Star. — London, England, 1821-04-17 00:00:00

I to' . the Catholic Clergy to that Board, including Con fessiodss '4 4 .ese could"not be submitted to any Ec elesisitteal Chin*ton without a direct violation of the duty of the Clergyman, who was not allowed to communicate anything taken in confession to any one, except the Head of the Church, where it became necessary to apply to him on a question of conscience. He hoped this provision would be given up, and that an oath that the confessions taken related but to pri vate matters, would be deemed sufficient. Amend ments to this effect he intended to move in the Com nrittee—(Hear, hear). —Wishing to make this great measure as pe rfect as possible, he objected to its be ing made to hold anythiag.in terrorenr over those to whom it did not apply in the shape of penalty. He did not object to the establishment of a Board through which all regular Catholic instruments should pass. This was a measure which might not be necessary, but it was one that the House had a right to impose if it pleased. He should be glad if the Catholic could give anything in return for the liberality with which he might be treated. Ile should be sorry if the Bill passed without their being able to offer any equivalent for what they were to receive under it—{Hear, hear). —He should not object to the Vdo being given, but he was sorry to say the Roman Catholics were against this, and therefore he could say nothing on the subject. He was, however, con vinced that no improper nomination would take place, and with this impression, regretting that he had troubled their Lordships at such length, and thank ing them for the patient hearing they had given to what he had had the honour to address to them, he moved—" That the Bill should now be read a se cond time." The Earl of MANSFIELD said, that he felt no hope of making any impression on their Lordsips, as from his habits he was not much accustomed to ad dress them. He would, however, take the liberty of stating, as concisely as possible, the sentiments which he had long entertained upon this question, and in which he was confirmed by a residence of some time in a Catholic country. The Bill consisted of two parts. He would not go into the detail of either of those -parts, for his objection was to the principle of the tneasure—(Hear, hear). He objected to the removal of the Catholic disqualifications at all—(Hear, hear). He did not perceive that any change had taken place in the Catholic religion—it was still the same as it ever had been, and yet it was now proposed to re store the Catholics and their Clergy to the full bene fits of the British Constitution—(Hear, hear). He could not look upon such a proposition without alarm, and he felt convinced that those who devised and supported this Bill had done so with little fore sight, and little attention to the characters of man kind in general, or to those of the Roman Catholic Clergy as a body—(Hcar, hear). It had been said that the Catholic religion ought to be established in Ireland as the Presbyterian had been in Scotland. If that could be done, lie thought it would be a much safer plan than that proposed in the present arrange. ments. But so long as the British Constitution con tinued, it was impossible, in his opinion, to divest it of its anti-catholic character without destroying its very essence. It was said that the disqualifications of the Roman Catholics originated in a State neces sity which no longer existed. The necessity, perhaps, was rendered by degrees less obvious, and in conse quence the laws had been gradually stripped of their most severe and penal enactments. But, were they now prepared to call the Roman Catholics around them, and to say, " Henceforth you shall be freely admitted to all the privileges of the Constitu tion; in your increased wealth, your extended reli gion, and your numbers, we have the firmest safe guards of your tranquillity. Henceforth for you there shall be no jealousies ; we receive you without anycon ditions, except only some few reservations which are made to lull unthinking Protestants?" (Hear, hear). Were they prepared to say this? He, for one, could not say so: his jealousies were not removed. It was asserted, that the influence of the Pope was no longer sufficiently great to excite any apprehensions. The history and conduct of the Papal Government, how ever, impressed him with the conviction, that its in fluence was quite sufficient to awaken their constant attention. That influence, perhaps, was at present *less exercised than it had been on former occasions, but the principle in which it resided was still the same as it ever had been. He had read that when man kind were not sufficiently prepared to receive the Christian religion, the Roman Catholic faith had adopted many of the Pagan ceremonies, in order to render the transition less unpalatable, and hence it even allowed the introduction of idols into their pri vate houses and chapels. He himself had seen mar ried priests of the Greek Church admitted into a pro cession of Roman Catholic monks, and when he asked why that was permitted, lie was told that there was no material difference between them, unless in points, not of faith, but of discipline. When he saw these compliances with Pagan customs,,and the discipline of dissentient churches, he could not but believe that they were adopted for the purpose of ex tending the sway of the Roman Catholic religion by every possible means. In Spain, alone, lie believed no concession was made to dissenting modes of faith. There, all