Star. — London, England, 1805-05-14 00:00:00

'I 10 1 . 1 . 0 4 a argument to confnle the Catholics under a- ‘grada lion, dcferves to he examined. Do you think the Cathnrcs n..t worthy to be united at all ?—lf In, any office filled by them would, of entitle, be ill executed. But shat would he the confequence of this principle in every profeflion and trade ?—1 may tell a man g oi ng to the Bat, you may pflibly fecceed, you may make money, but do you exped to he Chancellor? It be abfurd for every individual to expect to be Chancellor, but would it be nothing to tell a man that lie never could he Chancellor ? Apply it to trade. A man c. iatmencing bufinefs may be very well pleated to make a living, with fomething over—but what would be the confequence of laying it down that no man's lot hire fhould ever exceed a million ? All fuch refiriCtions damp ardour, difcourage enterprize, and unnerve indultry. Place the limit where you pleafe, Ilill unit limit hasa molt unfavourable influence on the fpring and activity of the human mind. Few men may ever make a million, but fill to draw any line by which the gains of trade should be confined, would be to &frog the fpirit and energy of a commercial country. Do we not hear it laid, and are we not proud to hear i: (aid, by many perfons in this country, who have :nen front (mall beginnings, " thank GOD I am a member of a community, where by induflry, perfererarce, and good conduit, I am permitted, if I can, to acquire and to enjoy a fortune, equal to that of the lint Doke in the land ?" Are thefe not cheering and encouraging confederations; are they not calcu laud to annulate indultry and to call forth the powers of the mind ? But what would be the confequence, if nut only a limit was afligned, but if a particular dal- of men in the fate were marked out, and re ftrained from advantages, which their neighbours were permitted freely to enjoy ? The cafe may be put Qiil more f tong, when applied to profeflions. Let me ask any Gentleman, it it would not damp the ar dour of hope, and the energy of exertion, to tell a man going to the bar, that he might indeed make a little money by practice, bur that the bonours of the profeflion were (hut againa him ? Nay, would it not operate fatally, not tidy on,the zeal of competition, and the viour of induflry, but might it not operate too on parents, to deter them from encouraging and cultivating the talents of their children? It may be very stile indeed, that many parents are ridiculous in their hopes of the future eminence of their children ; bin, the hope that their children may difinguifhthem hives often too affords them the means and oppor tunity to do fo. And are thefe incitements to induf. try, theft inducements to cherifh and cultivate talents, not diminithed by the confideration that, even at the bar, a Catholic can but run a certain way in the race with his competitor ; and that, however he may de ferve, lie cannot gain the prize ? Apply it now to the military career, and the cafe appears the (lrongell of all. Does any man enter into that profeflion for the fake of a lubtilience ? Are not glory and fame the grand incentives ? Vet what mutt be the feelings of the Lieutenant, of the Captain, animated with all the ardour of thole feelings which tender arms the noble([ profeilion, when he refleas on all he has Peen, all he has done, all he has Peen others do, when he combines and compares the meafutes of the Commander, and thinks how he, in limilar circumffances, would have acted, what mull be his feelings when he remembers with a figh—" But I never can command an army ? 'Tis trite I may be a Colonel, but I never can have a ftiperinr command." Mull not there difireartening reflections in a profeflion, the foul oP which is glory, chill ever y generous ardour, and deaden every fpring of enter prize ? A man of honour may (lilt expofe or facrifice his life ; but how cruel the diltinaion, how painful the recollea ion, that while others afpire to the highell rank and fame, he is for ever precluded from the proud eminence of chief command ? How can the military fpirit and entlitniafrn fupport a man under difcouragements like flick ? And is it nothing to the Hate thus to reprefs talents that mull prove its glory And defence ? Even in the gradation of other offices, the limit beyond which there is no afcent is of the worki influ ence upon the charader. The human mind requires all the helps and props which circumstances can give to incite to virtue, and to deter from vice. Ido not mean to fay, that becattfc a man has reached fome ll thing beyond which he cannot go, that then he is to become indifferent to reputation. Few might fay, that then quocunque