or at least thofe that were in force in the reign of Charles the fecond, made no diftinction between Roman Catholics and Proteftants; and fecondly, that the firft article of this capitu lation, though not confirmed, either by the Parliament of Ireland, or that of Great Britain, (which then undoubtedly exercised a legislative power over the fifter kingdom,) had the full force of a law; nay, that it bound all future Parliaments, to the end of time, whatever exigencies might arife, to maintain the Irish Romanifts in equal rights and privileges with the proteftant inhabitants of that country. Surely it is fufficient merely to ftate fuch a doctrine in order to evince its abfurdity; and yet, un. lefs the writer can maintain this doctrine in its full extent, the work before us has been, we think, compofed and publifhed to little purpose. The Author indeed charges a breach of faith on King William, in not immediately propofing to Parliament a confirmation of thefe articles, and when (with the exception of the firft) they were confirmed, he objects to fome of the expreffions in the Statute made for that purpose. But on these two points (though they are not material to the main queftion) he is, we think, fufficiently answered in the work of Dr. Duigenan, hereafter noticed. The Author then proceeds to ftate, in the most aggravating terms, the Acts paffed in the fubfequent reigns to prevent the growth of Popery in Ireland, infifting that they were all viola. tions of the capitulation of Limerick. It is not our inclination (nor indeed would our limits permit us) to enter into a general vindication of thofe ftatutes, but undoubtedly the legislature was only pledged to fuch articles of the treaty as had received its fanction, and (ftrictly speaking) even thofe articles were not binding upon future Parliaments. The privileges granted to Romanifts, might be forfeited by their own fubfequent conduct, or might become, by a change of circumftances, inconfiftent with the public fafety. Since, however, moft (* though not all) those Acts have been long fince repealed, for what purpofe are they now brought forward, unlefs to excite commiferation of the fup. pofed fufferings of the Romanifts, and thus obliquely (and we conceive unfairly) predispose our minds to admit their claims to political power? We therefore put wholly out of the question all this author's * In a Note on the Irish Toleration Act (as it is ufually called) of 1793, the Author ftates the difabilities to which Irish Roman Catholics are ftill liable. Most of these, he admits, are removeable by their taking the oaths prefcribed by that and a preceding Act. Thefe oaths, if we miftake not, were formed at their own fuggeftion, and certainly cannot be objected to by any Romanift, who does not hold the most obnoxious tenets imputed to that body. arguments arguments on the impolicy and injuftice, of the penal laws, as he, perhaps, improperly terms them, the repeal of those few which remain, being a confideration wholly diftin&t from that of permitting Roman Catholics to legiflate for our Proteftant eftablishment, and to fill the firft employments in the State. The Author afterwards enumerates and gives copies of the petitions by the Irish Romanifts, for relief from the difabilities impofed on them, and ftates the measures adopted in confequence: on which we cannot but obferve, that, after the various Acts for their relief, and efpecially that comprehenfive one of 1793, (by which the Election Franchife, and all other privileges which they then required, were granted to them) it is ridiculous, or fomething worse, to reprefent them as an oppreffed people; and that all the whining lamentations of their advocates are only feints to difguife the real object, which is manifeftly to acquire political power, and (we have no doubt) gradually to obtain, in Ireland at least, a preponderancy over the established Proteftant Church. We are forry, in conclufion, to be obliged to cenfure the style and language of this pamphlet as, in many inftances, intemperate, if not illiberal; and, particularly on the conduct of Mr. Pitt, uncandid; and, we think, unjust. ART. 20. Two Memoirs upon the Catholic Question, with an Essay upon the Hiftory and Effect of the Coronation Oath, and also an Appendix. By John Jofeph Dillon, Efq. Barrister at Law. 4to. 84 and 33 pp. Robinfon. 