.. < ■

■$&+. '■'&£.

speciAL colleccioNS

tJOUQLAS LlbKAirp

queeN's uNiveRsrrp at Kingston

Presented by

KlNQSTON ONTARiO CANADA

I

S E T T E R

T O A

MEMBER of PARLIAMENT,

ON THE

CASE

OF THE

PROTESTANT DISSENTERS;

AND THE

EXPEDIENCY OF A GENERAL REPEAL OF ALL

PENAL STATUTES THAT REGARD

RELIGIOUS OPINIONS.

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR R. FAULDER, IN NEW BOND-STREET, MDCCLXXXVII.

ADVERTISE MEN T.

T

H E following Letter was written be-

fore the Case of the DiiTenters was agitated in the Houfe of Commons ; but was then fupprefTed from motives of deli- cacy. As thefe no longer exift, it is offer- ed to the public in its primitive form, with the addition of only a note or two, occa- fioned by fome recent pamphlets on the fame fubjec"t.

LETTER

T O A

MEMBER of PARLIAMENT, &c.

A Printed meet was, a few days ago, •** ■*■ put into my hand, entitled, The Cafe of the Protejiant Dijfenters, •with refer- ence to the Tejl and Corporation Atts. The intention of it is to move the legillature to repeal fuch parts of thefe ads, as exclude from military and civil offices all who re-

B ceive

[ 2 ]

ceive not the facrament of the Lord's Sup- per, according to the ufage of the church of England, within three months after their admittance, or one year before their elec- tion, if their office be a corporation one.

Although I fmcerely wifh the protejlant dijfenters fuccefs in their application to par- liament, having ever confidered fuch tefts as inimical to civil as well as to religious liberty, and often a fource of the vileft hy- pocrify ; yet I am forry to be obliged to fay, that, in the paper now before me, there is a manifeft partiality in the ftatement of facls, and an illiberality of fentiment in the mode of reafoning, of which I did not think the protejlant dijfenters of the prefent day ca- pable : and I am perfuaded, that many pro- teftant difTcnters are of the fame opinion with myfelf. — Would the enlightened Price, or the candid Prieftley have drawn up fuch a

cafe?

It

[ 3 ]

It fets forth, that the acl: of the twenty- fifth of Charles the Second muft have been made " whollv aeainfl: Papists ; and not " to prevent any danger which could hap- " pen to the nation or church from Pro- " teftant DhTenters." — Why ? Becaufe,

Firft, the acl: is called " an acl: for pre- 44 venting dangers, which may happen from " popifl recufants."

Secondly, From the circumflances in which it was formed ; namely, the fufpen- fion of the penal laws, in favour of papifts — our being in war with a proteftant ftate ; and the Duke of York's open pro- fefhon of popery.

Let us fee how far thefe affertions accord with the whole tenor of Charles's reign, the general difpofition of the nation during that period, and the conftant oppofition which the eftablifhed religion has ever fince made B 2 to

f 4 ]

to the repeal of that act : although it is evident that, both from prior and pofterior acts againft papijh, it can neither ferve nor injure them In the leaft degree.

I hardly think, that it will be ferioufiy afTerted, that at the Relloration, the Roman catholics were a party dangerous or redoubt- able to either church or ftate: whereas, at that time " prelacy and prefbytery ftruggled " for the fuperiority,"* and their mutual animofities were carried to the greater! height.

The epifcopal party, however, prevailed. In the parliament of 1661, the bifhops were reftored to their places in the houfe of lords ; and in the houfc of commons no more than fifty-fix of the prefbyterian party had obtained feats. The corporation act. of this year is an evident proof that the parlia-

* Hume3 Vol. VII. p. 369, Laft edit. Svo.

ment

[ s 1

ment dreaded that party, and meant to de- prefs them.*

The act of uniformity in 1662 is fliil more flagrant. It was, fays Hume, " a " pledge of the fincere attachment of par- " liament to the epifcopal hierarchy, and of " their antipathy to prefbyterians." In fad, two thoufand clergymen of that perfuafion were, in confequence, turned out of their livings.

