Star. — London, England, 1825-05-18 00:00:00

peals laid been blade to early times, and not to the es•l isting world, just as absurdly, as if a Lecturer on Science were not to consider the discoveries of modern times, but refer to the founders of the Royal So ciety and Vol. 1. of their Transactions. Let the Right Reverend Bench opposite leave for a moment the pre cincts of the Bodleian and Sion Libraries, let them quit Bellarmine and the Controversialists, and look at the world as it is, and not as it was.—(Hoar). He would refer to the Catholics in Europe and America ; in the litter Republic there was one State eminently Catholic, and its Constitution was more favourable to toleration thin that of any of the other Federal States. The con sequence of the non-exclusion system was a decrease of thaCathOties, and an increase of the Protestants. Let theta look to the monarchies of the old world, Prussia, Hanover, and Denmark, and there also -the Catholics 'were tolerant when they had power, and made no efforts to overturn other Churches. But, said some Noble Lords, it is proper to admit Catholics to a fair share in the Conititution in Despotisms, but not in free Govern mentsJike our own. This was the most ridiculous ar gument in the world, and the most derogatory to oar national character. It was on the very ground ref our free Constitution that he supported the Catholic claims. He knew no better way to serve the State and the Church than by consulting the just wishes and giving free scope to the honest efforts of every subject. lie admitted there were maneand great prejudices amongst 'the lower classes, and even amongst the Clergy (who, however, were as fallible, or even more fallible than others) on this subject. Those ,prejudices should be removed, and the -best way to do it was by stating facts. Many years ago; when it was proposed by the 'Union with. Scotland to' add sixteen Scotch Peers to 'ts:e representation, the Right Rev. , -Bench opposite cop• tended that such a measure would fatal to the Church of England. They quoted the documents of the Scotch Kirk to shew the hostility of that Kirk to our Church. But what was the fact? . Singularly enough, those six teen Piers had always beeli found voting with the Right Rev. Bench—(Heor, hear). Yet the prophecies of those times were quite as .well founded as any broached in these days. So in the case of the Sacramental Test in in Ireland. Even Dean Swift said it would be injtitions to the Church of England, by raising the Presb ) teriois above it. Yet the fact was not so.- The Presbyterians had not increased, whilst the Catholics, whom it was intended to • repress, had infinitely augmented in nem bers. Anther case was that of- Canada. When it was proposed ,, early in the reign of George 111. to ad mit them to a full share of the civil rights, a Reverend Divine asserted in print that the Ca nadas would throw themselves into the arms of France, and break their allegiance to Great Britain, On the contrary, the Protestant States rebelled, and Canada remained ,firm and loyal. He was not to be snowed by any allusions •to the dissatisfaction Of the Catholics, for how could men who were proscribed re main satisfied and quiet under their delusions ? ' They would continuetobe dissatisfied until their disqualifica tions were removed. The real question before their Lordships was, whether they were to retain to the old system of coercion ' or to complete the system of con , ciliation they had begun ? That eliteiliation had al• ready been practically beneficial. It had poured oil into the e ounds of the country. The Church of Eng land ought to sanction those further .concessions, and chew more confidence in its own principles and doe trines. He would quote the opinions of the founders of our Constitution, ef ,Lard -Sinners, the Bishop of Salisbury, Lord Peterborough, and the Duke of Devon shire, who said that " no Englishman could to reduced to a more unhappy condition than to be made by law incapable of serving his King and Country, and nothing but some crime of a destestable nature could reduce him to inch a Constitution." He did not mean to give any opinion on the other measures connected with the present• Bill, because he gave his support to this 131 U on its own merits, novas a• panacea, but as a matter of strict justice, and as being indispensable in every attempt to tranquillise Ireland—(Hear, hear). The Earl of LIVERPOOL could not allow the House to come to a division, nor pass over the speech of the Noble Marquis who had just sat down, without troubling their Lordships With some observations on the principle of the measure that was now before them for their consideration. 