1810. The object of this publication (which is infcribed to the Univerfity of Oxford) is according to the author, "to illuftrate the claims of the Catholics; to reconcile difcordant opinions, and to indicate a means by which a fettlement of political controverfy upon this important fubject may be accomplished, with fecurity to the Protestant Reformed Religion as established by law." Whatever, therefore, we may think of the means fug. gefted by the author for the accomplishment of his purpose, the purpofe itself, as well as the temperate language in which he has explained and enforced it, muft fecure approbation from every candid and well-difpofed mind. He divides, in the firft Memoir, the difabilities to which the Roman Catholics are liable, into two claffes; namely, ift. "Difabilities impofed folely and exclufively upon perfons of this perfuafion, and upon no other description of perfons differing from the eftablished Church;" and zdly, "Difabilities impofed upon Catholics in common with all other persons not members of the establishment.” The first clafs of thefe difabilities might, he thinks, be removed, with the acquiefcence of all parties, if the subject were duly confidered, and the claim of the Roman Catholics to relief from fuch difability properly explained. This difability confifts chiefly in their exclufion from Parliament. Against this exclufion the author contends, that "it is no maxim of law, it is no principle of the British conftitution, that thofe who concur in the enactment of laws fhould profefs the religion of the ftate." The facramental teft, he ftates, is not required as a qualification to fit and vote in Parliament; and all defcriptions of diffenters, even the most inveterate foes to epifcopacy, are admitted to both houfes indifcriminately, Catholics alone being excluded. He alfo urges, that this difability is created by a statute diftinct from the reft of the penal code, and enacted during the general delufion excited by the perjuries of Titus Oates, and might be removed by the omiffion of a few words in the Parliamentary oaths, objectionable even to Proteftants themselves. The fecond clafs of difabilities, affecting not only the Roman Catholics, but all other diffenters, is ftated to arife chiefly from the Teft Act, and to relate not to the difcharge of legislative functions, but to the holding of civil and military offices under 'the crown. To the difability arifing from the Teft At the author does not strongly object. It does not, he obferves, create any dif ability which renders a Roman Catholic, or a diffenter of any defcription, incapable of taking an office in the first inftance. It only obliges the parties appointed to take certain oaths, and to 'conform to the Church of England within fix months after their appointment. He adds, that it does not extend to offices to be exercised abroad. With regard to the Teft Act itself, the author remarks, that its operation is annually fufpended as a matter of courfe. This -arrangement he ftates to have been made by virtue of a tacitly implied compact, it being understood that, while the diffenters conduct themfelves properly, the Legislature will not allow them to be molefted in office. Some old ftatutes, indeed, rendered Popish Recufants incapable of taking any office: but thofe ftatutes (the author alledges) were repealed by the Catholic Toleration Act of 1791. From the foregoing circumftances the author infers, that the Crown may legally appoint Catholics, as well as Proteftant Diffenters, to any offices within the purview of the Test Act, trusting to their fubfequent conformity, or to the indemnity which they may obtain under the ftatute annually paffed for that purpose. He does not therefore object to the continuance of the Test Act, but argues a modification of the Oath of Supremacy, fo as to enable Roman Catholics, as well as Proteftant Diffenters, to fit in Parliament. This relief, he thinks, fhould be fpontaneous, and independent of any petition from that body. Of thofe petitions, he admits, he has not always approved, and has regretted the language ufed in fome of them," Such Such is the fubftance of the first Memoir; the fecond is chiefly employed in anfwering the objections that occur to the author's propofition; which he defends with confiderable ingenuity, but on grounds which we do not think tenable; for, although the prefent Oath of Supremacy (as it is, perhaps, improperly called) does not expressly affert the fupremacy of the King in fpiritual concerns, it certainly excludes the fupremacy of any other Prince, &c. and confequently of the Pope; and as to the author's fecond argument, it is manifeft that Roman Catholics in general, and Irish Romanists in particular, do not, by any means, confine the jurifdiction of the Roman Pontiff to abftract points of religious faith and doctrine. The foundation of the argument, therefore, appears to us wholly to fail; fince we cannot admit that Romaniits, who profeffedly bow to a foreign jurisdiction, can be compared to Proteftant Diffenters, who difclaim any fuch authority equally with the members