legislature, and, above all, time and custom, the slow but certain destroyers of all human regulations, have, as far as the dissenters are concerned, completely blunted the edge of this celebrated act. Many persons of that description are known to recur to an occasional conformity, in order to accept of offces under government, others of more delicate and tender consciences, are relieved by the annual bill of indemnity, which is equivalent to a periodical suspension of the law; and it is now a notorious fact, that there are dissenters in great numbers in actual possession of places, both civil and military, and that they are not even excluded from corporations. As to the Catholic, he considers the acceptance of office under the circumstance of the existing laws, as a dereliction of his religious belief, and in fact, remains excluded by the force of the test from every emolument or place of trust, if we exept some subordinate employments, which he is authorised to fill by the provisions of the bill passed the 33d Geo, III. c. 21. Thus it clearly appears, that the test act, with respect to dissenters, is become a dead letter, and that its operation is confined to the Catholic only. Now, my lords, I appeal to the candour of your lordships, I appeal to the noble baron himself, whether a law made for temporary purposes only, made to repel dangers, which are now known to exist, whether such a regulation ought, under the present circumstance of the country, to be considered as the bulwark of the ecclesiastical establishment; and whether its repeal is likely to be followed with the downfal of the church, and the consequent ruin of the state? Surely no man can be so destitute of common understanding, as to make such an assertion, if he possesses any knowledge of the real state of the question. No man can expect any credit, who should affirm that if the whole representation of Ireland consisted of Catholics, which amounts to a moral impossibility, even in that case, they would ever be able to gain an ascendancy in the Imperial Parliament.But, my lords, give me leate to observe, that remarks of this nature respecting the repeal of the test, are not only unfounded, but that they contiin, the severest and the bitterest reproach, which can be uttered against the religious establishinent of the country. If it be said, that the test act, which as I have shewn your lordships, is directed in its present operation against Catholics only, is still neces Bary to the support of the church; what is this but to assert, that, in order to preserve the ecclesiastical establishment, four millions of people, or one-fourth of the United

Kingdom, are to continue in a state of civil servitude, stripped of the invaluable rights of British subjects! My lords, I hold this doctrine not only disrespectful to the church; but defamatory and libellous; (hear! hear! hear! from every part of the House), and I call on the reverend bench of bishops, to interpose on this occasion by their authority, and to rescue the establishment from disgrace; I call on them in the most earnest and solemn manner to reprobate the idea, that in order to keep them in affluence and splendor, it is necessary to violate the liberties, and trample upon the rights of Englishmen; (hear! hear! hear!) I adjure them to declare, if such a system of civil intole rance is at all necessary for the safety of the church or state. Excuse the warmth, my lords, with which I attempt to repel, a doctrine so repugnant to the mild and tolerant spirit, that is ascribed to the church of England, and so hostile to the genius and pri ciples of British liberty; and, allow me to support the idea which I have suggested on this part of my subject, by the anthority of a great man now no more. I cannot con"ceive," says Mr. Burke," how any thing worse can be said of the Protestant reli gion of the church of England, than this, "that wherever it is judged proper to give "it a legal establishment, it becomes neces

66

sary to deprive the body of the people, if "they adhere to their old opinions, of their ""liberties and free customs," and to re

duce them to a state of civil servitude." (Mr. Burke's Letter to Sir Hercules Langriske.) I could not suffer such an idea, my lords, to go forth uncensured to the world; and, I have, therefore, taken some pains to expose it in its genuine deformity, (hear hear hear!)My lords, I have said, that to the church of England is as cribed a mild and tolerant spirit; and, I believe, that sne glories in this enviable distinc tion. (Unequivocal marks of approbation from every part.) But, my lords, all pretensions to this herour must be resigned, if civil disabilities are perpetuated on the ground of religious belief. A government most certainly can and ought to demand a test of civil allegiance from all its subjects. Prompt and absolute submission to the laws, and perfect security, that no attempts what ever will be made to disturb the ecclesiastical establishment. If perfect satisfaction can be given on these points, no subject can, without the most flagrant injustice, be stripped of civil rights on account of his religious opinions. As well, my lords, might you punish an obstinate adherence to the antiquated notions of Aristotle and Descartes, and oblige every

