The improved antidote, supposed to be more active in expelling poison, than a late invention, by the Rev. Sir Harcourt Lees, Bart. in which the Catholics are vindicated from his abuse, and their claims for unrestricted emancipation, considered

by Philodemus

That seats in the House of Commons, are to be purchased, is as notorious as the sun at noon day, according to a noble member of the present Administration, who is reported, in the public papers, to have made use of this expression, on being convicted of bartering or attempting to barter a seat in that house, for a Writership in the East India Service:—it is no less confidently affirmed, that, in many instances, Boroughs (intended to return representatives of the commercial part of the Empire) are become the properties of private individuals, who either appoint their own Members (with this particular proviso, that they shall vacate their seats, unless they vote agreeably to the will of the individual appointing them) or without hesitation sell them to the best bidder:—it even, sometimes happens, that the Aristocracy of a county (by which I mean the proprietors of great landed estates) consult together, how many votes each of them can command (for they conclude that every tenant must vote according to the direction of his landlord) and proceed to put in nomination such candidates, as may have secured the weightiest interest with themselves, who are generally successful; whether are they then, the representatives of the people, or of a few individuals constituting this Aristocracy?—Are these practices consistent with the Constitution? or rather is not its very principle violated by them?—in consequence of these abuses, it may reasonably be conjectured, that the representative body will become corrupt;—that their own immediate interests will outweigh all consideration for the public; and that they will utterly disregard the rights and privileges of the people, to protect which, however, they were originally instituted:—are the people culpable if aroused by such grievances? they petition for a Reform in the Commons House, well aware that the long duration of Parliaments, not only gives birth to, but accelerates the progress of corruption; if they aim at an annual, rather than a septennial parliament, concluding that, by how much the shorter the period of their parliamentary existence may be, the Administration will become by so much the less able and less willing to corrupt the members, and that even should any individuals of the representative body betray their trust, the period will soon arrive, in which they may elect more worthy representatives?—It has been asserted that this is contrary to the nature of our boasted constitution; but, if the system be imperfect in this one particular, why not amend so material a defect?—Or is the constitution immutable but for the benefit of the Aristocracy, whilst every change is inadmissible, that will protect the people at large in the due enjoyment of their rights and privileges?—Is the change from a Triennial, to a Septennial Parliament (brought about by the representative body, in direct violation of their constituents’ rights;) is this change, it may be asked, less hazardous than one which purposes only to guard against the corruption, and to correct those abuses which have almost imperceptibly crept into the representation?—As the existence of corruption in the representative is too probable, so is its prevalence in the constituent body too notorious:—election by ballot, it has been supposed, will provide a remedy against this evil;—it will remain unknown to the candidates for whom the voters may poll, the application of bribery therefore will be ineffectual, as, notwithstanding his acceptance of a bribe, the voter may still poll, according to his inclination or his conscience, without the fear of a discovery.

In regard to the universal suffrage, it must be acknowledged that every individual, in the state, has an interest in the proper administration of its affairs, and that Government will, sometimes, need the support, even of its meanest subjects; if, therefore, they are interested in, and contribute to the support of Government, they are entitled to a participation in its privileges;—the privilege they claim is the Elective Franchise, and as the lower house is called the Commons House of Parliament, why should not the members, instead of representing property, be in fact the representatives of the People?—At the same time such material changes adopted on a sudden, might produce tumult and disorder, they might occasion convulsions, attended with far more dreadful effects, than the evils they purpose to remedy;—but when a minister acknowledges corruption in his own conduct;—when the sale of Boroughs is notoriously practised;—when, in some instances, the representatives of a County are returned by the influence alone of a few powerful individuals;—when the late convictions, in the House of Commons, for bribery, prove that it is frequently, if not generally practised by the candidates for seats in that house, and that it has a pernicious influence upon the constituent body;—it cannot be disputed, but that some remedy ought instantly to be applied, in order to eradicate, or at least to check the wide spreading infection.

Lord Grey, Lord Grenville, the Whig party, even the members of the opposition are collectively abused by this Author; Lord Grey and Lord Grenville, however, together with many other individuals whom he severely censures, are men of acknowledged talents and information, as is evident from their general conduct, and the speeches they have delivered in various Parliamentary debates; but they differ in opinion from his Reverence, if however, every man, who thinks differently from the learned Author, be a profligate or a blockhead, we suspect that, besides himself, he will scarcely find a wise or a virtuous individual throughout the great Empire.

