The Statesman. — London, England, 1819-05-18 00:00:00

smelters ; hut he would ask their Lordship., IMO these escellent persons who composed the Scotch church less deserving of political confidence, leas at tached to the principles of our civil Constitution, or less firm in their •Ilegiance in the King. than the eioni(iets of the Church of England ? No ; their fidelity end attachment to the Houle of Brunie ick had been conspicuous features in their character, end their loyal rnsiduct, joined to ell the other qualities mf good suhjects, hail gained them a asfe admission In all civil employments of she Slate. Here, per. 1 1p*. lie should be told, that although the Chinch of S:ritietol dial not own the King', supremacy in spiri. teal Taller!, it differed from the Church of Rome in this respect, that it acknowledged no foreign juris diction. But even this diaduction did not esist bee seven the Roman Catholics and soother sect, ' which. refusing, like them, to take the oath of supremacy, coeld not yet be excluded from the pri vileges which they were denied. He alleded to the Maturities, who acknowledged the authority of a (uo ign Bishop, and who therefore presented • case in point. The venerable Priest sitting at Ki l n, did not claim a more absolute dominion over the faith aids adherents than the Mnravian Bishop did over those who followed his system. Yet we thought of enquiring into the tenets of this met for the purpose of refusing them political privileges. The progress of knowledge had been of late attended with its inseparable associate.liberality of sentiment; it had softened religions intolerance, and introduced Christian candour instead of sectarian bigotry. Its influence em the question now before the House was evident—it had removed the antiquated prejudices of rulers and people. lie (the Bishop of N.) professed himself no advocate of indiscriminate innovation or pre cipitiite change; but he professed himself equally hostile to that obdurate obstinacy that opposed itself to any alteration of the law, however salutary, or e a. *activism-dation of our system to times and cif. cumatances, however necestary. In this changeable scene of human life, we could not with safety remain statiotiaty, end ought to learn liberality from the age it. which we lived. it was thedety of the House to let England cease from this day forward to be the only country in Europe where intolerance was eats. blisl eti by law, where religious opinions excluded from civil office, where men were obliged to 'effen di r their rights for the sake of their conscience, and where an appeal ass made against equal privileges to Statutes which had been occasioned by infernal in ventions and plots of the 1411101,1 of wickedness in a oupeist Woes age. Since that time, the Catholics had given up the abominable doctrines of which they were accused, sod on which the laws agaitilt them wine foetid/id. Would any man in his sensed now assert Ilia' they maintained the principles which at first or. casioned their exclusion from office ; end if they did rte .1, why continue the Stators that perpetuated that eat-lesion ?—( Beer !) The Bishop of PETER BOROUGH began by pro. teasing himself a blend to toleration iii its most en. larged sense, bet contended that the present (lentils's dud not concern toleration ; it related to the removal of political disability, and the eatension of civil power. It had, however, been maintained, that the exclusion of men from civil racy on account of fe. ligioes opinions was in fact intolerance, though no positive punishment was inflicted, because the refusal of advantages to the Catholics on account of their tenets, which others of • different religion possessed, operated in fact as • punishment. He was no friend to intolerasee, seder whatever name disguised, or from whatever quarter it came; end he was not one of those who would agree to charge upon the Catho lics opinions which they had discarded, as a ground for refiesisie them the privileges which they claimed. (to no such discarded principles did be now argue.