This could not be afcrjbed to the king or court. For though Charles hated, and had reafon to hate, the diflenters, his eafy na-

* The author of the Cafe grants, that, " probably," this a<£t, at leaft, was levelled at them. He mould, with Lord Mansfield, have faid, " that it was moft cer- " tainly intended by the legiflature to prohibit the per- u fons therein defcribed being elected to any corporation " offices, and to difable them from taking any fuch " offices upon them." See his fpeech in the houfe of lords, 4th Feb. 1767, in the Appendix to Dr. Fur- neaux's Letterc, p. 260.

B 3 tural

[ 6 ]

tural difpofition, and his wiih to ferve the catholic party who had fuffered fo much in the royal caufe, and whom he knew to be ftrongly attached to regal power, made him propofe to his parliament, the very next year (1663), a general toleration in favour of protectant diflenters, and to catholics the free private exercife of their religion. — " But the declared intention of eafmg the " diflenters, and the fecret purpofe of fa- " vouring catholics, were equally difagree- " able to that parliament."* And the com- mons represented " that the indulgence in- " tended would prove moft pernicious both " to church and ftate, would open the door " to fchiim, encourage Action, difturb the " public peace, and difcredit the wifdom of " the legiflature." At the fame time, they foliated and obtained a proclamation againft

* Hume, Vol. VII. p. 386, laft edit. 8vo.

■••:

[ 7 ] the papifts; which, however, was not ftrictly executed.

The parliament of 1664 difcovered a continuance of the fame principles, which had prevailed in the preceding ones. — " Monarchy and the church were ftill the " great objects of regard and affection." The act of uniformity was not deemed fuf- ficient to guard them from the deiigns of iectaries. It was enacted, " that where- " ever five perfons, above thofe of the fame " houfehold, fhould affemble in a religious " congregation, every one of them was " liable to imprifonment or a fine."

In 1665, it was enacted that no diflenting teacher, who took not the non-refiftance oath, fhould come within five miles of any place where he had formerly preached after the act of oblivion, under the penalty of fix months imprifonment, and fixty pounds.

B 4 Not

[ 8 ]

Not content with this, the church-party in- troduced a bill, for impofmg the oath of non-refi fiance on the whole nation : and it was rejected only by three voices.

After Clarendon's difmiffion and difgrace, in 1667, the diflenters began to make head again. But the fuccefs of that ill-advifed meafure, the re-eftablifhing epifcopacy in Scotland, mews that the high-church party were ftill fuperior, and determined to keep under the prefbyterians. Acts were palled in both the Englifh and Scottifh parliaments for preventing and fupprefhng conventicles-.

But what, above all, fhews the com- plexion of thofe times, is that when Buck- ingham's party, in 1668, had laid a plan to reconcile and unite the prefbyterians by a comprehenfion act ; and to grant to all fec- taries (papifls excepted) a toleration, and free exercife of their religion j the commons

were

[ 9 ]

were fo difgufted at this propofal, which had met with the court's approbation, that they immediately voted an addrefs for a procla- mation againft conventicles ; and, fufpecl:- ing that the king ftill meant to do fomething in favour of the proteftant diffenters, they paffed a vote that no one fhould bring into the houfe any bill of that nature. And it was, after all, with fome difficulty that they were prevailed upon to vote a fupply.

It cannot be faid that* the comprehenfion fcheme was intended, ojlenjively to relieve proteftant diffenters ; but really to favour the catholics : the latter were exprefsly excluded from its operation ; and no caufe can be af- figned for its giving fuch umbrage to par- liament, but the danger they thought the church and ftate in from fuch a conceflion to diffenters.