modo rein was was to be the fole object. But furely it will not be denied, that an in dolence, an indifference might fpring up when the flimulus to exertion was withdrawn. A man might do his bare duty par maniere d'acquit, but it would - be abfurd to expect zeal from the mars, particularly if the limit of advancement was ittelf to operate as a fort of brand and degradation. And if there are bar (nips, is not the bitternefs of them aggravated when it is telt by fo many—when this degraded con dition is the lot of three fourths of the whole people of Ireland—of one fifth of all his Majelly's European fubjeas ? So far then as to the operation of the reflriaions as they apply to the limitation of the King's Prero gative. On this head, however, I may take notice of the office of Sheriffs, from which Catholics are at prefent excluded. But furely if there be any danger to be apprehended from entrulling the office of Sheriffs to Catholics, good care would be taken that no fuch perfons fhould be nominated. The next point is the effed of the rellrillions, fo far as they affea the right of fitting in Parliament. It is well known that during the reigns of Queen Eliza beth, King James I. Charles I. and down to about 1678, Catholics fat and voted in Parliament ; and I defy the molt zealous hiftorians to thew that any mil chief arofe from their doing to. Even Mr. Locke, who approves the Tell Ad, fays of Catholics being in Parliament, that it was " very fate and beneficial to the country."—lt ceafed about the time of the Popifh Plot, about which, I believe, all who have fet them. (elves impartially to confider the tranf4dion, mull have a very decided opinion. Neverthelefs, during that period, when the Ration was routed to the ut moit pitch of alarm, when nothing was heard of but confpiracies of the rapid minority to murder the via Protellant majority, when the King's life was to be affaileJ, the filver bullets prepared, and the King of Spain ready to land in England to fupport the Catho lic pat ty—under the fever which all thofe monttrous horrors infpired, Catholic Peers were deprived of the right to lit in Parliament. In fad,this attack on them was the only thing which the zeal and fury of the Ines had left to be done againft them. As to the re ttriaioss of the right of Catholics to fit in the Houle of ! ' Commons it is, to far as it goes, a limitation of the eleaive franchife. The right of elelling has been al ready granted to Catholic*, but they mull not chute a C..tholic. Can there be danger in allowing Catholics to fit among us? The Tea wet applies to Diffenters in regard to offices, but not to their affifting in this Houfe, of which many of them have been, and are the ornaments. Why then fhould there be more dan ger to the Church from the Catholics than from the Diffenters, who are fuppofed to be at leaft equally averfe to the ecciefiaflical eilabliiiimmt ? But fhould the right of fitting in this Houfe be g-anted to the Catholics, does any man believe that there could ever be to many as 8o Catholic Members ? I believe it to be next to impollible that any thing like half that number fhould ever have feats in this Houk. How then could they be dangerous ? On the other hand, if the doarine of virtual reprefentation, fo often main tained, and I admit juftly maintained, in oppofition to fchemes of Parliamentary Reform, be well foun ded, would it not pear& the principle of virtual re prefentation, that to the reprefentation of land-hol ders, merchants, ftatefmen, lawyers, &c. &c. there fir:old be the reprefentative of the Catholics, who, as a body, have not even a virtual reprefentation in this Houfe ? In order, therefore, to attain what is wanting to the public, the Catholic body fhould have their virtual reprefentation in this affembly. When it has been urged.that Manchefter, Sheffield, &c. &c. were not reprefented, it has been Paid, and truly to a certain extent, that they were reprefented by the various intereßs in this town connelled with them and their profperity. The very idea of reprefenta tion, even virtual reprefentation, is, that there exifts Inch a fympathy between the reprefentative and the bodies or perf , ,ns reprefented, that he mull ptirfire their interelts. But if I Catholic has not an oppor tunity to fend to Parliament thofe who are likely to fympathize with him, it cannot with any truth or fairnefs be laid that he is even virtually reprefented in the Hoare of Commons. With refpell to the Ca tholics being inadmiflible to Corporations, perhaps the injury arifes chiefly from the Ramp of degrada lion it carries with it, becaufe tittle corporations being compofed entirely of Protellants, there could be little