'With respect to the speech Of the Noble Marquis, he could assure him that he was ready to meet him on the ground that be had taken at the commencement of that speech—that of expediency; and in looking at it in . that way, it appeared to rest . . upon two contingencies t-4irst, what was the good • likely to accrue from it to the Roman Catholics of Ire land ? and secondly, what evil . England was likely to experience, should the grant the ohjicts of the Bill that was then before their Lordships ? This, and this only, was the question on which Parliament bad to decide; and it gave him much pain to find it mixed up in the manner it was'Vzith other questions relative to the Catholics of Ireland-4 Hear, hear, hear).--In referring to this part of the question, he could not help making a .few observations on the situation in which the House was placed by the introduction of this Bill, as one of the series that were to follow one another in rotation— . (liar, hear,hear)—ln consequence of circumstances that took place in Ireland prior to the meeting of Par liament for the present Session, it was thought expe dient by kris Majesty's Ministers to introduce a Bill for thapurpose of staying the progress of the Catholic As sociation, and of other societies. At the same time, likewise, Houses of Parliament entered into an in quiry relative to the state of Ireland, and had he been consulted, he should have given it as his opinion, that it would be the most satisfactory course to wait till the • result of that inquiry could be known, in order that they might legislate with the fullest knowledge °Gibe sub ject—(Hear).—This, however, was not the course that had been adopted by the introducers of the present Bill. The object of it, as was given out, was the removal of Catholic disabilities; but this was not the only object, for the present measure was to be accompanied by others of an ambiguous class, so as to confuse and puzzle the' question, in order that a few votes to the right and left might be picked up. But how were those votes to be got at ? By placing the House in such a situation that rt really did not knot/ for what it was about to vote!— And while they were deciding on the present Bill, the House of Commons was carrying on another measure to send up to them as soon as this was disposed of. He certainly never, in 41his Pat liimentary knowledge, had met with so disgraceful, he mast use the word, with so disgraceful a eroceeding—(Harr). Before their Lord ships were callrd Upon to give 'it vote on the measure, they should, at least, be informed, whether it was to be a single measure or nest ?—(Herr, hear). The object of the Bill was to him unintelligible — per fect nonsense,and the latter part of it was something still worse ; the only • .: _' * a • ' unottlectiOnablqutrt that he had met with in the whole of it, was the imple con:ess'on ; itt.ihat he certainly agreed ; for if he was to choose hir course, he should say, let the qnestion be a straight forward one--= , Will you or will you not remove the Catholic disabilities? And he would venture to say, that with that datum he would draw up a Bill in half an hour, with not one tenth part of the objections of the present Bill. The first question then was, Is it fit to remove. Catholic dis ability or not ? That was a question of perhaps as great importance as their Lordships had ever been called upon to decide, but at the same time it was a plain and a com prehensible question. The Noble Lords Opposite As serted; that it was on the principle that all felloi-sub jects ought to enjoy equal advantages ; but this propos sition he de:lied, and said that they were not entitled. to enjoy the same privileges as Protestants ; but if Parlia ment were to decide.contrary to him, he should at least. have the satisfa ct i o n o f knowineth at hey had so decided on a plain question. • When Oe - said- that - he denied the truth of the prop os i t i on of the Noble Lords opposite, he was willing to admit, that in a free State all subjects were entitled to equal t ightison elual conditions; but the conditions ottheCatholics and Protestants were not equal; there was this grand dfference—the one offered only a divided, the other an entire allegiance; and unless ii could. ' be proved to him that the Min' *ho seorked half the day, ,ought to receive as much as .. .the man who worked the whole day; or,.in oher' Wor4s, , that • the half was equal to the whole, he - could not admit -the Roman Catholic claims. It waknot hislotention to enterintn the question . of expediency; 'it : was sufficient forhim to have laid the foundation of the 'principle . on• jostice— (Mgr, hear). 'bat,. question he had . always relied upon, and in the course o f 20 years cf -Parl.amentary life, he had never receiv:d . a sa:isfactory alswer to (Hear, hear).. H= d d not intend to say anything of ,tiarisubitantiation—of the invocation of Saints—or of anything that iniAed itself with former opinions relative ut the Roman' Catholics. He Wristild cfmatie himself solciy to thoopinions..that weicilien - entertained.' 