"plain and unequivocal declaration," the "frank and explicit" prayer for relief, of" the representatives of some of the most ancient and illustrious houses of England." It will be recollected by the reader, that in the debate on the catholic question in the session of 1817, the bishop of Norwich made an loquent appeal in favour of the petitionérs, in the house of peers, and was followed by Dr. Herbert Marsh, who had just been rewarded with the see of Llandaff, for his zeal against popery, and has since been further recompensed with the more lucrative diocess of Peterborough. Dr. Marsh took his ground on the supposed divided allegiance of catholics, than which nothing can be more puerile. It had, however, its desired effect, and the venerable and revered bishop of Norwich, with other leaders of the cause in parliament, have been exerting themselves ever since to get a declaration from the managers of the junto, indicative of their allegiance being the same as that which protestants give to the crown. In point of civil matters, catholics yield to none in their attachment to the king and the just laws of the land; but in spirituals they do not allow the civil magistrate to have any right to interfere, as the authority they bow to is from God, and from God alone, though man is the agent to exercise it. This authority is defined, it cannot infringe on the civil sword of the state, and consequently the allegiance of a catholic is full and undivided. Protestants allow the right of the state to interfere in matters spiritual. Parliament (according to church of England men) can make articles of religion, can amend them, and can abrogate them at pleasure. With catholics no such thing is admitted.They believe what God has revealed, and the apostles delivered; but neither pope, nor cardinal, nor conclave, nor council, can add thereto or diminish therefrom. The pope is, by divine right, the head of the church, which, being a kingdom not of this world, can neither retrench from, nor interfere with, the allegiance of any subject of any state, whether protestant or catholic, autocratic or representative, monarchial or republican. The instructions given by the pope are received through the respective prelates in each state, who are amenable to the laws of that

state; and as they relate to matters purely spiritual, the allegiance of a ca, tholic is no more divided than the alle, giance of a dissenter from the church of England, who will not allow the king any more right to control his conscience than the catholic. The members of the established church do not admit any spiritual functions to reside in the king, though they make him head of the church of England and Ireland-the archbishop of Canterbury is the spiritual pope of the national church, under the king and privy council, and subject to legislative enactments. To remove the apprehensions of the opponents of catholic emancipation belonging to the establishment, and to assimilate the discipline of the two churches as nearly as possible, to please the advocates of that measure also attached to the establishment, is the object of this pretended “plain and unequivocal declaration," to use the words of the petitioners, "to remove the apprehensions of many benevolent and well disposed men on the important point of divided allegiance.'" The article purports to be the language of a protestant; it says, alluding to the accusation of divided allegiance, and the denial of the charge, "What follows is, if possible, still more express and emphatic. They declare, that 'in his majesty alone they recognize the power of the civil sword within this realm of England; and they acknow ledge in no foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, any power or autho rity to use the same within the said realm, in any matter or cause whatever, whether civil, spiritual, or ecclesiastical.' This last clause (adds the writer) it may be hoped, will convince every candid mind that our catholic brethren do not confound the civil with the spiritual sword; or, in other words, that they do not hold that the pope, or any foreign power whatever, can, under any circumstances, employ force, within this country, in support of his ecclesiastical authority." Catholics, to be sure, ought to be infinitely obliged to this disinterested protestant scribe for his hope that the Jansenistical managers of catholic affairs have at last hit upon a scheme to convince the candid mind that catholics" do not confound the civil with the spiritual sword." For our part, we have long felt satisfied,

no

that the mind which could not be convinced of our separating the two authorities, by our denial, on oath, that " 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 this realm," will pay very little regard to this puffed-off "express and emphatic" declaration. With ali due respect, too, to the deep penetration of this profound writer, we, being catholic, do take upon ourself to say, that by this clause the petitioners do take upon themselves to confound the civil with the spiritual sword," which they have denied on their oaths, so far as the pope is concerned. They do most undoubtedly deny the power of the pope to use the civil sword in matters spiritual or ecclesiastical, but they, at the same time, admit the power in the king, as we have shewn in our answer to a correspondent at page 239 of this number. By not explicitly and frankly denying the power of using the civil sword in spiritual concerns in any individual whomsoever, they acknowledge its existence somewhere-therefore, in disclaiming such power in the pope, or any foreign prince or state, they proclaim its existence in the domestic temporal authority. In other words, they give to the king what they disown in the pope. The petitioners complain, that the disabling laws in force against them tend to perpetuate religious dissensions," and we are sure that their conduct is not calculated to heal them. There is but one way to remove religious discord, which is, a strict adherence to consistency and principle, and this is a path which the would-be-leaders never think of treading, and the petitioners unfortunately exhibit a "pusillanimous indifference" to. When will our divines and men of rank and property recover from that state of opacity they have so long wandered in ?

