66

68

"that to them, according to the doctrine of those missionary "priests from Rome, equivocation and mental reservation may be very safely applied; and that this is especially "the case with oaths of allegiance and supremacy taken "to the King. I heartily congratulate you, Sir, on a discovery so honourable to the persons whose cause you "support. But in saying this, permit me at the same "time to say, that I have no doubt whatever, there are "few of them in England half so bad as these their principles, if they continue to be their principles. But then "I am sorry to add, this admission must be confined to England. Unfortunately, there is another country con"cerned, and he must be a bold man who would venture "with equal readiness to answer for the mass of the Roman "Catholic population, above all, of the Roman Catholic "clergy, in that country."

66

66

Now, the extract from Father Walsh's work, referred to in this passage, discloses a system of dissimulation, taught by certain missionary priests from Rome, to their disciples in these islands, so far back as the middle of the seventeenth century; and your purpose in producing it, as we have seen, is to fasten the crime involved in it on the Irish Roman Catholic population of the present day; without, however, even establishing it in the case of their forefathers. Father Walsh's words, as quoted in page 77, are, "their missionaries, i. e. their priests, labour to in"fuse into all their penitents, all their own principles of 66 equivocation, mental reservation in swearing," &c. The term "labour," to a charitable mind, might suggest a difficulty on the part of these missionaries, in effecting their purposes, even in that comparatively dark and distracted period. But to you, Sir, I am sorry to say, it is a matter of pleasure and exultation, to be enabled, by a forced interpretation and uncandid application of this fact, to brand five or six millions of Christians with an

eternal mark of infamy. You not only " thank Mr Can"ning for giving you an opportunity of citing the passage," but you "heartily congratulate him," in a tone of irony (not surely suitable to the subject)," on a discovery so "honourable to the persons whose cause he supports." The feeble expression of your sorrow for your Irish brethren, but ill conceals the triumph of your spirit, when you thus sweepingly consign to detestation multitudes of a different profession from your own.

But, has Father Walsh relieved you from the charge of absurdity?—This will be ascertained by examiningwhether the specific oaths omitted by Mr Canning, were such as, according to your own showing, the Roman Catholic church holds to be binding.

In page 48, you complain of the omission of the following clause in the bill of 1825:-"I do swear that I will "defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement and ar"rangement of property within this realm, as established by "the laws." And you say, in continuation, "it is a matter ❝in evidence before the committee of the House of Com"mons, that the descendants of the former owners of for"feited property in Ireland, extending to almost the whole "land, still keep alive the memory of their claims, and are "ready eagerly to avail themselves of any convulsion which "could give a hope of asserting them with success."-What a mighty hold would the aforesaid oath possess over the consciences of men of such rapacious views as these, and so regardless, as you presume them to be, of the sanction of oaths. affecting their interests! I have not seen, Sir, the evidence to which you allude, but I may be allowed to suspect its validity; while I challenge you to point out an instance during the convulsion of 1798, where the forfeited estates became notoriously the object of and prey to the insurgents-(the design cannot be of recent formation)-and pledge myself, in return, to pro

duce the proofs of a case where the property of an innocent Roman Catholic gentleman was plundered by, and the spoils divided among, loyal Protestants; and these too in a superior station of life.

In the next page, 49, we are told of another omission in the last bill. "Again," you say, "the clause, I do "declare solemnly before God, that I believe no act, in it"self unjust or immoral, can ever be justified or excused "by or under the pretence or colour that it was done either "for the good of the church, or in obedience to any eccle"siastical power whatsoever :'" as also, "that it is not "an article of the Catholic faith, neither am I thereby re"quired to believe that I am bound to obey any order in its ❝own nature immoral, though the Pope or any ecclesiasti"cal power should issue or direct such order; but, on the 66 contrary, I hold that it would be sinful in me to pay any respect or obedience thereto. ALL THIS IS OMITTED.' These last words are printed in particular characters, to impress us more emphatically with the guilt of the

66

omission.

Now, it is absolutely incredible, that with your avowed notions of the wicked purposes to which the discipline and doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are applied, you should ascribe the least value to such an oath.-It is an oath, binding or not. You have not made it appear to which class it belongs; but no matter.-If it be binding, your motive for requiring it must evidently be founded on the persuasion that Roman Catholics can take it with a safe conscience (unless, indeed, you should intend it to operate as a bar to their enjoyment of office; a thing inconceivable in a bill professing to be for their relief); and what then become of all your proofs and assertions respecting. the immoral influence of their church, which they are here called on expressly and solemnly to disclaim?-If it be not binding, how do you defend yourself against the

charge of absurdity, which you have treated with so much disdain? This is a dilemma, Sir, from which there is no escape. If you suppose that a Roman Catholic can take this oath in good faith, the necessity for requiring it, is at an end; for it distinctly affirms that his creed does not incite nor allow him, to commit any immoral act, the very thing against which it is intended to provide.-You must either then disavow your belief in the dangerous and execrable power of the Pope, or you must submit to the imputation of absurdity for demanding such an oath from those who are prepared with an exemption from its obli gation.

But assuming, as Mr Canning doubtless did, that Roman Catholics are actuated by the ordinary principles of Christian morality, there is surely nothing very extraor dinary in his omission of this oath; nor is it very surpris ing that they should congratulate themselves on having overcome the fears which suggested such securities. The tender of such an oath cannot but insult men of common integrity. What would be the feeling of a Protestant, were he called upon to swear that he was not a deliberate knave, and that his church was not an infernal engine of wickedness?-Such is the purport of the present oath, for abandoning which, among others, you go near to denounce Mr Canning as a traitor to his country, and describe him as "submitting to the insolent domination of Roman Ca"tholic demagogues," and "as looking on while they "plucked out the heart of his own enterprise," &c.

But let us mark the profound reasoning by which you endeavour to prove that the omission of this oath was a political crime on the part of Mr Canning. "And yet,” you add, "the history of the three last centuries pro"claims to every one who thinks of history at all as some"thing better than an old almanack,' that the mandates "of nuncios, bishops, and priests, have repeatedly led on

"the people of that unhappy land (meaning Ireland; of "course), to every deed of violence which men can commit."

The most lively fancy could hardly have contrived a more ludicrous device, than the proposed oath, for the purpose of averting these tremendous evils. A few Roman Catholic gentlemen admitted to political power, swear that they do not believe themselves bound by the authority of the church, to perform any immoral act at its command ;-and this is to be our security against the omnipotent influence of popes, prelates, and priests, over the mass of the Irish people! I am not prepared to say, Sir, with what degree of attention Mr Canning applied himself to the study of history; but I am very certain he might have learned even from an "old almanack," that nuncios, bishops, and priests, are not the only powers that have led on the people of any country to acts of violence in defiance of laws, human and divine. I can myself testify that such acts were committed in Ireland by the Protestant army of a Protestant king, at the command of generals, colonels, and captains, all professing the Protestant faith. How far it might operate against similar violence, to require from each soldier in the service, an oath purporting that they did not believe themselves bound to obey any immoral command of their superiors, I leave to your discernment to discover.

It would be as tedious, however, to unravel all your inconsistencies, as you, Sir, state it to have been to trace the omissions in what, with a singular elegance of phraseology, you term "Mr Canning's precious oath." I refer your readers to your own pages, where they will find it easy to detect defects, similar to those already pointed out, in all those securities, for the omission of which Mr Canning is so severely censured, when they are considered in connection with the principles of the Roman Catholic church, as expounded by yourself.