We, the undersigned Magistrates, present at a Petty Session, held at the Justice Room, Whitby, this 23rd day of November, 1850, do hereby give notice, that a Public Meeting of the Inhabitants of the Town and Neighbourhood of Whitby, will be held, in compliance with the above Requisition, in the Town Hall, at Whitby, on Thursday, the 28th instant, at Twelve o'clock at noon.
John Chapman
Christopher Richardson, New Buildings.
THE ADDRESS.
Gentlemen,
The copy of a notice on the preceding page, shows that you thought proper to call a public meeting, for the purposes expressed in that bill. Now do not suppose for one moment, that I wish to question either the right, or the propriety of calling such a meeting. If our Protestant countrymen choose to call, and hold meetings for the purpose of expressing their sentiments on any public question, they have certainly, a right to do so, and also a right to the free expression of their sentiments on those occasions. But, gentlemen, have not we Catholics also an equal right, to express our sentiments on those subjects. That a regular opposition to the Catholics, has been lately organized, must be evident to the most inattentive observer. The clergy, and the head of the government, have been placed in the front of the battle, and with cry of danger to the Church, has been coupled that of danger to the Constitution. In aid of these efforts, the press also, has been put in requisition, and the labours of anti-catholic journalists, and the diffusion of anti-catholic tracts, published in every shape, and adapted to every understanding, bear ample testimony to the zeal, and activity of those, who assume the lead in this anti-catholic crusade. We are doomed to hear daily, our religion traduced, our spiritual but illustrious Head, bespattered with the most vile abuse, our civil liberty menaced, our Clergy threatened with pains, and penalties, our most sacred rites most contumaciously designated by the first minister of the Crown as mummeries, and the Lord High Chancellor vaunting his readiness to trample, on the mitres of our bishops. Gentlemen, I think it cannot be expected that we Catholics, should remain silent, and humble our heads before this whirlwind of Protestant intolerance, and that, imitating the stupidity of the Ostrich, we should endeavour to escape our hunters, by concealing our heads. But, gentlemen, you may perhaps ask, why did you not attend our public meeting? I reply, I did not hear of your meeting until a day after it had been held, but if I had heard of it before, I should not have attended for the following reasons. Meetings that are convened by one party, are generally packed meetings, called under the excitement of the moment, and the audience in general are unwilling to listen to fair play, or to the arguments of their opponents. This was evident from your meeting, for had it not been for the honest, and liberal conduct of your chairman, Christopher Richardson, Esq., Mr. Taylerson, though not a Catholic, would not have obtained a hearing, and how were his sensible questions answered? By shouts, and hisses. But, gentlemen, I have another reason for not attending. Each nation, like each individual, has a certain character, and temperament. Now, whoever will deliberately consider the character, and temperament of Englishmen, will find, that when they are once roused, and excited, they are then unwilling to listen, either to reason or argumentation, but let the heat of excitement pass away, and let the cooler moments of reflection return, and then, you may appeal to them with propriety, and advantage. It is very imprudent and foolish for a wife to expostulate, and argue with her drunken husband, but let the moments of sobriety return, and then, her reasonable, and prudent expostulations, may be attended with salutary effects. For these reasons, gentlemen, I did not attend your public meeting.
But you will say, why do you address us in particular? Why, gentlemen, I cannot for a moment suppose that when you are cool, and unexcited, you are so wedded to your own opinions, and so deaf to the claims of fair play, as to be unwilling to listen to the arguments of the accused. Surely you do not wish to trample down the accused, unheard! If you do, I really think it is a very "extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on your part, and I am sure every sensible and honest Englishman will think the same.
Well, then, gentlemen, let us now come to the point in question. I begin by asking the very sensible, and rational question, which Mr. Taylerson put to your meeting. What aggression have the Pope and Dr. Wiseman committed? What English Law have they transgressed? If any, why not let the law be calmly and quietly enforced against them? But if they have broken no law, why all this fury, and tirade against them as if they had? Oh, but, replied a certain influential gentleman, at your meeting, "If there is not a law, there must be one made." I answer, that the principle of self-defence will, in cases of real danger, authorize the adoption of lawful precautions, I am not disposed to deny; but, then, those precautions must be founded on equity; they must be such as reason will justify, or necessity excuse. You are not to invade the rights or privileges of others, on the bare suspicion of future danger or the mere possibility of a possibility. You are not to cane a man at Lady-day, because he may affront you at Midsummer. If you think the contrary, I must, gentlemen, candidly tell you, it is a very "extraordinary, and presumptuous movement" on your part, against the rights and privileges of your fellow creatures, and if any Magistrate, were to advance such extraordinary opinions, in a court of justice, I feel confident, every sensible and honest Englishman would deeply feel the propriety, of presenting an address to Her Majesty, or to Her Ministers, on so "extraordinary, and presumptuous a movement" on the part of that Magistrate, against the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's subjects.
Gentlemen, before we proceed any further, I think it requisite to call your attention to two points. First, that your Protestant ancestors, really did to our Catholic ancestors, what you now merely fancy, without any grounds, that the Catholics of the present day, are wishful to do to you. Now, upon this point, I shall thus argue: Your Protestant ancestors did these things either justly, or unjustly to our Catholic ancestors. If your Protestant ancestors did these things justly, why should you Protestants make such a row, at the mere shadow of these things being done again? But if your Protestant ancestors, did these things unjustly, then you must acknowledge, that the Church of England, owes its first foundation to acts of injustice. The second point which I wish to settle, before I proceed any further, is that the spiritual members of the Church of Rome, have the most just, and the only claim, to the honourable name of Catholic. Let us now hasten to the first of these points.
Gentlemen, the following facts, as historical facts, are undeniable, and whoever has the temerity to deny them as historical facts, I certainly envy not his knowledge of, nor his veracity for, historical testimony. Mark well, I am not going to talk about the soundness, or unsoundness of the following opinions, but I merely wish you to bear it in mind, that it is an indisputable historical fact, that these opinions were really, and conscientiously believed by the Christian world in former ages. Well, then, the following are undeniable historical facts: That, in former ages, the Christian world believed that the Catholic Church, was the first Christian Church, and began with our Saviour, that St. Peter was appointed, by divine authority, to be the Head of this Church, that the Popes of Rome were the true successors of St. Peter, by divine authority, and that they were always considered, the one Shepherd, to whom all Christendom owed spiritual obedience. All Christendom, in former ages, with here and there an exception, held these opinions, and when the