to all catholics, in common with the rest of mankind, and according to the words of the constitution, "the free exercise and enjoyment of their religious profession and worship."

The Trustees hope that the District Attorney, will be pleased to signify to them, at what time he will pro bably bring the question to a hearing.

By order of the Board of Trustees of St. Peter's Church.

DENNIS MCARTHY, Secretary.

New-York, April 19th, 1813.

In complying with this request, the public prosecutor has done well. The gentlemen who presented it have done well. If the counsel for the witness shall have done justice to the cause, auguring from the liberal jugdgement of the Court upon the preliminary questions of evidence, I trust, the whole community will applaud the motives and rejoice in the event.

The decorous and prepossessing manner in which the reverend witness has expressed his reasons, is a good argument that this was not a challenge given in the spi rit of bravado, and that if a victory is sought it is of that blessed kind, where every virtuous citizen is to share in the triumph, and none to suffer by the defeat.

Having much of necessity to say, upon a question so novel and important, I shall avoid repeating what my learned colleague has so ably urged. We have already agreed that each should take his part, as well to share the burthen of the argument, as to spare the Court the pain of a story twice told

Mr. Riker has shewn by reason and authority, that no rigid rule of evidence can stand in the way of justice and convenience, so as to bear the exemption we lay claim to; that these rules are the handmaids, not the tyrants of a court of justice; and that when new cases occur within like reason as former ones, the same principles will govern them; and that the door of justice and propriety is never closed. The counsel did not, however rely entirely upon general reasoning, but shewed the current of authority to be so strong, that our ingenuous adversary was compelled to evade it, and driven to manœuvre with what dexterity he could, in the counter current and eddy of popular prejudices.

When this question first occurred, I humbly stated to the court, that in no country where I had been, whether Catholic or Protestant, I had ever heard of an instance of a similar kind. That in England, there was none to be produced; nor even in Ireland, where the people were catholic, and the law anti-catholic; where the few trample upon the many, and where no concessions were made to the feelings of the proscribed, or the dictates of humanity or piety. I spoke that with sincerity and truth, for the only case that ever has arisen, was decided since the epoch of my banishment, and not only since the independence of this country, but since the revolution that deprived Ireland of its independence and its parliament, and at a time when little good faith was observed by those whose opinions and sentiments are too apt to dictate, as conquerors do to the vanquished and subdued.

Two cases only have been cited, both adjudged since the period when they could be binding in this country

as authority, and these only I shall notice. That of Dubarre is directly in point with us, as far as the opinion of the chief justice of England, can be in our favor. The case of the reverend Mr. Gahan, decided by the master of the rolls in Ireland, is not so much against us as I could wish it was. I am sorroy it is not equally in point, that by a decision directly in the teeth of it, the superiority of our constitution, our laws, and jurisprudence, might be more fully felt, understood, loved, and revered. I care not from what country precedents be drawn, if they be wise, and applicable to our exigencies, for reason and good sense is of every country; but if there be any country on the habitable globe, where we should not go to look for a pure and sound decision, upon the rights of Roman Catholics, it is surley that one from which this precedent is brought. Let us first enquire what they do and say on this, and the other side the Ganges; let us consult with canibals, but take no counsel from that Island, where for centuries past, a code has existed, and been in full and vigorous activity, which shames humanity. Let us first rake up the embers of every latent evil, and cut scions from the root of every desolating persecution, before we introI duce the germs of that poisonous growth, so prolific in mischief, and malignity, that nothing like it can be found in the annals of the world. For every where else, though there may be madness, superstition, or idolatry, there may be some chance of impartiality; but in Ireland there can be none !

し

Abstract this Irish decision, from Irish politics, and Irish history, and mark upon what shallow reasons it was founded. What will the enlightened and unso

х

phisticated judges, I have the honor to address, say to this argument, that because no case could be found, where a catholic clergyman had been exempted from an act of perfidy, and sacrilege, that therefore no such exemption could be lawful. Was that reasoning pure or solid? Was it not more obvious, that since no case had happened of the kind, it was because so unwarrantable a stretch of power had never been attempted, even in the angriest times? Was not the double argument of prescription and non-user in favor of the exemption? For who is so ignorant of human history, as not to know, that in catholic countries, it would be blasphemy, and in protestant countries, until that very hour where was the instance ? of it. And who that ever cast his eye upon the penal code of Ireland, but must see at the first glance, that if ever it had been lawful, it would not have been without some example, or instance that could be quoted. It would have been an easier snare for the destruction and extirpation of the catholic religion, and the catholic clergy, than those that were devised! It would have spared the tyrants of a misgoverned coun try, the pain, and their corrupt instruments, the shame of enacting and enforcing so many profligate and monstrous statutes. There would have been no need of X such fearful penalties against the catholic clergy, as those laid on them for the offences of instructing youth, or celebrating mass, or matrimony, the latter of which, was punished with hanging, if one party proved to be protestant, the other catholic. There would have been no need of laws, giving fifty pounds for the mere discovery of an arch-bishop, twenty for a secular clergyman, and ten for the discovery of a school-master; nor inflict

ing pains, penalties, or premunires, for charitably harbouring them. These, and hundreds of other wretched extravagancies, may be found by any one who will look into the statute books; and yet in the angriest times amidst all these frightful violations of nature, faith and honesty, this torture for the conscience and the heart was still unthought of, although it was well known that the sacrament of penance and confession, was an integral and vital part of the Roman catholic religion. It was known, as it has been proved in this cause, that the priest neither could, nor would reveal the secrets of that confession; and nothing more would have been necessafy than to summon the priest, in the case of every person accused of a crime, which he might be supposed to have confessed, and by putting the question to the priest, and using no other arguments than the counsel has used, commit him to prison till he answered, or in other words till he died.

t

By one of the ferocious statutes, made in the reign of Queen Ann, two justices of the peace, might summon any of the laity, to discover when he last heard mass, who celebrated it, and who was present, and also touching the abode of any popish clergyman, regular or seẻ cular, or any school-master, and fully to answer to all circumstances, touching such popish person, and if he had not money to ransom him, commit him to prison for twelve months, yet in all this minute de

...*.For these and other legislative enormities, see appendix. Title, PENAL CODE ABRIGED.