The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-05-14 00:00:00

that restriftions ought to have any prescriptive r
right. Having, however, taken place, it may
be necessary to consider how far it may be
true, that the causes which' gave rise to them have
ceased. The very continuance of long restriCtions
may have stsch an of eft on those who have been
used to them, as to render it difficult to restore them
to that healthail state in which they were before
such hardships took place. All these restrietions
were originally laid on from political principles, and
this must he apparent to every rational man, to have
been the only cause. I won't go, Sir, to earlier
times for a proof of this, than to the reigns of
(queen Elizabeth, and James I. 'flat gnat and
good Princess, who was one of the most celebrated
Sovereigns that ever filled the Throne of these
realms ; whose reign was one continued scene of
glory to this country ; who was, from the vigour of
her mind, and the attivi:y of her measures, at once
the terror and envy of her enemies, and the pride
and 'admiration of her own subjefts, was engaged
in almost a continual war with great Catholic pow-
ers; and, above all. with the King of Spain : and,
Rom the intimate conneftion he had with the Ca-
tholics and with -France, at that period, it was no
wonder that the Catholics in Ireland should he look-
ed upon as enemies to Government. These, Sir,
were, however, old times, and very few restric-
tions of a harsh and cruel nature took place
till a much Liter period.—These happened
afterwards in the times of the Stuarts. With
regard to Charles I. bow far he might be in-
clined towards the Roman Catholic: religion I don't
know; that may be a subjed for future historians;
certain it is, however, that Charles D. and his bro-
ther, gave itilinite cause of suspicrun to the potpie
that were friendly to it. At the time ,if she :ere-
lutiorr, all the restraints that were la'd were not
against the Cerholiss but against tire Jacobites. In
James 11. they were so mixed, that few persons cal
say _which bigotry was the greatest. In Ireland
things were much worse than they were here, and
the war was settled by the conquest of that country ;
the restraillts were not laid against transubstanti-
aticn, or other religious tenets, but against the pa in-
civics of the jacobites, who wished to overturn the
Government and restore the banished family. King
William, Sir, was a great man, and those who
woeli represent him as a religious bigot do great
injustice to his el-wafter. He consented with con-
siderablt reluctance to these restraints, hut they
were Jacobites he had conquered there, and he was
under the necessity of acceding tb the opinion of
those who formed his council, and who thought it
proper and requisite to impose restrtetions arid re-
straints, not on the ground of religion, but from pc+.
litieal motives and reasons entirely. Thine years
which immediately followed the Revolution were
most of them years of war, and it is well known
that one of the grand points on which France prin-
cipally relied was the hopes of being able to promote
and bring about a civil war in Ireland, and by that
means to accomplish their desire and aim to change
the Government in favour of the deposed and
banished family. It •becam-, therefore, a question
of safety to the State, and the Catholics were
accordingly disarmed. That there were bigotted
mseons at that period there can b.! no doubt, but
were those at the same time who thought,
▪ tberc are many now who continue to think,
that more lenient measures would have been still
more successful. Now, Sir, what was the nature
of those laws ? They were nominally against
the Catholics, but, in fag and reality, against
the Jacobites; but, being afterwards followed by
two reLellions in Ireland, considering all the circum-
stances attending those, it is impossible to deny that
it was, at that time, difficult to trust the safety of
the seat: without resorting to those restriftions which
Bari. been laid on for its pmteftion and security. We
C,71, • ow, Sir, to his present Majesty's succession to
r` ..n; and at that period, 1 think, I may trea-
t •to without fear of contradiCtion, that all
da err ores the ciaims of the Pretender, or any
pa I. the banished family, had ceased, and was
entirely it en '•.l I. In fan, 1 may say, that thus
they had hecome weak and contemptible towards
the latter end of the reign of George 11. From
as ti.r.;Jesty's succession, therefore, we may date the
period, and, if I am not mistaken, it was in the Lord
Lieutenancy of the Duke of Bedford, that reline-
lions first took place with respeft to these restraints
and disqualifications; because the reasons which
gave rise to the terrors that occasioned the restric-
tions had ceased. nett+ re, Sir, in the American
war, and in the subsequent one with France, arms
• er yr-re:Waif° *. i, put into the hands of the Ca-
tholics. Tlicugla there was not at the time much
deba.e on the subjed, yet there was a considerable
difference of opinion; and I remember well the con-
e, rsations of those days, about the year 1776 or
1777, pasticularly a conversation tkat took place in
the House, and afterwards became a topic among
some of the wisest and most enlightened men in the
kingdom. And though it was in the middle of the
American war, the opinion then was, that it was a
most desireable thing to relieve the Roman Ca-
tholics from the restriftions under which they
laboured, and the disqualifications to which they
were liable. AMong. those who held this opi-
nion, Sir, I can mention two names which then
did and ever will continue to reflex the highest
honour OTT this country, from the arnltisie virtues,
superior talents, and sincere patriotism, with which
they were so eminedtly endriwed. I mean, Sir
George Saville and Mr. Duttning, and many others
of the first respeetability for political and caestitn-
tional knowledge, were of the same opinion. As
to myself, Sir, I always thought, that, putting a
man into a state of restiklion, and rendering him
liable to disabilities from religious motives, if not
conneeted with political ones, sees a tyranny of the
worst and most hateful kind. I remember at that
t re most men were staggered on this subjeti ;
there were no objeitions that could be made on ac-
count of the Pope or the Pretender. There might,
perhaps, be those who wished to indulge themselves
en minting or insulting their names or their memo-
ries ; but there was not a single bosom in the coun-
ts, ia which was to be falba a tittle or a particle
of terror or dread of either of them. There was,
indeed, a reason assigned which was of some weight,
and which, I am sorry to say, had, I fear, too much
truth in it. This originated from the then state of
- lower orders of the Catholics,
to the ferocious cantina and
‘ls them by the laif and
Protestants. The Gentlemen

the great MATS of the lc
seseiag, as it WAS stated, I
treatment used towardi
►acs orders of the Pi