— Ile would not 'moose the Claims of the Petitioners because they maintained certain abitrect doctrine, that differed from the Creed of the Church of Eng land, but Lecsome these doctrines, abstract in them seises, and therefore not coming witliiii the scope of civil regulation, were connected with others of a dif ferent description, which, in his opinion, effected those who held them in their qualification for political power. A man might, for itistsoce, bold the doctrine of (consubstantiation, and still, as a good subject, be entitled In political power ; bat if, in addition to the doctrine of transehstantiation, he likewise be. Roved that any foreign Prince, Potentate, or Pre late, could claim or ought to exercise any oaths sity, spititeal or temporal, within this realm, be did not think him equally entitled to political privi lege es a mats who abjured this latter doctrine. Now, where the allegiance which those who professed dif ferent religious systems were enabled to swear was unequal, their claim to privilege ought in his mind to he unequal, and the advantage ought to be to favour of the members of the Church of Eng land who tootle no reservation in their oath of ally. glance. Nur could the Petitioners get quit of this objection by distinguishing between allegiance in Irs porel and apiiiieal matter.. There were memberless eases in which they could not be separated. But in considering the claims of the Petitioners to civil power, it become the liovoe to view them in reference In the Established Church. Ail that they now demanded was admission to civil authority ; hut if that were granted, would they step there ? When, , as adherents of the church, they attained political in fluence, mast they not be disposed to employ it for the oil silent of their religious spur ? Most not their inclination to exert their power for the es tension of their faith increase, as in other similar ca e c a, with their facilities of exercising it ? Would not their possession of civil privilege authorise a hope of spiritual dominion, and encenrage attempts to at. Lain it ? The Court of Rome haul not changed its temper and love of power so much es some Noble Lot& bad declined. The eider of the Jesuits which had been restated had net I eon restored in vain.— Nur were the Roman Catholic clergy barkwsrd to support their church, or negligee( to extend its power. They had tint only the common motives of z eal which belonged to other religious sects, but they ...roe impelled by en oath In rarest themselves for gaining an ascendancy. This oath sworn not only Lys Bishops and Dignitaries of the church, bet by revery Priest. The mewls' words of this oath were —" Sanctum relieionem Catholics.' Rotuma erre .10, et sanctum mitosis°, Romatsam Gaoling% ma !ie.., et duraitism (minium ercliAlerum egnosco."— This showed that they considered their church as the .i•• he of all cl.tutl.r; : inchilpg of COVISC the Tim STATNSMAN; Church of Eogtand.—(/leer,hear:)—lndeed, was one Member of the E.tablithed Church of .this realm (the Church of [friend), that could sot be of very long duration, if the civil privileges now claimed by the Catholics of Ireland wire conceded. What would become of the Protestant establishment with Catholic civil fenctionarie , what would become of • Protestant Government with Catholic counsellors 1— The Prelate enecleded by Caressing a hope, that vote of their Lordships that night would show lbo dangers which they apprehended from the dtem•sdl of the Catholic body. The Ea►l of IIOSEBERRY, in a maiden speech, supported the motion. bad attest a lawyer, and one of elevated rank ton, Indeed recopying a seat at that moment within thole wally, oboes professionally casaistical habits bail, he regretted, warped his mind and narrowed hit tipsy% upon some sehjvcts of general policy. Others he had known, and of whom be could speak with pleats'', whose legal attainments added solidity and weight in the general acquirements which constituted the scholar and the statesman. Such had beets that eminent and 'salient man whose loss all matt de plore, who could recollect, with him, the profound. nets of his legal research, and the amiable disposi- Hon of • mind min notions to apply, with healing influence, a remedy In the seictio•s and wrongs of his Lord DE DON STA NVI LLE opposed the mo. I fellow-orMures. He waa usi • Olin tenter into a pro. lion in a speech of which, from the crowd and noise fessional contest with so abl tagonistastbeNable behind the bar, we could roily catch a few sentences. Lord, but when the subject to be discussed happen. The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the mo. ed to be connected with legal topics, he should not lion. If the Noble Earl who brought it forward, In relinquish, on that account, his post, bat using the , place of objecting to the oath of supremacy, told i I best lights he had on the abject, support to the tat them what other oaths he meant to proposal's,' substi. I most the side en which be Imagined jostle, lay. If tete, to reconcile the minds of Protestants to the the views of the