Protestants." Mr C. infers, on the whole, that, as far as the act of the 30th of Charles II. rests on the Popish Plot, the foundation entirely fails; and that if technical difficulties or temporary expediency prevented the reversal of Lord Stafford's attainder, no such reasons prevail at present "to prevent this House from paying homage to truth, though late, and reversing legislative error." Mr C. then recapitulates the grounds on which Parliament ought to annul the statute, even if political considerations were set aside, viz. that it violated an inherent birth-right, which cannot be taken away unless for causes which would warrant taking away property and life; and it rested on grounds solemnly denied within the space of seven years. If it be objected that the admission of the Peers would create an anomaly whilst Roman Catholics are excluded from the Commons, it is answered, that this prevailed for 115 years, from the 5th of Elizabeth to the 30th of Charles II. The anomaly, Mr C. thinks, would be best removed by admitting them also into the House of Commons: but the injury to the Peers is much greater; this is a privation of a birth-right, the Commoner only loses the benefit of a contingency. The restoration of the Peers would be tardy justice; for fifty years they have seen concessions granted to others, being themselves silent and contented spectators. The present case stands independent of the general question; any Jury would determine that the expulsion being wrongfully obtained, the posterity of the parties injured are justly entitled to restoration. As a reply to some persons who assert that the re-admission of the Catholic Peers would be a measure indifferent to the great body of the Catholics, he exclaims, "What! Is not the whole church of England ennobled by the admission of its prelates into the House of Lords, although there is an express statute prohibiting any parson from sitting in the Commons' House of Parliament? Is it possible that any great body in the State should not partake of the dignity or degradation attaching to those who are at its head? Does not the meanest Catholic in the kingdom sympathize with the Catholic Peers for the sufferings endured by them in their exclusion, and would he not feel elevated by their restoration?

No happier iliustration perhaps can be found of this principle, than one drawn from the plan devised by an honourable gentleman on the other side of the house (Mr Ricardo) for the restoration of our depreciated currency,-a plan as full of genius as of science. The paper currency of the country was in a state of depreciation. To set it right by a corresponding issue of gold was impracticable. It was suggested to make certain large masses of notes payable with bars of gold. It was objected to this plan, that the poor man's one-pound note would thus be more depreciated in value by comparison with those which the rich man could carry in aggregated hundreds to the Bank, and get exchanged for bullion. Parliament, however, wisely adopted this plan; and what was the consequence? why, that the value of the currency was speedily raised from one end of the country to the other, the one-pound note of the poor man partaking in that rise with its fellows aggregated in the treasures of the rich, although it cannot be exchanged for gold. In like manner, if Parliament should determine to admit the Catholic Peers to their seats, although the Catholic peasantry could be little affected, so far as regarded any prospect of their reaching Parliamentary honours, yet would they find a measure not useless to themselves, by which the value of the whole Catholic denomination would be immediately raised throughout the kingdom."

Mr C. concludes by requiring two questions to be answered:-1st, Were not the Catholic Peers excluded by the act of the 30th of Charles II., after they had been expressly and anxiously retained by Queen Elizabeth? 2d, Were they expelled with a view to exclude the Duke of York from the throne, or was it on account of the Popish Plot? In considering the second question, he observes, if it was for the former purpose no such reason now exists, the throne being unalterably Protestant ;-if the Popish Plot was the cause, were the five Catholic Peers justly or unjustly accused? if justly, why were they not all tried? Has not Lord Stafford's innocence been established? even if that be doubted, why should four be condemned for one? and not only four, but all the other Catholic Peers, and all their posterity? "If these ques

tions are not answered satisfactorily," argues Mr C., "I am entitled to say, that, while I leave the larger question of Catholic disability, or admissibility to rest on political expediency, what I claim for the Catholic Peers, I claim as a matter of right." He thus conludes," Against their continued exclusion I appeal, not only from the House of Commons of 1678 to this House, which I have now the honour of addressing; not only from the former to present times, but from Shaftesbury to Burleigh, from the testimony of Oates to that of Queen Elizabeth. Nay, I appeal from our ancestors of that day, to our ancestors themselves; from the House of Lords in 1678 to the same, or nearly the same, body in 1685; from the intoxication of their fears, to the sobriety of their reflection and repentance. I adjure the House not to adopt in conduct, as they certainly would not sanction in words, the implied opinion of Mr Hume, that perseverance in wrong can, under any circumstances, be preferable even to inconvenient (if in this case it were inconvenient) reparation. And I solemnly declare to the House, that I would not have brought this question forward, had I not felt assured that the reparation which I ask on behalf of the Catholic Peers, is, in the name of policy as expedient, as in the name of humanity it is charitable, and in the name of God, just."

