134 ANNUAL REGISTER, 1810. 



the Catholic to be more depraved 

 than the pagan or idolater. But the 

 Catholics are by far the majority 

 of the Christians. It would follow 

 that the majority of the worship- 

 pers of Christ are worse than the 

 worshippers of Jove or of Maho- 

 met. But this is not all. They are, 

 according to this charge, rendered 

 thus execrable by their religion. 

 It would follow that the design of 

 Christianity had been defeated ; 

 that Omniscience had been blind, 

 Omnipotence baffled ; and that 

 what we call redemption, was the 

 increase of sin, and decrease of 

 salvation. That is to say that the 

 Christian religion is not divine." 



" What, have you taken away 

 the Irish parliament, and then do 

 you tell the Irish Catholics that 

 by the fundamental laws of the 

 land they must be excluded from 

 yours ? Did Mr, Pitt, when he 

 held out the well-known expecta- 

 tions to the Catholics ? Did his 

 cabinet 1 — Come, let us examine 

 the laws alluded to : the declara- 

 tion of right, and the limitation 

 of the descent of the crown. I 

 bow to these sacred instruments. 

 The declaration of rights is a mo- 

 dest document of intelligible li- 

 berty, founded on two great pro- 

 positions, first, that civil and reli- 

 gious liberty is the inheritance of 

 the people ; second, that the vio- 

 lation of this inheritance is a for- 

 feiture of the crown. I see here 

 no Catholic disability. — We will 

 send for the other great instru- 

 ment, the limitation of the crown. 

 It is a limitation of the crown to 

 certain descriptions of persons be- 

 ing Protestants, in consequence of 

 a forfeiture by the p.eceding fa- 

 mily incurred for the attempt to 

 take from the subject his civil and ' 



religious liberty. The opponents 

 of the Catholics suppose that the 

 words " being Protestants," im- 

 port not merely that no Catholic 

 should be a king, but that no Ca- 

 tholic should be a free subject : 

 that the Catholics being rendered 

 incapable of the crown, were ren- 

 dered incapable of enjoying civil 

 capacities. This interpretation I 

 submit to be inadmissible. It 

 raises a code of inability by impli- 

 cation. It confounds two powers 

 which are essentially distinct : the 

 power of limiting the descent of 

 the crown, and a power of de- 

 stroying the inheritance of the 

 people. It makes the act of set- 

 tlement, with regard to the Catho- 

 lic and his posterity, commit the 

 very violation for which it deprives 

 the house of Stuart of the throne, 

 and at once transfers his alle- 

 giance, and takes away his birth- 

 right, 



" With regard to the objection 

 to the Catholic claims, founded in 

 the oath of the king, ' to preserve 

 the Protestant reformed religion as 

 by law established,' the comment 

 of the anti-catholics, is, that by 

 law established is meant law not 

 to be altered, and that any altera- 

 tion of that law, to favour the Ca- 

 tholic, would endanger the Pro- 

 testant church. This interpreta- 

 tion, in every shape and reference, 

 I hold to be destitute of reason and 

 justice. It supposes the king to 

 be sworn in his legislative capa- 

 city, which is a false supposition. 

 It supposes the oath of the king 

 to be intended as a check on the 

 advice of his two Houses of par- 

 liament, another false supposition. 

 It supposes the laws regarding the 

 different religions in these coun- 

 tries to be irrevocable. A pro- 