the old abuses of the Church were still continued, even to the multiplicity of those indul gences which caused the Reformation. Bin in every other country the principle from which the controul of the Roman See was derived, was still undecned, though that controul was not exercised to the same extent as formerly. He was willing to allow that the Roman Pontiff did not order the massacre of St. Bartholomew ; but when, he would ask, was that massacre disavowed and stigmatised by the Roman See ? Neither, perhaps, did the Pope command the revocation of the Edict of Nantz. But when was the recal of that Edict masked by any expression of . discouragement from the Pope in his Council ? He admitted that the present Pope was of a mild and tolerant character, but he could not forget that the Church of Rome, whether vested in the Pope or his Council, assumed to itself infallibility, and held an absolute government over all its Roman Catholic subjects, in spiritual matters. He could not forget that that Church might to-day enjoin its subjects to obey an heretical Sovereign, and to-morrow absolve them from that obedience; and remembering these things, he could not but see that the spirit which ani mated that Church and its votaries was still the same as it was centuries ago. So long as that spirit con tinued, it would impel them to extend their Church, . and increase its wealth by every means in their power; and if the opportunity was presented to them, their Clergy too well knew how to employ every State en gine, not to take every advantage of it. There was now an instance, in France, of the degree to which the influence of the Clergy was capable of extend ing in .a short time. Their Lordships knew that in the early stages of the Revolution the French Church was stripped of its property, the Cathedrals were many of them levelled to the dust ; and the Clergy, after having 'been everywhere reviled, were obliged to fly to other countries, and among them to this Protestant country, I'm' protection. Bonaparte did what he could to gain the Catholic religion respect, by making it theestabiished religion, but did not succeed. The King restored it in a more ample and.favoured manner, and what was the result? For the first two or three years, a Priest could not walk in the streets without being insulted. But the progress of their in fluence has been lately so rapid as to surprise him exceedingly. They were now everywhere in France treated with as much deference as ever; and in many instances they had, by their influence, procured the restitution of Church property—not merely property which had been illegitimately acquired, but legally purchased. Did not a Church, then, of this recupe rative power deserve attention? No matter how long or how severely it was restrained, the moment the re straint was removed, it rose up and occupied the same, or even a greater extent than it had possessed before; like the giant in the Arabian fable, who had been imprisoned in a phial, and who, the moment the cover was taken off, rose gradually until his head touched the clouds. Nor would the similitude be less applicable as to the benefactor, whose kindness was soon forgotten, and whose power despised. When the late petitions of the Catholic body were rejected by Parliament, he heard a distinguished foreign Ro man Catholic remark, that, as a Roman Catholic, he of course regretted that objection, though, had he been a Minister of this country, as a Statesman, he would have rejoiced in the circumstance, knowing as he did the genius of the Roman Catholic religion. He was convinced, that by passing this Bill they would abandon the greater and obtain the less secu rities. The Bill disabled the Roman Catholics from being Chancellors, or from having any interference in ecclesiastical matters; but he could not see how such interference could be prevented as long as they were allowed to have seats in Pailiament--(Hear, ,hear!)—Either they had a design to betray die.Pro ' testant Church, or they had not. If they had not that design, these exceptions were unnecessary ; if they did entertain the design, the exceptions were in sufficient. There might be persons in the situation of Chancellor or Ecclesiastical Judges, who were no minally Protestants, but who secretly wished the overthrow of the Church. Might not a Roman Ca tholic Minister make use of such an instrument for such a purpose? The Constitution provided a Pro testant King, but this Bill allowed him a Roman Ca tholic adviser, and there might be a King secretly disaffected to the Protestant religion. If that was not a reason to 'excite the jealousy of this Protestant count' y, he knew not why it was that James H. had been obliged to abdicate his throne. It was said, even if the Roman Catholics were allowed to sit in Parliament, their influence would not be consider able. But if the Minister were Roman Catholic, he knew of no limit to his creation of Peers; to accom plish any purpose which he should think proper. With this power in the Minister, a certain number of Roman Catholics in the other House, and four mil-' lions of people at their back, they must form a very inconsistent party indeed, if they did not possess a very considerable extent of influence—(Hear, hear). Their Lordships should consider that all these things endangered the Protestant religion; and the natural consequence of making any religion insecure, was to make the People indifferent to it—(Hear, hear). — The Noble Lord then pronounced an animated eulo gium on our Constitution. That glorious