The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — London, England, 1819-05-04 00:00:00

r~ and, in some parts of Europe, the revival of the I Inquisition ! These, he it remembered, are • the argiimeuts urged, not against individuals, but age list the whole body of the Roman Catholics. If such r,taiemeots werr received as evidence, the Ji.dge who suffered them t eo to thr Jury ought to be impeached—and the Jury who act ed on them would deverve to he attended. Suppose, no the other hand, Comore% on the pint of the Defendant to offer, in evidence, the oaths which. tit your requst, the Roman Catholin now tuke—the answer or six Universities (the best au thorities that ran lie oolduced), acquitting them of all the offences with which they have been chareed—the lists of the killed and wounded, who hive &red in t h e g eneral emo te—the thanks of Parhament to the Roman Catlinlics—(that is, to those regiments which were principally comptheil •or persons of that persuasion)—on recount of the courage they had displayed, and the many victo. sirs they had schteved. What answer would he made to such testimony as this? Rut, suppose the Counsel who supported the objection called the at •trotion of the Court to the nomination of Bishops h} the Pope. This. it would he observed, was the only point. with respect to the Catholics, on which the Court bid a right to inquire—the only matter to the consideration of which the jurisdiction of the Conn extended. But, if the Defendant's 'Counsel produced the letter of ('ordinal Lilts, and stated, that, in refusing the offer which it (rotitained, those who did so, alike refused the security of the subject, and the establishing mole - firmly the liberties of the Constitution—the Judge would then say, ' It is iiiii ereessary to trouble the Jury. beraise sio case has been made out on the other side.' Here then, I would state (not ques tioning, in any degree. the power of Parliament to disqualify—not advancing. on the part tif the C.itholics. any chimerical or fantastic claim)—first, that • the Roman Catholic had, at least till you took it away, a common law right of eligibility—second, that you, the Parliament, had no right whatever, in justice, in cell on him to abjure his religion— third, that Popery. or more properly speaking it not evidence either of , perfidy or vermin—and lastly, that you continue to disqualify hem fer the things which be has abjured. and call nu lion to abjure that which does not come.within the reach of human jurisiliction.—( Hear, hear.) — To sum up all, that, in thus proceeding, we do that for the performance of which • Judge would be impeached. sad a Jury would be attainted.— Hear. hear.)—We deprive the Roman Catholic, on eccomest of his tenets. of the. common low right of eligibilitp—and we thereby shake the foundation of our own faith, and disobey the dictates of natural and of revealed religion.—(l ewe. Acar.)—When we maintain that the Roman Catholic religion is incapable of feeling the emend obligation of an oath, when we declare that it is hostile to the duty of allegiance. we assert that the Roman Catholic reli g iiiii is pot do ins. Saying that, we argue, that Christianity hat not made its way new France, iy, Spam, Portugal, rind a great part of lierinany. Tilts is *nut wr say. Are we aware of the effect of such .in nseerlion ? Do we not thereby express our belief 'hut the Christian religiou has not advanc ed ? And, by on stetiog, do we not positit- ly des ps ire it of one great proof of its divine oature ? for., Liar, hear.)—D. we not say, that the Pope has litt.ll SllCCeb`rus in introducing a re liginit of lii• own—not nee Christian religion— that a mto has co n q u ered the A mighty—except where a :VW perstnis preserved themselves against the torte of his authority ? The philosopher, or the Deist, or the Atheist, hears tin., and approves of the doctrine ; and, instead of stopping short at this phut, we shall Fresetitly see where it lesds to. Ve now come to a propositioe, which I totally dissent front—a proposition which 1 recite with a degree of horror—namely. that the result of re laxation has been to produce disaffection, dis loyalty, and perfidy, amongst the Catholics. We must. therefore. either give up our argument, or abandon our religion. The fact is,' we have contended v ith one another with such an ar dent zeal, that, in the contest, we have for gotten the Gospel. In the conflict, we have forgotten .the Godhead, and substituted, in his place. a sort of negative religion—a religion which teaches us to hste a Papist—and which, at the same moment, obliterates from our remembrance the Sitviour and the Gospel. It is the tiaturtil end of such controversies, that, when men violently enlaced on religious smitten—when they suffer themselvre to be hurried away by their passions, in eliscas•ing • religious question—they forget the greatest authority of all, and merely think of their