venerable man, with eleven other Irish prelates, sign what is termed, "The judgment of diverse of "the archbishops and bishops of Ireland on the "toleration of religion ;"—and declare by it, "that "the religion of the papists was superstitious and "idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous "and heretical; their church, in respect to both,

apostatical; that to give them, therefore, a tole"ration, or to consent that they may freely exer"cise their religion, is a grievous sin.”—It is observable too*, that this took place at a time when Charles I. was in his greatest distress; and the catholics of Ireland were straining every nerve to serve him.

I beg of you to observe, that in this solemn doctrinal judgment of the Irish prelacy, nothing is said, nothing insinuated respecting the conduct, the civil principles, or even the civil tendency of the religious principles of the roman-catholics, or their religion. Toleration is denied to them wholly, and merely, for their religion; for the heresy and errors of their faith and doctrine, and for the apostacy of their church-Upon these accounts, and upon these accounts only, "a grant of toleration to their "religion" is declared "to be a sin."

Here then I take my stand :-I call upon you to consider all you have heard or read of the history of the roman-catholic church, in any age, or in any country;-I desire you to place before you all that the most intolerant roman-catholics have said or

See Plowden's Historical Review of the State of Ireland, vol 1, c. 4; an able an instructive work.

written ;-I then defy you to produce one single instance, in which the detestable dogma of religious intolerance has been more explicitly, solemnly, or unqualifiedly propounded.

1

Should it then be attributed to protestants, as a tenet of their creed? . . . This,—I do not say :But I do say, that, if it should not be attributed to the protestant church, no intolerant deed or doctrine of roman-catholic individuals, however eminent in rank or character, should be attributed to the roman-catholic church*.

Surely the archbishop must have forgotten the just rebuke, which, not long before this time, he himself had given to a clergyman for a want of charity. Being wrecked on a desolate part of the Irish coast, he applied to a clergyman for relief; and stated, without mentioning his name or rank, his own sacred profession. The clergyman rudely questioned it, and told him peevishly, that "he doubted whether he knew the number of the "commandments." "Indeed I do," replied the archbishop mildly, "there are eleven." "Eleven!" said the clergyman, "tell me the eleventh, and "I will assist you." Obey the eleventh," said the archbishop, "and you certainly will. A new "commandment I give unto you, that ye love

"one another.".

* It is observable, that in April 1642, Charles I, then actually holding out to the roman-catholics of Ireland the fairest promises of the repeal of the penal code of the laws against them, took the sacrament from archbishop Usher, upon a promise that he never would connive at popery. Birch, p. 278, 279; Husb. Col. p. 134; Rush. vol. iv. p. 346.

311.

SIR,

LETTER XVIII.

CHARLES II.

have my

sineere

FOR some passages in the chapter of your work at which I am now arrived, you thanks; to others, I object. The principal of these I shall now proceed to mention:I. I shall first notice your defence of Charles II.'s violation of his promise at Breda to the roman-catholics and the protestant dissenters. In a note I shall show a near resemblance between this conduct of Charles, and the conduct of the British government towards the Irish roman-catholics at the time of the Union :11. I shall then shortly advert to some of your criminations of the roman-catholics in your present chapter:-III. Then, briefly notice the Corporation and Test Acts:-IV. Then, suggest to you some consideration on the act of the thirtieth of Charles II, which disables roman-catholic peers and commoners from sitting and voting in parliament:-V. Then, I mention Oates's plot :-VI. Then, notice James II, the Bill of Rights, and the Acts of Settlement:VII. Then, conclude my letter, with some observations upon your repeated charges against us of Superstition and Idolatry.

XVIII. 1.

Doctor Southey's Defence of Charles II.'s Violation of his Promise, at Breda, to the Roman-catholics and Protestant Dissenters.

PERMIT me to mention, that I have read with surprise this defence. "A fair promise,”I copy your own words," was held forth, in the declara"tion, that the most conciliatory measures should "be pursued." It was then said," because the "passions and uncharitableness of the times have "produced several opinions in religion, by which men were engaged in parties and animosities against each other, which, when they shall here"after meet in a freedom of conversation, will be

66

66

66

composed or better understood, we do declare "a liberty to tender consciences; and that no man "shall be disquieted or called in question for dif"ference of opinion in matters of religion, which "do not disturb the peace of the kingdom; and "that we shall be ready to consent to such an act "of parliament, as, upon mature deliberation, shall "be offered to or for the full granting that indulgence."

You say, that "Charles was sincere in this pro"mise that it arose from a just and honourable "sentiment of shame, that laws so severe against "the roman-catholics should continue to exist, "after the political necessity for them had ceased."

-"But Charles,"you afterwards say," did "not think himself bound by his declaration from Breda, to say any thing more upon the subject of religion, than to pass such an act as the parlia“ment might think proper to offer."-None was offered, and Charles was, therefore, in your opinion altogether unaffected by his promise.

But, was the promise thus understood at Breda? Could the catholics, so much of whose blood had been spilt, so much of whose money had been wrenched from them, so many of whose estates had been confiscated in the cause of Charles's father and his own ;-could the protestant dissenters, who had been so active in promoting the restoration, and, without whose co-operation, it could not have been effected;-could any of Charles's council, who knew the views, the feelings and the expectations of the parties;-could any man then acquainted with the circumstances of the case,-have put this construction upon the monarch's word? a construction under which the protestant dissenters must have remained open to the inflictions of the statutes of recusancy, and under which the roman-catholics must have continued subject to these, and also to the rack and the gibbet?

Did not the promise at Breda imply, that all the influence of government should be used in procuring such an act of parliament as it mentions? Were not all the powers of government used to the contrary ? Were not new restrictions and new penalties inflicted, both upon the roman-catholics