Two-thirds of the population of Ireland, and no inconsiderable proportion of the population of England, is composed of Roman Catholics. It is obvious that the feelings of this large proportion of the community are wounded, in the highest degree, by the penal and disabling laws to which they are subject; and that they consider themselves highly injured, insulted, and degraded by them. Now, must it not be beneficial to the State, that this extensive feeling of insult, injury, and degradation, should be healed? Do not wisdom and sound policy 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 national 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 king. dom enjoy the most full and liberal Toleration; and that Toleration is the utmost favor, to which any nonconformist to the religion, established by law, can reasonably aspire.

To this, we beg leave to answer, that Toleration, rightly understood, is all we ask for by our Petition. But what is toleration, when the word is rightly understood? *If, after a Government has adopted a particular religion, decreed its mode of worship to be observed in its churches, and provided for its functionaries, from the funds of the State, it leaves the non-conformist in complete possession of all his civil rights and liberties, the non-conformist enjoys a full and complete Toleration. But whenever the Government of a country represses other forms of religion, by subjecting 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..

Our common adversaries contend, that the exclusion of Non-conformists, by the Test and Corporation Acts, from honorable and lucrative offices, is not a punishment, and therefore is not intolerance.

But before the enactment of those statutes, were not all the subjects of this realm equally eligible, by the common law of the land, to every honorable and every lucrative office which the State could confer? Is not eligibility to office a civil right? Does it not, therefore, necessarily follow, that every statute which deprived nonconformists of their right or eligibility to office, deprived them of a civil right, and was therefore penal? If Roman Catholics had been in possession of these offices, and deprived of them in consequence of their adherence to their religion by the statutes 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 infliction, there is none in the penal quality of those statutes, which deprive persons of offices, and those which deprive them of their prior legal eligibility to them. The right of possessing an office, the right of succeeding to it, and the right of eligibility to it, are equally civil rights. There is no difference in this respect between offices and landed property-the right to possess an estate, to succeed to it, and to acquire it, are equally civil rights. The justice or policy of these laws is not now under our consider-ation-the simple question before us is, Whether eligibility to offices and 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 unquestionable 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 disabili ties which do not affect any other description of nonconformists. The Roman Catholics, therefore, are the most persecuted of all.

Here then we close with our adversaries; we seek not to interfere with the Established Church, with her hierarchy, with her endowments, with her tythes, with any thing else that contributes to her honor, her comfort, or her security. Give us but toleration in the true sense of that much-abused word, and we claim no more. By the oath prescribed to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, by the 33d of his present Majesty, the Roman Catholic swears-"That he will defend, to the utmost of his power, the settlement and arrangement of property in that country, as established by the laws now in being; and he thereby disclaims, disavows, and solemnly abjures any intention to subvert the present Church establishment, for the purpose of substituting a Catholic establishment in its stead; and he solemnly swears, that he will not exercise any privilege to which he is or may be entitled, to disturb and weaken the Protestant religion, and Protestant government 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 admitted 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.

This admits of a very easy answer. The Roman Catholics certainly acknowledge the spiritual supremacy of the Pope: but they deny his temporal authority. They acknowledge no right, either in the Pope, or in any Council, to interfere in any manner in temporal concerns, or to interfere, by any mode of temporal power, in concerns of a spiritual nature. By the oath prescribed to the English 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, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within the realm."

The Irish and Scotch Roman Catholic subjects of his Majesty take a similar oath. The answers given by the foreign universities 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 believe or profess, that the Pope is infallible; or that they are 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."

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 conse quence; 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