fabric, he remai ked, which our ancestors had established in' Church and State—which open foes assailed, and which secret but not less dangerous enemies under mined, should its natural protectors withdraw, most sink in ruin, and with it would sink the greatness and the distinguished virtues of this highly favoured country—(Hear, hear). The Bishop of LONDON felt the painful necessity of opposing this measure, both in its principle and in its present form. Ile disclaimed every illiberal or hostile feeling, being cordially disposed to grant to every man the exercise of his religion without any molestation, if it was not contrary to the principles of morality. He would give them every pro:ection of person and property, and the security of equal laws. But there he would stop. He would not feel it equally incumbent upon him to admit them to pa litical power—(f/ear, hear).—He proceeded to shew that the situation of Ireland had arisen fi om pecu liar circumstances, which this Bill could not remove. The Catholic Church, he sheaved, had always aimed at universal dominion ; and the impression on his mind was, that no oaths, however solemn the vows in which they were couched, would be held as bind ing, which went to engage them to favour princi ples so repugnant to the Catholic religion, as those that would pledge them to endeavour to uphold the Protestant Church. The Catholics ought to be excluded from all public trust and authority. If this Bill passed, while they require the King to be a Protest ant, they will give him Catholic Ministers. The King was not allowed to act but by his Ministers, , and giving him Catholic Ministers, they would send men to offer him advice whose counsel he could not follow without crime and danger. While a Catholic King was not permitted to ascend the Throne, it was proposed that Catholic Governors should preside in the Colonies. This, he argued, could not but be fatal to our interest in those possessions. It was to be ex pected that Catholics would aim at obtaining the re storation of Church property. He wished to speak with the greatest respect of the Catholic Clergy, but it was only to suppose them animated by the common passions and feelings of men, to assume that they would endeavour to repossess themselves of that which they considered to be withheld from them by ' an act of injustice and of unhallowed usurpation.— , The present Bill gave concession to the Catholic, and professed to give security to the Protestant ; but no one could deny, that in that security, it would be ne cessary to guard against any intercourse with the Church of Rome. Hit should be glad to be informed how the power exercised by the Pope respecting mar riages, divorces, and other ecclesiastical matters, could be reconciled to the jurisdiction of our own Ecclesiastical Courts. The oath, he conceived, could not be safely taken, until that jurisdiction should be defined ; as otherwise, thetatholics might be called upon to do that which was inconsistent with their duty to the State. It was admitted, even by the sup porters of the Bill, that the present measure could not be conceded without that security which their Lordships were told the Roman Catholic Clergy welt unwilling to grant. It followed, as a necessary con sequence, that no substantial concession could be made to the Catholics with a due regard to our own safety, or without incurring a serious danger of the removal of those barriers of ,the Constitution which had been raised by our ancestors. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would not be induced, by ar gument however ingenious, or eloquence however powerful, to venture upon an experiment which would endanger the blessings of our invaluable Constitution. The Duke of SUSSEX was disposed at all times to meet this question in an argumentative way, and to treat it with becoming coolness; but, on the present occasion, he could not entirely suppress feel ings of a certain nature.- Ile had always considered the subject as one of great importance, and of the most vital consequence ; and he had had a due regard to those principles which had placed upon the Throne that Family of which he had the honour to be an humble Member—(Hear, hear).—ln looking at the laws which it was the object of this Bill to remove, he thought their Lordships should examine the origin of those laws, and see whether their present existence was justified by the present opinions and conduct of the Roman Catholics. He would not deny that at the time of the passing of those laws, they were to be partially justified ; but it was not to be forgotten that they were passed in moments of strong irritation. Since the passing of those laws, the situation of the country had become totally changed, and the Catho lics were now a body whose respectful Petitions, then upon their Lordships table, were deserving the most serious consideration. In proceeding very shortly to examine the arguments of the Reverend Prelate who had just sat down, he should observe in the outset, that much confusion had arisen from a misnomer of particular words. He would beg to call their Lord ships' attention to the 37th of the 39 Articles. That Article stated that his Majesty ".was entitled to the chief power, ecclesiastical as well as civil, within the realm, and that he was not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction." No Roman Catholic, he conceived, would deny this position. The Royal Duke then proceeded to state, that when he was at the University of Gottingen, he was under the tuition of a Professor who was the most celebrated Jurist in Germany, and who turned his particular attention to this question, of how far the King's authority might be suffered to go in matters spiritual. He then read the opinions of this learned Professor, delivered in Latin. They would limit the King's prerogative in matters spiritual and temporal, but denied it totally in matters of Conscience. Such, the learned Professor said, was the doctrine of the Church of England, and how much farther, the Royal Duke asked, did Roman Catholics go ? Queen Elizabeth did not assert an unqualified authority to interfere in the spirituals of the Church ; indeed, in the language of Lord Bacon, she refused to " make windows in men's hearts to look into their consciences"—(Hear.)