Noble Lord were well founded, he measure, this would have been better. It would be I conceived there must be an end of she question alto. desirable that the Noble Earl had stated what he e ther ; namely, that by the tier•vssre construction I meant to propose in the Committee, if their Lord• of a Protestant Constitution, the fotrodection of our ships should agree to it. Th o ugh as warm • friend I Catholic fellow-subjects into the bosom of the State of religious toleration as any matt, be must declare I was sot only inespedient, but inadmissible is Ou tbid, es a lawyer, be did not know by what form of : eiple. It would be necessary for the Noble Lord to oath the Protestants could be satisfied, or how the I define what he meant by a Constitution mended, doctrineof the 'Tidiest supremacy of the Popel Protestant. It would be also necessary to show could be reconciled with the King's supremacy.— what was the tendency of any proposed alters. What hope was there that, consistently with the don in the State, or how far it might militate Constitution, the two could be reconciled in a Com. sgainst the Constitution. Upon this view of the mitts... If Roam Catholics in 1660. in 1668, and question, he was prepared to combat the positions down to the present time, did not admit the tenets at.: and arguments of the Noble Lord. Ile should tributed to them or to their Church, the GovernmetO groot.diat bytheßenlation our Constitution had been of this cooniry was guilty of a most scandalous de. I rendered fundamentally and essentially Protestant ; minion. If they looked to what was the opinion of in ibis way, that was to say, It had been provided by Parliament in the time of Charles 11. to what rased I law, with a view to secure per religion from Catholic in 1688, when a compact was entered into between influence, and finally being overwhelmed, thereby the People and the Throne, that the Church should that nor Monarch should be a professor of the este. be Protestant and the Crown Protestant, they would blishrd religion. So said the Bill of Rights and the find that the known and acknowledged Mums of the Act of Settlement. As adjuncts to these principal Catholics were the WOliar'S for the measures then pass. bulwarks or securities, others which might be dents. ed. It was an argnmeot commonly employed eau minuted collateral had been added at different times; occasions like this, that men should be perfectly free some previously, others subsequently to the period of in their religions opinions, and that it was intolerant the passing these Acts. The most of these arose' to visit them fur mach opinions with civil disqualifies. oat of circumstances very peculiar, and open Do does. Ile was no friend to persecution or into. casinos in which it was impossible the country letance, bat a Legislator should not forget that could ever feel itself again placed. The Noble religious opinions had political effects, and that FAO thee proceeded to take a review of the sem. places of trust were such as none mild fairly rat Acts of Parliament passed against the Who. claim, eacept upon the conditions *bids the Le. lice, commencing with the Corporatios Oath, in the /Waters judged necessary for the safety of the early part of the reign of Charlie 11. which was fol. State. On these principles it was settled that none lowed by the Test Act, eleved particularly against but a Protestant should fill the Throne. It was the Doke of York, the occasion for which therefore judged a necessary part of the system, that be was no longer ' , listed. Nest followed the Act of the cot to be 'emended by Roman Catholic', in his 30th of Charles 11. which excluded Catholics from Council, in Parliament, in places of high tress, civil seats in Parliament. But this Act, *Mob had been as writ as military. This was natural. What ono- called by the Noble and Loomed Lord a .i.e end city could there be for a Protestant Crown ender any deliberate , arose, as was now acknowloilgod, other circumstances ? To this it might be answered, oat of the heats sod ferments oecosioned by l'i.os that Roman Catholics sat in Parliament previous to Oats's plot. Neat, in the reign of George I was the lime of Charles 11. True; hot them they were passed the Act prohibiting Catholics from voting fee to consider what was done its 1688, as well as by the Members of Parliament ; bat at this time the Pro. Act of Union with Scotland, by which the Celestite. distant S ion trembled, and the country was lion in Church and State, as it then stood, wasps. fell of Cathodes, anions to restore the elided