'By Dr. Doyle's Own evidence, it was established beyond a • doubt, that the Pooe:hzd.snpreine,posier in the nomina tion of any one to a vacant diocese in Ireland; and to a .question as to v..liether„if he named; a foreign person, or the most objectionable man in the world, the nomination would be' goods ; the answer was in the affirrnative— (Hear, hear)-15,.. is appointment must fix the Bi‘hop aithoot app - ,41; 194 all the interior Clergymen were bound to *nisei his nominee.: his HOliness might ap- point any fainib.er of France, br'of Spain, or• of that bu bear, as It visa with semi NO* Lords, the. Holy Alliance.; After,such a statement a s Amt.. would any man Venture to say that the Catholics wittre entitled to the same rights and to the same privileges with.the Pro- . testants ?—(Heur, hear).—lt might,' perhaps, be sup. posed, that the progress of civilization and of know ledge among mankind might serve to render the danger less, and he thought so too—(Hear,hear);—but . still there was nothing in that to rely 'tspOn. If their Lord ships.would look'at the restoration of Charles the. Se-, coed, they would see that the reign . of. tharMonarch was distioguLhed by as many wise men, aril as much civil;zatiott as any age of the world ; 4cl yet, within 20 ' years'of that epoch, an effort was made, that had al most proved a successful one, towards introducing the I Catholic religion into this country . hear, hear).—lt was not against • individuals that he brought any reproach—.his complaint was against the whole body f the , Catholic priesthood, in how many different ways were they absolute mas lets of the minds and of the actions Of their flock ? First, their Lordships might tarn their• attention to wards the dreadful power of confession that was vested in the Pi iest ; a confession not voluntary and uncalled ' for, as in the Protestant faith, but insisted upon as a necessary matter of duty through • the • art of the 1 priesthood, in whose hanis the awarding the punish. •I argots remained unlimited ; by the great mass of the. people. absolution was considered as an entire washing from all sins, so that the power 'of the.priesthood in ad ministering it was of course looked up to 'as extreine— (:,ear, hear). He understood 'hat the confesiing Priest .s as not only bound t secrisy, so that he• was not permitted to tell the crimes this: Nat -been • dime, but likewise was obliged to be Silent as to crimes that were to be don-, not only by the party confiding, •but "like wise those which he knew were to be executed by other 1:lemons; so that. if. a Roman . Catholic Priest were to know of a plait to blow up•the King, Lords; and Com mons, he, would not.only not be Called upon to announce it to the State, but it would actually be against his•dittysto make it known —(Hear). Nor was i...a picture of hii own forming that he had described.' "Their,Lorclihips might remember that such a thing had happened:. - -(iiear). He saw, then, on every hand insurmountable difficulties to any union between the Catholics and the Protestants. Something had been said about the divisions betsteen the Dissenters and the Churchmen being ..done away with, but those two bodies had one common finlnd;i -tion-stoue—the Bible, to build upon, which was not the case with the Roman Catholics. One instance of *the Catholic Clergy he would just mention. A Protestant;, Gentleman was desirous of being married in a Ca tholic country its a Catholic Lady ; but the Priest ab.. !lamely refused, unless he would pledge 'himself, that all the children should be brought up in the Catholic faith ; this likelise, on inquiry, he found was the ad mitted case in. Ireland. Was it, then, he' again' asked, possible to unite such persons with the Protestants of England? Excommunication, likewise,. was another weapon with which the Catholic Priest attacked the Church of England. If, in a county election land, any Priests interfered, the power of the proprie tors was at an end, and they might whistle for any iofluence they would have over their tenants: his pe culiar objection to-the religion was, that it penetrated into every domestic scene, and inculcated a syitem of tyranny never before known. He held, and indeed the present Bill held, that the Protestant succession was the very foundation of the whole system of our Govern ment; and he felt thoroughly convinced, that if the House were to grant the concessions to the Catholics to the extent now propOsed, the Protestant succession would not be worth one farthing.. As long as the ciples of the British Constitution were essentially Pro testant. so long must the Crown be Protestant, and the King and his successors must take-the Crown upon this principle,,and upon this alone. It had been reiterated, that it was haid that a man, on account of his religious belief, eiould be prevented attaining to the offices of Lord Chief Justice,• or of Prime Minister ; but why was this ; hard ? In what respect wat 'it harder, than • . thal should not be . created - Lord Chan. cellor? These was less danger iti• a Cathcilic being Chancellor *-th,an in his being Lord Chief Justice of the King's Bench or Common Pleas, for reason that a Chancellor might be removed at the pleasure of the Crown. whereas Judges of the inferior Courts could not - be displaced without a long and serious process. But it w a s