He again resumes his attacks upon the Catholics, we shall, however, in the first instance, notice three questions, one particle of which he so confidently defies them to refute:

1st. “Does not a Papist kneel down before, pray and bow to images, pictures, and pieces of old wood representing our Blessed Saviour, the Virgin Mary, and many Saints, and does he not do this for the purpose either of paying adoration to these identical pieces of wood, old sheets of oil cloth, with faces smeared on them, almost as hideous as most of those you will see at the Catholic Board, on reading one of Robert Peele’s Anti-catholic speeches, or to their likenesses?”—In answer to this question we beg leave to refer to the catechisms of the catholics, in which occur the following questions and answers:—Is it lawful to adore the blessed Virgin or the saints?—No: for by adoration is here meant the honor due to God alone.—Do the commandments forbid us to honor the Saints?—No: for the honor we give them is different from that which we pay to God, we honor the Saints as friends and faithful servants to God.—If it is forbid in Catholics to worship the Saints, can it be supposed that they will pay adoration to their image, pictures or representations?—Or, is it consistent with probability that the same Church will direct them, in their riper years, to practise, what it has taught them when pupils, to reject and avoid?—The council of Trent has, without doubt, declared, that due honor and respect be given to images of Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the other Saints;—and who can deny that that degree of honor and respect, to which they are entitled, should be paid these, or any other representations?—It is natural to be affected at the Representation of a dear departed friend and benefactor; the Catholics look upon them as their best of benefactors, they therefore pay them a due degree of honor and respect, should they, however, exceed this degree, they are not only culpable, but obnoxious likewise, to the censures of their own Church:—the Protestants themselves regard King William III. as their benefactor, of course they honor and drink to his memory, some even have been so far inflamed with enthusiasm, as to drink to his glorious and immortal memory on their bare knees, are not these Protestants equally idolatrous with the Catholics?

Secondly, “He wishes to know whether a Papist does not pray to Saints and Angels, and invoke their intercession, thereby making Gods, not only of Angels, but even of dead men, although expressly informed, by God himself, that there is but one mediator with the Father, not only of redemption but of intercession also, which is our blessed Saviour, and in doing so is he not guilty of idolatry?” That the Roman Catholics intreat of Saints and Angels to forward petitions in their behalf, for obtaining the divine mercy, is acknowledged, but that, in doing so, they mean to worship them as Gods, or to incur the guilt of idolatry, is as confidently denied:—they dread through an humble confidence of their own demerits, to offer from themselves an immediate address to the Deity:—and as Christ himself has given an example of praying for others, even his persecutors, in those memorable words, “Pardon them O Lord, for they know not what they do;” so the Catholics may probably imagine that the Saints and Angels whom they address, will petition in their behalf, and as they are pure in comparison with themselves, these petitions will have greater effect, than the immediate addresses of a polluted sinner—we think also, that the answer to the first, is a sufficient answer to this question.

Thirdly, “He is induced to enquire whether a Papist does not pay divine adoration to a mixture of flour and water, made up by the hands of an illiterate and possibly profligate priest, contrary to the figurative sense and meaning of the Holy Scripture, and in direct opposition to reason and common understanding? does he not believe that a Popish Priest has the power of making a God? and does he not bow down and worship this worse than golden image?”—It may be asked the Revd. Baronet if he ever enquired before administering the holy Communion to his own flock, whether the bread provided for the purpose, were made by pure and undefiled hands, whether the wine were genuine, or brewed by some rascally vintner;—and is not the term profligate, equally applicable to a minister of the establishment, as to a Popish Priest, particularly, if the minister devotes much of his time to the joys of the chase, and (we may naturally suppose) its consequent festivity; whilst the Priest is laboriously and almost constantly employed in the conscientious discharge of his sacred functions? as to the adoration paid to the Host, the Catholic believes that the Body and Blood of Christ (acknowledged to partake of the Godhead) are actually present, and can he justly be called idolatrous for paying adoration to the presence of Divinity?—the learned gentleman may also be requested to explain what he means to impress upon the mind of a Catechumen, by the following words: “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.”—Let it be understood, that we by no means, recommend these doctrines, they may possibly give occasion of offence to such tender consciences as the Baronet possesses, they are matters of belief, and therefore left to every man’s own determination;—since, however, some particles of his questions have been absolutely and with truth denied, whilst others have been so far answered, we hope, as to exculpate the Catholics from all criminality either in act or intention, we may conclude, that should a Cardinal’s hat be now engaged to the Revd. Baronet, he will perhaps, not only be almost, but altogether inclined to renounce his own faith, and turn Papist.

In treating of the monstrous doctrines ascribed by Sir Harcourt Lees to the Catholics, we may premise that their own general conduct sufficiently refutes his accusation:—his strong assertions however, may seem to demand some farther enquiry.

The 4th Lateran council was held in the year 1215, at which were present, most of the christian sovereigns;—this council therefore may be properly termed a general congress of the temporal, as well as spiritual Powers of Christendom; they assembled for the purpose of suppressing the heresy of the Manchæans, or Albigenses, whose doctrines were (according to Mosheim) not only subversive of morality, decency, and good order, but even destructive to the human species,—it was supported by the Counts of Thoulouse, Cominges, Foix, and aided by numerous bodies of banditti, hired for this purpose.—The heresy was condemned by the spiritual authority of the church; and the Fiefs of the princes encouraging it, were declared forfeitures to their liege lords, by the authority of the sovereigns, there assembled:—the censures of this council or rather congress were never promulgated, and scarcely known in this island, but were directed (we believe, solely) against the Manchæans or Albigenses, and the princes above mentioned, who encouraged and protected the votaries of this pernicious heresy.