The year after (1669) the act againft con- venticles

t "> ]

venticles pafled, and received the royal af- fent. In this act there is this curious claufe, " That if any difpute arife with regard to " the interpretation of any part of it, the " judges fhall always explain the doubt in a the fenfe leaft favourable to conventicles.'' So eagerly did parliament defire to fupprefs them.

Hitherto, then, it is plain that the puri- tans, not the papifts, were the principal eye- fore to the Englifh parliament ; which, as the court expreffed a wifh to extend indul- gence to them, prevented or frullrated the intention by fome new intolerant act or re- folve.

Things now, however, began to take another turn. The pernicious counfels of the new cabal — the unpopular rupture with the Dutch — the clofe league with France, and the Duke of York's declaring himfelf a

Roman

[ u ]

Roman catholic, gave rife to new alarms about popery; which the long prorogation of parliament, and a proclamation fufpending the penal laws, prodigioufly increafed. Yet the proclamation for fufpending the penal laws, whilft it gave to proteftant diiTenters the public exercife of their religion, to catholics allowed only the exercife of theirs in pri- vate houfes. The obfervation of Hume on this proclamation is, that " the diiTenters, " the moft inveterate enemies of the court, " were mollified with thefe indulgent max- c: ims ; and the catholics, under their fhelter, " enjoyed more liberty than the laws had " hitherto allowed them.": That is, the court, in order to give fome fmall degree of toleration to catholics, whom it confi- dered among its beft friends, gave a full toleration to diiTenters, though it knew them to be its " moft inveterate enemies."

* Vol. VII. p. 47-.

To

[ 12 ]

To this declaration the lord keeper refufed to affix the great feal ; and when, at the meeting of parliament, the king infifted on his right to exercife this part of his prero- gative, he met with fuch vigorous oppo- fition from his commons, as obliged him to depart from it. He revoked the fufpending declaration, and with his own hand tore off the feals.

Still the clamours againlt popery were in-» duflrioufly kept up, and propagated ; the difTenters joining in the cry, and endea- vouring, by that means, to fix on the pa- pifts only, the fufpicions and diftruft, that had hitherto more particularly fallen on themfelves.

It was at this conjuncture, that the act al- luded to in the Cafe was made : and from the title of the act, the writer infers that it was never meant to include proteftant dif-

fenters.

[ '3 ]

tenters. But I beg leave to affirm with Dr. Furneaux (Letters to Blackftone, Let. I. note, p. 12.) that " to illuftrate or to explain acts " of parliament is one thing ; to reftrain " or limit them another : whether they u amount to more than their titles exprefs, " muft be determined by the words or " claufes of the act itfelf. The teft-act fup- " plies us with a cafe in point ; it being an " aEl for preventing dangers arifng from po- " p'ifo recufants ; and yet every one knows it " is fo drawn as to comprehend proteftant " difTenters." Indeed, whoever reads the whole act with attention, and compares it with the hiflory of the times, will, I think, clearly perceive that, though to quiet the minds of the people alarmed with dangers (real or imaginary) from popery, it be in the preamble held forth as an act againil popijh recufants ; it is equally at leaft, if not more efpecially, levelled at proteftant dif-

fenters.

[Hi

{enters. The truth appears to be, that the court party ftill wifhed to favour the catho- lics ; but as the tide of popular prejudice againft that body was every day rifing higher and higher, they found it expedient to ftem it by pairing this act ; but took care at the fame time to ftem another torrent, which they had experienced to be far more impe- tuous ; by the introduction of the facra- mental teft : and as they had often before attempted in vain to fcreen the catholics from the feverity of the penal ftatutes, by relaxing them in favour of the other dif- ienters ; fo now they were refolved to ftrike at the diflenters through the fides of the* catholics*

" But (fays the writer of the Cafe) fo far " were the proteilant diffenters from being " aimed at in this bill, that, in their zeal to " refcue the nation from the dangers which " were at that time apprehended from popiiTi 2 " recu-

[ «j ]

* recufants, they contributed to the paffing " of the bill ; willingly fubjecting them- " klves to the diiabilities created by it, rather " than obftruct what was aeemed fo necef- " fary to the common welfare."