sa id th a t t h e P r i vy C ounc il might be increased by the admission of Roman Catholics, and that it was unjust and cruel to exclocle Catholics from such an appointment of trust and honour; in short, that a Catholic might be a Prime Minister; and have the whole patronage of the Church and State at his disposal ; and, as long as the system of the Constitution was Protestant, it was essential to main tain a Protestant throne, and a Protestant admini itration of the public affairs. The House ought at once to meet this Bill fully and unequivocally, and not to deceive the people ; they ought at once to de. 151 are, that if the Bill were to • pass Great B:irai,• would• be no longer a Prote s tant itate. The firs evil he should apprehend from the passing of such a Qin would not be immediate, but it would be infal. lible, and would come upon the country in a mrnner little expected. It was not the immediate object of the Catholics to possesithernselves of the property of the Established Church; they were too wary to pro ceed openly and directly in any such deaign.— No, their object was, in the first instance, met ely to diminibh the property of the Church. What was the language held by one of their Authorities upon this very point ?—That he did wish todecrease the magni tude of the possessions of the Church; but he wished it, not as a P•iest, but as an Irishman. Was any man so blind, or d f—was any man so lost to all the benefits of experience , as not to know what such language really meant ? Who was so thoroughly ignorant of the course of human actions,, as not to know, that when once the property of the Chinch was violated under any such a pretence, it would soon be seized upon— the teal motive of Catholic aggrandisement and cupi dity ? The most insidious way in which the Catholics could possibly set about their wok was to say, " Take the property of. the. Established Church, and give it to toe Pottle. for the general benefit of the country.'' When once the property of the Protestant Hierarchy was invaded' and impaired by •such an artful attack, it required but little wisdom to foretel what would befal the remainder of its rights and possessions.— The grand masi'm of the Catholics .was, that it - one Chnreh stink, the other must swine, and destroy or depress the Piotestant Establishineat, and that of tie Catholics would flourish. There was nothing inconsistent in the evidence before the House;. for the Catholics thought, that if they could destroy the Church by what. they called legislatite Means, it was no de struction,in•the sense of - their professions.. To destroy that Church was, However, their grand object ; its was their oath, their everything, to effect its downfal. Cir cumstances might or might not favour their designs; but if the object was effected, what did it signify. whe ther the mischief were produced by, open attacks, or by the more insidious method of imPiirteg the Church property ? Noble Lords seemed' to view this measure solely as a means of communicating to the Catholics all . the enjoyments of Government patronage and employ ments, and of uniting all his Majesty's faithful subjects into one nation; but he had already shewn that the dif ficulty of obtaining any such objet's 'arose out ,of the very spirit of their Church. Noble Lords really ape. peered to think, that by education,ind by vemoving the impositions which were laid on the Catholics as to . marriages, and as to. Government pa•ronage, all &hers: sioos between the two C torches would cease; but the question, in deciding the measure before the House, was, whether the effect of this Bill would not be to increase those dissensions ?—(llear,hear). Theßill would leave the two contending parties where they were, es cept that by giving new powers to the Roman Catho lics it would be bringing the parties upon an . .equality, and thereby increase the discord and contentions. It would not only give both sides greater'ficilities of con test, but it would afford every excitement to dissention and strafe ; it would supply' , many additional points to contend for. If it were possible to "unite the Catholics and Protestants in one friendly mass, by any common system of education, he should applaud the effort to obtain so desirable a result; but separated as they now are,. and -actuated by the spirit by , which it was well known that so many on both Wei were actuated; such a project was absolutely impossible; the very hope was visionary, and those.who had the Object at heart, and had introduced the present measure as a. means, or in the hope of effecting the object they had so much at heart, would find themselves entirely disap pointed, and most egregiously deceiied, if they were to carry the present measure. •Whiri we's, then, the good which could result from this 'Bill? Would it tranquillize, or would it tend to tringaillize Ireland? —He was sorry that so roach* . delusion existed throughout the country upon a past so important.