an honest and laudable desire of giving every information on the subject, has carried me thus far; and, as I am encouraged to proceed by the approbation of your lordships, I will endeavour to obviate other difficulties which may be urged against a compliance with the petition. I am fully sensible, my lords, that the most illiberal prejudices still cleave to the minds of many of my countrymen, against the old religion of this land; and I expect to hear the antiquated charges of superstition, bigotry, despotic power, and persecution stili revived, for the basest purposes; and shall not be surprised to find the pope represented as a horned and deformed beast, the Catholic church the "Whore of Babylon," and her prelates as the associates of Anti-Christ. But, my lords, I have the honour to speak to men of liberal and exalted ideas, to statesmen whose talents, sense, and information raise them far above the narrowness of bigotry, and the frenzy of fanaticism. Here I expect candour and liberality, and trust that my hopes will not be frustrated. If, however, any of your lordships should have any alarm about the nature and extent of the pope's power, I hope to be excused, in attempting, to dissipate all fears by a real statement of the case. Catholics consider the pope as the supreme pastor, vested with a power to govern the whole church, and issue mandates, relating to faith, morality and discipline. They acknowledge in him no right to interfere in the temporal jurisdiction of sovereigns, or the independence of states. As to his infallibility, which has excited so much alarm, it is a subject of scholastic disputation among Catholic theologians, and by no means an article of faith. In whatever light it be considered, it relates solely to spiritual objects, and bears no reference to civil authority. For this reason, the infallibility attributed by Catholics to their church, or to a general council sanctioned by the pope, cannot possibly prove any source of uneasiness. If in the decisions of the general councils, there are sometimes found decrees relating to temporal objects, they were framed by the concurrence of the civil and ecclesiastical authority, in order to stop the progress of disorders hurtful both to church and state. This observation may serve to explain a decree in the Council of Lateran, which has been a subject of much misrepre sentation and calumny. About the close of the 12th, and the beginning of the 13th centuries, disorders of the most immoral nature, propagated principally by the Albigenses, prevailed in some of the southern counmies of Europe. Many attempts had been

made without effect by the civil power to repress the growing disorder; at last it was determined to have recourse to the united authority of church and state, in order to crush an evil in its nature hostile to the existence of society. Accordingly, in the general council of Lateran, held in the year 1215, at which most of the sovereigns of Europe assisted by their ambassadors, a decree was framed, by which temporal princes were onjoined to banish the infamous heretics of the time from their states, and to punish by the severest penalties their unnatural crimes. It was added, that if any prince refused to obey the order within a year, the pope was directed to excommunicate the offender, absolve his subjects from their allegiance, and give up his country to the Catholics. This, my lords, to a man unacquainted with the history of that time, appears a cruel instance of ecclesiastical oppression; and in this country it has been the source of the utmost scurrility against the Catholic religion. But, in reality, the decree was no attack on the temporal rights of sovereigns; since it was enacted at the request, and by the authority of those princes whose ambassadors assisted at the council... Such is the observation of Fleury, who together with the rest of his countrymen, is certainly not partial to the civil pretensions of the Popes. (Fleury, Histoire Ecclésiast. tom. 16, liv. 77, p. 364, édit. Paris 1720.) This, my lords, is the real statement of a transaction, which venal or ignorant writers in this metropolis, misrepresent for the purpose of obstructing the views of the Catholics. But, I doubt not, that the final decision of your lordships on this important concern, will enlighten the minds of the ignorant, soften the rage of bigotry, and repress the fury of fanaticism. Whence, then, let me ask your lordships, can arise any alarm respecting the power of the pope? If the supremacy or the right of governing the Catholic church as first pastor, relates to spiritual concerns only, if your petitioners in common with every Catholic of the universe, acknowledge in the savereign pontiff no authority incompatible with civil allegiance, how can the connexion of loyal subjects with the spiritual head of their church, excite any degree of disquietude ?— My lords, will any man be so weak as to imagine, at this period of the world, that the bold and extravagant pretensions of popes in former days, can be seriously adduced as a reason for excluding his Majesty's subjects from the enjoyment of civil rights? If there be found such a man, let him reflect that the claims, to which I allude, originated not in the principles of Catholic faith, and that