family. ranteed. Were they now to glee up a system, to Now that family was wholly extinct ; and he would bring into danger a Constitution under which every ask of the Noble Lord, did he really believe that religious sect enjoyed more liberty of conscience than if every one of these laws were repealed, there was ever known doubt in any former period of their would be any fear of the Protestant Establishment history down to Charles II.? Were they to give being endangered, or of the inn of she Prince op all those rests established for the security of the neat Heir to the Throne being iiiterrepted? lie Church and State? After each a proposal as this, be mentioned the origin of these laws, to show that the should be surprised at nothing. The discovery of a motives for them no longer elided, and therefore North-west passage, or ally other event equally im. that they might and eight to be repealed. Ile would probable, could not surprise him more, than to hear it ask the Noble Lord, who bad declared be bed read said that Roman Catholics and others were 'delis's. and deeply considered Mr. Locke's Letters, which We to Parliamerst i as well as to places of the most ie. declared, that sot only was the Catholic Religion portant trust, without taking any oaths at all. He one not to be tolerated, but that it was a crime to could only ay, that if there was one such present be punished. The Noble and Learned Lord had de in the House, be (the Lord Chancellor) would elided he did not go that length with Mr. Locke. deserve to be impeached if he took his vote that 'deb'. —lle wished to ask the Noble sod Learned Lord The Learned Lord then proceeded to cite opinions no if he aimed with Mr. Locke, that the Catholics the subject of the King's supremacy, as being irre. held no faith with heretics ; that they considered concilable with spiritual allegiance to the Pope ; and Sovereigns escommenitated by the Pope es bevies said, that he felt it his duty, holding the situation forfeited their crowns, and so no longer having which he dW,and the high trust of a Privy Councillor, a claim to the allegiance of their subjects. The to declare, that, friendly as he was to toleration, he Noble •nd Learned Lord said, he did not iss. could agree to it only so far se would pre‘ervi• un- puce so much as this in the Catholics, yet he did not touched the supremacy of the King, both in Church consider the Catholic disclaimer of these tenets as full and State. Lord Hartle icke, on one occasion, declared, enough. What faller disclaimer would she Noble in the !louse of Lords, that lint only ought the forms, and leaned Lord have beyond that given icy the bat, as far as possible, the principles of the Protest. Catholics in the oath they were ready to take, and ant Religion to be preserved ; that the Protestant that contained in the declaration of their Cniversi. Religion was the Constitution. With this opinion of Lord Hardwick', ed most satisfactory. On the whole, be considered in addition to that of other learned and eminest men, that the laws passed to exclude Catholics. having ion and having repeatedly sworn in that House not to outlived the circumstances in which they had their recognise any foreign influence, how could he or any origin, they ought to be repealed, es a step towards Noble Loud come to a vote which was to give the which the motion of his Noble Friend should Popo an influence in this country ? It was argued be adopted. The Noble Lord then referred to the that the Pope, if he had any jerisdictioo, could times of the Edwards, previous to the Reformation, only have an ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Now for instances to prove that the subjects, though pre. on the subject of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, there fessiug spiritual allegiance to the Pope, never failed Was an old man, who hail sometimes been called to obey the civil mandate of their S ign. That a good lawyer, one Lord Coke, who esplaining this one of our Edwards bad even declared himself ready law one day to the Lord Bishop of Norwich, told to wags war with the Pope; a plain proof he bad no the Learned Prelate distinctly that the Bishops hod apprehensions on the score of his subjects' allegiance. no ecclesiastical jurisdiction but what was given them Se in the reign of Eliabeth, when that Sovereign by the Statute or Common Law; and be, following was opposed to Philip of Spain, the moat powerful that great lawyer, now declared, as a statesman end I Catholic Sovereign of the day, and all the than. e lawyer, that there was no ecclesiastical jurisdiction dens of the Papal Throne, her Catholic subjects re. eacept that described by Lord Coke; and as is Pro- omitted loyally and faithfully attached to her. The testant Peer, sitting in a Protestant House of Par. articles of the Union with Ireland, it was true, dement, under a Protestant King, he could not con. Iprovided for tho preservation of the religion which sent to the adoption of a measure which was to have was established in the State, but they did not con dor effect of introdocting a foreign ecclesiastical ju. tain one word to prevent the removal of the disabili. 