that domeftick in the house of the Ambaffador himself.

All these infults and offences oblige us indifpenfably to demand, that, in expectation of the orders of our fovereigns, the domeftick of the Portugal Envoy be immediately fet at liberty, and that the magiftrates may be directed to acknowledge what appertains to the immunities and privileges of the families of the foreign minifters.

In expectation of the faid orders, we cannot abstain from demanding moreover, that the audacious behaviour of the faid Constable may be feverely punished; the ufage of many ages leaving no room to doubt, but that the houfes of ministers ought to be respected in the fame manner as thofe of the princes themselves whom they reprefent; and it being alfo notorious, that, in the most heinous cafes of statecriminals, no prince would proceed to that extremity, without having firft demanded back from the Ambaffador the person accused.

By thefe confiderations we find ourselves obliged to take another ftep, ftill more indifpenfable than the former, viz. to prevent all delay of redreffing the claufe above mentioned, and of giving us fatisfaЄtion upon our complaints herein fet forth, by protesting, all of us together, as we do by this memorial, and as is proper for the prefervation of our rights, and of thofe of our fucceffors, against the said claufe, as alfo against every thing that has followed upon it, or may follow, and against every other confequence, till fuch time as we can give an account to our respective fovereigns, and receive fuitable orders from = them.

Having regard, particularly, in the prefent fituation, to the intentions of the princes whom we have the honour to serve, we renew the declaration made to your Excellency by word of mouth, and of our own accord, viz. that, if any one of our domefticks were guilty of, or an accomplice in any crime against the government, we are ready to difiifs him from our fervice, and to withdraw the protection, as well as the certificate wherewith he hall be provided.

We have the honour to be, &c.

N. B. The above letter, in French, was figned by Monfieur de Wafner, Minifter Plenipotentiary of their Imperial Majesties; the Count de Haflang, Minifter Plenipotentiary of the Elector of Bavaria; and Monfieur de Champigny, Minifter of the Elector of Cologne.

Another letter of the fame purport, in Italian, was figned by Signor Capello, Ambaffador from Venice; Monfieur Gaflaldi, Minifter of Genoa; and Monfieur Caettano, the Portugueze Secretary.

A third, in the fame language, by the Chevalier Oforio, Envoy-Extraordinary from the King of Sardinia; and Monfieur Puc ci, charged with the affairs of his Imperial Majefly for the Great duchy of Tuscany.

Letter from James Hamilton, a Roman Catholick Prieft, to the Venetian Ambassador, referred to in the above letter.

Your Excellency,

Dec. 12. 1745.

Take the liberty to inform your Excellency, that Juftice De Veil had if fued a warrant against me to take me up, and that last Tuesday the house where I lodge was befet with Conftables three or four hours together. Thereupon I fent two Gentlemen to Juftice De Veil's house; who produced to him, and gave him to read your Excellency's protection: and he anfwered them, that at present he will have no regard to your Excellency's protection. The fame Conftables were two or three times the next day, and had the boldness to fay to the people where I lodge, that they will take me even out of your Excellency's houfe. I have therefore thought it my duty to acquaint your Excellency with it, and most humbly beg, that you will continue me under your gracious protection, and honour me with your orders how I am to behave. And I am, &c.

I am to answer you by his Majesty's command, that he is very far from intending to infringe the privileges and immunities of Ambaffadors, and other foreign ministers, granted to them by the law of nations, and confiftent with the laws of this country.

Neither does the King think that they have been violated in the least by the faid proclamation.

Firft, As to what concerns the law of nations, it is abfolutely neceffary that the privileges which it establishes fhould be confiftent with the internal welfare and fecurity of the countries where the minifters refide.

Now, the number of national Roman Catholick Priests, who fwarm more than ever in this town, was found dangerous to the ftate, especially at a time of open rebellion in favour of a pretender of the fame religion. Their fecret plottings against the King's government, whereof his Majefty has many indications; their injurious difcourfes, nay even their threats; and the daily converfions which they make of his Majesty's Proteftant fubjects to the Roman Catholick faith, (tho' by those very converfions they are liable to the punishment enacted by the laws againft perfons guilty of high treafon): all thofe circumftances together had given fo great uneafinefs, that it was abfolutely neceffary to provide a remedy against them.

The protection, therefore, which his Majefty owes to his own fubjects, would not allow of his any longer fuffering perfons of that kind, irreconcileable enemies to his government, to remain in the heart of his dominions.

As to what you alledge, Gentlemen, concerning the free exercife of your religion in your own houses, the King does not difpute it: the law of nations authorifes to claim it.

