is, when Mr. O'Hara presented the said mentioned petition to the Irish house of commons, on the 23d of January, 1792, the bigots composing that house raised so many objections to it, that he found it necessary to withdraw the document. Finding the bold and explicit statement of their grievances not very palatable to the monopolists of constitutional rights, the catholics presented another petition, by the hands of Mr. Egan, on the 18th of February fol

to submit to the wisdom and expedience of parliament. The proposition of the lords and gentlemen, however, was resisted, and, on a division, the nobility found themselves in a minority of 90 to 17. Pursuant to this decision, a petition was drawn up, couched in the most forcible, manly, and constitutional language, in which the petitioners enter into a statement of their long endured grievances, demanding the severest scrutiny into their principles, actions, words, and even thoughts.-lowing, praying that the house would We hunger and we thirst," they say, "for the constitution of our country. If it shall be deemed otherwise, and shall be determined that we are qualified perhaps for the base and lucrative tenures of professional occupation, but unworthy to perform the free and noble services of the constitution, we submit, indeed, but we solemnly protest_ _against that distinction for ourselves and for our children. It is no act of ours. Whatever judgment may await our merits or our failings, we cannot conclude ourselves, by recognizing, for a consideration, the principle of servility and perpetual degradation." Such, sir, were the sentiments of the first petition presented by the Irish catholics to parliament; and from these we may gather, that, although they were wilhing to receive whatever might be restored to them of their civil rights, so unjustly taken away, nothing short of an equal participation in the privileges of the constitution would give them perfect satisfaction. You are therefore incorrect in your statement that "this measure, when first proposed, was not ventured to be petitioned for totally and unqualifiedly." If you had said that the

take into consideration, whether the removal of some of the grievances of the petitioners might not be compa tible with protestant security. Four days after, this petition was rejected, on a division of 200 to 23. Thus situated, and having nothing to hope from the bigoted prejudices of their own parliament, the catholics rested their hopes on the policy of the British ministers, who, alarmed at the spirit and feelings of the dissenters and the independent party to obtain a reform in parliament, as well as the industrious circulation of Paine's Rights of Man in that country, lis, tened to the representations of their agent, Mr. Keogh, and the condition of the empire becoming more critical from the revolutionary war with France, and the state of public credit, ou the 2d of January, 1793, their case was recommended to the Irish parliament by the lord lieute nant, and a few days afterwards the chief secretary introduced a bill for their relief, which subsequently received the royal assent, and is the last act of justice towards them on the part of PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY. Far, however, from relinquishing their claims to equal rights, the catholics, in their address to the intolerance of PROTESTANT AS- throne on the occasion, expressed CENDENCY Would not consent that a hope, that his majesty would enjoy the measure should be thus pro- the gratification of seeing posed, you would have come some- WHOLE PEOPLE united in the what nearer the truth; for the fact | bonds of EQUAL law and EQUAL

his

liberty. By this detail it will be seen, sir, that so far from the catholics meriting your upbraidings and reproaches, their conduct has been consistent and firm, whilst that of PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY has been wavering according to circumstances. Sometimes haughty and insulting, at other times temporizing and subtle, but never distinguished by that frankness and sense of justice which the principles of the constitution are calculated to inspire.

test, was passed in times of infamy and delusion, the restoring that class of citizens to their constitutional rights cannot be a grant or conces→ sion, but an act of STRICT JUSTICE; and in such a sense only will it be considered by the impartial and candid. For, sir, you must recollect, that in the first, and every other, appeal made by the catholics for the restitution of their long withheld rights, they have invariably denied there was any act on their part to justify the exclusion, and stoutly challenged the most severe scrutiny into their conduct, which has never been accepted.

