HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



135 



vision in a statute that a law 

 should not be repealed, is void. 

 The legislature has not the power 

 to make it. The comment in- 

 verts the order of things. It 

 makes rights revocable and penal- 

 ties everlasting. Farther, this com- 

 ment takes from the jurisdiction 

 pf parliament the whole code of 

 laws respecting the different reli- 

 gions that exist in the kingdom, 

 and, of course, disinherits the le- 

 gislature of its supreme power. 

 Further still, it supposes the Pro- 

 testant church to rest on pains and 

 penalties inflicted on theprofessors 

 of another religion : that is to say, 

 it rests the word of God on an act 

 of power, and makes what is a 

 scandal to religion the support of 

 the church. And, finally, it sup- 

 poses the chief magistrate to have 

 made a covenant against the civil 

 liberties of a great portion of his 

 subjects, and to have called on his 

 God to witness the horrid obliga- 

 tion. 



" We are told that the Catho- 

 lics do most ardently desire situa- 

 tions in the parliament, and in the 

 state; and that they would, use 

 both, to overturn the settlements 

 of property, and the establishment 

 of the church. I do allow self- 

 defence to be a legitimate cause of 

 restriction; but the danger must 

 be evident. Ere that the Catholics 

 can, byalaw, repeal thesettlement 

 of property, they must be the par- 

 liament. Supposing them, in spite 

 of all difficulties, to have become 

 the parliament, how would that 

 parliament act on property? First, 

 that parliament must possess the 

 properly of the country, otherwise 

 it could not be the parliament. 

 Again, the Catholics have made 

 great purchases5incel778, found- 



ed on Protestant titles ; and the 

 Catholic tenantry hold under Pro- 

 testant landlords to a very great 

 extent. The bulk of Catholic pro- 

 perty depends on Protestant titles. 

 The danger alleged arises, then, 

 from two impossibilities. First, 

 that the Catholics will be the par- 

 liament. Secondly, that they will 

 then use their power to destroy 

 their property. — As to the danger 

 of religion, to disfranchise the Ca- 

 tholics, for the support of the 

 church, is a proposition in breach 

 of a moral duty against the people 

 by whom the church is paid, and 

 the principles of that religion for 

 which the church is supported. It 

 is a proposition that sacrifices to 

 the imaginary danger of the eccle- 

 siastical establishment, not only the 

 people, but the Deity — that is, the 

 attributes of the Deity ; and sup- 

 poses that holy and pious corpora- 

 tion, the church establishment, to 

 cio what it could not conceive, 

 much less perpetrate, to shoulder 

 God out of the church, and the 

 people out of the constitution. 

 Let us try the sanctity of this policy 

 by making it part of our prayers, 

 and to suppose a clergyman thus 

 to recite the Christian duties: 

 ' Do as you would be done by, 

 love your enemies, love your 

 neighbours as yourselves, and so 

 may God incline your hearts to 

 love one another.' 



*' Bigotry is now no more than 

 a spent fury. In 1709, you set up 

 the popedom. In 1791, you esta- 

 blished popedom in the North of 

 America. In 1803, you conveyed 

 the Catholic religion, with all its 

 rites and ceremonies, to South 

 America. In 1809, you sent to 

 Spain and Portugal two armies, to 

 support in both, and iu full power, 



