nd and plead, in bar of this claim, the English
churchman's demur to supporting Popery by supporting Maynooth. But the
case accurately stated is--that no English churchman ever _did_ demur to
paying his quota towards Maynooth; on the contrary, he has paid it quietly
for fifty years. What some few churchmen _have_ demurred to was--not
paying after the law had said "_pay_," but legislating for the payment;
passing the annual vote for the payment. Now, if a Dissenter happens to be
in Parliament, he is quite at liberty to make the same demur as to
church-rates; but he makes his demur in the wrong quarter if he addresses
it to the collector. So again, as regards the increased grant, and the
permanent grant to Maynooth, if it passes the two Houses, we shall all of
us pay our share without scruple; neither will our consciences be at all
wounded, for we pay under the coercion of a distress-warrant, contingent
upon our refusing to pay. It is the suffering the law to pass, without
opposing it in one way or other, that _would_ wound our consciences. And,
again, the English law does not require a Dissenter to concur in the
propriety of paying church-rates, it requires him only to pay them.

But we Protestants, in paying to Maynooth, supposing that we made
ourselves parties to the payment by consenting to the bill, feel that we
should be wilfully abetting the propagation of error. It is true that the
Papist finds himself in the same necessity of contributing to what he
regards as heresy by contributing to the support of the Protestant
Establishment. But if a Protestant resorts to a country, or acquiesces in
a country where Popery is established, he does not complain that he falls
under the relation of a tributary to a system which did not seek _him_,
but which _he_ sought.

There are other casuistical points, arising out of these practical
relations to systems of religious belief, which are often unskilfully
mingled with cases like this of Maynooth; but they cannot disguise the
broad distinction between the principle in that question and the principle
in the question of Catholic emancipation. There the object was purely
negative, viz. to liberate a body of men from certain incapacities.
Successive penal laws had stripped the Papist of particular immunities and
liberties. These were restored by emancipation. A defect was made good.
But no _positive_ powers were created by that measure. Now, on the other
hand, when a large revenue is