I must now add a word on the subject of SECURITIES. You say,

The foregoing part of this letter shews, by the most incontestible authority, that forgery and fraud, perjury and oppression, were employed to dispossess the catholics of their civil rights, and ground an exclusive system of PROTESTANT ASCEND-" Relief from all disabilities was ENCY; by a comparison of dates, it will be seen that the relaxations from the penal code which bigotry and impiety reared, were always preceded by some national disaster, or under circumstances which threatened danger to the ASCENDENCY; and the preambles of the acts state that they were dictated by policy and expediency. How absurd then it is in you, sir, to expect that the great body of catholics, now composing a third of the population of the kingdom, should be satisfied with any thing short of a fair and equal eligibility to the rights of British subjects, in common with the rest of their fellow-countrymen, notwithstanding "the numerous concessions" that have been already made to them. Concessions, truly! No, sir, they are not concessions. This is, if you will, a misapplication of a term. Had you called the few acts of relief passed in favour of the catholics a partial restitution of rights, which were unjustly seized by your forefathers, you would have approached closer to correctness; for, since it is clear that the act which despoiled catholics of their immunities, by imposing an impious

demanded, but not without the pro-
mise of securities ; and when, in the
progress of desire for political
power, eligibility to seats in parlia-
ment was asked, those who supported
the catholic cause were pledged on
their side to the concession of a
veto. This negative voice, in regard
to the nomination of the Romish
hierarchy in England and Ireland,
is a just prerogative of the crown,
and, in our apprehension, most es-
sential to the maintenance of the
PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY, in the
event of the present laws of exclu-
sion being repealed; for the pope's
authority extends not merely to
matters of faith, but also to morals.
The Roman pontiff claims and exer-
cises supremacy also in secular con-
cerns, such as the payment of money
for the maintenance of the clergy,
in whose hands it is particularly to
be remembered, the engine of excom-
munication is placed." What igno-
rance! what misrepresentation!-
what a want of veracity have you
here shewn, sir, in this short quota-
tion I have made of your words !
In the first petition drawn up and
presented by the Irish catholics, they
certainly did offer "to give every

an egregious mistake. The Irish hierarchy, and the English vicars apostolic, for you must be told we have no hierarchy in England, as you have stated, are each guardians of faith and morals in their respective diocesses and districts; there fore, sir, if they teach doctrines inimical to the civil constitution, or dangerous to the existence of the go

assurance that is binding upon man;" and they have always given the same assurance on every subsequent application to parliament; but they never contemplated conceding the "negative voice, in regard to the nomination of their prelates." This measure originated, sir, with Mr. Pitt and his cabinet colleagues, and was taken up by lord Grenville after the decease of that minister.vernment, the laws against sedition It was a measure intended not only and treason will be equally as apas a security to PROTESTANT As- plicable to them as to any other class CENDENCY, but likewise of CATHOLIC of his majesty's subjects; and why SERVILITY, OF SPIRITUAL SLAVERY, should you, or any other poperyto which the catholics never will sub- hater, demand greater securities mit, submissive as they are repre- from us than from the quakers, the sented to be to the papal yoke. No methodists, the calvinists, and nupersons of the catholic body that I merous other sectaries who swarm know of stood pledged to the conces- in this country, and who would not sion of the veto, but those only who suffer ministers to appoint, or negasigned what is called The Fifth Re- tive the appointment of, any one of solution, and they composed so their preachers? As to morals, F small a number in proportion to the think it would be as well if you were whole body, that no importance to look at home. Ever since the reought to be attached to their act.- formers of the sixteenth century For, on its being made public, it threw off their subjection to the mowas opposed by the Irish bishops,ral precepts of the church, and cried the clergy, and the people, and up evangelical liberty, the state of therefore could not be the voice of this country has become more and the body. That such a measure more depraved, and the habitual may, in your apprehension, "be most wickedness of the people is made too essential to the maintenance of the visible, in the progressive increase of PROTESTANT ASCENDENCY," I cannot the penal statutes, and the accumudoubt, after the sagacity and know-lation of trials at goal deliveries. ledge you have displayed on this in-Surely, sir, you must have forgotten teresting question; but why build your frequent lamentations at the inyour fears on a fallacious founda- crease of crime in this protestant tion? Your apprehension, you say, country, when you objected to the is grounded on the pope's having claims of your catholic countrymen anthority not only in matters relating to emancipation, because the pope to faith, but also such as regard mo- had an authority over their moral rals; and he likewise, you add, conduct. Before you raised this obclaims and exercises supremacy injection, you should have examined secular concerns. As to the first, if catholics were the worse men for sir, I hope you do not imagine the adhering to the precepts of their pope to be absolute, subject to no church. You have your society for control, but having authority, like the Suppression of Vice, but did you queen Elizabeth, to do as he pleases, ever hear of their prosecuting a caand direct his slaves to believe this tholic bishop, or a catholic priest, or thing to-day, and that to-morrow. any rigid catholic whomsoever, for If such is your idea, you are under immorality of conduct? and there

