would confer no real benefit on the State; and that, as no alteration of law should take place, unless it promotes the general welfare of the State, the laws complained of should remain in force. But we beg leave to submit to the consideration of our countrymen, that the whole kingdom would be essentially served by the repeal of the penal laws remaining in force against His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects.. On this head, the writer of these columns requests your particular attention. our language, it does not follow that America should change hers. She always contended that by the Orders of Council her rights, were violated; she always contended, that all the seizure we made under those Orders were unjust; and, of course, she demands indemnity for those immense seizures.But, is it really so; can it be possible; can the thing be, that a Secretary of State has asserted, in open Parliament, that, without any reference to the conduct of France, and that though the Deerees of Napoleon did not exist, we had a right Two-thirds of the population of Ireland, to do what was done, towards neutrals, under and no inconsiderable proportion of the pothe Orders in Council; and, that, when pulation of England, is composed of Roman ever we think proper, we have a right to Catholics. It is obvious that the feelings do the same again? If this be so; if this of this large proportion of the community assertion was made by the Minister for are wounded, in the highest degree, by the Foreign Affairs, and if it be meant to be penal and disabling laws to which they are maintained, then, certainly, the war with subject; and that they consider themselves America will be long indeed.Reader, highly injured, insulted, and degraded by what was it that was done in virtue of them. Now, must it not be beneficial to these Orders in Council?--I will give the State, that this extensive feeling of inyou an instance. An American-built sult, injury, and degradation should be ship, owned by a native American, man-healed? Do not wisdom and sound policy ned by native Americans, laden with flour, or any thing else the growth of America, and bound from America to France, or to any other country named in the Orders in Council, was seized on the high seas by any of our vessels of war, carried into any of our ports, the ship and cargo condemned, and the master and his crew turned on shore to beg or starve, or live and find their way home as they could.This was what was done in virtue of the Orders in Council; and, if the Report be correct, this is what we have a right to do towards neutrals again, whenever the "conservation of the country" calls for it; that is to say, whenever our government thinks proper to cause it to be done! Now, I will not waste my time and that of the reader by any discussion upon maritime and neutral rights; but will just ask him this one question: if we have a right to act thus towards America, whenever we thing proper, she being at peace with us, what can she lose in the way of trade, what can she risk, in changing that state of peace for a state of war?- In my next I shall discuss the other points brought forward in this debate. WM. COBBETT. CATHOLIC CLAIMS. ADDRESS to the Protestants of Great Britain, &c.(continued from page 224.) Roman Catholics would benefit them, it make it the interest of the State, that every circumstance which leads this injured, insulted, and degraded, but numerous portion of the community, to think that any new order of things must end their injury, insult, and degradation, and is, therefore, desirable, should be removed as soon as possible? Surely the removal of it must be as advantageous to the State, as it will be advantageous and gratifying to the persons individually benefited by it. But this is not the only circumstance which would make the repeal of the penal laws a general benefit to the State. Again we request you to consider the immense number of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, and the great proportion which it bears to the rest of the community.—What a proportion of genius, of talent, of energy, of every thing else, by which individuals are enabled to distinguish themselves, and benefit and elevate their country, must fall to their share:-But all this, for the present, is lost to you, in consequence of the penal codes. Is the subtraction of this prodigious mass of probable genius, talent, and wisdom, from the general stock, no detriment to the State? Surely it is a na tional loss. Thus while the penal code harasses the individual object of its infliction, it contracts and paralyzes, to an amazing degree, the strength, powers, and energies of the whole community. IV. It is alleged, that the Roman Catholics of this kingdom enjoy the most full and liberal Toleration; and that Toleration is the utmost favour to which any non-conformist to the religion established by law can reasonably aspire. in question; some persons might have contended for the wisdom of the statutes, but none could have contended that they were not highly penal. But whatever difference there may be in the degree of penal inflicTo this, we beg leave to answer, that tion, there is none in the penal quality of toleration, rightly understood, is all we ask those statutes, which deprive persons of for by our Petition. But what is toleration, offices, and those which deprive them of when the word is rightly understood? If, the prior legal eligibility to them. The after a Government has adopted a particu- right of possessing an office, the right of lar religion, decreed its mode of worship succeeding to it, and the right of eligibility to be observed in its churches, and pro- to it, are equally civil rights. There is no vided for its functionaries, from the funds difference in this respect between