The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-04-22 00:00:00

have been much move personally gratifying to me to agree with
him than to differ on this most impoirmet occtsion ; but if I see
much evil In acceding to the demands of the Roman Catholics, and
vast!! leas in adhering to the laws and constitution as at meant
established, I persuade myself that I shall not, in consequeuce of
that, forfeit his esteem and friendship for standing forward in
the honest and card d expression of my conviction. Before I
notice the other points to which I deem it necessary to advert,
I shall previously notice the conversion of some Honourable
Members. on which so much stress had been laid. When ray
Hon. Friend the Member for Armagh announced that he had
changed his mind. I heard him with as perfect a conviction of
his sincerity as could possibly be entertained : end I trust that
he wilt give me credit for equal sincerity in adhering to my original
opinions as I give hint in his Monition of sentiment. The course
of my opposition to this measure will. I trust, be considered
throughout as a moderate opposition, and free from any rancorous
feeling whatever. I sin far from relying upon the petitions that
have been presented against the claims of Roman Catholics, as
presenting a bar to the present measure. For my own part, I
lave never said or done any thing to encourage the presentation
of these petitions ; and if they had been ten time, as numerous I
would still remain of the same opinion. I certainly admit, with
my Right Hon. Friend, that these petitions shew nothing more
than the general dissatisfaction which the passing of the Bill
weild be likely to create. The conversion of his Right Hon.
Friend clearly 'hewed that he hitherto conceded to the Roman
Catholics on grounds quite different from those on which I had
proceeded. He had learned from the evidence of Dr. Doyle, that
the R ,man Catholic Religion no longer held the doctrine, that the
Pope had power to dispossess Monarchs of thrones, that faith was
not to be kept with heretics, and that the See of Rome did not es.
Oreille temporal authority in other State's All this was well knew i
Vetter answers to thin effect had been given to the queries of Mr.
Pet, addressed to the Universities on this subject. But my Right
lion. Frilled had said, that things could not go on as they were,
aitd that fur that Marion he would rote for d • present Bill, at the
some time distinctly threatening that if the Hills for difmnchising
ferty.shilling freeholders, and providing for the Roman Catholic
Clergy should be thrown oat, he would, by every means in his
power, oppose the third reaeing of the present Bill. He would
thus take every opportunity of keeping things as they are, though
he says that they cannot remain so. I conceive, that as to these ac-
companying Bills I act a much more consistent pan in opposing the
second reading of the present Bill, than in any other course which
I could possibly take. My Honourable Friend says, that the
petitions which have been presented are t.tunded on an erroneous
impression, in praying that the Roman Catholics see placed upon
the same favourable footing with the diosenters,but such petitioners
should be forgiven if it appeared that b_y any means they could have
access to the speech of his Right flon.Friend the A ttorcey-lieneral
for Ireland, who claimed for the Roman Catholics the abstract
right of equality with Protestants in political privileges. Thia, I
confess, spears a sufficient vindication. I shall next notice the
vetiticns Isom the Clergy of the Established Church. It was ob.
jeeted to these, that they entered into theological disquisitions, and
that they referred to the doctrine, discipline, and government of the
Church of England. What do you find in those Articles of the
Church of England which the Clergy, whose petitions are thts
taken exception against, arc required to subunit. to, but strong and
lengthened protests aminet that system of religion which the sup.
porters ofthe present Bill arc wil:ing partially to establish in it eland?
The Articles of the Church of England positively denounce image
worship. confession, transubstantiation. and various other doctrines
of the Roman Catholic Church, as idolatrous, and not sanctioned
by Scripture. They further declare !hat the Pope of Rome has no
jurisdiction ; and when you tell the Protestant Clergymen of the
Church of England, that in the preamble to this Bill for admitting
the Roman Catholic into the full participation of all the priviiegea
of the State, the e ie,trinert of the Established Church are not
injured cr denniorattd, is there nor, I ask, cause for their
approaching this House with a theological discussion, in the issue
of which they arc so nearly interested? Is it not imperative
on them to come forward and chew their belief in those doctrines of
their own Chuch, anal the unfoonded nature those other doctrines
by maintaining the fallacy of which they hold their own existence
a-d place in our establishment P lam cipially surprised with my
Hon. Friend at two of the clauses contained in the preamble to this
Rill; I mean those for the maintenance of the Protestant succes-
sion, and the support of the Protestant Church, as by law esta-
blished. IVity, indeed, have those clause+ been introduced in the
preamble, when, in the remaining part of the Bill, three are ern-
belied no enacting clauses coneeporaling with Ahem ? In the Bill
ituroduced into ;his House tome some years back, by the late 31r.