chance of a Catholic ever gaining admittance. The fligma only is retained, and only in fuch a way as to be injurious to the feelings of the Catholic body. I !hall now briefly take notice of a few objellinns to the meafirre. Jacobitilm is given up—l take that for granted. But it is Paid that there mull be an in• congruity and incompatibility of two Ferfons of fuch oppofite religions ailing together in public affairs for the public good. I Ihould like to hear this them y explained, for theory it appears folely to be. What neceffity would there be for a Proteßant and Catholic Statcfman quarrelling about dolliines of religion, when it was to be confidered whether a fleet Ihould be fent to the Weft Indies or the Mediterranean i Mull it infallibly happen that one will attack the other at the Council Board, faying, " Oh ! but you worfhip the Virgin Mary, and believe in tranfubflantiation— but I don't ?" Are fuch puerilities to be expelled in the prefent day ? Nay, is fuch a thing to be expelled on a Bench of Judges, to which the Catholics have adrniffion ? Such a thing might happen in Turkey, where the religion and law of Mahomet are fo inter woven ; but fuch incompatibilities are quite foreign from the nature of our laws and adminiftration.— But while fome are fo fearful that men of different religions could never ferve together cordially, we find thefe maxims are contrary to the praltice of all Europe. Nay, at a time when religious bigotry com pelled Henry IV. to change his religion, was Sully, a Proteflant, confidered a bad Minilter of a Catholic King ? Was Neckar, whatever faults might be im puted to him, a worfe Minifler of Finance, becaufe a Proteflant ? Nay, does the Emperor of Ger many, whnfe houfe has never been remarkable for religious toleration, fcrtrple to entruß a Proteflant Prince, Ferdinand of Wirtcmberg, with the guard of his perfon ? Does the King of Pi ullia refute to employ a Catholic? Would Frederic the Great have rejeaed an able man on that account ? In Ruflia, where the Gri , :k Church is ellablifhed, Prince Czarftorinflci, a Catholic, is Secretary of State.— In Venice, formerly, a Greek Patriarch, and a Catholic Apoflolic Vicar would have been found aging in perfelt harmony. Was there ever any incompatibility between the Proteflant and Catho lic Cantons of Switzerland, when the molt demo erotical of the Cantons, and the moll bigotted Catho lics, becaufe probably the moll ignorant in Europe, are to be found in the fmaller Cantons of theHelvetic Union ? Now indeed, though the Pretender be gone, the Pope remains, and from him danger is appre hended, becaufe forfooth he has been to Paris to crown the new Emperor of France. But for what reafon could the Pope ever have been an objelt of alarm to England ? Surely, for no other reafbn than the influence he might be fuppofed to have over the Catholics, in flirting them up to rebellion. But did the Pope ever do fo when he might have ferved both the French King and the Houfe of &nazi ? But in 17 is, and 1745, the Pope could not flit. the Catho lics. In the late rebellion it is very curious to re mark, that the Catholics, who at loall were only in proportion to the Protellants engaged in that affair, were not infligated by the Pope. Were they incited by :he Pope to follow Mr. O'Connor, Dr. Mac Ne vin, &c. ? By no means. It is worthy of remark, that at the very time the Pope was in hoftility with France ; that he was on good terms with this coun try and looked to it for protelition ; he neither had the power to influence the Catholics of Ireland, and, if he had poffeffed the power, would have ufed it to diffuade the Catholics from fuch proceedings.— Surely after this, it is ridiculous to reprefent the Pope as a formidable inftrument in the hands of Bonaparte. Befides, if Bonaparte wifhed to employ the Pope's influence to Rir up the MA, would it not rather be to fend emiffaries among them fecretly, to rem dent to them their degraded Rate, to tell them how vain it was to look to England for redrefs ? Would not this be an influence far more dangerous than any which the Pope could obtain over Catholic Gentle men or Noblemen in Parliament ? for could it be credited, that of all the Catholic Repre(entatives fo many as three could ever be found weak and wick ed enough to lend their efforts to a foreign coun try, to betray the Government that protests them ? —I need not, Sir, take up any time in reminding the Houfe that though the form of religion in Scotland differs effentially from what is eftabliffied in thiscoun try, no inconveniencies have arifen, no danger has been experienced to our national ttlabliflunent. The Prefbyterians of Scotland (wear that they confine