sintegorrist—of the person who is opposed to them ! I have said. that. by continuing In this course, we have shaken, in some degree, the strength of our own religion--and certainly we do very much neglect, or entirely disobey, the prime order of rotund and of revealed religion. The prime order of natural religion is the love of our f e llow-creatures. You caimot serve God otherwise than by cherishing this principle. Adoration is not sufficient ! Prayer not sufficient ! You can only serve God by lov ing one asiother—.by assisting, with our best powers, to assimilate every part of his divine system ! The Gospel is the same amongst all descriptions of •Christiasis. The great Redeemer came to enforce mid propagate amongst the human race that heaven ly principle, the love of each other. He came, the advocate of two great principles—the love of God, and die love of man—supported by miracles, sup ported by policy, supported by the trauscendant ex cellence of tier Christian Religion. We, instead of cherishing both these principles, reject tins letter und stigmatise our fellow-creature as an idolater, is a perfidious being, unworthy of credit or regard. Accordingly as we reject the claims of our fellow creature, by perpetuating his disqualification. and pronounce to the greater part of Europe that his irligion is his crime, we cast a shade on our own generation ; unless the tenets of the Gospel are to be outfitted to one sect—unless public blessings, ilia blessiegs of the Constitution. are to be consi dered, not as meant for the general good, but as merely intended to be dealt oist in the manner of alms and chanty. when caprice unctions the boon— sinker these two ponds can he preved, the disqualifi cation of the ROOM Catholics is indefensible. When the country was Omitted in atonal war, we were told, that. as • matter of necessity, the subject could riot be prudently Entertained. Two great points. one, the blessing. of the Constitinton—the other, the duty which the Gospel (+Med, were evaded on that account. The war is now over—pa:lee pre vails in every quarter—and the question is, shall these blessings be suspended for ever? Will you, in deflatiee of justice, suspend, first, the blessings of the Constitution--atal next, the duties which the Gospel has exacted ? I know the system is founded oil a charge against the moodily of the Romeo Catholics—but I also know that it is a charge which you do not believe.—(lletse, hear.) — Yon slid nal believe it in 1797, when by Act of Parliament you declared the Roman Catholics good and faithful subjects—you did not believe it, when you conceded to them the right of voting— you did not believe it, when, two years ago, you enabled them to bold cosniiiissions in the misty and army, sod rendered them capable of cominsoiling in both—you did tint believe it, when you --esta blished the Pope in Italy.—(//ear.)—Yout did so— you who refloat. to nuke off those disqualifications! The Papal See was restored by the Protestant Power ! You carried the Pope on your back—you viewed him pro-trate on the earth, yon lifted him up, rind made him a substantive power! You declared. for avail, that the Pope could control the sillegiance of your fellow-subjects, but you found him poor and impotent, unable to contend with "sly power, strapped to the war-horse of a great Captain, who, for his own purposes. violated that religion which he afterwards affected to support. You found it necessary to restore him to power—and you, a Protestant State, effected that subject. Did you, then, restore the Pope abroad, in order to op press and punish Roman Catholics at home ? (Hero, hcar.)—You saw, when you acted thus, that danger was not to he apprehended from that quarter. You saw that Christianity, of any de scriptime was comparative safety, and t h at 'Ade lity, of any description, was incomparably danger ous. You did not believe your own argument. when you assisted the Pope—you did not believe your own aro r' annent, when yon helped to restore the B our b on . You trotibltd, with all your strength, that nation which ,hide Catholicism formidable, and by that means imparted a new vigour to the Popish re ligion. You paw that the power of the Pope, abroad, did not supply the place of the living God—you saw, at home, that Popery might be put slow'', but that Protestantism would not spring up in its room —you saw that the Roman Catholic Church was not idolatrous, nor, what it had long been repre sented, dangerous—and you felt, ut all events, that it was better than a rueful philosophy ! You saw that Christianity, with seven sacraments, was pre ferable to a negati tttt of all religion. Wur has ceased, and the principles and the dreams of the philoso pher are at all end. You saw you seized the opportunity for the revival of religion. Of what religion ? The religion of the Petitioners. For what reason ? Not because it was a false, but because it was a