inaccuracies, but candidly observed that it had been so altered from its original form, that the

"Neither did the petitioners insinuate, that the tenets which "they disclaimed were maintained by any other catholics "whomsoever. They knew, indeed, that such tenets had "been imputed to other catholics as well as to themselves: "but, as they were petitioning for themselves only, they con"fined the disclaimer to themselves.

"It is not, however, of these inaccuracies, but of the note "which follows them, that the catholics chiefly complain. "The statement in that note is not only erroneous in point of "fact, but is calculated to make on the public mind an impres"sion most injurious to their interests, by representing them as "members of a church which inculcates, 'as part of its faith,' "doctrines subversive of civil allegiance and moral duty; doc"trines not to be tolerated by any government, nor in any "society. On what this representation may be grounded few "readers of the Memoirs will stay to inquire; they will adopt "it as true on the authority of the writer.

66

"The catholics deny, that the five doctrines in question "ever formed part of their faith. They challenge your lord"ship to prove your assertion: they call on you to produce, "if you can, the decrees of councils, and the authentic docu"ments of the church of Rome in which they are to be found.' "If you cannot, they trust that you will have the courage to "come forward, and with the honesty of a man, and the charity of a christian, acknowledge that you have been misled. "Your lordship says, that these five doctrines have al"ways been considered as forming part of the faith of papists!" "but by whom? By catholics? Most certainly not; they "have always disclaimed them. By their adversaries? But "you must be aware, that little credit is due to adversaries, especially when the passions of those adversaries have been "heated, and their judgments warped by theological contro

66

versy.

"But what is the meaning of the words 'have always been?' They seem to imply, that the doctrines in question were "not only considered formerly, but are also considered now,

See the note in the preceding page.

framers of it would hardly know the bill again. This circumstance has been published more than once, with a view to discredit both the committee and the gentlemen, whom they employed to frame the bill but, while lord Thurlow's charge of inaccuracy has been sedulously brought forward, his expression respecting the alterations which the bill underwent, after it had been finally settled by them, has been as sedulously concealed.

"as making part of the catholic faith. Is it, however, pos"sible, that so unfounded a notion can exist at the present "day? Your lordship cannot be ignorant, that in 1788 the a catholic universities of Louvain, Douay, Paris, Alcala, Val"ladolid, and Salamanca, when those learned bodies were " consulted to satisfy Mr, Pitt, spurned the imputation as most "foul, false, and calumnious. You cannot be ignorant, that, in 66 1791, Pius the sixth, in his letter to the roman-catholic arch

bishops of Ireland, not only condemned these doctrines, but "declared that they had been imputed to the holy see merely " for the purpose of calumniating it. You cannot be igno"rant, that the British and Irish catholics seized the first "opportunity which was offered them of disclaiming such doc"trines upon oath. You cannot be ignorant, that that very "oath had been prescribed by the legislature as satisfactory " evidence of the religious principles of those who should take "it. What better proof can be desired, or devised? The de"claration of the chief bishop of the catholic church, the tes"timony of the catholic universities, the oaths of the catho"lics, both laity and clergy, of the united kingdom, and the "authority of the legislature, all combine to show, that these "five doctrines form no part of the catholic faith. Certainly "the most obstinate prejudice must yield to evidence so gene❝ral and conclusive.

"I have the honour to be, &c.

"London, June 12, 1821.

A CATHOLIC."

* "See substance of Sir John Cox Hippisley's speech, May 18, 18 ro. App. p. lv."

The bill, as it originally stood, was prepared by the writer of these pages; it was then, on his own suggestion, and by the direction of the committee, laid before the late Mr. Hargrave, and perused, settled, and approved by him. In this form, it was taken to Mr. Mitford, and by his desire referred back to Mr. Hargrave, and was then revised and finally settled by him.

No reader, acquainted with the character of Mr. Mitford and Mr. Hargrave, for profound professional knowledge and extreme accuracy, will easily believe that a bill, thus settled and approved by them, contained any thing substantially objectionable. The objects which it embraces are numerous and complicated; it has now been acted upon for thirty years, and the writer is not aware of a single question which has arisen either on its construction or its effect: this can be said of few modern acts of parliament of the same operose texture. Justice to Mr. Mitford and Mr. Hargrave called for these observations.

LXXXII. 9.

The Protestation deposited at the Museum.

Ar a general meeting of the roman-catholics, held on the 9th day of June 1791, at the Crown and Anchor Tavern in the Strand, it was resolved,

"That, as the oath contained in the bill for the "relief of English catholics, is not expressed in "the words of the protestation, the English catho"lics take this occasion to repeat their adherence

66

"to the protestation, as an explicit declaration of "their civil and social principles, and direct the "committee to use their endeavours to have it deposited in the Museum, or some other proper place of public institution, that it may be pre“served there, as a lasting memorial of their poli"tical and moral integrity."

In pursuance of this resolution, the secretary delivered the protestation into the hands of Dr. Morton, the secretary of the British Museum, on the 30th day of the following December.

On the last skin, the following memorandum was written, and it was signed by the secretary, with his name. Every word of it was most maturely considered by him, and he now sees nothing to subtract from it, to change in it, or to add to it.

"The above-written solemn instrument of pro"testation was signed by the English catholics in "the beginning of the year 1789.

"As soon as the committee of the English "catholics received it, they transmitted it to Mr. "Walmesley, the honourable James Talbot, the "honourable Thomas Talbot, and Mr. Matthew "Gibson, the then four vicars-apostolic of the "s English mission. They all signed it:-The "three first with their own hands,—the last by "Mr. James Talbot, whom he authorized to sign "it for him.

"After this, it was circulated generally among "all the clergy, and among all the catholic laity "of any kind of consequence or respectability in

England, and not more than six or seven at the "utmost, refused to sign it.

"After Mr. Talbot had signed Mr. Gibson's "name to it, it was suggested to the committee, "that the authority given by Mr. Gibson to Mr. "Talbot to sign it, was upon condition, that he

thought his signature necessary to the success of "the bill then in agitation for the relief of the "catholics.-The committee did not think his "signature necessary, and doubted, therefore, "whether they were warranted, under these cir"cumstances, in accepting his signature. They signified this to Mr. James Talbot, and by his "direction and in his presence it was erased.

"Mr. Walmesley and Mr. Robert Bannister "signified to the committee, their wish to have "their respective names erased, and one other clergyman is said to have intimated a like wish "to one of his friends.

"Thomas Weld, esq. of Lullworth Castle in the "county of Dorset, desired it might be mentioned "to the officer at the Museum, who should receive "the protestation, that he wished his name to be “withdrawn, as it was against his will, and with"out his consent, that it was brought to the "Museum.

"No other signature has been recalled. From "the time it was signed to the present moment, it "has been in my custody.

"It was resolved, at their general meeting in last "June, That, as the oath, contained in the bill