L I B 
vourable to protellants; in your fpeculations on canfe 
and effect, in your conceptions of human perfectibility, 
there mult be a degree of refinement more confonant with 
French than with Englilh philofophy. 
“ Not to dwell on what, throughout your work, is the 
moftftriking feature in your mode of argumentation, viz. 
t’neaffumed right of taking for granted what ought to be 
proved ; a right which you do afiume in fix paflages, where 
you either gratuitoufiy afi'ert or clearly intimate there is 
no longer any neceflity for difqualifications or reftriftions ; 
we will remind you of fome preceding words in your 
fpeech. In them you obferve, the veto would ‘ have con- 
Ilituted an indecorous union in the appointment of Ro¬ 
man-catholic hilltops, between our proteftant king and 
that perfon (potentate he cannot now be called) to w hom 
the Roman catholics look upas the head of their church.’ 
Evidently then, by your own confeflion, the catholics do 
look up to another perfon, diltinft from our fovereign, 
and alfo a foreigner, as to their fpiritual direftor. It is 
alfo their own acknowledgment, recently avowed in this 
declaration ; ‘ As we are at prefent precluded from any 
intercourfe with our fupreme pallor, we feel ourfelves ut¬ 
terly incompetent to propofe or agree to any change in 
the long-eftablilhed mode of appointing Irilh Roman-ca¬ 
tholic bifliops.’ Now the oath of abjuration is purpofely 
framed for the exclufion of that perfon from all ‘ jurifdic- 
tion, power, and authority, ecclefiailical or fpiritual, with¬ 
in this realm.’ This claufe, however, material though it 
be, feems to have efcaped your recolleftion, when you 
contend the oath of abjuration is now not necefiary, be- 
caufe there is now no popilh pretender. Pretender to fo- 
vereignty in temporalities there is indeed none ; but a 
pretender to fovereignty in fpiritualities there unquef- 
tionably is, according to your own ftatement. It is be- 
caufe we cannot think it confident with the prerogative 
of the crown, or with the fecurity of proteftantifin, more 
efpecially in Ireland, that w'e feel ourfelves bound, in al¬ 
legiance to our fovereign and in vigilance for our reli¬ 
gion as contradidinguilhed from the catholic fyftem, to 
refill the pretenfions made by that foreign perfon to power 
of any fort or kind, in any lhape or degree, over Britilh 
fubjefts. And, that we may refill it the more effeftually, 
we maintain it is necefiary that thofe who legiflate for us 
Ihould be bound to unite with us in refinance. The very 
aft of folemn abjuration is in itfelf a llrong aft of refin¬ 
ance; with that oath therefore protellants cannot judge 
it wife to difpenfe. 
“Your lordlhip commands ample’pofiefiions and a nu¬ 
merous retinue. What might you not naturally and rea- 
lonably fay, if any neighbouring gentleman w'ere to af¬ 
fume the privilege of intermeddling with your ceconomi- 
cal arrangements, and of prefcribing to thofe around you 
the line of duty which they Ihould follow, the meafure 
of obedience which they fiiould pay, towards you their 
mailer ? Change but the terms, and it is the cafe of our 
fovereign, his fubjefts, and the perfon who confiders him- 
felf as the head of catholics in Ireland and England. He 
is a foreigner. Now putting religion out of the quef- 
tion,and taking the matter abftrattedly ; that a foreigner 
fliould arrogate to himfelf the power of interfering in the 
government of Britilh fubjefts, and of dictating to them 
'in this you may, in that you lhall not, obey your king, 
or queen, on pain of my anathema,’ is in itfelf an aft of 
prefumption ; and to the fovereign it is an infult. Being 
an infult; who bell fupport their fovereign’s indepen¬ 
dence, who are molt zealous for their fovereign’s honour? 
thofe who refent, or thofe who conduce towards per¬ 
petuating, that infult ? The ftatefmen of the feventeenth 
century averted fuch indignity from the houfe of Naffau. 
Loyalty, gratitude, national pride, demand it of ftatefmen 
In the age now prefent, to avert the fame indignity from 
the houfe of Brunl’wick. 
“ To conclude : Many more arguments feem requifite 
Tor proving, that the catholics may demand abmiffion into 
the legislature, as a matter of right. Nothing yet faid has 
- Vci.XII. No. 856. 