faithful religion. In so doing, you made that which is of inestimable importance —you made a political coliformity in Europe, on the score of religion. Accordingly you find dif ferent Princes, Protestant and Catholic. united for one common purpose. By what means ? By a Christian confederacy. In e- ler to do what ? To sustain a common religion. You said. Give the Catholics abroad the full exercise of their faith—let them possess all political rights and immunities — let tie raise, and support, amid new-create the Pa pists in Italy—but let us disqualify, and degrade, and oppress the Catholics at home !' But, in do 'Mg this, what do you really effect? You do the very thing you have been deprecating. Ynu de clare to the great mass of mankind, that religion is a mere artifice—very convenient for the power of a King—hut only useful, in respect to the subject, as an eugiue by which he may lie oppressed, and by which Isis natural rights may he diminished ! Now I will contend, that when you establish a poli tical conformity in Europe, you create the neces sity of admitting a common law eligibility here. Otherwise the whole proceeding is an artifice, totally unworthy mil credit amongst sensible men. and may .wised us a coercive means of establisliiug and upholding a particular portion of power. If you restore the Roman Catholics to their rights, those who oppose them say they will overturn the Constitution. That is to assert, that the Roman Catholic clergy will attempt, when the laity begin to exercise their new power, to incisive them, at the hazard of their lives, or rather with a certainty of the loss of life, to destroy the State, with a view to restore or to establish the domination of their church. This idea is founded on a principle wholly and fundamentally false. It supposes that a man will run all hazards, no matter how dread ful, in order to establish the domination of his church—it supposes a violent natural affection for a certain set of principles—it supposes that he is abeolutely born in love with a particular doctrine. The argument is carried farther ; so for as this— that lie will feel the passion for u particular religion operating more strongly in his breast than any miter sentiment-1W he will prefer and cherish the hope of exalting the power of his church before all other principles. In ether words, it is saying, that that man is born a fanatic—it is asserting that lid is created mad.--(//ear, hear.)—But dues it follow that the clergy could succeed, if they were so in clined, in producing such a convulsion ? The Deity had descended on earth and revealed himself to' us, with the Gospel in his hand. That Gospel contains principles slid orders of the en blimest tuo rality—principles and orders cslctilatril to remove the evils which some individuals apprehend. The Gospel, which we so much prize, is the Gospel of the Roman Catholics—the God whom we adore is also their God; and the argument is, that the Catholics will, by the force of nature, alone, rise against their King, rise against their God, rise against their Gospel ! That they will rebel with their clergy, iii a cause ha which they may expect to be !unwed its this world, and damned tii the next! —(/tear.)—Let us suppose, for instance, that Dr. Poynter, a must excellent and pious man— ever studious for the moral and religious instruction of hie flock, becomes a traitor whirl' he is intrusted with political power. I•et suppose, that, in coo formity with the ulisuril idea which I have just de scribed. !Ilia Reverend Prelate goes to the Duke of Norfolk (who, on being placed in the possession of those privileges which lie claims, becomes it trai tor al u), and says, Now you are invested with po litical power, I suppose you will natio-01y. us a matter of course, subvert the Goveriiiiient.'— (Thar, and laugher.)-111 other words, it wall Slaying ' Your Grace, I have no doubt, will cheer fully lose your head, iu older to make me ••'.. . Bishop of London !'—(lfear, hear, and laugh ter. I—And, in miler to prevent the one from tasking, and the oilier from mcceiliog to such prooosition, you think it nereasery to pass all Act of Parliament—mill that Aet of Parliensent gars to the disfranchisement of the Nohle 1)111:e'ri whole race. The ductrilie to which I have allotted, sup poses tied kindness poisons mid irritates the maids of the Roman Catholics, hot that injury :tad Op pression conciliate them. It supposes that in them the ordinary feelings of haunter torture are reversed —that they hug their chains with delight, but would indignantly rebel against benefits and pri vileges. It supposes that the Catholic looks for death, that he will fawn on death, when admi nistered by the hands of the common hang man. The argument at last arrived at that monstrous proposition, when en attempt was merle to justify a series of pains and penalties, inflicted solely on account of the exercise of re ligion. 