The Statesman.
London, England, 1813-02-26 00:00:00

nary means for that protection.—[llear, hear!]—
They only requested that their persons and property
should not be bound without their Interposition—
that they should not he taxed without their consent—
that they should not be tried by partizans Covenanted
against them. This was what they wished for. They
asked not for power, but fir4.liberty. They were
anxious to be relieved from their civil incapacities. if
that was ambition, then they were ambitious. Pro-
tection, and not power, was the object of their pe-
titions ; and ought this to be denied them ? The fact
was, that the Protestants petitioned for power, while
the Catholics only solicited protection. The Pro.
testatits desired the ascendancy of a secty-•-•the.reas.
t hOlics solicited the' ascendancy of law,-r[ffenel
hear!]—This was' the real distinction between the
views and o!jects of the two classes of petitioners.—
The Protestants were desirous of ruling by. the as-
cendancy of their sect,—the Craliolics required ins-
thing more than that they should all be governed by
law. The next' objection to the Catho ic.Petitioners
was, that they desired to make laws for the Protestant
church. To this his answer was, thin they did not
desire to make laws for the Protestant ;birch. They
only wished, as he had before stated, that their
persons and property should not be bound without
their interposition, according to the Ades of the
Constitution,—that they should not be taxed with-
out their consent,—that they should not be tried by
partisans, or Juries assembled by partisansns. They
were perfectly willing that the Protestant Church
should beloverned by Protestants; and this would
always be the crek,'as the majority of the Members
Of be h !louses mutt be .Protestant; and_ would
make task for the Prolestaegicherch. Bat the Pro:.
teftants'svere not satisfied swath Ohl. They wished
to have the exclusive priiilege 'or making laws- for
. the Catholic Church,—,of binding the property of
the Catholics witbmit their consent,—and to deprive
the Catholics of the Kiviletes of the Constitution,
though the Protestant established church was, pardy.j
supported by the tithe arising from Catholic la. I
hour. But if none ought to
_be admitted to that'
House, and to make laws for the Church of Eng-
land, except Members of the Church of England, the :
Scotch Representatives ought to leave the House.—
tilter n But that House represented all Protes-
tants of whatever denomioation and description, and
excluded none but the Catholics. The principle was ;
not merely wrong, . but it was fatal. It was precisely I
this,—that they were to confine the liberty of the
GinititutAn entirely to members of a particular
Church. This was the prioftple pf the Protestant
petitions • while that of the
,Ciitt'olles was, that this '
liberty should be extended to all without.distinction. it
The Catholics desired that the Parliament should be ,
imperial in fact, as well as in name,—that it should I
represent all classses,—and that it should not be al
partizan. That Housel•tho la called the
i . HouSe4
Commons,was not itself the thl estate;it
t repreemsted t
he third estate, and stood in i !lace, but the eons? '
monalty of the United Kingdotihtaken altogetber,cone
atituted the third estate; and of thit istate,.therefore,
the Roman Catholic formed no Inconsiderable propor-
tion:
and was it fitting that so large a proportion of
the third estate should remain unrepresented ? But the
fir greater proportion of the community was Pro.;
tertant, and would necessarily always have a pro.'
poederating influence—a prom; ascendancy, set
by means of exclusion, but ToUnded on numbers
and property. This was an ascendancy which,. in the
nature of things, the Protestants ought to retain;
arid of that there was no desire to deprive them.-.,1
That ascendancy would be more thinly secured by
granting the Catholic Clainis! thah by rerusiusi
them. Give the Catholics, then, their liberty, (h.
continued), maintain your own ascendancy, and'
fortify the Crown and the Empire. Yo-uraumbers and'
',Our wealth will secure your prepoderance in Par.
Bement and the State ; and by admitting the Ca-
tholics to the privileges of fellow-subjects, under
the same constitution, give strength and security to
the whole empire. Identify the Catholics with your.
selves, by equal privileges, instead of keeping up
odious distinctions by means of pains and penalties.
—This will form a better support both for Church
and State, than all the laws of exclusion that'
can possibly be devised. The Protestant petition.
ers, he observed, appeared to think it highly dan-
gerous
to the State and to the Church, that five i
or six persons, such is my Lord Fingal!, should t
have seats in the Legislative Assemblies; but they
seemed to be quite insensible to the danger of ex-
chiding 'four millions of Catholics from their just 1
rights and privileges. Such exclusions must be '
always a source of weakness and division. He next,
adverted to those periods of Irish history,, wheat they
bad been deprived of their liberties and trade,,, and
afterwards got them back agaiu by joining with the'
Catholics. By their opposition to the Claims of the•
Catholics, they appeared to have lost all idea.Of the
liberties of their own country. The Right Hon.
Gentleman who had moved the reading of thr clauses
in the Act of Settlement, appeared to imagine that
the principles of Catholic exclusio'n
.10 ilpgeai,
chiefly in the reign of King"Willijin. this was not
correct, as to the reigns either of King William or
Queen Anne. The exclusive principle was the mad
idea of those times, when the Protestants were infu-
riated be the absurd and abominable falsehoods of
Titus Oates, and others,
.who found their account
in inventing Popish plots. A mad fiction, therefore,
was the original cause of the proscription ; .and this
mad fiction they were now making the rule for regu-,
lating the liberties and condition of the su 'eels of
U ..
Ingdom.—CHccr, heat, heart . Übe.
1 civil right* La an lie,
were looked at, it would be
were no disqualifications on
faith.—The _case of Ilun-
deserving of notice. One of
,ct of the Hungarian Diet,
that without any new orcli-.
should have the free our-
with the liberty of erecting
steeples and bells, as well as
&c. ; and that nobody'should
ither by the King or an yother
religious rights. Then came
stated, that all public charges,
great or small., should .liessii-
Arians, without respect to.the
See, then, what I Popish
when compared with a British
It could' hardly be supposed

ormsnomminimommemminnwimi

BOUM- Eli 5 e nnerttes ana
1 • r•
v • the United Kingdom.—(
4 10 state of toleration and
4 part of the Continent I
seen, in France there
.I i! account of religious I
3,1, gary was peculiarly d
the articles of an Ac
t a
. • of 1781, provided, t 1
Lances, all persons i
cise of their religion, 1
churches, even with sti
schoolsl church-yards, Z
be hindered therein, eitl
i landlord. So far for r
the civil. Article 12 sti
1141 offices, and honours, gr
‘ , ti psted to native llungai
' religion they professed.
Diet could' do, though, o
~
111OtestaarrtAlalent, i
. •
•
•