offices and of the State, it leaves the non-conformist landed property-the right to possess an in complete possession of all their civil estate, to succeed to it, and to acquire it, rights and liberties, the non-conformist en- are equally civil rights. The justice or pojoys a full and complete Toleration. But licy of these laws is not now under our whenever the government of a country re- consideration-the simple question before presses other forms of religion, by subject-us is, whether eligibility to offices and ing those who profess them, to any deprivation or abridgment of civil right or liberty, Toleration is at an end, and Persecution begins. This is too plain a position to admit of contradiction; the only question, therefore, is, whether the pains and penalties to which the Roman Catholics are still subject by the laws in force against them, deprive them of any civil right or liberty. To meet this question fully, I shall consider, how far the Corporation Act, which excludes us from Corporations, and the Test Act, which excludes us from Civil and Military Offices, can be justly said to deprive us of a civil right. I prefer placing the question on these acts, because, by their own confession, it is the strongest hold of our adversaries, and because, in the discussion of that question, thus propounded, I shall advocate the cause of the Protestant Dissenters as much as our own, election into corporations, were not by the common law the civil right of every Englishman, and whether his being deprived of it was not a penal infliction. It is impossible to deny it. This infliction reaches every description of non-conformists to the established Church: their religion, therefore, is not tolerated-it is persecuted. On the policy, the justice, or degree of that persecution, there may be a difference of opinion; but that, in some degree at least, it is a persecution it seems impossible to deny. Thus we seem to arrive at this questionable conclusion, that, in point of fact, all non-conformists are persecuted. The difference between Roman Catholics and other non-conformists, is, that Roman Catholics are subject to pains and disabilities which do not affect any other description of non-conformists. The Roman Catholics, therefore, are the most persecuted of all. Our common adversaries contend, that Here, then, we close with our adversathe exclusion of non-conformists, by the ries; we seek not to interfere with the estaTest and Gorporation Acts, from honour- blished Church, with her hierarchy, with able lucrative offices, is not a punishment, her endowments, with her tithes, with any and, therefore, is not intolerance. thing else that contributes to her honour, But before the enactment of those sta-her comfort, or her security. Give us but tutes, were not all the subjects of this realm toleration in the true sense of that much equally eligible, by the common law of the abused word, and we claim no more. By land, to every honourable and every lucra- the oath prescribed to the Roman Catholics tive office which the State could confer? of Ireland, by the 33d of His present Ma Is not eligibility to office a civil right?jesty, the Roman Catholic swears-" That Does it not, therefore, necessarily follow, he will defend to the utmost of his that every statute which deprived non-con- power, the settlement and arrangement formists of their right of eligibility to of" of property in that country, as establishfice, deprived them of a civil right, and "ed by the laws now in being; and he was therefore penal? If Roman Catholics" thereby disclaims, disavows, and solemnhad been in possession of these offices, and "ly abjures any intention to subvert the deprived of them in consequence of their" present Church establishment, for the adherence to their religion by the statutes" purpose of substituting a Catholic estas ་་ "blishment in its stead; and he solemnly | fere by any form or mode of temporal swears, that he will not exercise any power, in spiritual concerns. This the Irish, "privilege to which he is or may be en- Scottish, and English Roman Catholics "titled, to disturb or weaken the Protest-have sworn, and they act up to their oaths. "ant religion, and Protestant government VI. "in that kingdom." V. But it is suggested, that though it should be conceded, that all other non-conformists to the Church of England ought to be admilled to a free and complete toleration, the Roman Catholics should be excluded from it on account of their acknowledgment of the Supremacy of the Pope. I proceed to another charge:-It is asserted to be a tenel of our faith, or, at least, a received opinion among us, that the Pope or the Church has a right to absolve subjects from their allegiance to their Sovereign. But this doctrine has been most solemnly abjured by us, in the oaths which we have taken to Government. It is disclaimed by the opinions of the foreign universities, and This admits of a very easy answer. The Pope Pius the VIth proscribed it, by his Catholics certainly acknowledge the rescript of the 17th of June, 1791. spiritual supremacy of the Pope; but they VII, deny his temporal authority; they acknow- The same may be said of the charge ledge no right either in the Pope, or in any brought against us of holding il lawful to Council, to interfere in any manner in tem- kill any Sovereign or any private person poral concerns, or to interfere, by any mode under excommunication. This doctrine of temporal power, in concerns of a spiritual also is disclaimed by us, in our oaths, as nature. By the oath prescribed to the Eng-"unchristian and impious;" it is disclaimlish Roman Catholics, by the 31st of His present Majesty, we swear, that "we do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, 61 or potentate hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, su"periority, or