'rhos Christianity, instead of present ing au interchange of good work', become a state of intolerant ferocity. It is net now a dispute about church or no church—about I)eiiy or no Deity; hut, though this is the fact, I will maintain, that, if you attack the Catholic religion, you, at the seine time, attack your own ! IVlieli you attack Dr. Poynter, you, that moment, assail the Arch bishop of Canterbury. If that religion be destroy ed, it will let loose on Europe the deluge of ifili• delity—and it will he ill vain for those who have raised the storm, to go forth in their little hark', and rebuke the overwhelming torrent which will bear down in its course all religion and all morality. In vain will they say, when the mischief has been effected, We only intended to beat down the. Ca tholics—to deprive them of certain iiiibtical rights; we had no idea of encouraging But you will be answered by those who now mark your proceedings- 6 11'e do not credit your assertions— you swore that the religion of Etirtrire was a hum bug—you all but used that Coaliat word—you asserted that the Ittmein Catholic, of Eli :1 1100 were so abominable a sect, that, of they were treated like their fellow-subjects, they woutla ()eel biro the Go vernment—slid you swore so hard, and argued so well, that you compered your own reltviour and our priestitood!—(hear, lieur.)—When you pleased, when it served your purpose, you resorted to inertia tion, with respect to Catholic Powers—hut, when Your own fellow-subjects culled for atieedirm, you treated them with negligence.' Is there, then, that essential difference between the two religious, which demands that those who professthe one. should visit these who maintain the other with such severe penalties ? Your own sacrifice, though it does slot gu so far as transubitantiation, proceeds greatly beyond commemoration. If the religion of Eti rope be totally false, it is not very clear that your own can be perfectly t rue.—( Hear, hear.)--- If the Roman Catholic clergy are so abominable, it is impossible that your own clergy can he en tirely pure, at least so pure es to deserve all the emoluments they receive ! Considering these polio', the Deist and the Atheist will demise your clergy, on a principle of disbelief in their doctrines— and others will dislike them equally, on a prin ciple of hostility. Ido not say, that the feel ings of the clergy leans to those acts which are likely to produce such a result—but this I will soy, that, if you let loose the power of defamation, against the great body of the clergy of Europe, you shake the character of your own, and with it you assail the best interests of religion itself. 1 wish to avoid every thing that may seem disrespectful to the clergy of our ono establishment. As I never will consent to heap insult on the clergy of other Coun tries, I would be the last Mall to otter it to those of our own church. I lament their opposition to the claims of their Catholic fellow-subjects sill eerily. I lament it the inure, because I respect them--esid because the church is not the institu tion which I wish to oft bike so active a part on a question of this nature. I heard reed, with eini. cern. certain Petitions offered by the clergy. its which, as 1 think, a number of false alarms were conjured up—but, while I say this, I must observe, that I feel a high respect for the clergy of my own country—end, 1 believe, they in general feel a strong disposition to concur in every thing that is kind and benevolent, short of the granting of title question. I love the mild government of the church of Eng land—it is a holy institution—it tolerates uo es. • elusive -right—it con:bine* together the majesty of God with the religion of man. But.my affections are not so blindly fixed upon it, but that 1 can feel veneration for the worsh i p that preceded it. I like the modest pastor—l like the erclital toof—.l like. the venerable cathedral—l admire the pealing so. them-1 love to hear the human voice employed in offices of devotion—these advent iti iiii s circumstances give a soul, as it were, to piety, and enlist the senses till the side of salvation !—(fleue, heor.)—Tolent tion has ever been the distinguishing mark of truly noble mind. The a isest, the most penetrat ing. and, perhaps, the greatest genius that ever lived. I Mean the immortal Newlin', him I find a Christian, trial a perfectly tolerant one. Ile, also, who, inure than any mini that ever lived, un derstood the ramifications of the lannen mind, end could trice it most accurately through all its workings—the great Locke—he ulso was Christian mid must tolerant. These great men gave one glance at the works of God, awl that was sufficient to imbue their mind with feelings of unbounded philasithropy.—(Hear, hear.)—tired ea I have been in the doctrines of the Church of England, I feel no ambition to destroy other churches—and I call on those who may have a dif ferent feeling not to attempt the conquest of o parti cular rrlig , when, at the moment their object it attained, they will destroy a great principle 01 right. 