upon you to allow them to become members of the legislature, and to legislate in the concerns, and in the ecclesiastical government of the church of this country. They, as roman catholics, require of you to be the arbiters and legislators in matters relating to the protestant religion, a religion, to which they are professedly, by their own tenets,

after having admitted the catholic.
laity to the legislature, that the ca-
tholic clergy will remain perfectly
quiescent and inactive?
Do you
think that influence which is now
so widely diffused among their flocks
will suddenly cease, at a moment
when that influence may be exerted
with the greatest effect in further-
ing their own ambitious views? This
is not putting the case by any means,
(said the noble secretary) in an ex-
travagant point of view; and yet
these persons refuse to give you any
security, or even condescend to men-
tion to you upon what terms they
will receive so equal a participation.
in the benefits of the constitution.”
Now, catholic reader, if these ob-

by the honourable baronet, in the last session, and now just published. -It is hardly probable that ministers would put the country to the heavy expence incurred in printing so voluminous and bulky a volume without the expectation of an equivalent, which they hope to find in the services of the catholic clergy, whenever they may be seduced to become the political tools of the in-hostile. Do you think, then, that faction, which can only be by the exercise of a veto. Whether the projectors and supporters of vetoism will succeed in obtaining leave to introduce a bill in the commons remains to be seen; that an essay will be made towards it is certain, as Mr. Grattan has promised to undertake the task. In the debate of 1812, on that gentleman's motion for a committee on the petition of the Irish catholics presented in that session, of which that shortly to be laid before the house, as the prayer of the great mass of our body is a copy, lord Castlereagh is reported to have said, "It is material, in the view the house takes of this question, to consider that the catholics are now calling for the accomplish-servations imputed to the noble lord ment of their views, to all appear- have any weight against our unqua ance, unconditionally. They are lified admission within the pale of calling upon the legislature to be the constitution, surely they operate admitted within its walls without with equal force against the conduct restraint. They are calling upon us of those false brethren who are to admit them within the pale of the willing to submit to the legislative, constitution, while, at the same time, provisions of men hostile to their they are refusing to give us those creed, and consequently unfit to be securities which are necessary to the the arbiters and legislators in matters existence of our establishment in relating to it. If protestants choose church and state. Now, (observed to have a parliament church, is that his lordship) there is a very broad any reason why we should consent, distinction between the protestant to have one too? If protestants reand catholic church. The protest-gulate the discipline and government ant church is a parliament church. Every branch of the established church of this country is regulated by law. Its discipline, its govern ment in every part of it, is regulated by parliament. Now what do the catholics require of you? They call

of their parliament church by the laws of laymen, instead of divines, is it right that the guardians of our church, which we look upon to be of divine institution, and governed by the Holy Spirit, should be under the control of laws emanating from

& That is Lord & sont lave said is constantly

of the same communion, amongst nearly a thousand protestant legislators, who compose the two houses of parliament, is likely to produce its downfall, why let the veto be imposed upon the catholic senators, not upon the clergy, who seek not the immunities of the state. For, in the name of common sense, is it probable that the catholic clergy will possess a stronger influence over the minds of the place-hunters and pension-seekers of their flocks, after they get into parliament, and are open to all the allurements of ministerial corruption, than that which they now hold? And this is proved by events to be of so wonderful a nature, that their solemn decisions are set at nought, and their just alarms totally disregarded. But we are calling for admittance into the constitution, and refuse to give the securities necessary for the existence of the establishment in church and state. Surely it will not be contended that it is necessary for the preservation of the parliament church of England that the hands of the catholic clergy should be tied up. If this is the case, what becomes of her boasted spirit of toleration? In France, in Bavaria, in Hungary, all catholic countries, protestants are admitted to enjoy the legislative powers, and all offices of the state, without any fears for the religious establishments of those kingdoms, or requiring a veto on the part of the catholic sovereigns over the election of protestant pastors. Why then should a veto be necessary here, where the catholic religion is held in so detestable a light, that no man can be qualified to hold an office under government, until he charitably condemns upon oath all its professors to eternal per

the same lay authority? If it is unreasonable for catholics to legislate in the concerns and in the ecclesiastical government of the established church, is it not equally unreasonable for protestants to insist upon legislating in the concerns of the catholic church, as a sine qua non for restoring the laity of that church to their temporal rights? If it is considered a probable case, by the noble speaker, that the catholic clergy will use their influence over the newly admitted members of parliament to further their own ambitious views; are not the catholics more justified in their apprehensions that the utmost influence of protestant statemen will be exerted, first to corrupt their spiritual pastors, and then subdue the faith of Ireland, in the event of their obtaining the appointment to catholic prelacies? If the one is not an extravagant case, although, by the bye, not a single authenticated fact can be produced from history in support of it, the other is a very likely one, as the events in the reign of the eighth Henry sufficiently demonstrate, not to notice the gradual degeneracy of the established clergy, the superior order of which owe their appointments to the ministry. Here then we rest the justification of our opposition to veto restrictions on the divine rights of the catholic church. In demanding unqualified emancipation, we merely wish to be understood as objecting to any clogging or oppressive clauses, calculated to restrain our clergy in the due exercise of their spiritual functions, such as those introduced into the bill of 1813, and are now avowedly meditated by our "parliamentary friends." If the established church, whose discipline and govern-dition? The truth is, of all protestment are regulated by parliament, is in so tottering a state, that the admission of half a score catholic lords, and half a dozen commoners

