ders me from being able to make any clear judgment of the merit of the prefent measure, as compared with the actual state of the country, and the general views of government, without which one can fay nothing that may not be very erroneous.

To look at the bill, in the abstract, it is neither more nor less than a renewed act of UNIVERSAL, UNMITIGATED, INDISPENSABLE, EXCEPTIONLESS DISQUALIFICATION.

One would imagine, that a bill, inflicting fuch a multitude of incapacities, had followed on the heels of a conqueft, made by a very fierce enemy, under the impreffion of recent animofity and refentment. No man, on reading that bill, could imagine he was reading an act of amnefty and indulgence, following a recital of the good behaviour of those who are the objects of it; which recital ftood at the head of the bill, as it was first introduced; but, I fuppofe for its incongruity with the body of the piece, was afterwards omitted.-This I fay on memory. It however ftill recites the oath, and that Catholics ought to be confidered as good and loyal fubjects to his majesty, his crown and government. Then follows an univerfal exclufion of thofe GOOD and LOYAL fubjects from every (even the loweft) office of truft and profit; from any vote at an election; from any privilege in a town corporate; from being even a freeman of fuch a corporation; from serving on grand juries; from a vote at a veftry; from having a gun in his houfe, from being a barrister, attorney, or folicitor, &c. &c. &c.

This has furely much more the air of a table of profcription, than an act of grace. What must we fuppofe the laws concerning thofe good fubjects to have been, of which this is a relaxation? I know well that there is a cant language current, about the difference between an exclufion from employments even to the most rigorous extent, and an exclufion from the natural benefits arifing from a man's own inVOL III. LI

dustry,

duftry. I allow, that under fome circumftances, the difference is very material in point of justice, and that there are confiderations which may render it advifeable for a wife government to keep the leading parts of every branch of civil and military adminiftration in hands of the best truft; But a total exclufion from the common-wealth is a very different thing. When a government fubfifts (as governments formerly did) on an eftate of its own, with but few and inconfiderable revenues drawn from the fubject, then the few officers which exifted in fuch establishments were naturally at the difpofal of that government which paid the falaries out of its own coffers. There an exclufive preference could hardly merit the name of profcription. Almoft the whole produce of a man's industry at that time remained in his own purfe to maintain his family. But times alter, and the whole eftate of government is from private con · tribution. When a very great portion of the labour of individuals goes to the ftate, and is by the state again refunded to individuals, through the medium of offices, and in this circuitous prog:efs from the private to the public, and from the public again to the private fund, the families from whom the revenue is taken are indemnified, and an equitable balance between the government and the fubject is established. But if a great body of the people who contribute to this ftate lottery, are excluded from all the prizes, the flopping the circulation with regard to them may be a moft cruel hardship, amounting in effect to being double and treble taxed, and it will be felt as fuch to the very quick by all the families high and low of thofe hundreds of thoufands, who are denied their chance in the returned fruits of their own induftry. This is the thing meant by thofe who look upon the public revenue only as a fpoil, and will naturally wish to have as few as poffible concerned in the divifion of the booty. If a state

fhould

I

་

fhould be fo unhappy as to think it cannot fubfift without fuch a barbarous profcription, the perfons fo profcribed ought to be indemnified by the remiffion of a large part of their taxes, by an immunity from the offices of public burden, and by an exemption from being preffed into any military or naval fervice.

Common fenfe and common juftice dictate this at leaft, as fome fort of compenfation to a people for their flavery. How many families are incapable of exifting, if the little offices of the revenue, and little military commiffions are denied them! To deny them at home, and to make the happinefs of acquiring fome of them fomewhere elfe, felony, or high treafon, is a piece of cruelty, in which, till very lately, I did not fuppofe this age capable of persisting. Formerly a fimilarity of religion made a fort of country for a man in fome quarter or other. A refugee for religion was a protected character. Now, the reception is cold indeed: and therefore as the afylum abroad is deftroyed, the hardship at home is doubled. This hardship is the more intolerable, because the profeflions are fhut up. The church is fo of courfe. Much is to be faid on that fubject, in regard to them, and to the proteftant diffenters. But that is a chapter by itself. I am fure I wish well to that church, and think its minifters among the very best citizens of your country. However fuch as it is, a great walk in life is forbidden ground to feventeen hundred thousand of the inhabitants of Ireland. Why are they excluded from the law? Do not they expend money in their fuits? Why may not they indemnify themselves, by profiting, in the perfons of fome, for the loffes incurred by others? Why may not they have perfons of confidence, whom they may, if they pleafe, employ in the agency of their affairs? The exclufion from the law, from grand juries, from fheriff-fhips, and under-fheriffs-fhips

as well as from freedom in any corporation, may fubject them to dreadful hardships, as it may exclude them wholly from all that is beneficial, and expose them to all that is mifchievous in a trial by jury. This was manifeftly within my own obfervation, for I was three times in Ireland from the year 1760 to the year 1767, where I had fufficient means of information, concerning the inhuman proceedings (among which were many cruel murders, befides an infinity of outrages and oppreffions, unknown before in a civilized age) which prevailed during that period in confequence of a pretended confpiracy among Roman Catholics against the king's government. I could dilate upon the mifchiefs that may happen, from thofe which have happened, upon this head of difqualification, if it were at all neceffary.

The head of exclufion from votes for members of parliament is clofely connected with the former. When you caft your eye on the ftatute book, you will fee that no Catholic, even in the ferocious acts of queen Anne, was difabled from voting, on account of his religion. The only conditions required for that privilege, were the oaths of allegiance and abjuration-both oaths relative to a civil concern. Parliament has fince added another oath of the fame kind: and yet an houfe of commons adding to the fecurities of government, in proportion as its danger is confeffedly leffened, and profeffing both confidence and indulgence, in effect takes away the privilege left by an act full of jealoufy, and profefling perfecution.

The taking away of a vote is the taking away the fhield which the fubject has, not only against the oppreffion of power, but that worft of all oppreffions, the perfecution of private fociety, and private manNo candidate for parliamentary influence is obliged to the least attention, towards them, either in cities or counties, On the contrary, if they Thould

ners.

fhould become obnoxious to any bigotted or malignant people amongst whom they live, it will become the intereft of thofe who court popular favour, to use the numberlefs means which always refide in magiftracy and influence, to opprefs them. The proceedings in a certain county in Munster, during the unfortunate period I have mentioned, read a strong lecture on the cruelty of depriving men of that fhield, on account of their fpeculative opinions. The proteftants of Ireland feel well and naturally on the hardship of being bound by laws in the enacting of which they do not directly or indirectly vote. The bounds of thefe matters are nice, and hard to be fettled in theory, and perhaps they have been pushed too far. But how they can avoid the neceffary application of the principles they ufe in their disputes with others, to their difputes with their fellow citizens, I know not.

It is true, the words of this act do not create a difability; but they clearly and evidently fuppofe it, There are few Catholic freeholders to take the benefit of the privilege, if they were permitted to partake it; but the manner in which this very right in freeholders at large is defended, is not on the idea that the freeholders do really and truly reprefent the people; but that all people being capable of obtaining freeholds, all thofe, who, by their industry and fobriety merit this privilege, have the means of arriving at votes. It is the fame with the corporations.

The laws against the foreign education are clearly the very wort part of the old code. Befides your laity, you have the fucceffion of about 4,000 clergymen to provide for. Thefe having no lucrative -objects in profpect, are taken very much out of the lower orders of the people. At home, they have no means whatfoever provided for their attaining a clerical education, or indeed any education at all.

When