Having thus given an abstract of the Right Honourable Gentleman's speech, in which I have endeavoured to state his arguments as fairly as possible, copying some of the most prominent passages, I shall venture to offer a few observations without having had the advantage of seeing the arguments of the members of the House who opposed the motion, which were doubtless of great weight, although they failed to effect its rejection.

In Mr Canning's statement of supposed objections, he introduces the term insidious, as applied to the measure. This epithet has an unpleasing sound, and I am unwilling to adopt it. The present question, however, may be said to have been brought forward with much adroitness. The Right Honourable contriver of the plan certainly understands the mechanical power of the wedge, and is sensible that if this question of right,

narrowed as it is by divesting it of complicated matter and abstract principle, could be forced to make its way, the more substantial and gross parts of the general question would not fail to follow by the energetic action of his powerful mallet. To make, therefore, resistance successful, the friends of Protestantism must oppose their efforts to the edge of this cuneiform process. This might perhaps be done at once, by showing that the terms of the Union with Scotland make the proposed alteration absolutely impossible. But waiving that inquiry, let us try the expediency of it by the examination of Mr Canning's principal arguments. It is by no means necessary to pursue the whole course of the speech; for to much of his statement we may yield unqualified assent, however we may differ in the conclusion.

Queen Elizabeth, notwithstanding the machinations of her Catholic enemies, might have had good reasons for showing respect to the Catholic Peers of her time. In some of them she had faithful and able servants. Lord Howard of Effingham, for example, at a subsequent period evinced conspicuous merit to his sovereign and his country. But there is a very great difference between the abstaining from the ungracious act of expelling the present possessors, and the restoring a particular class of nobles to those privileges which the cautious prudence of a former age had" advisedly, distinctly, and specifically, resolved to debar them." Mr Canning admits the real danger of a Popish successor in the reign of Charles II., and that Parliament was justified in taking strong measures of prevention. I will as readily concede to him the perjury and fraud of Oates and his confederates, and the horrible injustice of Lord Stafford's sentence, founded on such evidence. The blindness of Parliament and of the nation on the subject of the Popish Plot, can only be accounted for from the violence of their fears, lest the horrors of persecution should be again renewed under a Roman Catholic King. The fears were excessive, but the danger was imminent, and the precautions wise. Mr Canning allows that part of this act of the 30th Charles II., so obnoxious to his feelings, is the bulwark of the British constitution. He is not entirely successful in demonstrating that the statute was intended only as

a temporary regulation. Had that been the case, it would probably have been so expressed in the Act itself. The analogy with the Habeas Corpus Act by no means applies; every suspension of that safe-guard of liberty being avowedly temporary, and never lasting beyond the immediate necessity; whilst the exclusion of the Catholic Peers has lasted for more than a century; and whatever might have been the intention of those who made it, the wisdom of those patriots, who settled the nation at the accession of King William, retained the precaution, and combined the spirit of it with those laws which are the basis of the constitution. The Popish Plot, which stimulated the Parliament of Charles II., might be an unreal phantom, but the peril to which the Reformed Religion was exposed was real and appalling. The composition of the act may be hasty and uugrammatical, but its meaning is plain and obvious. The threatened succession of a Catholic to the throne made it necessary, for the interest of the Protestant ascendency, that Catholics should not possess a voice in the House of Lords, as in the unsettled times of Queen Elizabeth, it was judged expedient to remove them from the Commons. The exclusion of the Duke of York might be the great and primary object, but the depriving the Catholic Peers of their votes was considered as a necessary precaution against present and future possible danger. The demonstration of Lord Stafford's innocence is a good reason for giving every reparation to his memory, but the hazarding our religious establishment, by rescinding so important a law, is a sacrifice too great, and too unreasonable to be offered to his manes. The philosophic historian is too harshly censured by Mr Canning, in the warmth of his zeal to do justice to that injured Peer. To reverse the attainder of a nobleman unjustly condemned, was an act of strict justice; but there is a time for all things; if the measure was brought on at a critical juncture for the purpose of aiding the efforts of the partisans of Popery to overturn the Protestant cause, the discussion might be reasonably postponed till a more convenient season: the unfortunate object had been seven years in his grave; public opinion had turned strongly in his favour; little or no injury could