'Wittier,. which no oath could restrain from 'spend. ties which affect the Catholics. Instead of repress ing against the Protestant Establishment, His 0116 lag any objection to such a measure, a contrary in. inilividoal vale was of little consequence ; but he • terpretation had very strong grounds for being imp. felt his it duty to declare that lie never would base I pelted. Ilia Majesty's Ministers, who dr e w si , persevered in the line of conduct he had done, unless I these articles, foresaw the necessity which would a l i a s he had conscientinsly felt that Ise should not do his of an investigation of them disabilities a. well a s o f duty to his Sovereign, or to the People over whom ; their removal.—( /leer, hear !) No doubt could be he was to reign as a Protestant Sovereign, or to the: notertained that if the Irish Parlivment hail conti. Constitution of the land, if he dud not oppose the I need, that the Catholics would have been restored to ! the freedom which they had formerly possessed. The motion proposed by the Noble Lord this n . ght. Eat! GREY said, he was mot one of those 4th article of the Unioi. stipelaisil that certain ma ybes', missile seemed to be much dreaded by the Winne should continue in force until Parliament :'!oble and Loomed Lord, nor hail be ever entertain. ithould otherwise provide. So far, therefore, from ed for a moment the idea described as a truism, that its being a fundamental principle in the ertir:es of all lawyers wet, bad politicians. Ile mush disavow IL, Union with Ireland, tie spirit of policy which a censure so 'Hahnel sod unmerited by so enlielitenvil dictated that measure toted it necessary to look for. and numerous a class of soci•ty ; but he thought he ward to tba grant of civil lihrt 11. It bad been said, • 1111 1 - •• J A OM power I for all other to t hod n le thy► or all .. gram . in theft.— The Noble Lord, es well as the foamed Pie •11.• teeeed to suppose tI-at all the officers in the arose and in the nave, a, well as all the peuinsis 1101'16, 4 ntbres ender the Government would he of that persioasion, es if his Majesty were immetli.teli to sidled. all his p ro . ',stint subjects, end select no other for hese /Pei* lions. The Catholics as on!d then .aril all his other *objects in abilities and ie pet severance, and the Kiug would then choose only those mm0'14,011.4 by say representation of Parliaateut. Ile would maintain that eligibility to offices of treat, when such was not injurious of detrimental to the welfare ..f the general body was, • civil right; and be therefore agreed with the Noble end Limited Prelate, in thinking that to deprive soy class of subjects of that privilege, was a great and flagrant injury. Ti. safety of the country could be schlecud as a sufficient °Nevi sit against the possession of this right. Bet to lb. Ca tholics, power bad been already fivers. its the right of election, in the Army aid Navy, sad of proctoring for themselves lucrative eitylopoeut et the Bar. Was it good policy at the present time to embody them in a separate class ? The motion of his Noble Friend proposed nothing Insl or decisire,sud hese+ nething which could pre vent their Lordships from going into the Committee to iuvestigete the subject. The Noble Earl who set on the opposite bench, bad always opposed lb. me.. Lion on firmer occasions, but his opposition was founded on principle end tempered with moderation and liberality. The Noble Earl had not imputed any immoral or improper rie•• to the Catholic Pentiooers, and if be recollected aright the urges/mots of the Noble East on the preceding discussions, his own sition to the motion was not feended Da dos grossed of the Catholics believing in transebstantiation, or in the itivocetien, or in the sacrifice of the mass. Tan eyelets of reclusion was not defesded for these remits : the Greek end !Leiden Chemises be lieved the same; end were the adopters of their doctrines to be minded also, in case any of the inhabitants of this country