Generous diiTenters ! But ftill they under- ftood, at the very time, that they were in- cluded in that difqualifying bill, and that thereby they " were fu ejected to difabili- " ties ;" although rather than fee the veffel of the ftate overwhelmed by popery, they tamely allowed themfelves to be thrown out, like another Jonah, for the fake of the common weal ! Let him who can beli this, believe it. For my part, I believe that the difTentirig members in. that parliament law well, that the bill would pafs into an act without their concurrence ; and therefore they made a virtue of neceility, and raifed, as they have often done, and now endea- vour to do, their own merit on the pretend- ed

I it 3

ed demerit of others. For without any view or wifh to obftrudt the indulgence of parlia- ment to protejlant dijfenters, or without the leaft intention of reprefenting them as dan- gerous fubje&s ; I will take upon me to affirm, that, from the iirft eftablifhment of the Englifh church to the prefent day, fhe has had more to fear from proteftant dif- fenters than from popifh recufants. I do not even except the fhort reign of that in- fatuated bigot James the Second. His mea- fures were too ouvert, too violent and too ridiculous, not to end in the ruin of him- felf and party ; and inftead of fubverting the national religion, could only give new ftrength to it : while the fecret machina- tions of the very numerous prefbyterian faction have been, for more than a century, infenfibly fapping its foundations ; and will, mod probably, in the end overthrow the whole fabric. The mine, as Dr. Pricftlcy

calls

[ 17 ]

calls it, has been long laying, not only " grain by grain," but barrel by barrel ; and although perhaps it will not, for fome time yet, be ready for fpringing, the work, I fufpect, is much further advanced, than it is generally believed.

As a mere individual, I am little con- cerned about the event. Whether any civil eftablimment be conducive to the interefts of religion, is ftill to me an undecided pro- blem ; and the arguments againft it are at leaft fully as plaufible and conclusive as thofe for it. — Certainly much more conform to the genuine fpirit of " a kingdom which is not " of this world." But that has nothing to do with the prefent queftion, which is merely, whether the prefent Englifli eftablifhment has more to fear from papifts than from protectant dilTenters ? And for the refolution of this queftion I will venture to appeal, not only

C to

t 18 1

to all the bench of bifhops and their ad- herents, but to every candid and well-in- formed diffenter in the nation.

But to return to the teft-acT. Nothing can be jufter than what is faid of it by Ralph : " It was calculated not only to throw " all papifls out of office ; but to concenter " all employments in thofe who profeiTed " the eftabliihed religion."*

It is true, indeed, that the diiTenters, by their approbation of the teft-acT: in as far as it regarded papifts, hoped for fome future mi- tigation of it in favour of themfelves. In fa£t, in that fame feffion, as is ftated in the Cafe, a bill was brought into the houfe of commons for the fpecial purpofe of eafmg proteftant difTenters, which had paf- fed both houfes, with fome amendments ; but was loft by the fuddcn adjournment of

Ralph, p. 223.

parlia-

[ '9 ]

parliament. But does this bill import, that the diffenters were not meant to be included in the teft-act ? No, nor does it hold forth to them any relief from the onerous claufe now complained of. If parTed, it would have freed them from fome pains and penal- ties (on condition of their fubfcribing to the thirty-nine articles), but would have ad- mitted them to no office, from which either the teft or corporation a£t. excludes them/'

But nothing fhews more evidently that thefe acts were ever confidered as defigned to include proteftant diffenters, than the ineffectual efforts made at the revolution to have them repealed. Yet even William himfelf would never confent to that. The

* Another very lrrong proof that the teft-acT: was meant to include diflenters, is, that in the parliament of 1675, when a new bill was drawn up againfl: the pa- pifts, there is not a word in it to relieve proteftant dif- fenters.

