Letter to 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

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-