ant countries in Europe, this has been, and still is, the most intolerant towards its catholic subjects. Hatred to popery is proverbial amongst

A

legislature rejected the proposal with
merited scorn and reprobation.-
And will not a similar attempt be
made to subdue our independent and
conscientious resistance to the vile
plans now in agitation to control
our religion? My firm persuasion
is, that such will be the case.
trial will be made to pass a veto bill,
in order that those catholics, who
are propitious to it, may be received
into favour, whilst the virtuous and
consistent professor of this creed, as
well as his clergy, will be doomed
to undergo a system of persecution.
And should he make any complaint,
he will be told that it is not the illi-
berality of his protestant brethrea
which keep him chained, but the bi-
gotry of his own mind, in preserving
so stedfast an adherence to the prin
ciples of his faith, instead of being
as liberal as his neighbours.-To
avert this evil, we must be upon the
watch, and ready at a moment's
call to lay our sentiments on the ta

English protestants, who are yet always boasting of their liberality and philanthropy; and it is this malig. nity to our creed which impels our pretended friends, under the guise of amity and benevolence, to seek its destruction in the person of its pastors, well knowing that the inQuence they now so justly possess over their folds will be totally eradicated, if they once become contaminated; and then all respect for religion and its precepts will be lost in the sordid attractions of wealth and power. But let us, my catholic countrymen, exert ourselves to prevent the pregnant mischief suspend ed over our holy religion. Depend on it, unless your voices are joined with those of your Irish brethren, your artful enemies will endeavour to construe your silence into an acquiescence of their irreligious plans, and persuade many disinterested senators that your wishes are in unison with theirs. Let not the execrable conduct of the protesting-catholic-ble of the senate. If we cannot obdissenters in 1791 be forgotten.The same individual who managed the affairs of that body is at the head of the concerns of the present band of vetoists. Then, as now, the solemn opinions of the clergy were disregarded, and their sacred characters insulted.-In consequence of the strenuous opposition experienced at that time to the sacrilegious and impious designs of the members of the board, a clause was introduced into the relief-bill of that year, having the horrible tendency of subjecting every conscientious ca-ject to the legislature having any tholic, who should refuse to take the oath condemned by the vicars apostolic, but approved by the lay committee, to all the rigid and persesecuting laws previously enacted against popish, recusants!!! This worse than vandalic tyranny over the mind was scouted by Mr. Pitt, who then presided in the councils of he nation, and the liberality of the

tain emancipation, we may, at least, secure our religion. Lord Castlereagh says, we refuse to give any security, or even condescend to men. tion upon what terms we are willing to receive an equal participation in the benefits of the constitution. -To obviate this objection, let us then petition for our emancipation free from spiritual restraints; but since a veto is considered a necessary concession, let us offer a veto on the part of the peers and commoners, who may ob tain seats in either house.-We ob

thing to do with the discipline of our church, and consequently no catholic can have a right to interfere with the concerns of the established church. Well, since that church is a parliament church, regulated in every part of it by parliament, let a board be established for the purpose of exercising a control over all catholic senators, and excluding them from

tion the following anecdote. Upon the front of a foreign seminary the word "SAPIENTIA ' was painted in large characters. One night, by way of frolic, a shrewd wag made the following addition, "HUJUS MUNDI STULTITIA EST APUD DEUM." A query was instantly issued by the academicians concern

sitting and voting on any subject relating to ecclesiastical affairs.-Here then we should have a veto, giving effectual security to the most jealous protestant for the safety of his church, without alarming the catholic for the purity of his own.-This plan of a veto appears to me to be unobjectionable and practicable.-It is as far as a catholic ought to go;ing the author, and a reward offered for to think of resigning his clergy for his detection. During the sucinto the hands of an intolerant and ceeding night, the same person wrote bigotted ministry, is betraying the underneath the inscription--“St. best interests of his soul's welfare.- Paul to the Corinthians, chap. 3rd Be vigilant then, my catholic bre- ver. 19th." thren, and slumber not in this hour of peril; but should you be called upon, and it is very probable that you soon will be, to join your voices with those of the Irish clergy and people, remember it is the cause of God and his church, as well as the interest and liberties of your country, which demand the constitutional exercise of your suffrages.

ance.