1 would riiihrr, with n View to rational human prosperity, tolerate all teligtons—give to them ihr same protectiori, in every respect—aid pay a due and proper reveresice to all. 'Die severity and mansion)/ of the contest have, I hope, ceased— mid our own good sense, the initural leelnigs of kinduese which we possess, and, Ocoee all, the divine spirit of our rehe.un, moat produce that desirable conformity which would establish a unity of action throughout the empire, though not exactly a unity of creed. It has been observed of lair, that we en cottruge the growth of claims by fresh (In t erleaf-iris ; the is to say, if the Homan Cathol.cs wormer those civil lirlvelegrO, they will instal 011 it chin In the Protretunt church ; or, in other word-, if you make a Roman Catholic a Member of Parliament. lie will latltt, ou becontiog a Mott -quilt *Moister—or "*. . lie most have an establishment of his own. Tina iv not the r,t , e. We, the Protestantr. wished to give hiivan establivtintent, but the Catholics reftised the boon. The Protestant says. It is better your clergyman should !procure his livelihood under the law'—but the Catholic rejoins —• No, I am afraid that he will soon. its tlint case. get his living under the Minister.' Instead of raisin` their clergy to an a•cetsdanry. they were desirous of leaving them dependant on the people. It is not, therefore, cnr iect to say, that the views of the Catholic laity, with respect to their clergy, are of an ambitious na ture, when they are 511X1004 that they chould still he dependant on their bounty. But the Catho- Isc Claims do not originate in the unreasonable ness of the Catholic body ; they grew origi nally ont of the laws winch were enacted against them, and they increased as a reformation of those laas took place. On the breaking out of the French Revolution, when the power of the Ca tholic church was put down—whets France ceased to be the'cliampion of Popery—a repeal of several of those obnoxious laws took place—and, when you had not in England a political conformity, it was not extraordinary that the policy and propriety of such it measure should suggest itself. It is not, I say, the unreasonableness of the Ca tholics that called for fresh concessions—but the evident ceasing of those causes which occasioned the enacting of the pains and penalties of which they complained. But, instead of recollecting that those causes belonged to a particidar time, you have affixed them as propositions inseparable fr. the Roman Catholic hody.—(l/ear, hear.)-1 . have said that rebellion is a netessary adjunct of the real presence, and that perfidy and a disregard of oaths, are inseparable from extreme unction. --(//ear, hear, fsear.)—lt i. asserted, that the , Revolution of t6B roiled this question, mid that the principles then laid down cannot be departed from. Sir, the Revolution was a human arrange mem, subject to the variation of human affairs.— The Revolution was a grand achievement—a itoltle victory. It was the victory of a greet people over a had Prince—it was the victory of civil and religious liberty over tyranny and arbitrary power. When the Roman Catholics supported that tyranny, they had uo claim on the Constitution—hut, when they took up Hod maintained the principles of liberty, from that moment tlwy had a claim on the Legislature. It has been argued, that the declaration which ex. eluded them was flood; that it was intended as a final settlement of the Constitution. It is just the reverse. The declaration was stated not to have been final, both by the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lori:s, at the time of the Scotch Union, considered the question. They debated, whether the declaration was a fluid and fundamental regulation or not ? and they de termined that it was not to he so received. The Act of Union stated explicitly that the declaration was not final, but that it was provisional. The Act of the Irish Union set forth, that the declaration was nut final, but provisional. It does more, because it says that the declaration was not merely provisional. but conventional. Iu order to induce the Roman Catholics to give an ear to the proposition, and t reconcile them to it, the Parliament declared that the exclusion was not final. So that it appears front this, that the decimation was not only but conventional. It was not all eternal covenant of Protestantism against Catholicity, since the au thorities I have referred to do away the idea that finality of exclusion was intended. Therefore, when we propose to do away this declaration, we do no more than we have a tight to pert* . In the case of Scotland, there is al: Act of Parliament. and, I believe, many Gentlemen are acquaita eat with it, which declares that oo fi twiny was in. traded—that the rigour of the clause was directed not against the Catholics getter/11y, but against those who submitted to the temporal power of the Pope. Instead of bring considered as final declaration, it is there treated as a pragma tical declaration, and therefore liable to he iepealed. The House of Lords was not in its constitution ex clusively Protestant—what I mean to say is, that the English Peerage is not exclusively Protestant.