pre-eminence, directly, or "indirectly, within the realm." ed in terms, equally strong, in the answers of the foreign Universities, and Pope Pius the VIth, in his rescript of 1791, solemnly declares such a murder "to be a horrid "and detestable crime." VIII. The same answer may also be given to the charge, of its being á tenet of our church, The Irish and Scottish Roman Catholic that it is lawful to break faith with heretics. subjects of His Majesty take a similar oath. In our oaths, we disclaim that doctrine also, The answers given by the foreign universi-" as impious and unchristian," and the ties to the questions proposed to them by the direction of Mr. Pitt, the doctrines laid down in all our catechisms, and other standard books of authority, express the same belief. In the oath taken by the Irish Roman Catholics they swear, that it is not an article of the Catholic faith, and "that they are not thereby bound to be"lieve or profess, that the Pope is infalli"ble; or that they are not bound to obey any order, in its own nature immoral, "though the Pope or any ecclesiastical power should issue or direct such an "order; but that, on the contrary, they "hold it sinful in them to pay any regard "to such an order." 66 46 It is said, that the Popes on several occasions have claimed and exercised the right of temporal power. We acknowledge it, and we lament it. But the fact is of little 'consequence; no Roman Catholic now believes, that either Pope or Council, or both Pope and Council acting together, have, or ought to have, any right to interfere by any form or mode, either of temporal or spiritual power, in civil concerns; or to inter terms in which it is disclaimed in the answers of the foreign Universities, are equally strong. But, without entering further on the subject of this charge, we make this solemn appeal upon it, to the feelings and common sense of every reader of these co Jumns:-Does not the single circumstance, of our being, after the lapse of 200 years, petitioners to Parliament for the repeal of the penal and disabling laws to which we are subject, in consequence of our not taking oaths, the taking of which would, at once, have delivered us from all these penalties and disabilities, prové, beyond all exception and argument, that we do not believe the existence of any power which can dispense with the obligation of an oath. On this head I beg leave to add my own testimony having, in almost every stage of life, lived in habits of acquaintance or intimacy with all descriptions of Roman Catholics; the young, the old, the literate, the illiterate, foreigners and natives, ecclesiastic and secular, I never knew one who did not hear the charge in question with indignation, and treat it as an execrable calumny. 3. But it is said that the Council of Lateran 2. assumed a right to temporal power, and that the Council of Constance authorized the violation of the safe conduct granted to John Huss. Both of those facts are positively denied by the Roman Catholics. This is not a place for discussing the point-but, what does it signify?-If the Council of Lateran claimed for the Pope, or itself, a right to temporal power, it did wrong; if the Council of Constance authorized the violation of the safe conduct, it did infamously, and there's an end on't. IX. That the Pope, or Cardinals, or any Body of Men, or any Individual of the Church of Rome, CANNOT absolve or dispense with His Majesty's Subjects from their Oath of Allegiance, upon any pre-. text whatsoever. That there Is No Principle in the Tenets of the Catholic Faith, by which Catholics are justified in not keeping Faith with. Heretics, or other Persons differing from them in Religious Opinions, in any Transactions either of a public or a private Nature. Nothing can be more explicit than the answers of the Foreign Universities—some of them express perfect wonder, that such questions should be proposed to them by a nation that glories in her learning and discernment. Having had frequent occasion to mention in these columns the answers of the Foreign Universities to certain questions proposed to them by the direction of Mr. Pitt, the reader will probably wish to be better informed of the circumstances attending the transaction. As soon as the opinions of the Foreign In the year 1786, the Committee of the Universities were received, they were transEnglish Catholics waited on Mr. Pitt, re- mitted to Mr. Pitt. But the Roman Caspecting their application for a repeal of the tholics wish it to be most distinctly underpenal laws. He requested to be furnished stood, that it was for his satisfaction, not with authentic evidence of the opinions of their's, that these opinions were taken. the Roman Catholic Clergy, and the Roman Assuredly, His Majesty's Roman Catholic Catholic Universities abroad," on the ex- subjects did not want the wisdom of Foreign ❝istence and extent of the Pope's dispens- Universities to inform them, that His Ma"ing power." Three questions were ac- jesty is the lawful Sovereign of all his Rocordingly framed, and submitted to his ap-man Catholic Subjects, and that by every probation. As soon as it was obtained, they were sent to the Universities of Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca, and Valladolid, for their opinions. The questions proposed to them were 1. Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any Body 3. Is there any Principle in the Tenets of The Universities answered unanimously,. 