Star.
London, England, 1805-05-14 00:00:00

~ -
, • •
• . , , i , I.
.. -
. ..."
i 3 • , •>. ' •' • ..dc " . '..
,: . P:. • ,;:. ''' Yf -
. • -.1 t: '
'•
• . '.:12._-_77.7:-....". \ SA• TZ• , L ‘•1 '•-• '
't
1: 1
• ~ ' V,-4 \II ^
'.. iik: App.,l ''.,_. l' • ( 44 I -e4 f.Y i.,..1.1 ii. ,9' :'y,
' • iso .
—:—..C_L__

V

1. PRICE MC-PENCE

and the Catholics,rem4ined not merely deOitute of

property, but in circumstances of degradation, that
molt peculiarly marked that Orange and unnatural
Rate of human fociety. Neverthiltrs, in a Govern-
ment like this, fo compFcated in its nature, and

ing by fo many concur yen: operations at the fupport
of liberty and
,gond adminiftration, it i% fo material
that property and pt.wer fhould go hand in hand,and
that there fhould in the want tf property be no cir-

cumilance beyond the want of it, t;) give a_ pecuha-
thy of feature to the individual, it was neceifary to
begin with laying a foundation, on which the farther
extenfion of the rights of the Catholics thoirld be
built. The firft objeCl, then, was to enable die Ca.
tholics to acquire property, from doing which they
were prohibited. This law was attended with the
molt beneficial confequences. Not only a new int.
pulfe was given to induiry, and a new mention to
the produetive powers of wealth which already
call-
ed, but a vaa additional macs of w-a!th was created
in the hands of thole who had p•dlefred little or none
before. The Catholic Body then began to atrime a
new chat-atter. The line of demarcation between

thole who had property and thole whn had not watt'
thus gradually rendered lets marked: and Inc Catho.
lies have not only advanced in wealrh, but have re-
covered much of that prr perry of which, by a,lverfe
circumflances, they had log be ore been deprived.
This latter point I ailode to par.iculArly, in cider to
obviate an appreht• fl.n, that a conteilion f the Ca-
tholic claims would lead to a rtfuniption of all that
property which is frcured by the A 8 a Settlement.

This appears to be one f the. wildell alarms that Can
be conceived. 13. it foripote the at:empt to give back
all pall forteituts urge fllAltle what the
conlequence ? Would it wt be to lirt) Cr their pro.
perty thole Catholics wly, have tiox lcir_d it ?
Would it n.it be to 'hip that Cat!mlies ‘vb ate row

rich and opulent, in t'avour of tiv)le who ate not
—Solely there is little reason to ppithend OA the
Catholics wonld cseit the power wi:h which they
might he indtilgtd, to prndnce effetis by which they
themfelves molt be tl c immediate and principal
fufferers.

The difabilities under which the Catholics labour,
are of two forts. Incapacity to holti certain office.,
civil and military, and to fit in Parliament. Thofe
who have been in the habit of elnfulting that odious
chapter of our amine law, which, in the eyes of all
enlightenel men . t hi me and abseacl, mutt ever Rand
as the ulna queflionable parts of a political fyfiem,
fo much admired on the whole, know well that the
refit-aloes as to thole poin3 are of very different
kinds. In fume of them the incapacitation differed
by the individual operates as a limitation on the pre-
rogative of the Crown. The Crown is reitrained in
its general power of appointirg to races by the law,
which Pays that the Catholic lir.ell riot be appointed.
—The objeft of the Tell Mt was to prevent Charles
the Second from employing Catholics. And here
let me (late an obfervation upon this point, which is
rather whimfical, but at the fame time is very wrong
and convincing. It will (hew very lit kingly the
different views which our ancolors entertained from
us in the nature of this fpecics of reftriftion. It is
now contended, that one great reafon for exclud-
ing Catholics from the fervice of a Protestant King
is analogy, and that as the King is a Protefiant,
fit his fervants (hall be of the fame religion.—But
when the difference of fats eti!ls, as it does among
us, this analogical beauty and perfeftion of the con-
liitution is quite 1011. The realon, however, why our
anceflors would not differ Charles 11. to employ Ca-
tholics was, becaule they had doubts whether he him-
f:lf was not a Catholic. This Was far more reafona-
ble than our view of the cafe. Had they been quite
fatisfied of Charles 11. being a fincete Prot eflant, they
might not have been fo averfe to lies empkying Ca-
tholics. But if the King was iuppoled to have a fecret
leaning to the Catholic religion, he tr iglit be fufpeCied
of bad motives in walling to employ perfons of the
fame religion. But direly it is Ilrange that, at a time
wlsen there can be no fulpicion (1 I Peak now general-
ly of the reigning Sovereign), that the King on the
throne being a Roman Cath.,lic, his prerogative
lhould be relerained as to the eirylo-, m:nt Cath.•lics,
leariyi he is a Proteflant.—The Tetl AO, however,
which was introduced in the reign t.f Charles 11. has
received the approbation of many great well, and
even of Mr. Locke himfelf, though it, perhaps, may
be thought that his fentiments ptil;:ifhed in a political
pamphlet, probably with Tome view to particular oc-
, cations, may not be deemed of authority eq;33l to his
more general dal' int. In the feccze,:ing reign, how-
, ever, James 11. wished to prucute the repeal of the
felt Aft. But as James 11. was a Catholic, it was
the prevailing opini it, that in all the circumlauces
iof the cafe, to have repealed that Aet, would have
committed to that Prince means which he was but
too likely to employ againfl the liberties of the coun-
try. It was afterwards continued, even in the reign
of King William, who was no friend to reilriaions of
'that fort, becaule the high Church Party, who had
concurred with the fetticment at the Resolution,
thought they had obtained a teem ity for the C hutch
againll a body of men, by whom they were, or affcti-
ed to he, afraid, while the other party by a ~ort ref
compromife acquiefccd, being afraid of the conk-
quences of the clamour which might have been railed,
had the Ad been repealed. Thos the law continued
not only to operate againte the Roman Catholics but
againft other Difrenters horn the Church. The Teft
Aft requires thole who undertake offices to do certain
things—but how has it Len enforced in I-eland
There it has with relPeCt to Protestants been in many
points repealed. How has it applied to the Catholics?
It has been given up as to many fubordinate offices, as
to the military profetlion below a certain rank, as to the
Bfr wholly, with the exception of a few lope, ior Oa-
times. After this review of the fituations from which
the Catholics are excluded, the enemies of their claims
then come and fay, Why direly you don't all exited
to be Chancellors and Staff Officers, and therefore
you have no reafon to complain that any one of you is.
injured by the ezclufion." cold anti tuafeeliny

~~