LIB 601 
been fufficiently cogent to produce conviftion, that it will 
be a meafure of found policy to admit the catholics into 
the legifiature ; or, that protellants will enjoy the fame 
degree of fecurity, tranquillity, and happinefs, under a le- 
gillature partly catholic and partly proteftant, as that with 
which they are now bleffed under a legifiature entirely 
and purely proteftant. On the contrary, it is to be feared, 
that, if legillative power Ihould be conceded to the ca¬ 
tholics, it would operate to the introduftion of perplex¬ 
ing difficulties in the cabinet, and of difcordant confufion 
in the parliament; it would tend to dillurb proteftantifin 
in England, and ereft catholicifm in Ireland ; it would 
indireftly banilh the fuperior, it would certainly entail 
rnifery on the middle and lower, orders of Irilh protellants. 
All this evil the admilfion of catholics into the Britilh le- 
giflature is calculated to create; and fuch admilfion would, 
moreover feem to be in defiance of the Union-acl between 
Great Britain and Ireland ;—in defiance of national faith 
pledged by that aft of union to the Irilh protellants;—in 
defiance of the claim which the Irilh protellants have on 
us for our utmoll and undiminilhed fupport;—in defiance 
of the provifions circumfpeftly and intentionally made for 
perpetuating the connexion between the two countries ;—- 
in defiance of the reformation ;—in defiance of the revo¬ 
lution ;—in defiance of every principle civil and religious 
interwoven as eflential, incorporated as vital, in the con- 
llitution of thefe realms.” 
Intending only to make a few extrafts from Dr. Hunt- 
ingford’s excellent “ Proteftant Letter,” we have been in- 
fenfibly led into a great length of detail. The importance, 
the immediate importance, of the fubjeft, we hope will plead 
our excufe. The trafts quoted in the courfe of this ar¬ 
ticle are the following: Petition of the Englilh Roman 
Catholics; Petition of the Englilh Roman Catholics 
confidered ; Hiltorical Regifter; Nature and Extent of 
the Demands of the Irilh Roman Catholics; A Ro¬ 
man Catholic’s Reafons why he cannot conform to the 
Proteftant Religion ; Sincere Chriltian inlirufted ; Lord 
Somers’s Speech and Supplemental Obfervations; Bilhop 
Huntingford’s Proteftant Letter, addrelfed to Lord Somers ; 
Milner’s Inftruclions, addrelfed to the Catholics ; Milner’s 
Inquiry into certain Vulgar Opinions ; Oath and Decla¬ 
ration taken by the Catholics, according to the Irilh aft 
of 1793 ; Burnet’s Hill, of his own Time; Hooker’s Ec- 
clefiaftical Polity; Hillorical Epochs of the French Revo¬ 
lution; Spiritual and Temporal Liberty in England ; Re- 
folutions of the Protellants of Sligo, Aug. 1812; Hint* 
calculated to aid the Roman Catholics ; See. 
LIB'ERTY of the PRESS'. “On account of the 
great eafe,” fays Mr. Putter, “ with which, after the in¬ 
vention of printing, copies of books could be multiplied 
and difperfed, it was necefiary that fome means fliould be 
deviled to prevent a bad ufe from being made of this art, 
and to guard againft its being employed to the prejudice 
of either religion or good morals, or to the injury of Hates. 
For this reafon it was every where laid down as a general 
maxim, that no one Ihould be allowed to eftablifti a print¬ 
ing-office at pleafure, but by the permiffion and under the 
infpeftion of government; and that no work Ihould be fuf- 
fered to go to prefs until it bad been examined by a cenfor 
appointed for that purpofe, or declared by a particular or¬ 
der to be of a harmlefs nature.” Buchernackdruck, 1774, 410. 
But we have evidence that, many centuries prior to the 
invention of printing, authors fubtnitted their works, be¬ 
fore they were publifhed, to the judgment of their fupe- 
riors. This was done principally by the clergy ; partly 
to fecure themfelves from cenfure or punilhment, and 
partly to fliow their refpeft to the pope or to bilhops. It, 
however, does not appear that this was a duty, but a vo¬ 
luntary aft. In the year 768, Ambrofius Autpert, a Be- 
nediftine monk, fent his Expofition of the Book of Revela¬ 
tion to pope Stephen III. and begged that he would pub- 
lilli the work and make it known. On this occaiion lie 
fays exprefsly, that he is the firft writer who ever requelled 
fuch a favour; that liberty to write belongs to every one 
7 D wh® 