therefore accrue to his memory from the delay. Hume may surely be excused for saying, that "the present emergence seemed very improper for granting so full a justification to the Catholics, and throwing so foul a stain on the Protestants." If the birth-right of the Peers is invaded by the act of the 30th Charles II., that of a British King is also taken away by the powers of parliamentary enactment, as James II. fatally experienced. Both are sacrificed to the paramount necessity of preserving the Protestant establishment. Why should we estimate the privilege of a peer higher than that of a monarch? Every future prince who holds the sceptre of these realms is by the same immutable law deprived of his birth-right, if he conforms to the proscribed Roman Catholic faith. This regulation Mr Canning admits to be unalterable; but the most certain way of making this law resemble those of the ancient Medes and Persians, is to take care that no persons be admited to the function of legislators, who are likely to desire their abrogation. The admission of six Catholic Peers into the House of Lords, or a few more to be elected from Ireland, might be a matter of no great importance to the state; but it is not, as Mr Canning would persuade us, a case independent of the general question; the success of this attack must be considered as a lodgment on an outwork of the Protestant citadel. It is highly necessary to convince those who contend for farther indulgence, that the case is hopeless;-it is of material consequence, that the agitation and irritation which have so long afilicted the country, tantalizing the Catholics with vain expectations, and harassing the Protestants with continual apprehensions, should be reduced to a state of quiescence. The gratification which Mr Canning imagines the Catholics as a body would feel from his gaining this point, may well be balanced by the uneasiness it would inflict on the great mass of Protestants.

He very ingeniously illustrates the elevation which every Catholic would derive from the restoration of their Peers, by a comparison with an honourable member's scientific operation on the circulating medium;-but if the humble Catholic receives no higher enjoyment from the success of Mr Canning, than the poor man found from the

contemplation of his paper pound, ennobled by Mr Ricardo's ingot, I believe the complacency excited would not be excessively exhilarating. As well might the eloquent advocate for Catholicism have explained Transubstantiation by the supposed real presence of the precious metal, which virtually exists in the greasy note at the bottom of the labourer's pocket. But why should we be anxious to raise the value of "the whole Catholic denomination?" Is it not devoutly to be wished that, by honest and fair means, without either persecution or oppression, that mode of faith and worship, which every true Protestant believes to be erroneous, could be discouraged. It is surely sufficient to grant perfect toleration to the old religion, from which the members of the Established Church have formerly suffered so much, and which boasts that its principles never change-it is enough to forgive those injuries, which it would be folly to forget.

Indignor

Non veniam antiquis sed honorem et præmia posci.

The reign of George III. was, as Mr Canning fairly acknowledges, "fertile in acts of relief to the Catholics;" and he makes an ample detail of these acts of beneficence. Parliament has kindly and wisely taken away every unnecessary restriction and privation. The liberality of his present Majesty has conferred fresh favours; but the cordial regard which we bear as Protestants, and as Britons, to the reformed religion, established both in the north and in the south division of our island, must compel us to stop somewhere in our concessions-to fix some point;-and where can we make a better stand than where we now are? beyond which the adversaries of our church shall not advance towards the possession of power, which, in some possible circumstances, may be dangerous to its existance. I may be allowed to call the professors of the Roman Catholic faith religious adversaries, however estimable they may be as individuals, or excellent as subjects. The Roman Catholic Church will bear no sister near the throne and all who dissent from her doctrines are branded with the name of heretic, and if she were able she would not fail to extirpate them.

If I am right in the view I take of the subject, and I flatter myself a

great majority of the British nation sympathise with my sentiments, it matters not how the questions proposed at the close of the speech are answered. However charitable it might be to restore the Catholic Peers to their seats as a reparation for the wrongs suffered by Lord Stafford, the defence of our religion makes it neither just in the sight of Heaven, nor expedient in the sight of men, to grant such a portion of political power to those who must wish to overturn it.

I have thus attempted, however feebly, to cope with the eloquent and able advocate for the Catholic Peers, who has powerfully pleaded for them in the House of Commons, and sent forth his arguments to bias the opinions of the people at large. Feeling bold in the justice of the cause, I am satisfied that from this vantage ground a smooth stone from the brook may prostrate the most gigantic strength. I have dared to hurl my missile ;and I now turn my sling towards an opponent of a different description, who has thought proper to notice my letter to Lord Nugent, published in your 62d No. ;-at him I may, perhaps, cast a somewhat rougher pebble.

