plaining are just as inimical to Catholics Vindicated against the public liberty as their opponents. Attacks of Cobbett. I wish for all the disabilities of the Catholics to be removed; but if they will not join the people To the Editor of the Catholic Ma in general, and seek a reform in I gazine. SIR, WAS extremely surprised at seeing an article in Mr. Cobbett's Register of the 6th instant, under the title of "CATHOLIC QUESTION," ," in which Mr. C. observes" That such a question does at all occupy the minds of even the most ignorant part of the people at this day, is melancholy to think on; but, that there should be men of talents so lost to all sense of shame, as to come forward publicly and carry on debates upon it, is truly shocking." Again, in answer to a statement in the Morning Chronicle, that the people of Great Britain and Ireland are roused to the most furious state of intestine warfare, he says, "And who rouses them? Who, but those, who after discussions of years, still urge on the vain dispute, when it is obvious to all the world, that the PARTY cơm P VOL. I. Parliament, as the means of procuring redress, I care nothing for the cause.-I have watched their movements very narrowly, and I perceive no inclination on their part to make exertions in the cause of reform. They move solely as Catholics, and as such I care no more for them than I do for the Methodists." That it is truly shocking that men of talents should come forward and pub. licly vindicate the cause of an insulted and oppressed PEOPLE, I deny; but it is certainly shocking and disgusting that a man of such political sagacity and acuteness, as Mr. Cobbett, should so far forget himself, as to publish such petulant and illiberal remarks, as I have here noticed, on a subject which he has before so ably elucidated, and the much-abused objects of which have never, in my opinion, given him just cause of offence. What does he mean by saying the Party complaining are just as inimical to public liberty as their opponents? Does he mean the Whigs? If he does, I answer, they have nothing to do with the great body of the Catholics, who have disclaimed them as a Party, as well as the other faction, because both alike wished to father them.-Does he mean the Catholics? They come forward not as a Party, but as a PEOPLE, demanding to be admitted to their civil rights and privileges, under a free Constitution, from which they have been unjustly disseized, without any crime on their part to merit such exclusion, and which is contrary to the Great Charter of our Li berties, gained by the patriotic conduct of a Catholic Cardinal and Archbishop, and Catholic Barons, and confirmed and maintained by Catholic Sovereigns, and Catholic Parliaments. "But they do not come forward and join the people in seeking for a reform in Parliament; they move solely as Catholics." To be sure they do; they are debarred from enjoying the privileges of the Constitution exclusively, because they are Catholics; and there fore, as Catholics, they seek to be reinstated in the pale of that Constitution. Neither do I see why they should join in the measure of Reform as a body, not having yet perceived any of the Leaders of that measure defend their cause in Parliament; but on the contrary, the Noble Representative for Westminster has declared himself in hostility to their rights, unless they renounce the supremacy of the Pope, which they do not appear inclined to do to gain his support; and his Hon. Colleague has not yet sufficiently recovered from the horrors he has imbibed. of the Inquisition, to support them with his forcible and manly eloquence, though we may now hope to see him arranged on their side, since the Spanish Cortes have abolished that tribunal as incompatible with the new Constitution.-Besides, why should the Catholics be called upon to join the Reformists, any more than those who meet and petition against the Leather Tax, or against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter? all are objects of great national importance; and the marr of talents who publicly comes forward and endeavours to gain the lost rights of an enslaved and slandered PEOPLE, is no more lost to shame than he who exerts his abilities to overthrow the monopoly of a few petty-sovereign merchants, in which latter cause Mr. Cobbett is not ashamed to rank himself, although he thinks proper to disclaim the former. As to Mr. Cobbett's having narrowly watched their movements, and perceiving no inclination on their part to make exertions in the cause of Reform; I also have observed their ac tions, and draw from them quite a different conclusion. The speeches of the principal speakers of the Irish Catholic Board display such a force of eloquence and high-minded disinterestedness, as to render it next to impossible that they should ever become the slavish tools of any faction whatever. I beg also to observe, and I believe I shall not be contradicted, that in all those places in Ireland where the majority of the electors are Catholics, the Members returned uni 1 a formly support the question of Parliamentary Reform, and all measures for correcting abuses and corruption.-On such question as Reform, or any other of purely a political nature, various opinions must exist in so vast a body as compose the Catholics of the United Kingdom; but on the subject of Emancipation there can be no difference, because ALL feel its effects. They know themselves innocently persecuted and proscribed for adhering to the faith of their ancestors, while they see that faith itself, which it is their glory and their boast to profess, unjustly vilified and calumniated ;—can any man of sense then wonder that the Catholics feel so deeply interested on this question, or that they pursue it with more than com. mon earnestness. It is not the possession of office or of power which they seek, but mere eligibility to office in common with their fellow citizens. Assist them then to rise from their present degraded state, and to stand erect in the Empire, and you need not doubt their sincerity, or fear they will prostitute their rights at the shrine of Power. In proof of this assertion, I will refer to the manly and constitutional stand which the Irish are now making to resist the manacles now forging for them by both factions, being determined to accept of no conditions but free and unrestricted right. I will also refer Mr. Cobbett to the 20th Number of the last volume of his own Register, and he will find Catholics are not enemies to Reform; for, of the thirteen statutes quoted by Mr. Walter Fawkes, in his Letter to Lord Milton, which the Friends of Reform consider as confirmatory of the People's Right to be either personally or by deputation present in the Parliament," ten were passed when the nation was WHOLLY CATHOLIC. Mr. Fawkes also observes-" Your lordship has often demanded of the Friends of Reform, to what period they would revert to seek for the Constitution of England. The Reformers, my lord, will make answer and tell you, that the real Constitution, only with a much greater latitude of suffrage than is now sought for, existed from the earliest times, to the famous disfranchising act of the 8th of Henry VI." And again, "The Reformers will tell you, my lord, that it was lost, both in theory and practice, during the distracted times of the latter_period of the 15th century."