their differences ((defy to matters of do trine and dif ciplire, aad with that affeveration we are completely fatistied. In the cafe of the Roman Catholics, you call on them to (wear to particular points, and v. hen ' they have taken the oath you will not believe their teltimony. To call on men for a declaration on oath, and after the declaration is given, to affect to clifbe- ' lieve it is, Sir, at all times a proof of the greaten ma lignity of difpofition and the moll contemptible weak nefs of undernandiog. In the Government of the prefent day, however, it would appear in colours fill more actions, and fill more unjuitifiable. It is no thing Short of calling on men to conform to the par ticular terms of an aft, and this folely with the view of making thole who accede to its conditions lot (wear themfelves. You firft hold out inducements to them to (wear to the renunciation of certain opinions, and when that is done your former bad opinion remains unchanged. If they have the (lighten connection with the Roman Catholic religion, it ever they venture to attend mafs, it is no longer in their power to preferve any fort of regard for the fandity of an oath, and therefore you may fafely confider all they have fo lemnly declared as abfolutely amounting to nothing. No iron can be placed in their teltimony, becaufe fuch is the nature of their religion that they cannot be trolled. Having then made this fort of general difinc• tion againft the Roman Catholics, what is it, Sir, that is done to remedy this evil ? What is reforted to to make the eath of men of fuch a charafter at all refponfible to any law of human tenimony ? You be gin by laying, that thefe perfons are unworthy of be ing believed, and you get rid of the dieiculty by im poling another oath. You think your enablilhment in danger, if the Catholics of Ireland are admitted to a fair participation of the privileges of the Conftitution and you remedy this evil by calling on them to take a particular oath, admitting that, in conformity to their own principles, they can take that oath without hefitatic: , acaufe with them it has no force. I ap peal then to the Houfe whether there is not, in this fort of proceeding, fomething that has very much the appearance of folly ? If it is not founded in folly, it is molt certainly highly infulting to every ingenu ous mind among the refpeetable Catholic body. It is reprefenting them as a fet of men equally incapable of obferving the mon (acted ties among men, and the molt relpefted rights in fociety. I have no with, Sir, to engage in controverfial dilcuflions, for they are contrary to all my feelings, inconfident with all the habits of my life. They are feldom introduced into this Houle with much profit, and in many cafes they are produflive of material inconvenience. Without, however, at all introducing Inch difcuffions, I mull be permitted to fay, that fuch a reprefentation of the Catholics as that to which I have referred, is one of a very extraordinary nature. At this moment three-fourths of Europe conlill of Chrinians pro-, feting the Roman Catholic Religion ; are we then to be told that this huge proportion of civilized in habitants of this part of the world, are men who are utterly undcferving of all belief, even when their teltimony is ratified by an oath—that they ate inca pable, not merely of the relations of peace and arri• ty, but that they are unfit for fupporting any of the common relations of life ? I am lure loch a propoti tion as that will not be attempted to be introduced into this Houle. No man will dare to come forward and affert that, becaufe three-fourths of the Chi ifians of Europe are Roman Catholics, we are to confider them as incapable of the relations of peace and amity —incapable of the connexions of commerce—incapa ble of any of thofe obligations by which the faith of one State is guaranteed to another. Such a doftrine as would, on account of differences of religious opi nions, fuppofe nations incapable of all the relations of civilized life, would he a doctrine fit only t 3 have been entertained in dark and fuperlthious ages. 1t is a dcarine which can only be traced to the wilden and molt abominable bigotry. Witco the oaths in quer- I tion were &It propoled, at the time when a number of conceffions were to be made to the Catholics, I, among others, objected to them as altogether unnc celfary. The Houk was then of a contrary opinion. and the oaths were made a condition of the concef lions to be granted by the Legiflature. What then has bean the confequence? Why, Sir, the Catholic have taken the oaths, their Archbifhopc, Bifhops, and inferior Clergy have taken them, and fill it is contend ed that