C 2 toleration

[ 2° ]

toleration act only protected them from the feverity of penal ftatutes, and gave them leave to appoint deputies to ferve in certain parochial and ward offices, if they Ihould not think it fit to qualify themfelves for them ; and this even is clogged with a pro- vifo, that the perfon deputed be approved by thofe who would have approved the principal, if not otherwife unqualified.

In the fubfequcnt reign, the cord was rather tightened than relaxed. As many of the diffenting party had been charged with occafional conformity, an act was paifed in J 7 1 1 , requiring all perfons who held offices not only to receive the facrament according to the rite of the church of England ; but to conform to her whole mode of worfhip during the time of holding them.

Some ads paifed in the reigns of George the Firlt and Second have explained and

amended

t 2. ]

amended fome parts of the teft and corpo- ration acts, and limited their operations ; but it is not aflertcd by the diflenters them- felves, that there was ever an intention of repealing them : nay, fome of the amend- ments are fuch as feem rather calculated to give them new ftrength ; particularly thofe of the fixteenth of George the Second. Nor in the prefent reign, has there been any thing done to amend thofe amendments ; nor any attempt made towards having the original acts repealed until now. Pity ! it mould be at length made in fo objection- able a form.

For, in the Cafe of the Protefiant Difenters,

there is not only an evident mif-ftatement

of facts, of which there was no need for the

proper enforcement of their juft claim ; but

there is, moreover, a difgufting illiberality of

fentiment unworthy of this enlightened,

and tolerant age.

C 3 For,

[ M ]

For, in the nrft place, the indulgence re^ quefted would only go to relieve a part of proteftant difTenters from a grievance which many proteftant difTenters find a very iV one, and which the almoil annual : in-

demnity render no grievance at all ; while there are penal and even bloody ftatutes re- maining againft a considerable part of their proteftant brethren, for whom no relief is afked in this cafe. Not to mention that occafional conformity has not only been very generally practifed by proteftant dil- fenters, but has the approbation of fome of their mod eminent divines, and even of whole afiemblies.*

The prefent application of proteftant dif-

* In fa£t, are not our parliament, our armies, our na- vies, our corporations even, filled with proteftant dif- fenters ? who either make no fcruple to qualify them- by the facramental teft ; or are brought to no inconvenience from neglecting it. In fome inftances they may avail themfclves of it to avoid penalties, which fellow fubje&s are liable to — witnefs thee Evans, in 1757.

fenters,

[ 23 ]

fenters, then, being a pitiful and partial ap- plication, for what is hardly worth folicit- ing for, and what they already in fome meafure pofTefs, will probably meet \ little regard from any part of the legiflature for that very reafon. The {ticklers for efta- blifhment will confider it as the effect of a reftlefs and turbulent difpofition, that is never contented ; and the real friends of religious freedom, and univerfal toleration, mult look upon it as a filly endeavour to remove a. mole-hill, whilft mountains re- main untouched.

That you, Sir, are one of thofe who will view things in this light I cannot doubt ; and that their number, in both houfes, is neither fmall nor weightlefs. Is there not therefore ground to prefume that fome of thofe, inftead of fupporting only a paltry motion, calculated to jemedy fo fmall a ne- gative inconvenience, will take occafion to C 4 move

[ 24 ]

move for a general repeal of a number of penal ftatutes inflicting great and pofitive evils, under which many thoufands of faith- ful fubjects, and good citizens, continue to groan, and which are, in the eyes of all Europe, a difgrace to our penal code ?

It may be urged that thofe opprefTive and fanguinary laws are a mere dead letter ; but if fo, let them be decently interred, and no longer remain a public nuifance, to reflect difhonour on the polity of a civilized nation, and expofe it to the fcorn of mankind. If the penal ftatutes are in their own nature fo fevere and odious, that they can never be put in execution (which fome of them certainly are), to what purpofe is it then to retain them ? If they be deemed neceflary for the confervation of the ftate, let them be punctually enforced ; if they be not ne- ceflary, let them be annulled. There is

here

[ *5 ]

here no medium ; they muft {land in our ftatute book, either for the national fafety or Jhame !