-That is when they began to reform the Faith, instead of abuses and corruption. From this it ap pears, that neither the Catholic religion, nor its most ardent professors in those ages, were in imical to CIVIL LIBERTY, since the British Constitution (in its purity the boast and happiness of Britons, and the envy of other nations,) was founded, nurtured, and guarded, by our Catholic ancestors, while, in our days, the Catholic son shall be deprived of its blessings, under pretence of his religion being hostile to it.-Oh! when will the dawn of reason beam upon the minds of our (self-termed enlightened) Protestant fellow sube jects, and dispel the mist of prejudice and ignorance which now overshadowes them, that they may see the wisdom and sound policy of admitting ALL CLASSES 1 AS some Protestants are very loud in their boasts respecting the bigotry and intolerance of Roman Catholics, we have a right to expect that they will keep at the greatest distance from such hateful feelings themselves. We have a right to expect nothing but candour and fairness, truth and honesty; impartiality and benevolence from those who complain of a want of those excellent qualities in others. But would such expectations as these be realized? We all know, to our great grief and personal sufferings, that they would not. Let us examine the present conduct of Protestants towards Catholics in one or two particulars. I make no allusion here to politics, or religious rights. You have, doubtless, often observed, sir, the partial distinctions which are made by Protestants respecting the characters and conduct of eminent Roman Catholics. When Christianity is to be defended against infidels, then the ever to be revered names of Austin and Alfred, of Thomas à Kempis and Fenelon, are among the glorious company of the good and wise; but when the faith and church of these great men are to be stigmatized and insulted, then Bonner and Gardiner, Queen Mary, and every other cruel tyrant, are adduced as genuine examples. In like manner the instances of persecution are cruelly misre. presented. The execution of a rebel is the martyrdom of a saint: a political act is a religious ceremony. Wantonness and barbarity in a Roman Catholic, are described as the natural and genuine result of his creed; though his creed, both in its letter and spirit, positively forbid cruelty and persecution of every kind; but when Protestants are guilty of persecution, and that they have been, to a most alarming extent, all is hushed up, or glossed over. The Inquisition of Spain is described as an essential portion of the Universal Church, though that tribunal was never admitted in most other Catholic countries. -But you must not say a word about the Star-Chamber of England, not a syllable of the Directory of Scotland,-not a whisper of the later doings in Ireland! Our religious books, our devotional pieces, our numerous directions to a devout and holy life, are all either contemned or mangled and garbled by Methodists, Quakers, and Sweden-bor gians; whereas, the darkness of elder times, and the Vandalism of a political thraldom, are vamped up and thrown in our teeth as the genuine fruits of the church. Such, sir, is the line of conduct pursued by most Protestants towards their Catholic fellow Christians; yet they boast of Toleration and Freedom from superstition and bigotry! It is with much regret I see at this time a Protestant Union So ciety rising from the ashes of the Protestant Association, which was so fatally active in spreading the mischief it deprecated during the riots of the year 1780. I lament also that the venerable President of this new Society of Intolerants should have diminished the lustre of his useful and amiable life by seating himself in that chairwhich his predecessor Lord Geo. Gordon occupied. Mr. Granville Sharpe's labours in the work of African emancipation are exemplary- yet is he the enemy of religious emancipation ! If these very imperfect remarks find a place in your Magazine, I will continue them at a future opportunity. In the meantime, I subscribe myself AN ENGLISH CATHOLIC. Westminster, Jan. 16, 1813. I IF you will insert the few remarks I herewith send you, shall esteem it a favour, as I hope they will elucidate a most important point of controversy; viz. the fact of St. Peter's having been appointed Bishop of Rome, and acknowledged as head of the whole church of Christ; a fact which has lately been called in question by an anonymous author, who stiles himself, The Protestant Advocate. Number 3, page 123, he says, speaking of the Popes, "After all, they are not successors of St. Peter, for that apostle was never Bishop of Rome." I believe few will believe this assertion, as it stands without any proof. However, I judge that I shall render a service to many of your readers, by producing a few texts from the' ancient fathers of the Church, to show that they be lieved that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome. Our adversaries frequently object to us the silence of St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, about the primacy. But does not he also omit many particulars about St. Paul, which are not therefore to be disbelieved, as his journey to Arabia, his return to Damascus, and then to Jerusalem, his journey to Galatia, &c. "This evangelist," says St. Jerome," has omitted many things which St. Paul suffered, as also that St. Peter established his see first at Antioch, and afterwards at Rome." Hieron. In Ep ad Galat. Cap. 2. Eusebius, in the second Book of his Ecclesiastical History, says, "St. Peter shows that it was from Rome that he wrote, when he calls that city Babylon." St. Jerome says the same concerning Babylon, as a figurative appellation; neither ought Pro # testants to consider this as a forced interpretation, since they so often apply the word Babylon to modern Rome: for if it deserves this name on account of its being the seat of the Supreme Pontif, whom they sometimes honour with the title of AntiChrist, how much more did it deserve to be called so when St. Peter wrote; for spilling so much innocent blood of Christian martyrs! In fine, the fact of St. Peter's having been at Rome, is acknowledged by all antiquity; insomuch, that the Rev. David Blundell, one of the most learned Protestant theologians, plainly acknowledges it in his treatise concerning the |