man catholics of Ireland, Nicholas Purcell O'Gorman, esq. is reported to have said, that" he had now good reason to believe, although he could not, with propriety, state particulars, the royal inclination had returned to its first and honourable bent, and he should not be surprised if they were emancipated within the short space of SIX WEEKS." This declaration is stated to have been received with "loud applause," and the more is the pity. We are not much surprised that Mr. NichoJas Purcell O'Gorman should entertain so extraordinary an idea, because we never held his opinions worth much, after his display of acuteness on Quarantotti's rescript. He is stated to have said, in 1814, that he would resist the document, though he should cease to be a catholic; and to have contended, in reply to Dr. Dromgole, that it was competent for him to second a resolution, and to speak against it. We are afraid the learned secretary on the other side of St. George's channel has been corresponding with his very learned brother on this side, and that as the latter has been very expert in jockeying bishops, he has shewn himself no less expert in humbugging his brother barrister. Four weeks out of the six unluckily are gone over without any apparent likelihood of the secretary's prophecy being fulfilled; and from the present state of the session, occupied as our senators have been, and probably will be, with the unfortunate differences between the king and queen, we are more inclined to predict that the discussion on the petition will not come on this session. The petitions were consigned to the care of the earl of Donoughmore and Mr. Grattan, but death having seized the latter, on his arrival in the metropolis, it became necessary to appoint another member to present it to the house of commons. This circumstance occasioned several meetings of the Dublin board, the transactions at which cannot be better described than as they have been by that independent catholic writer, John Lawless, esq. in his weekly paper, called The Irishman, of the 23d inst. from which we copy the fol lowing account :

Why this silence? Of whom is the Catholic Board afraid? The Corporation of Dublin are open and above board; they are not afraid, nor ashamed; their proceedings, however disgusting and vulgar, are published; if they abuse the people of Ireland, they are not afraid to do so. But the catholic board of Essex-street, with Lord Fingal in the chair at one time, and Sir Edward Bellew at another, it seems, dare not face the light; their debates are carefully and cautiously suppressed; they hold conferences with this and that statesman, and all is mystery and silence. Mr. Plunkett puts a padlock on the mouths of an entire committee, and there is not one man that has the boldness to resist him; all is confidence and politeness-beautiful compliment-bowing and scraping to the great man! This is not the mode in which the affairs of the catholics were accustomed to be conducted; all was done in open day, and the man who would advise secrecy or mystery was justly branded with either want of intellect or want of integrity.

"It seems a meeting lately took place in D'Arcy's, Essex-street, at which the following resolutions were carried:

"Ist. That a delegation from the committee should wait on Mr. Plunkett, respectfully to inquire if he would support the prayer of our petition for relief, unconnected with, and unqualified by, any ecclesiastical restrictions and regulations. "2d. That such delegation should report in writing, to the committee, the answer of Mr. Plunkett.

"3d. That in case Mr. Plunkett should not think fit to give a distinct answer in the affirmative-the committee would report the Knight of Kerry, as a fit person to present our petition.

"Mr. O'Connell was one of this delegation, and though we do not think he should ever be a member of a committee that would conceal an important communication from the eyes of his countrymen, yet, under all circumstances, we must consider ourselves indebted to his integrity and spirit as far as he has gone. He has written a letter to the editor of the Dublin Evening Post, in which he states the proceedings of the meeting at D'Arcy's, on Wednesday the 14th instant, and recites the above resolutions. He tells us, that a delegation was appointed by the board to wait on Mr. Plunkett, and that this gentleman received the delegation with great politeness. But does Mr. Plunkett or the delegation from Essex-street flatter themselves that the public cannot guess, without the possibility of mistake, the real nature of the reply which is thus doomed by them and him to oblivion? Does not every man of com

mon sense see that Mr. Plunkett's reply. was exactly of that description that could not bear the light, because it was disho nourable to the character, and painful to the feelings of the catholics of Ireland. It might gratify the great majority of the delegation, it is trne; but certain we are, that a conditional advocate-a gentleman who seeks from the catholic a more substantial security for the church and state than the oath of the catholic, would not be entrusted with their petition by the catholic people of Ireland. Mr. Plunkett is that species of advocate, therefore he cannot be selected by the catholics, if they be sincere in their opposition to an arrangement that will vest a corrupting power over their clergy in a government of a different religion.

"It appears this cautious and discreet delegation came back, and, though contrary to their wishes, were obliged to report their interview with Mr. Plunkett to the general Board. What, then, is done? -An effort is made to give the petition to Mr. Plunkett, though he contends that some further securities should be given by the catholic than his oath. O'Connell, prudently anticipating the judgment of the public mind, moves the question of adjourn ment, and carries it only by two voices. For this struggle the catholics are much indebted to O'Connell, counsellors Coppinger and Dillon, and Eneas M'Donnell, as well as those who acted with them. But are there no other reasons to dissuade the catholic from giving his petition to Mr. Plunkett than those stated by O'Connell. Is the vindication of the barbarous and bloody proceedings of Manchester, nothing? Is the general odium in which the name of Plunkett is held by the reformers of England, nothing? Are the catholics to prefer Mr. Plunkett, because he is the relentless enemy of millions who have put on indelible record their devotion to the cause of civil and religious freedom in Ireland? Is it because Mr. Plunkett is popular with the boroughmongers, that the catholics hope for triumph through his advocacy; or is it that the catholics flatter themselves that they shall be the favourites in an unreformed house of commons, because they are despised by the people who are petitioning for reform? Wretched, miserable policy! disgraceful and destructive to the cause they advocate. No, no; the catholics never will recover their freedom by such low and crooked tricks. They never will coax the monopolists by such mean and despicable cunning to surrender a particle of their mo nopoly. Let their conduct be candid-honest-plain and unsophisticated, and then they will be respected, even by their enemies; but let no man imagine that talents