a most impudent falschord

can be no doubt they would be glad | the late Mr. Pitt :-"Has the pope, of the opportunity, were one offered or cardinals, or any body of men, to them, of confirming one of the or any individual of the church of many calumnies so industriously Rome, any civil authority, power, circulated against the character of jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatthe catholic priesthood. How pue- soever within the realm?" If your rile, how insignificant, then is your assertion then, sir, be true, the ca objection, sir, on this point! But tholic divines of Paris, Doway, Lou the Roman pontiff claims and vain, Valladolid, Alcala, and Salaexercises supremacy in secular conmanca, must be liars; and all the cerns, such as the payment of money catholics, both clergy and laity, for the maintenance of the clergy," who have taken the oath prescribed you assert. Indeed, sir!—but why by the acts of 1791 and 1793, must not cite an instance of this assump be perjurers; a conclusion too setion on the part of the holy father? rious to be maintained by any man Why not produce one fact in sup- of candour and common sense.port of your assertion? Why, sir, But, to put your assertion a little confine yourself to bare assertion, further to the test: if the pope is and that too in the very teeth of the invested with such sovereign secular statute book, of the formal declara- authority, as to superintend the paytions of six catholic universities, of ment of money for the maintenance the solemn oaths of the catholics, of the clergy, in whose hands you and of the public resolutions of the wish your readers to remember is Irish catholic bishops? Were you placed the spiritual engine of exignorant of these circumstances, sir, communication, how came the Irish when you ventured your charge? bishops to tell their flocks, so late How incompetent must you be then as the year 1810, that they neither to guide or instruct the public mind sought nor desired any other earthly by the press. Did you know them, consideration for their spiritual miand yet concealed them from your nistry, save what they might, from readers? What then becomes of a sense of religion and duty, VOyour integrity as a public writer? LUNTARILY afford them? Now, sir, if you had consulted the think, sir, you will find it difficult statute book, you would have found to answer these questions without our catholic ancestors as much averse acknowledging yourself to be either to the pope's exercising any secular ignorantly mistaken, or wilfully caauthority over them as you can be: lumnious. As to another assertion, witness the penalties of premunire that the sword of excommunication imposed by the catholic parliaments is unsheathed, and often used on of Edward I and III, Richard II, trifling occasions, it is equally as and Henry IV. By the 31st of his false and unfounded as the forego'present majesty, cap. 32, catholics ing ones, which I have already exswear, in open court, that they "do posed. The Irish papers of last not believe that the pope of Rome month, in recording the excommuhath, or ought to have, any tempo- nication of two notorious characters, ral or civil jurisdiction, power, su- make the following observation: periority, or pre-eminence, directlyThis was the first ceremony of exor indirectly, within this realm;" communication ever remembered in and six foreign catholic universities Tuam." A convincing proof of replied, distinctly and unequivo- the inaccuracy of your statement, cally, in the negative, to the follow-that this severe duty is "used often ing query, propounded to them by on very trifling occasions." There

ORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. VIII.

D

I