But is it true that they are all a dead letter f Quite the contrary ; there is a whole body of diffenting lieges, on whom fome of them flill operate as directly and effectually as ever ; and others, which though only of the difabilitating kind, are in their confe- rences equal to a penalty, and fevere be- yond example. If the other diffenters may be faid to be " chaftifed with whips," this clafs of them is certainly " chaftifed with " fcorpions ;" and while the former com- plain of being overloaded with the " little " finger" of government, the latter have long patiently borne the preffure of its " loins."

You readily conceive, fir, that I mean

the Englifh catholics, a body not numerous

indeed,

[ ».« ]

indeed, but confefTedly refpe&able ; and as firmly attached to the prefent government, and the conftitution of their country, as any of his Majesty's fubje&s. And here again the writers of the Cafe of the dilTenters are blameable for the idle and impertinent in- sinuations thrown out againft what they term popery and papijls ; terms that have been too often employed to work upon the minds of the people, and infpire them with horror at their fellow-creatures, by imputing to them tenets which they exprefsly difa- vow, and practices which they difclaim and abjure.

Some of their tenets may be deemed ab- furd, fome of their practices fuperftitious *,

but

* Even in thefe refpects, the catholics of the prefent day, and particularly the Englifn catholics, are certainly not the fame they were but half a century ago. The fmall, the very fmall indulgence that has been granted to them, has already produced a considerable revolution in

their

[ *7 3

but neither are incompatible with any one fpecies of government. The fupremacy of the Roman Pontiff is the only thing in their do&rine, that has the appearance of political danger : and to be fure it was once a danger- ous doctrine, from the unwarrantable conclu- fions that were drawn from it, and the per- nicious confequences that enfued. The fen- tence of an infallible judge was a tremendous fentence, and the thunders of the Vatican fhook the firmeft thrones in Chriftendom. But what was it, that firft gave infallibility to the decifions of a Pope ?^-What rendered his thunders formidable ? The lawlefs am- bition, the pious folly, or the flavifh weak- nefs of temporal princes, who, to ferve their own immediate purpofes, or to fatisfy their

their minds. Since they began to tafte a fmall portion of Britifh liberty, they think, they fpeak, they write like Britons. If we wifh to fee further reforms among them, let them quaff it in full draughts ; and I miitake it much, if that will not more effectually bring about the purpofe, than penalties and profcription.

! ill-

[ *8 ]

ill-placed devotion, concurred to aggran- dize the Roman fee, until it gradually be- came the feat of univerfal empire, and its bifhop the fovereign arbiter of nations. In vain the clergy murmured and remonftrated againft the invafion on their rights ; papal ufurpation, fupported by regal power, bore every thing down before it. The inftitu- tion of religious orders contributed not a little to fupport the pope's pretenfions. The little learning that exifted, exifted in the monafteries ; and it was employed to aflert and extend the fuppofed prerogatives of the Roman fee ; on which, defpifing all ordi- nary jurifdiclion, they immediately de- pended.

Thus was the papal power, in times of general ignorance, fcrewed up to the moft enormouspitch ; when, like every other over- grown empire, it began to labour under its own weight, has fallen much fafler than it

rofe,

[ 29 ]

rofe, and is at prefent nearly reduced to its priftine narrow limits. The odious doc- trine of depofing power, transferring crowns, and difpenfing with oaths, has been long ex- ploded in every catholic univerfity. — Even bulls, that regard matters purely fpiritual, have no force unlefs they be accepted by the national church, to which they are di- rected. Provincial fynods, metropolitans, nay, fimple bifhops, take upon them to re- gulate the difcipline of their refpective dis- tricts, under the protection of the civil powers ; and a few years more will probably bring the form of the catholic hierarchy back to that of the firft. centuries.

