ferving in the French or Spanish armies, even in time of peace, is a traitor; yet this philofopher's hoftility to his country obliterated from his mind all ideas of natural allegiance, and even of common prudence, and impelled him, in the course of the French and American war, to ferve in the armies of France, and fight against his King and country in the West Indies, though he at the fame time drew the revenue of a competent eftate out of Ireland; which eftate, had the law been properly executed, would have by his treafon become a forfeiture to the Crown. The Irish gentlemen ferving in the armies of France, on the fubverfion of the monarchy, withdrew from that fervice almoft generally, and joined the coalefced powers with the exiled French princes; they were all foldiers of fortune, and had no fubfiftence fare what they could carve qut by their fwords: they excufed their ferving in the French armies, by alledging, that they were generally poor gentlemen, who were precluded by the laws of their country from ferving in its armies (these laws are now repealed in Ireland), and that they served in the French armies for bread; yet they abandoned the fervice of the infamous French ufurpers, braved penury and diftrefs, and preferred poverty to difgrace, This gentleman had no. fuch excufe; he had a competent fortune in his own country, yet on the French revolution he did not follow the example of his aforefaid gallant countrymen. As a thorough initiated French philosopher, he inlisted in the fervice of the French ufurpers, and fought in the ranks of their fanguinary pillaging hordes in the present war in Flanders. Notwithstanding all his treafons, he returned to his native country, and still enjoys his eftate unmolefted. Perhaps it may be prudent in Government, if it is determined not to prosecute him for his treasons, to keep

B4.

t

keep a ftrict watch over his conduct; for a perfon taking up his refidence within the British dominions, under fuch circumstances, may be reasonably fufpected of connexion and correfpondence with that enemy, in whofe fervice he has heretofore rifked his life and fortune.

I have ftated this gentleman to be a Romanift; indeed, he states himself, in page 58 of his pamphlet, to be fo; and I may be perhaps accufed of inconfiftency in fuppofing any man, inftituted as he has been, to be a Romanist,. which implies his being a Chriftian: to clear myself of any imputation of that kind, it is neceffary that I should briefly explain my meaning, which I cannot do better than by nearly copying part of Swift's character of the Earl (afterwards Duke) of Wharton, in his Hiftory of the Four laft Years of Queen Ann: he there obferves, that the Earl's father was a rigid Prefbyterian, that the Earl adopted his father's principles in government, but dropt his religion, and took up no other in its room, but that in all other refpects he was a firm Prefbyterian. Now the gentleman's father I am writing of was a rigid Ro-manift; he dropt his father's religion, and took up no other in its room, but in all other refpects he is a firm Romanift. And fuch a character is not fingular; I have wafted fome attention on feveral perfons bred Romanists, who have conformed to the Proteftant religion, and who have attained honourable, confidential, and lucrative appointments by their conformity; and on others bred in that perfuafion, who both in theory and practice have profeffed Deifm; and scarce ever knew one of them, who, in all political pursuits of that fect, did not prove himself to be a firm Romanist: fome of them, in whose breafts a few half-fmothered fparks of Chriftianity ftill glimmered,

glimmered, have had them kindled into a fort of lambent flame of devotion by the unequivocal symptoms of approaching death, and they have uniformly died in the Romith perfuafion.

The author of the fecond pamphlet I have mentioned is not ascertained; many have been the candidates, proclaimed by the posterior trumpet of Fame, for the eminent turpitude of being the parent of this deteftable production. The author of the firft endeavours to conceal the natural deformity of falfehood and malice, by clothing them in fomething of a gentlemanly garb; the author of the fecond aggravates that natural deformity, by arraying them in all the fhaggy horrors of the favage: his unrelenting malignant abuse of Irish Protestants, from the beginning to the end of his performance, fufficiently demonftrates his political creed at least to be the fame with that of the author of the first pamphlet. But I have perhaps detained the reader too long by perfonal remarks on these two authors; I will therefore now proceed to examine the contents of their pamphlets.

The author of the first grounds all his arguments, for Commenceadvancing Irish Romanifts to an equality of political

power in the British empire in general with their Proteftant fellow-fubjects, on two pofitions. The firft and principal is, that men fincerely attached to the whole Romish creed may be as good and faithful fubjects of the British empire as Proteftants. The fecond is, that property by the British Conftitution entitles the poffeffors to political power in · proportion to the property, and that it is therefore unconftitu tional to exclude Romanifts from a fhare of political poccer in the ftate proportioned to their property. These are the two

grand

ment of the

Strictures on the pamphlet entiCafe of Ire

tled, The

fidered.

Jand re-con

grand pillars on which he proposes to rebuild the gaudy. palace of Romish tyranny and ufurpation in the British empire, at the fame time not neglecting to prop it with numberless buttreffes of menaces, flanders, malice, falsehood, fophiftry, and deceit.

་

His argument on the first of these propofitions he introduces in the following modeft manner;

The next is a very old objection, which I never could underftand how any well-informed man could make twice.

The most numerous religious fect (i. e. Romanifts) 'does not acknowledge the fupremacy of the state, but 'profeffes to be subject to a foreign jurisdiction. Their

religion could not be established without deftroying the 'constitution, which is founded on the principles of civil and ecclefiaftical liberty, and the exclufion of fo⚫reign interference and jurisdiction,

After thus ftating the objection, and with no fmall degree of petulance observing that no well-informed man could fupport it, or urge it twice, he argues thus: This may be an objection to their having a religious establishment, but not to their being admitted to a fhare in the Legiflature, the King and Peers being Proteftants, and (property being the bafis of reprefentation) nine-tenths of the Houfe of Commons. Romanifts do not deny the fole right of the flate to manage the concerns, eftablishment, 'faith, and difcipline of the Church of England; but they 'do not admit the King of England to be spiritual head ' of the Roman Catholic Church, nor do the Prefbyterians • admit him to be the head of theirs. This was not a rea

$ fon

fon for excluding the Scotch from a fhare in the legiflature of the country they were united to; why fhould it exclude the Irish? The fpiritual authority which the Romish Church poffeffes has no fanction, no co'ercive power in this life, and can in no way come m 'contact with civil existence. The Pope nominates the

Irish Romish bishops, but this gives him no real or effen'tial jurisdiction in the Irish ftate; he and the whole 'Roman Catholic Church have not in the Irish state, " nor pretend to have, the power of the meaneft veftry. 'Cujas, a French lawyer, and Cardinal Fleury, have 'declared, that the Pope, nor the whole Church to'gether, cannot inflict any coercive punishment on any man, whatsoever his crimes may be, unless the Em'peror gives him power to do it. The power which Popes have been accused of arrogating over the princes of Europe was entirely foreign to their spiritual authority, and to the Roman Catholic religion. In no country in 'the world can any tribunal exift deriving from 'the Roman Catholic religion, or any fentence be enforced affecting a man in any way whatsoever in his liberty, life, property, or any part of his civil or natural exiftence, without the permiffion of the Sovereign of that country: fuch is the doctrine of Spain, Portugal, and all the Roman Catholic countries in the world. 'Magna Charta, the foundation of civil liberty, as well 'as the Statutes of Præmunire, which secured ecclefiaf'tical liberty, were acts of Roman Catholic Parliaments. If a foreign jurifdiction exift, to that confent, and not to the Roman Catholic religion, of 'which it is no inherent part, are the inconveniencies of it 'to be afcribed. All this the author concludes with an appofite and most delightful allufion, purloined from Mon

fleur