— Heer.)—eOur Constitution is not exclusively Pro testant. By your parliamentary regulations you confide in Roman Catholics—they can vote here if they please; the oath they take entitles them to the privilege of voting ; but that oath does not con fer conformity, and until they conform according to the express conditions of your formula, they do not cease to be Catholics.—(Hear, hear.) — What is then your weapon? I mean to ask, what is the weapon which you wield ugainst the body of your fellow-subjects who profess the Catholic religion ? You say their moral obligations are not to he relied upon in the same sense that the lest of his Majesty's subjects are. How dries this stand ? You appeal to the battle of the Boyne, and he to the Gospel. His appeal won't do, hacked as it is by an exposition of his tenets, and a manifestation of his acts ; his attain - tents must be construed ac cording .o your views—that is, your assertions must be declaratory of his tentiments, and our toasts the corrective of his bad principles.—(Hear, hear.)—You meet his asseverations by lipid) Mg to hint the terms of tome old, perhaps obsolete oath, some oath which has no precise meaning, or if it have any, it is a meiniiiig which, if taken in it. strong settee. goes not alone to excommunicate the Catholic from the privileges which lie seeks.. hut from the jade of civil society ; so that if you take the terms of this oath according to the expo sition that souse have given them. you not only ex clude the Catholics from society to give effect to your own proscription, but you by your own ac knowledged sets, exclude front that society some of the first of its inepiberr. The case of Infiniti presented a singular anomaly in the legislative tystein of Great Britain. That the Irish were dis satisfied, was, because they were excluded from the benefits of the Constitution. For what were they excluded ? Wins it on 'recount of auricular confession? Surely not, that ground was quite uu trnable iii the present ante of the. world. Were the Catholics not loyal, because tIIC Constitutimi put a fiat upon their energies? Yes they were: they displayed loyalty iiiitwidnitatiding their exclusion; they displayed fidelity unshaken by their proscrip tions. Why Own attribute the evil that you speak of to the opiiiiiiiis of the Catholics ?—why not rather attribute it to the system e Inch excluded them ?--why, in fact, acquit pains sod penalties, and convict the sultrreis, who felt us human nature ever mast fiel under the mortification of exc!it- ‘. • 4 I Mou?-111ear, hear)—This is no perml tri thz march of the human mind to touch upon topiei arising out of this subject in the wanner in which they were wont to be touched. - We have n ow firmly established our own religioareweisairediseta n . blished that of our ancestor•. • Bet ere we prepared to say we exclude the Catholics noire se it was said we did their predecessors. because of their idol.. try, their want of faith, their perfidy, their 41.... petulance ? 'Phis cannot be two ;we do not exclude them upon any such account. Oil th e e o , th „, t , we enable them to pari;ciiite in our boydetok—tp enter the army. which ,o 1 great • braw l ,; our patconsge, which IN mit of the main proo f ,' our Protestant ascendancr. The Protestant s hsv the Catholics are singularly courteous. They are io common life civil and tolerant; but yet many at them were disinclined to grant those privileges, for the refusal of which they could assign no adequsis cause. The Corporation of Dublin had discussed this question, and Alderman M'Kenney had set an example of liberality, in the attachment which he manifested to the cause of civil and religious liberty, and the judicious appeal which he made to the best principles of the Constitution. The Goverum-iit of Ireland walnut also back ward in proceeding with this good work. Their Chief Secretary (Mr. C. Grant) —and long may lie remain in that office motel thn good feelitig—the Comirrinder in (b 4 in Ireland, who a1..0 mandseqed the digpoaitiutt of humane and intelligent man, coorurred in tlet opinion of the Chit-f Secret iry. There ere, know, individual., smiled to respect, who hold different opitionis; hot soil the great loess of the ititilligent order Yf •ociety 1/1, with time repeal of those laws—the common sense and continuo esprit eiice of maul:toil alike deco old that repeal.