508 LIBERTY 6f CONSCIENCE. 
vour to work on the public mind, by every legitimate ef¬ 
fort which he can poilibly exert, in favour of his own re¬ 
ligious perfuafion, and for the greater benefit of all who 
agree with him in that perfuafion. On queftions of reli¬ 
gion, he will labour to promote an intereft, feparate from 
that of proteftants; he will be zealous for a caufe, which, 
in many elfential points, is at lead unfavourable, if not 
decidedly adverfe, to the caufe of proteftants. In Eng¬ 
land, therefore, will be occafioned material difference, by 
the admiffion of catholics into the Britifh proteftant le¬ 
gislature. In France, no difference can arife from the ad- 
million of proteftants into a catholic conservative Senate, 
or deliberative council. Hence the cafes are not alike ; 
and, being not alike, they afford you no ground on which 
to argue from what is done in France, to what, as you 
conceive, ought to be done in England. 
“ You contend, that the principle which on paft occa¬ 
sions induced the legislature to make conceftions, fliould 
now lead to an unqualified grant of every thing claimed 
by the catholics. The principle, to which you allude, is 
found in this palfage ; ‘ You have avowed to your coun¬ 
try and to all the world, that the reafons which rendered 
the old difqualifying fyftem requifite, exift no more ; for 
you have yourfelves broken its barriers down.’ (Speech, 
p. 2i.) If, according to your idea, the legiflature pro¬ 
claimed to the world, there was no longer occafion for 
the old difqualifying fyftem ; did it proclaim there was no 
occafion for continuing disqualification in any mode 
whatever ? If fo, how comes it to pafs that Some disqua¬ 
lifications are (fill remaining ? that Some barriers are (till 
Handing? If the legiflature had heretofore meant to fay, 
* No degree of reftriCtion whatever will henceforth be ne- 
cefiary,’ it would at that time have repealed all difquali¬ 
fying laws. Some, however, it did not repeal; and of 
courfe it never meant to fay no reftriClion was neceffary. 
Jt meant to fay this ; ‘ Although the fame degree of re- 
fhi&ion is not now neceffary which was once neceffary, 
yet fome degree is (fill requifite, and therefore J'ome disqua¬ 
lifying laws muff remain unrepealed.’ Your argument 
will apply to the laws which were abrogated ; but it will 
not apply to laws (till retained. The reafons, for extend¬ 
ing disqualification into fo many branches, might ceafe 
to exift ; but yet there might remain, there did remain, 
reafons for continuing disqualification on a more con- 
traced Scale. It is not a neceffary confeauence, that be- 
caufe reftriCtion could be removed in part, it could there¬ 
fore be removed altogether. It is not a neceffary confe- 
quence, that becaufe partial concelfions were made, con- 
ceffions unbounded fhould be made. It might be wife 
to concede Something ; but highly injudicious and im¬ 
provident to concede every thing. 
“You caution us again!! ‘ continuing un neceffary dis¬ 
qualifications.’ The disqualification, which excludes 
catholics from the legiflature, is continued as neceffary. 
Neceffary, for preferving uniformity in our conftitution, 
which in every feature and charader, in every provifion 
and appointment, is altogether proteftant. Neceffary, for 
promoting unanimity in the parliament, and in the coun¬ 
cils of the Sovereign. Neceffary, for removing Solicitude 
from the minds of Englifh proteftants. Neceffary, for 
Securing the exercife of religious worfhip and thy undif- 
turbed enjoyment of their poffeifions, to the proteftants 
in Ireland. Necelfary, for upholding a proteftant govern¬ 
ment in Ireland. Necelfary, for perpetuating the con¬ 
nexion and union between Ireland and Great Britain. 
“ When you profefs you ‘ know not whether there are 
more proteftants or Roman catholics among Chriffians,’ 
you mult of courfe be underftood as fpeaking with refer¬ 
ence to the Hate of Chriftianity throughout the world at 
large. But our cafe lies within a more narrow compafs. 