all this will not fatisfy our anxiety for the ec clefiaftical eftablithment. The Catholics cannot be believed, and therefore their teltimony is quite nuga tory. When the Petition was firlt read at the table, I did flatter myfelf that the explicit declaration of the Petitioners, that the oaths had been taken, would have made a Itrong impreflion on the Houle. Why then are we now to hear that this declaration is far from affording fatisfy Rion ? I recolleft, Sir, when talking on this fubjed with a much valued friend of mine, the late Lord Petre, whole pretence would have done honour to any affembly, I gave my opi nion fairly, that to me the oaths feemed altogether fuperfluons. He, on the other hand, was anxious that the oaths Should be taken, as the belt means of doing away thofe calumnies which have been heaped on the Catholic Body. My reply WAS fimple, that it certainly might be .very jullifiable, nay, perhaps, very proper for the Catholic Body to take this mode of placing their principles in a fair point of view, hut that it was unworthy of the dignity of the Legifla tote to demand filch a declaration from fo numerous and refpeftable a body. Being on this part of the lubjeft, I think it proper to add, that the oaths on which fo much ltrefs is laid, have been pofitively taken by four Catholic Archbilhops, by all the Bilhops, and by the greater part of the inferior Clergy. Though my own opinion remains unaltered, that the oaths were unnecelfary, Qill the Statement I now make mull be considered as fufticient to refute the accufations of thofe who would with to defcribe the Catholics as, men who have not in good carnet' renounced th:ii opinions, on which the refinance to their claims is principally founded. We are told, however, that the hills Catholics have already had fo much conce ded to them, that it is quite extraordinary to hear them calling for (till greater indulgences. With this idea I cannot poll ably concur, and on the contrary, think that their prefent demands ate ftrietly continent with every principle of reafon, and every view of hu. man nature. When you have conceded to men cer tain privileges, it is to be expefted that their defires of a Rill more perfeft fate o olitical Situation will be increafed. When you have to a certain degree al fimilated one body of the fobjefts of an Empire to the other, there will necegarily be created an anxiety; ' to enjoy a more petit& funilar it;• o reft of t, o community. It the Catholics of were railed from a hate of debating oppoo:i 1., an i ttilm o 4 to the charafter of men, it was it : lo!•!ly extraordi. nary that with this nobler charaEto which they had obtained, they &mid feel an arde:n with that Amid be accompanied by every cola-, Inonding privi. lege. Nothing (bort of this could poflioiy f I .a!lb.yth e expellations which had been excited, and that mar. mutt !hut his eyes to the nature of noon and the ge nius of the !moan mild, who cold no t perceive th tt the people of Ireland, though in the litft in. (lance they might view the concellions afforded them with feelings of gratitude, Rill rcleCted that they were lubjefts of indifputable right, and that if what they now claimed was not granted them, a very im portant part of thefe rights was withheld. They could eafily too dittinguith betwixt a fat o , tr granted to an individual, or to a number of in.liviJnals, ant a right unjultly denied, and at length conceded to the demands of four millions of the general popula tion of the country. From the moment that the ccar ceffions were firft granted to the Catholics, it was eafy to fee that much more was to be requircd.— When the Catholics had gained much, they were fenfible that they had yet a great deal to receive.— Will it be argued, Sir, that after all you have con ceded, what remains is not lately to be given up to the Catholic Body of Ireland ? Shall we hear that the Catholics arc difaffened, or in danger of dial. feCtion, and at the fame time than we Ilsut our eyes againft the &c?, that in our army and in our navy, there very Catholics are empLyed, that stall bodiesof the Catholic population are now employed in arms to defend Ireland againti any attempt whic't the French may meditate againtl that part of the Em. pipe? Will any Gentleman be bold enough to fay, that we are pet-fatly fare in miffing to the rude un cultivated tribes of Ireland, and ih it there is any danger in admitting to a teat in the Legiflature, the higher and more refpeCtable gentlemen in the com munity ? Do you consent to tr ull the lower ranks of the Irith people, and can you have any apprehen lions of the defigns of Lord Fiogall and the other Noblemen and Gentlemen whole names are Mier& ed to the petiti, n which furors the I;11>jlEt of the mo tion with which 1 (hail have honour to conclude ? I alk, Sir, of tlf,fe Gentlemen, who opp,fe the claims of the Petitioners, what defcrtption of the frith people they think unworthy of being united ? I have already laid that you are in the contlant ha , bit of trolling the lower orders, whole nt tn.