You do me justice Mr North, in supposing that I should like to see the Catholic Question fairly discussed on the arena of your pages; I would listen most patiently to temperate arguments brought on the side contrary to that which I have adopted. I am sorry that my very calm observations should excite an orgasm, causing your correspondent, the Catholic Layman, to throw out some very hard words. With him I will enter into no altercation. There is little wisdom in doing so with an angry opponent, whatever advantage this irascibility may give to a more cool antagonist. To you, Mr North, who view this great question with an impartial eye, and not to him, I address what I have to say to your court I appeal against the charge of misrepresentation and calumny. Your readers will form a jury of good men and true, to determine how far the accusation is just.

The champion of the Lady of the Seven Hills is not disposed to give me much credit for candour; I request, therefore, that it may be duly remarked, how tenderly I have treated this ancient gentlewoman. Although, it

66

CO

must be confessed, her temper and conduct have been somewhat repulsive, I nevertheless honour the stock from whence she sprang. I have a warm attachment to one of her younger daughters. Ihave scarcely meddled with her creed, and have touched her mode of worship with a most gentle hand. If the high pretensions of her zealous advocates had not roused me to the defence of objects of dear and vital importance, I had rather, like the pious son of the patriarch, ver her with a garment," than, imitating the graceless Ham, expose to derision that nakedness which her former intoxication had but too much displayed. In undertaking this defence, I have been under the necessity of adverting to some defects in her manners and her morals, and to place in view those arts which raised her to the giddy height from whence she has fallen. Never should I have interrupted her repose, but have left her with satisfaction to the peaceful enjoyment of her mysteries and her ceremonies, if she could have been content to do so, without stirring up a fresh struggle for power. Desirous of giving my small aid to restrain this inordinate love of sway, I declared my apprehension, that the complete success of her efforts might in the end occasion the renewed persecution of the Reformed Religion. I stated, that this opinion was founded on the principles of the Roman Catholic Church, and on the authority of past experience. I insisted, that when the acquisition of wealth and power had corrupted the doctrines of Christianity,—when the Church claimed the exclusive possession of the keys of Heaven and Hell, that intolerance and persecution naturally followed; because, without the imputation of unworthy motives, an anxiety for the eternal welfare of mankind would urge the rulers of the Romish Church to compel all whom they could by any means influence to come within her pale. When abuses were grown to an extreme height, "the pure flame of the Reformation,” however offensive this phrase may be to the Catholic Layman, has, under the guidance of the great Disposer of events, cleansed the ecclesiastical floor of its chaff; and the salutary effects of this purification have extended beyond the bounds of those countries VOL. XII.

where it has shone out with the brightest lustre.

I may be pardoned this repetition, as the Catholic Layman finds so much want of method in my former letter, that he cannot follow it in detail, and I would fain accommodate my statement to the dullest capacity. The question is reduced to one single point. Does the Roman Catholic Church arrogate to herself the sole means of salvation, excluding all who dissent from her doctrines from eternal happiness? If this be answered in the affirmative, my case is proved.

Our correspondent imagines that he has cancelled the Protestant charges of persecution, by his debtor and creditor account of cruelties; and the severities of "good Queen Bess" are marshalled in his letter in terrific array. I conceded whilst I lamented the retaliation practised by some of the Reformers, and I endeavoured to account for these outrages, without excusing them. The peculiar situation of Queen Elizabeth, who had rescued her subjects from the thraldom and cruelties of superstition, required, as Mr Canning acknowledges, the protection of rigorous laws, which happier times have abrogated. May the same necessity never return again! The punishment of treason, which those persons enumerated by our correspondent had incurred, was the disgusting sentence of a barbarous age, which the humanity of the present times has expunged from the laws; but let it not be forgotten, that it was for overt acts, declared by the law to be treason, and not for religious opinions, that these persons suffered; the persecutors, who had just changed places with the victims, could scarcely expect a relaxation from the general mode of execution to be made expressly in their favour. Let the Catholic Layman believe, if he can, that Protestantism obtained a footing by the most cruel persecutions of the old religion,-let him confirm his faith in this phantasy, by insisting that Henry the VIII. was a Protestant; but does not the gentleman know that Henry, to his dying day, indulged in his favourite amusement of burning the Protestants? Is he ignorant that his last Queen narrowly escaped the fate of a heretic, on account of some expressions in conversation, which the King thought fa

B