— Great mistakes had arisen from the belief entertained by Members of both Houses, that because Ireland had been in a very disturbed state, and because very objez aiottable measures had been resorted to for keeping that country in. peace, 'that therefore all the disturbances had grown out' of the Catholic disqualifications. • It t;ad , ,been therefore the general, or at least a very corn- Moaampression, that, if.tbe disabilities were removed, the foundations of peace would be at once established. 'But, it was a proposition proved to the certainty of abstract demonstration, that the disturbed state .of Ireland for the last ,twenty years, bad bad -nothing whatever to do with the Catholic question.. This point .was most satisfactorily proved by the-evi dence lying upon their Lordships' table. For the space of twenty-five years the Insurrection Act had never been once gat in force in the province of Ulster, and yet that province was the great sem of re ligious violence, because the two parties were so nearly upon an equality. The Insurrection Act, _on the con trary, had been . cartied into effect in the south of Ire land, where no religious dissentions whatever had exiiresl, or at least, to the extent of disturbing the public , I peace. Absentees, combined with the minute subdivlat sion of property; had occasioned an increase of pope* lion, to a most enormous extent ; this had brought dmp country into a state of beggary, and hence had all the disorders of the State. This great evil, he happy to say, was now curing itself. Dr., D states, in his letters, that the population of led was now positively decreasing. He (Lord Liver pool) perfectly agreed with the Right Reverend Prelate, that, whether the Catholics amounted* to one, two, or three millions, made no difference, or ought.na make no difference in the decision of this questiossinse, It was a great question that ought not to be devidast otherwise than uptiq general principles, and upon ex 'tended .views.' - But with respect to the number of C tholic subjects, the greattst ex iggeraton had been reso. ted to upon this subject. A Noble Lord had stated the Catholics of Ireland to outnumber the Protestants I %V r II z ti.. !' f .•. that the proportion was sot en* three to one. -With reference to the recent augmentation of the Catliplics,. it was equally well proved that the Catholics now the same proportion to the Protestants as they did in the time of Sir William Petty. Their Lordship(.had ht ord. - upon all rccasi ms when this question was de bated, that the Cath• lic subjects of Foreign Stites enj yed many advantages which were not coined by the Callus is subjects of .he English Clown. He belted the House to colsider that there were circumstances in the English Constitution, growing out of the advantages of that Constitution, which might make restrictions upon theCitholics more necessary than in absolutenonarchies. But persons spokei as if, the Irish Catholics were really deprived of all property in the advantages of the Con : . stitutiiin. He did.not .wish to undervalue what the pre vent Bill would give them ; but deprive - them of this, and all they possessed more rights and priv leges than' any people of Europe, without any exteptlon. He cer tainly cotili not carry his argument to America, where extreme liberty pervaded ill the religious as well as. civil institutions. The mass of the property in Ireland was well known to belong to Peottstantx. whilst the • mass of the population was Catholic. When conces sions had hitherto been made to the Catholics, the cry. • had been that the House was /ranting a great boon jo the people ; but the present Bill would have the diredßy • contrary effect, for its object was to benefit only about forty or fifty individuals, who aspired to places of puh lie trust, whilst it _took away the civil rights of many thousands. Reverting again to the United States of America, whatever might be the freedom of her polity, he could only say that her's was not .the British • Con stitution, nor was it the Constitution which be wished Great Britain to possess. There was, therefore, no iparity of argument between the two countries, ' r* ad the religious freedom proper" in the one might 'be far (rem • desirable or proper in the other. vote of the House of Commons, passed on the 29th 'April, declared, " that it was expedient that provision should be made by law, for the maintenance of the se cular Clergy of the Cathotc religion in Ireland." This provision, in his opinion, was to all intents and purposes establishing by law the Roman Catholic Hierarch, in its full pride and power. This was going at once to the very object of Catholic triumph; and those who bad' been the most alarmed, and had thooght that such_ . a state of thingsvroildgrow out of the present Bill, had never thought that it would have beeis done so openly. Was such a measure constituttonal ? Was it consistent with the rights and privileges of Protestants? It bad been.specioudy argued, that the Catholic. Claims could not milWate against the Coronation Oath; but that oath . warmreated solely for