish ihcm the enjoy- ment of every political privilege ; but so long as I view their religious principles in the lii^ht in vvhich 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 con- fidence 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 diffusinsT, by its moral influence, the spirit of a most endearing philantrophy. I would not direct him to Home ; but 1 would lead him to Jerusalem, and there, on the top of Calvary, I would solicit his attention, not to the thunder of the Vatican announcing its anathemas, but to the dying attestation of the Piince of Peace, proclaiming the recon- ciliation of the guilty by the merits of his blood. I would invite him to listen, while the expiring thief pre- sents his petition," Lord, remember me, when thou comest to thy kingdom," and while the Redeemer re- turns his gracious response/' This day shalt thou be with me in Paradise." ■S«s- The Saviour's testimony was a proclaraatron of his own transcendant merits, as the only refuge of 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 Catho- licity ! 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 glories 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 man, before whom the awful glory and near approach of eternity have eclipsed all the attractions of time — what consolation could such a document then inspire ? A potent Church, a dignifieil Priesthood, and a splendid ritual, maj^ form the basis of a delusive con- fidence in time, but their importance vanishes on the advance of eternity. I shall conclude by exhorting both your Roman Catholic and Protestant readers io rise above the outworks of a religious protession, and to take a glimpse of the glory that dwells within the veil Ibimcreens eteroity irom time, where the Lamb that was slain pleads the merits of his work, without which a profession of religion will be as unavailing in eternity as it is vain in time. When Roman Catholics can take this simple, but saving view, of ihe Gospel of Christ, 1 shall not only rejoice at their admission to privilege, and their elevation to power, but I shall con- sider the Monarch happy, and the Throoe invincible. I am your's, CANDIDUS. •^ m.TXTY, rRINTERjCORK. ^^Ifii I COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 1010655867 Tbte book is due two weeks f^^ym the last '' * c^-^k,-^'^- Q. a^lb ''i' ^.^^^V"*^ !5 ^___— — — — '>— — . - i. « ' I P^^ uov <^^^y(ie