If the question were only about private chapels for your own families, ferved by your domeftick Chaplains duly qualified,

no body would have any thing to say against it.

But is that really the point in debate? I appeal to your ownselves.

Are not open chapels maintained, under colour of publick protection, with an enormous number of Priefts, out of the houses of the minifters, who lend their names to them? Is it for the use of the minifter's family that mafs is therein celebrated from morning to night? or rather for the fake of furnishing his Majefty's converted fubjects with opportunities of being prefent at it against law?

Is there any Roman Catholick country where fuch an extenfion of their privileges is allowed to Proteftant minifters ? is there any such thing practised at Vienna, at Paris, or at Madrid ?

It is true that this has been winked at in times when the religion of the country was not openly and forcibly attacked.

It does not however follow, that a natural right is given up, because it is not vigorously exercised.

I come, in the second place, to the laws of this country, which are appealed to by the Roman Catholick minifters, in their letter, equally with the law of nations, they quoting therein the act of parliament of the 7th of Q. Anne; and I shall very readily allow them that it is, as they ftile it, "a folemn and celebrated act, supplying the defect of former laws, and tending to prevent for the future all offence or violation of the privileges, as well of Ambaffadors, as of other foreign ministers.”

But it must be confidered, at the fame time, that this act, as appears by the whole tenor of it, relates folely to law-fuits, and civil arrefts upon account of debts.

And accordingly it was upon occafion of a foreign Ambassador's being detained for debts, that it was paffed: and it was in that point that it was found necessary, and intended to fupply the defect of the former laws, inasmuch as there were none before in being upon that fubject.

Would any one infer from thence, that the intention was, to authorise foreign minifters to protect ftate-criminals, difturbers of the publick peace, or perfons dangerous to fociety, or fufpected by the government upon any account whatfoever?

Of

Or can it be thought, that, in supplying the defect of the former laws, it was meant to abolish the most effential and fundamental ones of the country?

Amongst these laft, there are none held in greater veneration by a Proteftant people, than those which forbid, under fevere penalties, the celebrations of mass by national Priefts. Of this kind there are feveral acts of parliament ftill in full force, paffed, repeated, and even inforced at different times fince the beginning of the reign of Q. Elizabeth. I fhall mention one, which does not allow them to celebrate it even in the houses of foreign minifters. It is the act of the 11th and 12th of William III. an act not above eight or nine years prior to that above mentioned of Q Anne. It is therein exprefsly declared, That no subject of the King's, whether natural born, or naturalifed, may celebrate mafs even in the houses of foreign minifters; and that the names, and places of nativity even of the foreign Priefts, whom they fhall make ufe of, fhall be registered in the office of the Principal Secretary of State.

But fuppofe that this act of Q. Anne were as unlimited as it is pretended: The minifters do admit of one exception to what they call their privileges, with regard to tradefmen, and in general to fuch perfons as may become bankrupts; will they not admit of any, when the question is about the publick fecurity, and the very existence of the government? The law of nations can certainly never be contrary to that; and can confequently give no title to exclaim against a remedy, which has been neceffarily made ufe of to obviate the dangers justly apprehended from the Popifh Priefts; and efpecially if it be confidered, that the neceffity of applying that remedy was partly owing to the abufe of the indulgence of paft times by the protected Priests.

To conclude, The Roman Catholick minifters may rely upon the King's protection for their perfons, for their families, and for the exercise of their religion in their own houses, according to the law of nations, and according to the ufage of all other countries with regard to ministers of a different religion from that which is eftablifhed in the country where they refide. The King does not pretend to fubject the foreign ministers to his ordinances; but he has a right to require the obedience of his own fubjects to the laws of their country. He has not the power to dispense with it, and we know of no foreign protection that can do it.

His Majefty therefore has reason to expect, that, upon this expofition of the reafons and juftice of his proceeding in this affair, the Roman Catholick minifters will be pleased to discharge from their service every Popish Priest who is a fubject of the King's, and that they will for the future make use of foreign ones only; his Majefty not being able to perfuade himself, that any foreign powers in alliance or friendship with him, as those are whom you, Gentlemen, have the honour to reprefent, would infift, under the name of privilege, upon things prejudicial in the highest degree to the government of the country where you refide on their part, and contrary to its ancient and fundamental laws, upon which the King's proclamation, which you complain of, was built.

As to what remains, If it be true that an officer of juftice did make use of the expreffions imputed to the Conftable who is mentioned in your letter, with regard to the house of the Venetian Ambassador, you may be affured that his Majefty entirely difapproves them, and that the neceffary inquiries fhall be made, in order to caufe fuch fatisfaction to be given to his Excellency as fhall appear to be due.-I am,&c.