The head of exclusion from votes for members of Parliament is closely connected with the former.  When you cast your eye on the statute-book, you will see that no Catholic, even in the ferocious acts of Queen Anne, was disabled from voting on account of his religion.  The only conditions required for that privilege were the oaths of allegiance and abjuration,—­both oaths relative to a civil concern.  Parliament has since added another oath of the same kind; and yet a House of Commons, adding to the securities of government in proportion as its danger is confessedly lessened, and professing both confidence and indulgence, in effect takes away the privilege left by an act full of jealousy and professing persecution.

The taking away of a vote is the taking away the shield which the subject has, not only against the oppression of power, but that worst of all oppressions, the persecution of private society and private manners.  No candidate for Parliamentary influence is obliged to the least attention towards them, either in cities or counties.  On the contrary, if they should become obnoxious to any bigoted or malignant people amongst whom they live, it will become the interest of those who court popular favor to use the numberless means which always reside in magistracy and influence to oppress them.  The proceedings in a certain county in Munster, during the unfortunate period I have mentioned, read a strong lecture on the cruelty of depriving men of that shield on account of their speculative opinions.  The Protestants of Ireland feel well and naturally on the hardship of being bound by laws in the enacting of which they do not directly or indirectly vote.  The bounds of these matters are nice, and hard to be settled in theory, and perhaps they have been pushed too far.  But how they can avoid the necessary application of the principles they use in their disputes with others to their disputes with their fellow-citizens, I know not.

It is true, the words of this act do not create a disability; but they clearly and evidently suppose it.  There are few Catholic freeholders to take the benefit of the privilege, if they were permitted to partake it; but the manner in which this very right in freeholders at large is defended is not on the idea that the freeholders do really and truly represent the people, but that, all people being capable of obtaining freeholds, all those who by their industry and sobriety merit this privilege have the means of arriving at votes.  It is the same with the corporations.

The laws against foreign education are clearly the very worst part of the old code.  Besides your laity, you have the succession of about four thousand clergymen to provide for.  These, having no lucrative objects in prospect, are taken very much out of the lower orders of the people.  At home they have no means whatsoever provided for their attaining a clerical education, or indeed any education at all.