At any rate, there is no longer danger to civil government from pa^al power. The prefent bifhop of Rome is, in that refpect, as harmlefs a perfonage as the man in the moon, and the fupremacy which the Engliih catholics allow to Pius VI. is not more dan- gerous

[ 30 J

gerous to the conftitution, than the primacy of his grace of Canterbury.

I have dwelt the longer on this fubjecl, bscaufe I every day meet with, in occafional or periodical publications, the moft ridicu- lous and unfair reprefentations of the prefent ftate of the catholic religion, and particu- larly of the Englifh catholics. Sometimes we are confidently told, that they already enjoy more liberty than fome protectant dif- fenters : and that the commercial treaty with France will fet them completely on a level with the other fubje&s of the realm *.

* Nothing can be more ill-founded than this idea. By an article of the treaty, the catholic fubjecls of France are to have the free exercife of their religion in England, in the fame degree that the proteftant fubje&s of England are to have the exercife of their religion in France : but what relief does that give to the Englifh catholics, or to the French calvinifts ? who, by the bye, have had many indigencies granted them, which the

former enjov not.

If

[ 3' ]

If inch aflertions be made through igno- rance, it is a very grofs ignorance, and if they be the fruit of malevolence, it is a very- grievous one. But let us fee what real in- dulgence the papifts have obtained.

By an act of the eighteenth of his pre- fent Majefty, in 1779, the catholics of Eng- land, on their taking an oath prefcribed to them by the legislature, obtained fecurity for their lawful property, and a fort of tacit permifiion to believe and pray after their own fafhion, without being molefted by in- formers and priefl-catchers : though, ftrange to tell, they may (till, through the force of ftanding laws, be fined again and again, not only for the exercife of their own religion, but for the non-exercife of the eftablifhed religion : they may, in fome cafes, be im- prifoned, in others banifhed ; and I am not fure, but in certain circumilances, they may yet be " perfecuted unto the death."

It

[ 3* ]

It is true thefe penalties are not likely to be inflicted ; and therefore I have only men- tioned them to fhew that they may ; and confequently, how little the Roman catho- lics have obtained by the late act in their favour : while, at the fame time, they re- main effectually excluded not only from all fuch offices, as the proteftant diffenters are nominally, not really, excluded from, * the

army,

* This is allowed by the diffenters themfelves. The tejl-acls do not in faff exclude th em from offices. Very feto fcruple to receive the facrament ; feveral of the molt refpecfable corporations are in their hands (fee the Right of Proteftant Diffenters afferted, p. 146) ; while it is certain that the papifls have not, nor cannot avail them- felves of this expedient to qualify. It is, indeed, aflonifh- ing that the Cafe of the diffenters fhould infinuate, and the writer of the jufr-mentioned pamphlet affirm, that many catholics have no fcruple to receive the facrament ac- cording to the eftablifhed rite. Let him point out a fingle papift in the kingdom that holds any office by occa- fional conformity ; fince, as to what the fame writer fays, p. 148 (by way of a poftil to the Cafe I fuppofe), about papal difpenfatiom dejiroying the efficacy of every tefl by which papifls are to be excluded, it is unjuff and injurious in the higheft degree. The Engl i/h catholi< I in the c molt

t 33 ]

army, the navy, and the magiftracv : but have not, though burthcned with double taxes, a vote even in the election of their legiflative representatives, much- lefs can they be themfelves elected, or take the feat due to their rank in either houfe of parlia- ment. From the very bar, and courts of law, they are excluded. The public Semi- naries of learning are alfo (hut up from them. They have neither the means of im- proving their talents, nor an opportunity of exerting them, Ufelefs to themfelves, and

nioft folemn manner "abjured all fuch difpenfations ; but had they never done fo, it is evident, from their conduit, that they make no account of them; for, if a papal dif- penfation could ferve their turn, why need tney be ex- cluded from any place at all ? What hinders them to de- feat by that expedient, not only the facramental tefr, but every other teft that deprives them of any right which a Briton is born to enjoy ? The quotation from the bifhop of Clojrne's pamphlet is not fair : The tranfaction al- luded to by the bifhop, is greatly in favour of the Irifh catholics : They reprobated the conduct of the papal JS/ubczo, defpifed his threats, and continue, with the ac- quiefcence of Rome itfelf, to think themfelves ftrictly and indifpenlably bound by their oaths.