— Will you then, in this state of thirars, impose ret the State, and in this period of advanced iiitelli genre, the heavy task of declaring, that the hard Law* are eternal, that is, hind they pruclants as eternal incapacity upon ogle class of his Majesty 'a subjects, and an denial capacity upon the other to rnfurce that iucapacity ? Fur what is this de. sautictation to be upheld ? What is the Slate to gain by this perpetual interdict? Does it exclude a part of its subjects to establish a good principle, to punish for a bad one, or to assert that which 14 just? When were the Catholics excluded ? Nett at the Reformation—no, nor indeed at the Re volution. They were excluded in IGOi. when the Constitution was altogether unhinged. when the trade of the country was annihilated, and its policy unsettled. The State has the power of en franchising as well as disfraoehising. Nu enlight ened man will build the character of his country upon the exercise of the latter, while so moth of the former mamas to be effected. This !loose felt the impro.triety of these Penal Lim, —it four years ago ti al:minted a Committee to prepare a Bill for their -epeal. On that Commit tee sat the most distingui'hed Members of the then Parliantent-4hey had the distinguished aid of the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Castlereagh)—they had the able assistance of the Right HonourableGeti tient:in near lima (Mr. Cani.ing)—they had the great and strenuous aid of that enlightened unto, Sir Samuel Romilly, who was now unhap pily no more, no longer able to assist in their discussions. It is melancholy to contemplate the list of the dead I :Mr. Potisoilby woo no longer among them to assert, on this question. the triumph of truth, reason, and justice, aver error, prejudice, and exclusion.—( Ilear.)—The livitig authorities are, however, great, they are pretetit, amid imanswerable. My Right Ilan. Erwin's heir me (Sir J. Newport and Mr. Plunkett) Cali •13. k of the labours of that Committee. Th, N-ble Lord opposite (Lord Castrrengli) can state %,;at they were ; that excelleut maim who was the lihrda tur of Africa, and who could be no other t h an the friend of freedom in Europe (Mr. IVilbertiace), also participated in those !Omura, and concurred nn recommending that Bill which was afterwards kw. Why appeal to the 1141114 s of individuals to ,hew the necessity of uttering these laws? The mimes of individuals are in this sense ji fly prized, hit: the names of nations come with more weight—then: are, for instance, Germany, Austria, France, and the Netherlands, who have set you the example ill the acts of their respective rulers. There was also the King of Portugal, I shall say nothing against hum. But all these have set the example of overthrowing what you call idolatry. What were your acts ? You did not follow such an example—tio. you sub sidized the Idolater, you did it both in Europe and in America—you cared not for his creed when via wanted his services, and then you turned r0u,..1 upon yottr own subjects and disqualified them for tenets which you knew did hot interpose beterea their consciences and their civil duties, and tenets which formed no bar to your sense of the fidelity of engagements contracted with you by other Po , tr•, of whose attachment you could nut have Ott same reason to be assured.—(H ear, hear.) — There are two subsisting Acta which disqualit our Catholic fellow-subjects—the Declaranaii, and the Oath of Supremacy. Of the first we ought nose to he ashamed, in its present form ; of the seemal we ought also pause. after the opinions which have been pronounced. To charge roes with own ing a supremacy, which they abjure in a civil shape, is very ungracious—to force upon men opinions which they declare they do not hold, is very illiberal. Such is It with the Catholics—to declare to them . that the spiritual power of the church is capable sit dissolving their civil allegiance, is neither mete nor less than to abjure alt human power, for et 14 to deny the influence of the ties which operate upon the mind in every state. The Deciarattase is that which the Protestant ought to repeal, the Oath of Supremacy is that which th" Cdtb ol " : ought to take.—( /fear, hear„) —But it is said, Now cannot satisfy the Cat hulk, and that he will nut, nor cannot, obey the injunction , : a hich your civil compacts require. You at env moment say, he Is guided by an excess of religions baling, mod to the 'text by an absence of all moral . What standard, then, do you mean to rear for hia allegi ance ? If the Gospel won't do, why is the voice a a punt of the nation to be decisive ? Why s.iy to a past of our fellow-aubjects. • I kit you will praise God, but 1 know at the semi time Y". l will damn one another?' I ant aware that the lass Bill was not popular in Ireland ; I knots au outcry was raised against it, lieceuse this place was es- I too, nod the other place exempt. One potty thought it conferred too touch—au other that it reit , tiered nugatory what it prolesstd to give, bi sccow- ~'~