the demands of popes concerning civil rights, met with opposition from Catholics themselves. This may be collected from a great variety of events in our history. But all controversy of this nature is now completely at an end It is now universally acknowledged, that the temporal power of his holiness is fallen to the ground, and that

his most devoted adherents are satisfied to allow him only spiritual jurisdiction of such nature, as can give no uneasiness to sovereigns. Look round, my lords, and take a general view of the state of Europe, examine the prevalence of the Catholic religion in every country, and then ask yourselves, whether all the alarm, which has been so artfully raised, either about the principles of Catholics, or the power of the pope, be not absolutely chimerical? I need not inform your lordships, that according to the most accurate accounts of political arithmeticians, the inhabitants of Europe amount nearly to the number of 153 millions; of this extent of population, in the most civilized and enlightened part of the globe, about two thirds or nearly one hundred millions are Catholics. They are spread over immense tracts of country, in the north, middle, and south of Europe; the Catholic religion is the prevailing mode of worship in several states of considerable extent in all Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, including the recent acquisitions in Austria, and the hereditary dominions; Catholics are blended in great numbers with the Protestants of Germany, the Lutherans of Sweden and Denmark. Many are found in the scattered dominions of the Emperor of Turkey, and in Russia they receive at this day the utmost encouragement and protection. In the United Kingdom they constitute at least one fourth of the population. In all these places Catholics unanimously admit the spiritual supremacy of the pope, but in no country are their principles considered incompatible with their submission to the civil power. In many Protestant states, they are admitted indiscriminately to the enjoyment of emoluments and places of trust. If, my lords, my countrymen are not determined to shut their eyes to the light of reason; if their minds are not hardened against conviction, if plain facts and arguments possess any force, this view of the subject will dissipate the fears of the most timorous, and calm the rage of the most intolerant. But if any man will obstinately close his eyes at noon-day, and declare that we are surrounded with Egyptian darkness, if with this statement before him, which I have just given, and at is enlightened period of the world; he still

persist to declare, that the principles of the Catholic religion are incompatible with the safety of the state; such a man, my lords, in my judgment should rather be consigned to the care of a keeper, than have a place in this august assembly. (A loud cry of hear! hear!)My lords, the great portion I have alreadyoccupied of your lordships' time, makes me desirous of hastening to a conclusion: but, I must request your indulgence to be heard a little longer, while I offer a few remarks on the general heads of the petition. A leading article which is submitted to the candour and justice of your lordships, for the purpose of obtaining redress, is the exclusion of Catholics from Parliament. This is, indeed, a point, on which a diversity of opinion cannot rationally exist. It is not necessary to remark to your lordships, how tender the laws of England are in ascertaining and protecting the sacred and inviolable rights of property. It is on this ground, that the public money is raised and disbursed, not at the arbitrary will of a minister, but by the consent of the people, "No subject "of England," says Blackstone, "can be "constrained to pay any aids or taxes even "for the defence of the realm, or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his "representatives in Parliament." (Blackstone, Book 1. c. 1, p. 140,, edit. 1787.) Now, I put it to your lordships, whether it be not a cruel and intolerable instance of injustice, that Catholics, and Catholics only, composing one-fourth of your population, should not only be deprived of the right of either actual or virtual representation, but that they should be positively excluded from the enjoyment of this fundamental privilege of Englishmen, by a declaration made in the sight of God, insulting to their religion, and that of their forefathers, and to the senti ments and feelings of two-thirds of Europe. This, my lords, is a restriction of so odious and detestable an aspect, that on every principle of justice and policy, it should not be suffered to remain a day longer to the utter disgrace of this country. It owes its origin to the infamous and pretended plot of Titus Oates, of which the remembrance, for the honour of the British government, should not be perpetuated by an act of flagrant injustice.