of the Established Church. The reft of this (fecond) Memoir confifts of an attempt, rather fpecious, we think, than folid, to excufe the inconfiftency of the Romish Bishops in Ireland in retracting their offer of conceding a veto to the Crown. Yet the author thinks fuch a condition very reasonable, though not neceffary to the fecurity of the state. The fubjoined Effay on the Coronation Oath was originally published in 1807, and was noticed by us in Vol. xxxii. p. 191. To which we must refer the reader for our opinion on that fubject. The Appendix relates, in part, to the late petition in behalf of the English Roman Catholics; of which (for reafons therein ftated) the author difapproves, and in part to the author's opinion on the fubject of the Veto; the grounds of which are here more fully explained. ART. 21. The Nature and Extent of the Demands of the Irish Roman Catholics fully explained, in Obfervations and Strictures on a Pamphlet, entitled, A Hiftory of the Penal Laws against the Irish Roman Catholics." By Patrick Duigenan, LL.D. M.P. 8vo. 247 PP. 75. J. J. Stockdale. 1810. Our opinion of Mr. Parnell's arguments, in his "Hiftory of the Penal Laws against the Irish Roman Catholics," has already, been given in our account of that very exceptionable work. They are combated in the book before us with fimilar obfervations, though, as might be expected, with fomewhat more of vehemence and afperity. The fophiftical reafonings and grofs mifreprefentations of Mr. Parnell deferved indeed fome animadverfion. His account of the "treaty of Limerick," as he terms it, which he reprefents not as a capitulation made by a fingle garrifon of rebels (who properly could only ftipulate for themselves and the detached parties under their influence), but as a folemn agreement of the Government, with the whole body of Irish Roman Catholics, binding upon all future Kings and Par liaments, liaments, is accordingly reprobated by the prefent writer in terms which, though coarfe and violent, can scarcely be deemed too fevere. It is justly remarked, that the firft article (the only one applying to Irish Romanifts in general) was never fanctioned by the legislature. The fincerity of King William, in his endeavours to procure a parliamentary confirmation of that article, is alfo ftrongly afferted by Dr. Duigenan, in oppofition to Mr. Parnell; and the comparative ftrength of the two parties, previously to the capitulation, is very differently represented in the prefent work. But whether the fituation of the Irish Romanists in Limerick was, as fuppofed by Dr. Duigenan, wholly defperate, or whether as Mr. Parnell reprefents, they might for a confiderable time have baffled the arms of King Wil liam, at all events, to call that capitulation "the great charter of the Irish Roman Catholics," as it is termed by Smollett and Mr. Parnell, is extravagant and absurd. * With no lefs juftice, in our opinion, has Dr. Duigenan oppofed the inference drawn by Mr. Parnell from an expreffion in the Act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland, namely, that " every Member of the Houfe of Commons of the United Kingdom, in the firft and every fucceeding Parliament faall, until the Parliament of the United Kingdom hall otherwife provide, take the oaths as now enjoined to be taken." From these expres fions Mr. P. has inferred, not merely that it was in contemplation to new mould the parliamentary oaths hereafter, but that the legiflature was thereby pledged to alter them, for the purpose of admitting Roman Catholics to feats in Parliament. He has also, we think, fuccefsfully vindicated Mr. Pitt from the charge of having deluded the Irish Roman Catholics by promifes, which he did not fulfil. Whatever his inten tions may have been, it appears certain, that he never gave them any promife; and though, had circumstances been favourable, it is probable he might have proposed fome measures for their advantage, they would undoubtedly have been accompanied with additional fecurities for the established Church, to which it is now equally clear, the Romanifts would not have acceded. But the character of that admired and lamented Minifter, and his conduct in the prefent inftance, have been defended by Lord Caftlereagh with a force and justice that admit not, we think, of even a fpecious reply +. In other points our opinion agrees with that of the writer before us; but to fome of his doctrines we cannot ac *The want of candour in Smollet, as an hiftorian, has be come almoft proverbial; and it is certainly no recommendation of Mr. Parnell's caufe, that he takes him as his guide. + See his fpeech on Mr. Grattan's motion in behalf of the Irish Roman Catholics. Brit. Crit. for Dec. 1810. P. 641. cede. |