—With respect to ecclesiastical power, he took it to be clear that no law could be promulgated in any Monarchical State without the consent of the Sovereign ; and therefore, in a Protestant country, he could see no reason for excluding individuals of any other religion from a share in the Legislation. With regard to Papal in- 1 , fluence, as far as his knowledge of history enabled him to judge, he could not admit that the Pope ever exercised authority in any State without the Sove reign's consent ; and in England, he need not remind their Lordships, that the Sovereign was not only Protestant as an individual, but that as the Kingly office was a corporate body, that Sovereign was invariably and necessarily Protestant, as connected with the Constitution itself—(Hear, hear, hear). — To consider the Power of the Pope, he was naturally led to the consideration of his Councils, through which he generally acted. These were indisper.sably com posed of the patriarchs of the church and the heads of the monastic order, otherwise the Council could 'not be viewed as a legal general Council; and yet many instances were to be found of a resistance by Sovereigns to the Decrees of Councils thus solemnly formed. To instance this fact, he would merely refer their Lordships to the rejection by Philip 11. of a Bull which had been published in favour of Mar garet of Parma. He stated this, to shew that the in terference of the Pope in the affairs of any country were ineffectual, without the consent of the Sove reign : and as all the cases of this description had occurred in Catholic countries, a . fortiori would the authority of the Pope be ineffectual in a Protestant country. The Illustrious Duke here referred to the Revolution of 1688, and the expulsion of James for endeavouring to restore the Catholic religion. His object for producing this fact was to shew, thaleven ith the assent of a Sovereign, any attempt to intro duce the Catholic religion would be attended by nothing short of the destruction of that Sovereign; and when he considered the present despicable situa tion (he used the term without meaning offence) of the Pope, he thought they had ample means to de fend themselves against dangers which were urged by many, but of the existence of which he had not been able to satisfy himself. He admitted that no Commission ought to be granted without the most perfect security of his Majesty's subjects ; but he contended their Lordships were not conceding so much as they were legislating ; and in that view they ought to look at the present question, without consi dering whether the measure might or might not be acceptable to the objects of it. The Marquis of BUCKINGHAM considered the question to be, not whether the Catholic Religion was right or wrong, but whether, that religion being such as it was, any good reason could be shewn fot ex cluding its Members from legislative power in com mon with their fellow-subjects? He observed that the opposers of this measure upon every new occasion changed their ground of opposition, and took refuge behind some new hedge of intolerance—(Hear, hear). It was not long since that a man was legally punish able for hearing Mass. It was not until the year 1773 that the Irish Parliament found out that a great num- I ber of Catholic subjects were ready to defend their country. A test was then proposed for their relief ; .but that same Parliament did not think proper to least, spiritand in had th e b egli next a *Pirliarleiyamtereun7n to pass a Bill enabling the Catholicsto os completeforninety-nine h at ear s public ; hsla'adretheiay was found necessary to pass a Bill enabling to hold leases for 999 years. In the year 1806, t h u s legislative measure passed which enabled a Catbekr hpeoelcdtat.t. ho. to fight his country's battles with a pourable advancement and yet, al though he w as awed to shed his blood, he ste w p a , s h d o eo wev i e d er: the legislation ; he was allowed to Labour in the fi e ld , but he was excluded from a participation in the har. vest—Wear, hear). Step by allowed the Catholics a portion of the privileges of the Constitution ; and the question was, whe r e s h ou l d those privileges stop as rethpgaore prescribed d tct e hrh d ieeb e(i the Catholics etbl C yloi a gl i s o n l l. i wa c ivsetß?e; Refer: would say, that they should stop at the limit of the co C in o u n dth s e t id i s t Constitution, at y a h t oe t nd h e e anc i ci i eo m du i n t t ring to the language used upon the conference b e : tweea both Houses of Parliament, when they e fi r : cussed the celebrated measure of Conformity. , coo ; ference conducted too by the ablest men of the day he found that none were legally excluded from of , e but those who had been guilty of bribery, ext i ri on , or some other crime known to the