1. That the Pope, or Cardinals, or any Body of Men, or any Individual of the Church of Rome, HAS NOT any Civil Authority, Power, Jurisdiction, or Preeminence whatsoever, within the Realm of England. divine and human law, his Roman Catholic subjects owe him true, dutiful, active, and unreserved allegiance. The originals of these questions and of the answers to them, with the notarial authentications of them, have been produced in the House of Commons by Sir John Cox Hippisley. They are in the custody of the writer of these columns, and are open to the inspection of every person who wishes to inspect them. X. It is also objected to the Roman Catholics, that it is an article of their faith, or, at least, that they consider it to be lawful. to persecule Heretics for their religious opinions. All this the Roman Catholics most explicitly deny, and they consider it is completely denied in the solemn disclaimers made by them in all their oaths, of the direct or indirect right of the Pope or the church to temporal power; as without temporal power persecution cannot subsist. They admit that many persons of their communion, both ecclesiastic and secular, have, at different times, been guilty of the crime of religious persecution; but they blame the conduct of those persons as severely as it is blamed by their Protestant brethren. ansolution never to commit them again, and by a willingness to satisfy God and your Neighbour also, as far as justice re"quires. Without those dispositions on your part, the act of the Priest would not be ratified in Heaven; you would be "guilty of the profanation of the sacrament of penance, and provoke the indignation "of the Almighty instead of obtaining his mercy." It is not a little remarkable, that a canon of the English church, in 1608, enjoining the Priest not to make known to any one what had been revealed to him, bears such a similitude to the Roman Catholic doctrine on this head, that when it was produced in the House of Commons, Mr. Wilberforce interrupted him by saying, that it was a canon, not of the English but the Romish church, and expressed his astonishment when Sir John Hippisley shewed it to be one of the most recent canons which had been formed for the government of the esta blished church. They also plead a tremendous set off. The massacre at Paris, on St. Bartholomew's day, was most horrid; but it had been preceded by the atrocities, full as horrid, of the Anabaptist Protestants at Munster. To the burnings in the reign of Queen Mary" the Roman Catholics oppose the executions of Priests in the reigns of Queen Elizabeth," and the four Princes of the House of Stuart: they apprehend, that more cannot be said against the revocation of the edict of Nantes than against the deprivation of 2,000 Presbyterian Ministers of their livings, by the Act of Uniformity. They also bring into account Oates's plot; the sentence of death passed on Servitus for errors against the Trinity, through the influence of Calvin, his execution, and the justification of it by two of the principal pillars of the reformed Church, Melancthon and Beza. Between these enormities, it is not easy, in all events, to strike a balance; but the Roman Catholic may justly ask, by what principle of justice, or by what fair course of reasoning, the Protestant is authorized to ascribe the instances of persecution, which he proves on Roman Catholics, to a principle of the Roman Catholic creed, unless he allows, at the same time, that the instances of persecution which the Catholic proves in the I beg leave not to enter into a discussion Protestant Church are equally attributable of this objection, as it cannot be urged to to some principle of the Protestant creed. us by a Protestant of the established church "Brother, Brother (say two known charac- of England, as the Athanasian Creed forms "ters on the stage), we have both been in a part of her liturgy, and he swears that "the wrong."-Let us learn wisdom from our doctrine of transubstantiation is damnthem; let us no more upbraid one another able; or by a Protestant of the established with our common failings; let us forget church of Scotland, as the Protestants of and forgive, bury all past animosities in that church, in their Profession of Faith of oblivion, shake hands, and be friends. 1568, say, that "out of the church there This is the only rational mode of closing" is neither life nor everlasting happiness;" "is this by far the most disgusting and dis- or by a Protestant of the French Huguenot graceful part of all our controversies. church, as in their Catechism, on the 10th XI. article of the Creed, they profess, that out of the church there is nothing but death and damnation." XII. One of the objections most strongly urged against the Roman Catholics, is the tenet imputed to them, that none are saved out of their communion. XIII. Another charge is brought against us by our adversaries, in consequence of the Doctrines imputed to us respecting Sacerdotal Absolution. We are said to believe that This leads us to observe, that passages the mere absolution of a Priest, without are often cited from the works of Roman any thing on our part, is a full remission of Catholic writers, which express, that the sin. In answer to this we shall only tran-Roman Catholic religion has always been scribe the following passage from the Book the same; and that those who say, that the of Prayers for the use of Catholics serving modern Roman Catholics differ in one iota in fleets and armies. "You know, from from their predecessors, either deceive them"the Catechism you have learnt, and the selves or wish to deceive others. These Books of Catholic instruction you have passages have been cited to prove that, "read, that the absolution of a Priest can whatever doctrine any Pope or any ecclesi"be of no benefit to you, unless you be astical body, or any writer of approved "duly disposed to a reconciliation with authority, maintained or sanctioned by your offended God by true faith, by a those practices in former times, is univer "sincere sorrow for all your sins, by a firm sally approved of by the modern Cathol 3 |