•era and connexions render them the molt riihj a t• • infpicion, while to the higher orders, against whom none of thefe caufes of fufpicion apply, you ar T ear to enter tain the utmoll degree of jealoufy. You admit the lower orders into limo ions which are ..eitainly not very well adapted to a fufpicion of their .ot); while the higher orders, whole I , ,yalty WAN sindoubteda were refufed the enjoyment of the tiglas of the high'. eft of the citizens of a free country. To thole from whom we h ,ve every thing to fear we give nothing, while from thole who have every thing to claim our confidence, we withhold what their approved attachment powerfully demands. Surely, Sir, this is a fort of proceeding, equally contrary to the princi ples of common jtotice and common fenfe. Ir can• not for a moment he admitted that what we refute is withheld from a fehte of danger—lot if danger really vatted, what is already conceded a ill produce all the dangers which can be anticipated. They have had conceded to them (hi., fundamental ptineiple of our free conaitution, that all orders in the (late are to be equal ; that they are to enjoy equal rights and equal acceliThility to all political privileges. We have therefore, Sir, rc illy waked nothing which it is of the leatt importance for us to keep, but what it is of immenfe confequence (hr them to receive. We have only retained that equality of rights which is a pri vilege the deare:l to the human mind. It is this, Sir. that gives to our laws their grand diainClion, and renders the comtittninn rd this country fuperior to any other on the race of the globe. This is a privi lege which atones for the inlet iority of fortune, and makes even nation, comparatively poor, elated with their political condition. One of our Poets illuf trates this idea in the moll beautiful and interefling tetras, svl:en defcribing the manners of the peafantry of Swit zerl ind— • Tho' poor the peafant's feafts tho'fmall, He feel% his little lot the lot of all : Sees no contiguous palace rear its bead, To (harm. the me:inners of his hun.ble filed. This equality of rights is what the Catholics re quire, and until it is granted they mutt continue in a Itate of the utmoll degradation. But lam told, Sir, that the moll eminent of the clergy in this min try, that the great majority of the Bench of Billups are hoflile to the meafure of emancipation. Nothing would be more remote ft ism my withes than to agi tate a quefliun in which the runt:lions of that refpeoft able body could be at ail infringed on ; but I con fider this a quellion in which their authority has not all that degree of weight which on other fuhjefts I thould he the fiat man in the world to allow it. Po litical and religious queltions have been too often cons founded when they ought to have ben kept perfectly dillina ; and it appears to me that the quellion before the Houfe is jolt one of tho:e to which this ohlerta thm will particularly apply. The wifett philidophers have been desirous to have great political enquiries feperated, and it is to be lamented that this defire has in In few inftances been gratified. As however the autho:i v of the veneral :e body to 1 have alluded has been introduced, I am happy ,o have this opportunity of ravi ring to tine aut:t•rrity. u f a writer, who, not poffetring a feat e n !he llet7cli I ll]lh ,, ps, is one I.sliofe opinion tli.l have v,ry gte. t "eight not only in this Houle, hut with all rnza in the country. The authority to wi.ich I alltidc, Sir, is that of Dr. Paley, in one of his works whsle he has oceafion t i difcufs the 10bj.:41 of religioto. ties. With the per million of the Houle I !hall take the liberty of reading a thou p.tlfage to thew in what light this intelligent and refilalable writer views the Coble& of dilabilities foun:!ed on religious co-stlizza lions. (Here the Hou' arable Member read a pal fage from 1)r. Paley, the okje,fl of which w as to thew that all difahilities of this delcription mu;t be of a temporary nature, and as fuon as the eircomitances which had occationed them ceafed, they fh.u.id out delay he abolifhed). Here then, faiA Mr. F 5 refuming, is the authority of one cf use able.l writers in this country, and you find that he ha, no concep tion of perpetual ditabilities, he has no that though reittitlions might at at cm: time be txpecli-