It limits us to the confideiation either of the Britifh em¬ 
pire in general, or of Ireland in particular. In the Bri¬ 
tifh empire, tiie proteftants are fo much more numerous, 
that an endeavour to obtrude on them catholic legiflators 
is irreconcilable with every idea of propriety. In Ire¬ 
land, the catholics far exceed in number. But, for that 
very reafon, juftice, policy, affection, demand it of the 
Britifn government, that a proportionate degree of atten¬ 
tion fliould be paid towards fecuring the happinefs of the 
proteftants in Ireland. That fecurity will be greater or 
lefs, according to the greater or lefs diftance at which ca¬ 
tholic domination is removed from them. For, however 
correct may be your obfervation, according to circum- 
ftances at prefent exifting, ‘that humanly fpeaking there 
are much too many of each perfuafion ever to be forced 
into fubjeftion or converted by the other;’ yet from ca¬ 
tholic domination may arife an-evil, which does not feem 
to have entered into your conception. The condition of 
the Irifh proteftants may be fo much altered to their dif- 
advantage, that thofe who have competency for changing 
their place of refidence, may think voluntary exile prefer¬ 
able to continuance in Ireland. If the protection, which 
is now given by the more opulent and powerful protef¬ 
tants, fhould thus be withdrawn from proteftants of the 
middle and lower orders; and if catholic domination 
fhould fuperfede proteftant government in Ireland, which 
moft affuredly will be the cafe if catholics are admitted 
into the legiflature ; then, if we may not doubt the cor- 
reCtnefs of your obfervation in its full extent, yet at 
leaft we may doubt whether fome attempts would not 
be made to ‘force’ the proteftants ‘into fubjeCtion.’ 
Our apprehenfions for the middle and lower orders of 
proteftants, when deprived of the protection now given 
them by the fuperior order, are not vifionary fore¬ 
bodings. They originate in your own fpeech ; are raifed 
by your own language ; are juftified by your own de- 
fcription. We cannot forget that you tell us, the catho¬ 
lics ‘ have fometimes been violent, and fornetimes un- 
reafonabie’—that men ‘ the higheft in rank and weight 
have loft much of their moft ufefui influence by their 
want of moderation’—that, ‘in order to retain the re¬ 
mainder of their almoft loft weight and authority, they 
have been obliged, in great meafure, to follow, inftead of 
to lead and guide’—that ‘ the confequence has been, the 
leading and guiding of this mighty popular maf's has fal¬ 
len into the hands of the vvorft of men, the moft violent 
demagogues, whofe object is mifchief really.’ If the ca¬ 
tholic demagogues are already fo prevalent, that even ca¬ 
tholic gentlemen yield to their violence ; what may we 
not fear for the middle and lower orders of Irifh protef¬ 
tants, when there lhal! be acatholic lord lieutenant, acatho- 
lic government, a catholic church-afcendancy, in Ireland ? 
“You bid us not ‘ rake the embers,’—nor, ‘ roufe the 
fleepir.g ferpent.’ We have been fcrupulous, almoft to 
an exceiiive degree, left we fliould fay or do any thing 
contrary to your advice. The information, however,, 
which you give us, creates a fufpicion, that, whenever 
they can find an opportunity for gratifying their ‘in¬ 
flamed paflions,’ the ‘ popular maf's,’ of which you have 
been fpeaking; the catholics, who, not by us, but by 
you, are ftigmatized as ‘ needy and defperate men, rebels 
and traitors,’ will rekindle your ‘embers’ till they burft 
into a flame ; will awaken your ‘ ferpent,’ and direCt it 
to the infliction of a deadly wound. 
“ It was an infinuating way by which the ancients con¬ 
veyed instruction under the enveloperaent of fable. Your 
allufion to the embers and the ferpent feems to befpeak a 
partiality for that mode of fuggefting advice. Perhaps- 
you may not be difpleafed with the following apologue; 
though after the fafhion of our age, which would have 
every thing new-fangled, it has been forced to depart 
from the fimplicity of the original, that by change of 
character and inferiion of ipeeches it might be more 
clofely adapted to modern times. The apologue is this s 
An ingenious woodman formed fome metal into an axe, 
the edge of which was well fharpened. He wanted a 
handle. He petitioned the trees of an adjacent wood to 
grant him a flick fufficient for his purpofe. The veteran, 
oaks were not inclined to favour his petition : ‘ We 
have heard,’ laid they, ‘ from tradition, and we know 
i - by 