D ufelefs

[ 34 ]

ufelefs to the common weal, they are, if they have any fpirit, obliged to feek abroad what they cannot find at home — fome em- ployment fuitable to their difpofition, birth, and abilities, or pafs their lives in a ftate of torpidity and inaction, that, but for. fome little domeftic purfuits, would render life itfelf a burthen.

Such, Sir, you know to be the fituation of , the Roman catholics of England ; a fituation truly pitiable, and of which the hardfhips are hardly to be conceived but by thofe who feel them. Would it not, then, have been more generous, and more juft, for the pro- fcftant diffenters to have come forward on this occafion with a little more candour and a little more manlinefs * ? to have made their

* Of all the pamphlets that have been written on this occafion, either in favour of the diffenters or againfl them, 1 have not ken one in which there is not an afton- ifhing want of candour and liberality, Dr. Prieitley's fetter to Mr, Pitt excepted.

petition

[ 3S 1

petition to parliament as comprehenfive a3 poflible ? and to have endeavoured to open fo wide a door of toleration as to admit their fellow difTenters, of whatever per* fuafion, to go in along with them ? or, if they felfifhly chofe to go in alone, it finely xdid not become them to throw fuch ftumb- ling-blocks in the way of their fuffering brethren. The name of Chriftian is a much more ancient and more honourable, as well as a more comprehenfive tie, than that of proteftant ; and there is a tie ftill more an- cient and comprehenfive than either — that of humanity. The time, I truft, is not at a great diftance, when the full force of this laft will be underftood and felt over all the polifhed nations of the world, when phi- lanthropy and commutual interefts will be the fole links of fociety, when tefts and pe- nal laws will be no more deemed neceffary for the fecurity of religion, and when Pa- pift and Proteftant, Athanafian and Arian, D 2 Lutheran

t 36 ]

Lutheran and Calvinift, Trinitarian and Uni- tarian, will be names of mere diftinction, not of reciprocal odium, and much lefs objects of reciprocal perfecution.

And have we not reafon to hope, Sir, that the Britiih legiflature wrill be among the firft to bring about a fyftem fo defirable, and fo congenial to the Britiih conftitution I God knows we have, and ever fhall have, political difputes enough to divide us : why mould thofe of religion come in for a fhare ? Let fome patriotic and enlightened foul, then, move at once for a repeal of every penal religious ftatute, and every religious teft : Be the pledge of the fidelity of the fubject in future, his ordinary oath of al- legiance, and his fubfequent conduct, and let him be anfwerable only for his own ; let religious principles be no more confounded with political ones ; but let every Briton, without forfeiting his birth-right, profefs 6 his

[ 37 ]

his own belief of the Divinity, and worfhip him after his own mode ; and if he choofes not to worfhip at all, what is that to the ftate, if he faithfully ferve it in the ftation he holds, or the charge he is intruded with ? In a word, let the only teft of a good citizen be an obligation, to be a peaceable fubjeft; and an honeji man.

Such a motion, Sir, would do infinite honour to the mover ; would be feconded and fupported by every man whofe heart were not callous to the feelings of humanity ; and would immortalize the fovereign and the minifter, in whofe reign and under whofe aufpices, it mould be adopted, and paITed into a law.

I have the honour to be, &c-

J

■$m

HI

I vSl

I

f ■ :

^H ^»? i

■
-	■■■ ■ ■