66

-My lords, there are other parts of the petition highly deserving of the attention of your lordships, and the principles on which the whole is founded, must certainly press themselves on the consideration of a British Parliament. The exclusion of which the petitioners complain, from places of trust and employments civil, naval, and military,

is a grievous hardship. If governments sub- | sisted, as they did in former ages, on domains belonging to themselves, the exclusion from employments could not be made such a serious subject of complaint. But the situation of most governments of Europe has undergone a complete alteration. They are now supported by private contribution; revenues are raisea from the labour of individuals, and ample returns are made to the subject, not only by the general benefit of protection and security, but by refunded profits of industry, through the channel of posts and employments. As every subject is pereniptorily summoned to contribute his proportion to the service of the state, the plain dictates of equity demand, that no one should be debarred from the chance of partaking of its favours; which should be bestowed with an impartial hand. The revenues of á government, my lords, may be considered as a state lottery, in which, those who contribute to its existence, should not be deprived of the prospect of a prize. To take an opposite direction, to involve any class of subjects in a species of proscription, on account of religious sentiments, or what is infinitely more odious, to declare four-fifths of the inhabitants of a country loyal subjects, and worthy of the favours of government, still to give them but subordinate occupations, and reserve the higher honours and employments of the state to a few hundred thousand individuals; such conduct is unworthy of the justice and liberality of the British nation, and of the enlightened age in which we live. It tends, as the petitioners well observe, to impede his Majesty's general service by stifling honourable incentives to merit, and by restricting that prerogative of the crown, which excites subjects to meritorious actions, by a well regulated distribution of honours and rewards.Let it not be urged as an objection to the measure, that the business is not introduced in the frst instance by the civil servants of the (rown. The question submitted to your de Liration, is an affair of great national importance, which your lordships are fully competent to decide. Either, my lords, this doctrine must be admitted, or your lordships must be considered as the instruments of arbitrary power, or servants dependent on the nod of a minister. How far this latter situation is consistent with the dignity of this august assembly, your lordships are to decide.

On this solemn occasion, my lords, when I am admitted to deliver my sentiments before the most august assembly of the universe, and on a question which deeply affects the interests of the British empire, I

should ill discharge my duty to God, to my Sovereign, and to my country, if, to the most cogent arguments which I have adduced in favour of the petition on your table, I did not add the most pressing exhortation to give this momentous concern, all the attention which it demands. Saffer me to intreat your lordships, to exert your utmost influence to carry into effect a measure, which will completely annihilate religious animosity, promote harmony and concord among every class of his Majesty's subjects, establish civil freedom or the firmest basis, unite every heart in enthusiastic attachment to our glorious constitution, disappoint the hopes of an inveterate foe, and raise an unsurmountable obstacle to that ambition,' which seeks to reduce to a state of vassalage the surrounding nations of Europe."-THE BRITISH OBSERVER.April 4, 1805.

SUMMARY OF POLITICS.

PARTIES. The evil consequences, arising from the feebleness of the present ministry, cannot fail now to be generally perceived, and, as the war advances, it will, doubtless, be felt most severely. It is fitting, therefore, that we should, as soon as may be, come to a settled and correct opinion as to the cause of this great source of public mis-, chief. The reader will, perhaps, think, that there can be scarcely a possibility of a difference of opinion upon the subject; that, if a ministry be too weak, either in point of talent or of consequence in the country, the ministers ought not to remain in office; and that, for all the consequences of this weakness, they are not less responsible, than they are for any folly or crime that they may be guilty of, in the management of public affairs. This doctrine is perfectly sound; it is maintainable by the clearest reason, and is exactly conformable to the principles of that constitution, one of the chief ends of which is to insure to the nation a wise and efficient employment of its resources and exertion of its force. But, clear and incontrovertible as this doctrine is, undoubted as is the right of the people to charge, without any inquiry into circumstances, the ministers with all the evils arising from the feebleness of the ministry; yet, when much art has been employed to bewilder the public mind as to the cause of such feebleness, it may become useful, if not absolutely necessary, to ascertain that cause; and, this remark must, it is presumed, be allowed to apply with peculi r force to a case like the present, when the ministers, aware of the probable effects of their feebleness, are, in all possible ways,