There can be no doubt that some legislative relief will shortly be afforded in such instances as these ;* nor can I forbear from indulging a hope, though the clouds of prejudice have, for a moment, darkened the prospect, that even those amongst us who are not very young, may live to witness the final removal of all religious disabilities. The silent march of time has already effected much; and in the unlimited freedom of all religious worship, which is recognised in every petition against the Catholic claims that has fallen under my notice, may be discovered the first beam of that illumination which will ultimately lead on a brighter day a day when difference of religious opinion shall no longer extinguish or impair the cordiality of those affections which ought to exist between the inhabitants of the same soil; when the chain of national friendship shall be brightened, and shall unite the sister Kingdoms in an indissoluble union of hearts, and when the only contest between Catholic and Protestant, Churchman and Dissenter, shall be, who shall most effectually promote the honour and the interests of their common country.

a Catholic clergyman, has contended, that by the employment of Catholic soldiers or sailors within the Kingdom of England, while the Test Act and the 1st of George 1st exist, the King's ministers in fact, dispense with or violate the laws. But since it appears, that the defence of the country requires that a large proportion of its defenders should be taken from among Catholics, and as they cannot be employed legally, he calls upon them from respect to the laws and constitution of their country, and to his Majesty's Coronation Oath, to repeal those obnoxious

statutes.

* Government has manifested a lenient spirit, if it be not controuled by Anti-Catholic Petitions. The Statement of the Penal Laws, &c. acknowledges with gratitude, a statute passed in 1811, most valuable to the elective franchise; and the rumours now afloat indicate a spirit of still farther concession.

APPENDIX.

WHILE the preceding sheets were in the

Press, a pamphlet appeared from the pen of the Rev. WM. THORP, purporting to be the substance of a Speech intended to have been delivered by him at the Meeting in the Guildhall. Although I trust that many of the Reverend Gentleman's arguments have already been fully replied to in my Letter, I shall here proceed to notice some passages to which I could not conveniently advert before, without breaking in upon the plan which I had proposed to myself to pursue. The examination of the argumentative part of this intended speech, for I shall only take notice of one passage among the declamatory parts of it, will not detain me long.

Mr. THORP, like the other opposers of the Roman Catholic claims, introduces his speech with the most ample assertion of the rights of conscience and of the freedom of religious worship. He appears however to be a good deal mistaken as to the actual situation of the Roman Catholics. In p. 6, he asks the following questions," Is it whether Roman Catholics are entitled to legal protection in the exercise of Public Worship? On this question there can be no diversity of sentiment; for to grant the liberty and withold the protection would be a palpable absurdity, a solecism in legislation. To Roman Catholics this protection is extended, and they can sit every man under his own fig-tree, none daring to make him afraid. Is it whether Roman Catholics ought to enjoy all civil rights in common with their fellow-citizens, so far as may be compatible with the safety of the state, and the welfare of the community? Here again a diversity of sentiment seems impossible. To deny them (the safety of the State being provided for) the common rights of their Fellow-Citizens, would be a violation of all the principles of justice, humanity,

and

and sound policy. On eac hof these questions I am bold to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that in the present state of public feeling, the most perfect unanimity prevails;-one sentiment pervades every bosom, and not a discordant voice is heard through the whole United Kingdom." I doubt not that Mr. THORP, notwithstanding the many passages which I wish that he had never given utterance to, does himself feel such sentiments-but if he will look back to pp. 24, and seq: of my letter, he will, I think, see ample reasons to question the unanimity of which he speaks in the sentence last quoted, and he will also see that the privileges enjoyed by the Roman Catholics, are by no means so extensive as he supposes. I have only stated facts collected from a report, the truth of which has never been questioned, and I am very sure that Mr. THORP will not think the disabilities there enumerated, either trifling in themselves, or consistent with that degree of toleration which even in his own apprehension, if I may judge from the sentiments which I have quoted from him, might be safely allowed. If therefore his pamphlet should reach a Second Edition, and I am afraid that it falls in with too many inveterate prejudices to render this doubtful, I confidently expect that he will modify the passages alluded to.

In p. 8, Mr.THORP lays it down as a position that some religious principles may be entertained of so dangerous a character, as to demand the exclusion of the holder of them from all places of trust and authority. Though the position is perhaps not demonstrable, I have not time here to discuss it. It may be questioned whither the instances adduced in support of it can be strictly referred to religious principles: at any rate they do not in any manner apply to the Catholic Question. While the Catholics recognize in the plainest terms the independent and absolute authority of the civil power in temporals, and are ready to take, and many of them constantly are taking the comprehensive oaths of allegiance which are prescribed to them, eagerly and willingly, they cannot be compared for a moment either with the Fifth Monarchy Men, or the Non-jurors.

The general scope of Mr. THORP's pamphlet may be reduced to three propositions, First, that certain doctrines of Catholicism are dangerous to the state-Secondly, that as Catholics, if sincere, must hold these doctrines, they must be unfit to be trasted with political power---Thirdly, that if they do not hold

hold these doctrines they must be insincere in their religious professions, aud therefore equally unworthy of such confidence.

In his main attack upon the Catholics, the Reverend Gentleman takes the ground which I had anticipated would have been maintained by some of the supporters of the petition against their claims. I had anticipated such arguments but not from Mr. Thorp; not from a Protestant Dissenting, Minister. The first alludes to the infallibility of the Church. In this particular point of the attack, the assailants of Catholicism have, in late years, shifted their ground. For a long time it was contended that Catholics believed that the Pope was infallible, and I will venture to say that this is, at the present moment, the belief of four-fifths at least of those who signed the Anti-Catholic petition. Those however who have bestowed a little attention on the subject, now know that this ground is no longer tenable; and therefore Mr. Thorp properly states p. 12, that this infallibility is supposed to "be vested in General Councils summoned by the Holy Pontiff, and over which he presides either in person or by his Legates." The Rev. Gentleman is here perfectly accurate, but the next sentence contains assertions which are contradicted by the whole history of the Church, and of Catholic States for some centuries at least. "To every decree" says he,

enacted by these Councils, and sanctioned by this authority, the Church bows with implicit faith and obedience." The Catholic writers themselves acknowledge no such thing. Even Bellarmine who is quoted by the Rev. Gentleman as his authority for the particular decrees to be hereafter noticed, and who is considered by Catholics in general in the same light as Dr. Sacheverell would be by the Members of the Establishment, limits their infallibility expressly to the following points: first," when addressing the whole Church they determine what is of faith and what is not." Secondly, "when they prescribe such precepts of morals to the whole Church, as relates either to things necessary to salvation or to things which of themselves are good or evil." He acknowledges that they may often order an useless thing, or under too great penalties provide d it does countenance evil, or forbid what is necessary to salvation. He also acknowledges expressly that they may err in matters of fact, for which they must rely upon the in

formation