religious purposes, and it *.cis only by' inferences that suck an opiaitin could arise, for thitt oath, . was mtat positively to maintain the Church of England in all its rights. and propeaty,— (Hear, hear, hear). The Catholic •Chorith 'Of .Ireland was not like the Catholic Church of 'England. The • Catholic Church of Ireland was an' aliment Church, , with , a jurisdiction, and witb Bishops, Priests, pa- : , rishet; and every other appearance of a regularly - established Church. He bad a letter in his pocket; CO,. ';•::.;;;:. prove that in Ireland the Catholic Bishop' would *not' • even address the Protestant - Bishops by their legal: t •` titles, and in the Catholic almanacks,. all that related to.the Qatholit Church' was•printed in large letters, whilst • what referred to the Established Church was - printed in a stain type. The esthetic - Chittsti sheaved a complete parity of jurisdiction with the establishment: The House could not, therefore, - conceire it iostible to favour such a Church with safety to the - right of ' the Church of England., He hied argued the ..pdint . upon a narrow principle, in ordei to conriohe the Rouse that the present Bill was totallyoncompatible frith the first principles of the Coriatiotioo, and would &odor, the - most seriops - evils throughout - the • eountrf, and that not only calla it not produce any good, hutillat it *ould fail to achieve any of thole objects 'which its promoter s flattered themselves it would prodisce. He could.not bring. himself to vie* it as a measureof peace and conci liation. Whatever it might do in this in first • instance, he was persuaded that its' natural . tendency would be to increase dissensions, and to create discoid, even where discord did not previously exist.. He in treated their Lordships to consider the aspeci of the times in which they lived. It was their. fate to hear doctrines openly promulgated, and which as novel as.they were mischievoul. The people are now taught in publications to consider Queen Mary. as a wise and prudent Queen, and that the world had gaioed nothing by the,Reforniation. Nay, more than this, it was now promulgated that James the Second was a wise and virtuous Prince; that he fell in the'glorious cease of religious toleration ; and that three months .befire he abdicated the Throne, he had put forth 'a Mit solemn declaration, that he never .meant to injure,' much less subiert the Established *Church,.antl this . was published to the people of this country bt grave Catholic Divines. Could the House be aware of these strong facts, and not see that a great and powetfol en. gipe was set to work to effect the object of re-establiihing the Catholic Religion throughout these kingdams? and it once established; should we not revert to a state of ig norance, with all its barbarous and direful consequences? Let the House consider what had been the result of those laws—what had been the effects of that fuodamerstal principle of the British Constitution which they were pow, called upon to alter with such an unsparing hand. Poe the last one hundred and thirty years, the country had enjoyed a state of religious peace—a blessing that hid ansat from the wisdom of 'our laws.' But what had been the fate of the country for the one hundred and thirty years immediately preceding that period ; England had two in a state of the most • sanguinary religious contentions The bleisings of the latter period were to be attributed solely to the nature of thole law* which had granted an equal toleration tdell-reliaions,.. ,at the sametimithatahey maintainedai just, - reasonable, and ispderate *whorl ;is savour of the Church. If the House coaddeted the itombh &Alluded History, cdsld they possibly think or favouring via Chifth? He could ma view the preientftwaiure without the deepen apprehensions. and be trusted that their Loidships would not inafeiny such desperate expetinienta upon the Coostitudou, and upon a system under width the country had enjoyed such innumerable advantages. The Earl of • HARROWBY, after an apology for troubling their Lordships at that late hour, and a high en log L i verpool),iomon the ee i s d peec b e h Nobleof his Nobl e Frieo er F e ri e e r o g d o ro (th en e t . E l : e r s l of built on the danger of a divided allegiances on the idea that the Catholics, while they professed their alle. c to ooi t j hes oor Po t :. dis li tio is . guished. The Catholics, however, themselves distin gsN'oabniceeFtori the - King, distin guish them. This argument proved . too much. It would follow from it, that Catholics could not be faith. fol subjects to any Sovereign if they reasoned correctly their %sat % • 0. • No ••;itt „. ,t: $ .6 ,110* ); r~•1' "g, . t: • '• • at; .• .4.14 : .:ti! 7'7.0 w jl : : . • e cii • )•• la ' M~ . t.. r.~ 1/i 1 17, • ~ . . . „. . 1 1 60 1 7 % in of at least five to one ; it spas unques-.1 on th e ' suppose d tenets of their religion. Wkat advai. Mtge could his Noble Friend 'derive from proving that Aire tumble, from accounts which could not be incorrect, I •