Whether an answer will be given to the learned gentleman's query equally as curious as the one given by our wag, I cannot pretend to divine; but that the query itself is of a most curious nature, every one will allow. In my opinion, however, the query is not entitled to an answer, since I cannot see any rational object to be obtained from it The merit of the WM. EUSEBIUS ANDREWS. work alone deserves our attention Somers' Town, Feb. 20, 1817. and investigation. The name of its P. S.-After the foregoing article author is indeed of trivial importwas put into the hands of the compo-adhered to truth, and laid down the If Mr. Dallas has strictly sitor, the public papers have announ. ced, that Mr. Brougham, on behalf of sir Henry Parnell, gave notice to the house of commous, that sir Henry would, on the 11th of March next, move that a committee be appointed to take into consideration the state of the penal laws at present affecting roman catholics in the three parts of the united kingdom. -By this notice, the honourable baronet has most ju diciously anticipated the organ of the vetoists, who seem doomed to experience, on every occasion, mortification and disgrace.

For the Orthodox Journal.

MR. EDITOR,-The appearance of a query in the supplement to the Catholicon concerning the work of Mr. Dallas, brought to my recollec

case in a fair and unprejudiced man-
ner; if he has produced undoubted
tions, Mr. Dallas is justly entitled to
authorities in support of his asser-
the credit and acknowledgments of
every sincere catholic. The gentle-
the success of the author, but he is
man querist acknowledges, indeed,
puzzled about his real name.
informs that he has not been able
us,
to discover Mr. Dallas among the
barristers in the iums of court; con-
sequently, he insinuates that Dallas
is an assumed name.

He

This objection is really unworthy the understanding of the learned gen tleman. How can any sensible man conclude, that, because this gentleman has been unable to discover Mr. Dallas, he is in reality a fictitious character. The counsellor would have spent his time to much more

advantage, had he, instead of in-sellor himself, from his own confes sion, is not ignorant.of it. Had he deemed it prudent to lay his know

quiring after Mr. Dallas amongst his fellow barristers, put his work into their hands for their private investi-ledge of the subject before the pubgation.

lic, he would not have expected that his performance would have entitled him to the name of a jesuit; he might with equal propriety ascribe the anonymous work against Mr.. Dallas to a jesuit, because the writer affects to display a more thorough knowledge of the discipline, regulations and practices of the order than Mr. Dallas. He even dives into MONITA SECRETA of the order, and boldly affirms them to constitute an essential part of jesuitical policy. Mr. Dallas never pretended to have. the knowledge which this author professes to possess. He drags into light

The gentleman's next observation is, that the language of Mr. Dallas is perfectly catholic. Hence he conclndes that the author must be a catholic himself. The illegitimacy of this conclusion is too evident to merit a serious refutation. Consistently Consistently with this mode of reasoning we may be told that the author of the Vindication of Mary Queen of Scots," was a catholic, because he has so ably defended the character of that most innocent, persecuted and catholic princess; whilst he charges her persecutor, Elizabeth, with crimes that degrade humanity. The querist can-jesuits with, whose names even, not not but be aware of the strict similarity that exists between the subject upon which Mr. Dallas has employed his talents, and that upon which the Rev. Mr. Whitaker has exerted his. Mr. Whitaker took upon himself the defence of a much injured queen, Mr. Dallas of a much injured society.

But even the catholicity of Mr. Dallas is not sufficient to protect him from the subtilties of a counsellor. He must be supposed a jesuit: but barristers are accustomed to vary their suppositions as it best suits their purpose. Mr. Dallas it seems possesses a fund of information concerning the order of jesuits, which no priest, either secular or regular, can be supposed to possess, except he be in facta jesuit. This gentleman must pardon me, if I express a doubt of the truth of what he has advanced. The knowledge of jesuitical government may be obtained without entering the order. I am acquainted with several catholic gentlemen to whom the rules and principles, together with the internal mode of government customary among the jesuits, are well known. The learned counORTHOD. JOUR. VOL. V.

three jesuits perhaps in existence are acquainted, if we except himself. We ought therefore to follow the rules of fair criticism, and setting the names of both writers aside, judge of the merit of their respective performances. Mr. Dallas has already received an honourable testimony from the querist for the success of his endeavours in vindicating the jesuits, yet the invidious insinuations which he has thrown of Mr. Dallas, being a jesuit will never prove him, one. For my part I care not whether Mr. Dallas, or his anonymous antagonist, be jesuits or not, but I must observe that the work of the, former has, every mark of genuine. authenticity to recommend it, whilst that of the latter has no title to our attention. The stile of Mr. Dallas is nervous and perspicuous, that of his opponent is weak and involved., Few people I am persuaded are gifted with patience sufficient to carry them through this long work of which were I to give my opinion, I would say, that it contains logic without reasoning, history without truth, and calumnies void of shame.

I cannot conclude without observ

I