718 



Britain. 



could only end in their defeat. But it is pretended, 

 that the principles of the Catholics unfit them for 

 1810. trusts in society.; they are bound to persecute ; they 

 are freed from the obligation of an oath, anrijcan 

 purchase absolution from all offences done or intend- 

 ed, from the lowest larceny up to regicide. This 

 assertion is completely without foundation. At Mr 

 Pitt's desire.Jn 1 789 and 1790, the six Catholic uni- 

 versities of Europe were consulted upon the tenets 

 of the Catholic Church with respect to the faith 

 that is to be kept with heretics, and allegiance to 

 heretic sovereigns. The university of Douay, the 

 Doctors of the Sorbonne, the university of Lou- 

 vaine, those of Alcala, Salamanca, and Valladolid, 

 expressed their astonishment at the imputation of such 

 principles, and the dispensing power of the Pope, 

 gave exactly such answers as Protestant universities 

 would have given, had they been consulted by Ca- 

 tholics on the Protestant opinions respecting murder, 

 treason, and perjury. 



The present coronation oath is another argument 

 with the anti-catholics. But the coronation oath 

 was framed when Catholics sat in both houses of 

 parliament in Ireland, and were eligible to all offices, 

 civil and military. The oath was framed in the first 

 year of William and Mary, and Catholics were de- 

 prived of the rights which they are now reclaiming, 

 by the 1st and 2d of Queen Anne. This is a fact, 

 and it is a conclusive one, respecting the royal oath. 

 Unhappily, although the arguments for the cause 

 were so strong, a shield of temporary evasion from 

 them has been afforded to their enemies by the Ca- 

 tholics themselves. In a cause so good, it was in- 

 deed the misconduct of partizans, and not the argu- 

 ments of opponents, that was most to be dreaded. 

 The original managers of the Catholic cause were 

 men of respectable rank, of moderate tempers, and 

 of sound abilities. At their meeting in Dublin, in 

 January 1799, (a time when the union was in con- 

 templation, and when a state provision for the Ca- 

 tholic clergy was actually spoken of by the British 

 government), thry agreed to the proposal of allow- 

 ing the King (in the event of emancipation) a veto 

 over the appointment of their bishops. In 1808, 

 previous to the business being again brought forward 

 in parliament, Dr Milner, the avowed agent of the 

 Catholic prelates, renewed the concession on the part 

 of the Catholic bishops, that, emancipation being 

 granted, they would in futufe supply no vacancy 



alluded to, which they filled with a variety of absurd and wicked 



BRITAIN. 



1810. 



Unreason- 

 ableness of 

 the Catho- 

 lics in refu- 

 sing- the 

 king a veto 

 on the ap 

 poiatment 

 of the bi- 



without presenting the name of the proposed succes- Britain, 

 sor to government ; and, in case of his being object- ' -y^- 

 ed to, to present another and another name, tili' c- o - GEORGIA 

 vernment should be satisfied with the loyalty of the 

 nominee. This was announced in parliament, and 

 immediately became the subject of discussion on the 

 other side of the water. There is no reason to be- 

 hove that the most respectable among the Catholics 

 were at any time averse to conceding the veto ; but 

 there had risen in the popular meetings of this body, 

 as there ever will rise in popular meetings, a set of 

 rash, turbulent, and ambitious men. who enviedthecon- 

 fidence and respect due to the superior leaders. These 

 demagogues, attaching to their party all the bigot- 

 ted and disaffected among their fellow-believers, rais- 

 ed a cry against the veto, which threatened a schism 

 in the Catholic body, and, by their noise and activi- 

 ty, succeeded in intimidating the prelates at the pro- 

 spect of such a schism, to acquiesce in their ab- 

 surd opposition. 



The unreasonableness of the Catholics in refusing Speech 

 this concession, as a return for emancipation, has been Mr Gra 

 acknowledged by their Protestant advocates ; but Mr tan - 

 Grattan, in bringing forward his present motion, 

 gave it as his opinion, that foreign influence, the ob- 

 ject of such pretended dread, could be completely 

 avoided, by another mode of security, viz. domestic 

 nomination. Some of the Irish Catholics had, in 

 fact, virtually agreed to the principle. It was not 

 to be expected, however, that the Catholics were to 

 come and make their offer to that house. Overcome 

 them by justice (said Mr Grattan), not by standing 

 out upon terms : give them their just right in the 

 first instance ; make it an article, if you choose, 

 that they shall not elect foreign bishops ; but, at all 

 events, act justly. But the Protestant friends of Ca- 

 tholic emancipation, while they saw with grief that 

 the Catholics had furnished their opponents with a 

 pretext for refusing the claims, did not consider the 

 concessions of emancipation, even without a veto, to 

 be half so dangerous as the present state of affairs. 

 It must be noticed, that, at present, we do not pos- 

 sess the veto. What then is done by withholding the 

 rights of that body, but continuing the danger of 

 their disaffection, without gaining the veto ? Eman- 

 cipation, or no emancipation, the veto is not ours, 

 until the Catholics choose to grant, it. But the Ca- 

 tholics ought to grant it. True : but is it a matter 

 of indifference that the Catholics should not be con- 



clauses, that the ministry might he compelled to risk its rc- 



,, nr.u- , v ' ainagc, ii-<iiu, 01 imiuiinuy, excepting tne elective Van- 



h,se. Of this, too, they were deprived, in the reign of George I., hy the act.on of a new policy on the part of England the 

 great object of which was to prevent the formation of an independent Irish interest. 



rp k .... . . -, . . U6 .. v^wwie cuiu KVCU <fvwB are vnuilea to mis pri- 



.fication of a CatholKjuror is made higher than that of Protestants, and no relaxation of the ancient code i, 

 > those who shall conform to the oath and declaration, prescribed by 13th and Hth George III. cap. 3. 