should embrace them ? it the system of esclesion was not necesaary I{lllllSt them, why was the declaration to be continued ? Before he would conclude, he bogged permission to visite an observation relative to what be had heard from a Noble Lord, who bed quoted same opinion of D-. Milner's, es opposed to granting say relief to the Catholic Boiy. 11. protested against any 'tech opinion tieing considered as that of the general Body. It was, he suggested, in 1813 &measure °di es, to the Catholic Body, which was afterwatde proved to be that of a vindictive spirit. Dr. Milner, he had authority for saying it, was so longer the amt of the Irish Bishops. This result was evident frees the events in 1810 end in 1813. Of the es. premise, of disappointed ambition or of irritation of one individual, no stoplight to he made against the demands of • whole class of subjects. lie conjured their Lordships to look around en the equals and rival. of Greet Britain, en the United States of America, and on Fiance The United States, with an lammed navy, with multiplied ',sources, and with redoubled strength,was threatening the Colonies of Greet Britain. The preset, therefore, weeds, time to conciliate the subjects of this kingdom. The sites deo of Irs anal ought also to be taken into coesiderao lion le possessioui of • new Constitei ion, the energy of which resembles that of this country, France was now needy relieved from debt, and her strength, her vigour were improved. The feelings of France mid of America towards England wets those of jealousy end revenge, which they would hereafter feel delight in indulging. Ought not, therefore, great end to be made for the lidation of the interests of the subjects of Great Britain, oppressed as she was with a load of lases, with a circulating medium re sembling that which passed in France whew on the eve, as it sae said, of bankritptry ? These were the dangers which now surrounded Great Britain, and it could be called little less than madness, not at least to labour to snit. all her children together...-. ' The morbid state of Ireland had been cussed by the long continued system of misgovernment practised in that county', and it, therefore, became the dell se the Legislature to end, to tooth those of the if that country, who bed been either neg lected or orpressed, that united in heart end mind the sehjerts of this kingdom might be prepared to meet danger when it should he assailed. The 1.611 D Cll A NO:LI-Olt ezpleined. _ _ The Earl of LIVERPOOL, oheened, that it wet evident that the Catholics now claimed free edmissiew into all altos of State sod trust, in the same degree that the Protestants enjoyed these privileges. If any subordinate plat of coricessien, if any aperete aid specific remedy for any particular gravest*, bad been breeght forward, it might become the Ilene to entertain the diecessies ; bet whew it was asked to concede every 'blue, to grant all privileges of what soever name, to the Catholics, be did treat that the (louse would net suffer itself to be &leded by any argameota, to eater upon ay 'ovary w encenstia. banal. The Catholics, it was true, wore eatleded from Parliament mid from cereals elms of trust and ; yet it nest be recollected, that when is 1813 a Bill for their relief had been brought isle the other flossy, and an Honourable Paton, now a Member of their Lordships' llease (Lord ester,, had proposed a clause making them g fly eligible terrific', with some few exceptions, the lkli was imme diately withdrawn; and by whom? Be the triads of the Catholics themselves.—llleer I—Was1 —Was he not therefore justified in saying, that their greet object most be something different than the mere attainment of those few siteations from which they were at present 'attested ? Ile agreed entirely with those who had argued that the gosernmesit was lab stantially Protestant, that it was so it/unmated hi the Act of Settlement, anti that many statutes. both before sod after the Revolution, were espressly founded on the principle of tarledtne rapists. The governing principle at the Revolution was s c'4l - of Church and Stale. The reunify had at that time the vaperiento of two great C 011,01, 1401 5; one in which the Puritans hail evertorned et nets the Monarchy end the Church ; It a other at a salsa quest period, where the Moan rch hail stalest abs versed the (Auto., and completely harried hie Out Throne, by means of the doctrines and practice 4 Popery. Our anteaters had wirtly adopted tM principle. that the cnnee‘ion of a Chuiol "i'd 8 31er^rthy eat absolutely e;•,e,:i.! to 1N