law. Such as he contended, the principle of the Constitution, Le might be asked, were all Catholics to be indiscrimi nately admitted, because they had not offended against the law ? He answered, " No, but they ought not to be excluded from any office the filling of which bra Catholic would not be dangerous to the State." H e repeated, that they had never keen excluded as Ca. tholics, but for certain specific reasons said to endaw ger the State. It rensainei, therefore, for those wis e wished the exclusion to be continued, to shew die existence of the same danger upon which the exclu sion had been originally founded. From the Re. formation downwards it would clearly appear that he was correct in asserting that they were newer excluded as Catholics. Who was it, for instance, that Elizabeth, in a moment of great danger, an pointed her Lord Warden of the Marches?—Lord Clifford, a Catholic —(h/ear, hear, hear).--Who was it she appointed her principal Officer to mist the Spanish, the Catholic Armada?—Lord Howard of Effingham, a Catholic—(Hear, hear). Nay, who was it she appointed to an office so high, that it is thought too powerful to entrust it to a subject, and which is now in commission, the office of I,t , rd High Admiral ?—The same Lord Howard of Effii:gliam —(Cheers). In the time of Charles the Second th e Catholics were excluded from power in consequence of the discovery of Titus Oates's plct, though this exclusion did not extend to Ireland; but it aas agreed that if the present measure should pass, the Catholic would creep into the Constitution and sap its vitals. (Hear, hear). Yet even in the time of Charles the Second, when the King was in his heart a Catholic, when the Queen was a Catholic, and when the Suc cessor to the Throne was avowedly a Catholic, they were not able to prevent their exclusion. Was the Church of England weaker now ?—Was its zed cooler ? or were the powers of its defenders weak ened ? James 11. attempted to establish the Catho lic religion without the sanction of Parliament; and with respect to the Penal Laws, the most severe of them were not passed until, after the peace of [Lys wick. By the Treaty of Kilkenny it was declared that no oath but the oath cf allegiance should be tendered to Irishmen, and that they should have a free Pea- Lament, composed of Catholics as well as Protest ;Mts. He considered it clear, that cloy , nto the lie- volution at least, the Catholics were not excarded upon constitutional principles. Having looked at the constitutional history of the excluding laws, be came to the oath of supremacy; and he begged to ask, how was it taken by ourselves? Originally is Scotland, Lord Cassilis and others refused to take it without an explanation of its terms. The Govern• ment said—" We will give you no explanation; ycs must take the oath, but you may make any mental reservation you please—(Hear, hear). The oath was accordingly taken; and at the present day a cer tain form was observed upon dissolving the Scottish Assembly so that it should not be admitted that the King was the Head of the Church. It had been ar gued, however, by the opposers of the Bill, that a Ca tholic was not to be believed upon his oath at all-- [The Bishop of LONDON here begged to explain. He had never asserted that a Catholic was not to be be lieved upon his oath. He had only contended, that when a Catholic took such an oath as the Oath of Supremacy, he necessarily retained a salvo, that DO. thing in that oath should conflict with his duty to his own Church.].--The Noble Marquis contended that the Reverend Prelate's construction of the oath led to the conclusion which he had drawn. lf, however, the Legislature thought Roman Catholics unworthy of credit on their oath, they ought not to hareem). pelled them to take the oath of 1797, where all the tenets of their religion were set out. For his own part, he had no objection to have an oath among the securities; but he appealed to the good sense ad feelings of the House in favour of this measure, sd he asked any Noble Lord to put his hand to hisbectr• and say that it would not pass, sooner or later—(C 6o of Hear, hear).—lf their Lordships then were vinced that sooner or later this measure should be adopted, what, he would ask their Lordships,'! the use, or what could be their object in posrPsoll it to a future and remote period? Were theils, overlook any means for securing the tranquillityd the country ? Were they to risk the tranita it i which the country at present enjoyed by the rejecct? . of this Bill? Who was there among their Lords who could pronounce with any certainty on thefts. of Europe? He would then, in GOD'S name, sr' them to give their Roman Catholic fellow-subist!' an interest in the preservation of the Constitatio and to employ them in guarding and strengthesi4 it, and not doom them to perpetual exclusion. The Bishop of CHESTER said he should givear'„ vote against the second reading of this Bill, as would against any measure for promoting Caor ascendancy, and he would very briefly state his ter sons for that vote. He thought the Catholics a.lreatil in possession of toleration. Fhe doors pels were as open as those of our own Cb _ privileges which were given to the Protestant _ the gist of the argument was the distribution of t tr od withheld from the Catholic. He disclaimed el reflection or insinuation; for he believed in nP an wr_ cese was there a greater number of Catholics th his own; and he was happy to say that a most b br ral and friendly intercourse subsisted bet cen ttlew ofudrc'helersC; boa; •