Grattan. for the admission of Roman Catholics to employments
in the civil and military cemblishment, such pm:ening clauses did
exist in the preamble, and were followed up '9, other provisions
and positive enactments, bearing a strict relation to them in the
body of the Bill. VOll omit those clauses In the enactments of the
present Bill, and wisely have you done so, because the provi,ieits
or clauses of that nature, however they might appear, could really
tend to the maintenance of our Protestant Church, and suc-
cession to the gown, as provided by the Bill cf Rights.—
I say, Sir, this was well done; but I recur to the clauses
in the preamble, and I am prepared to soy, that tto ap-
parert anxiety to suptort the Church and Crown, as esti.
establishes' in these realms, that care and anxiety mend'. sted in the
preamble of the Eill, but not 'supported or sustained by any posi.
tire enactment in the Bill itself, does excite a doubt that all is not
sound, but that there existed even in the minds of the 110 ourable
blend:ere who framed it a suspicion for the safety of the Church
and State. I repeat, Sir, this very care begets a lurking suspicion
for the wereheing an 1 integrity of our present establishments. It
is in all our recollections, Sir, that when Macbeth meets the assets'.
bled peers of Scotland as his guests at the banquet at the very mo-
mint that he has been plotting his distruction, and has reason to
believe his machinations have taken effect upon his victim—at that
rely time it is that the tyrant and murderer expresses a great and
overstrained anxiety for the presence of Banquo. His very solici-
tude on that occesuon would have struck a close observer as suspi-
cious. Accordingly, it has been remarked by the commentators,
that nothing can be a more masterly and poweiful evidence of his
euilr—nothing could 'hew a greater consciousness of criminality
ttan this over anxiety for Banquo's safe return. When the news
arrived of the fatal death of the murdered thane, nothing could
excite a greater or stronger suspicion than the previous actions of
lifecbeth. H is conduct had at the moment mused fears for the safety
of Banquet In like manner, Sir, I would say, that this over regard
tor the safety and pro:ection of the Protestant succession and Chum' ,
not followed up by any protecting clause, seems to me something
like the over anxie y of Macbeth for the safety of Banquo. It
conveys to my tnind die apprehension that all is not right, and that
there is come well-grminded reason for fear at the bottom. But,
Sir, say my opponents, the succession to the drone is established
permanently and inviolably, by provisions already made. Sir, I
deny this, that is if the Acts under which its integrity is
secured, are altered by the law now sought to be introduces*. the
Bell cf rights provide. the Oath of Supremacy to be taken by all
persons previous to accepting races in the State. That oath is for
tfe maintenance of the succession, as established, and denies all
jinielicUen, mini:l...deal or temporal within the realm, other
t 1 an that of the reigning Monarch. There is also, Sir, the decima-
tion against trenaubsteutiation ; but that stands upon d:Terent ,
grounds. But, Sir, tithe succession is established on a permanent
and inviolate basis, and this House is prepared to clter the Acts
and the Oaths necessary to qualify for the enjoyment of office
under the Crown, what need exists for securities, and why notice
the matter? The friends of Emancipation are not disposed to
deny (who is ?) theimponance of maintaining the Protestant suc-
cession to time Crown. It is the only office, with the exception of
two, which requires the holder to be a Protestant. But, Sir, a
else might arise where a Prince should take the declaration against
trensut•ateti tion, and be, at the period of his accession, in corn.
niunien with the Church of England. Suppose, then, all the
seen ity of Peitestent advisers and conneillom at an end, and what
may not follow ? flow did James 11. try to effect his purpose ?
Whet gay the Bill of Rights? Was it not by 'livers evil coon.
ministers, and judg's, that he attempted to subvert the re-
ligion, laws, and government of the realm ? Pass this Bill. and
you leave the Prince at liberty to make his selection of advisers
teen the number of Isis Roman Catholic subjects. What may not
be the effect of that ? Certainly lam disposed to allow great im.
Tertence to the it c.m.nce of toe personal character of the King.
fee Lase King exorcised nn influence of that kind. (Bear.) But
it a Prince were to fill the throne, who, after taking the oaths to
mainfain the Protestant Church as by law established among us,
should find, or suppose he found, an error in his termer heliet, and
considering the ancient religion of his ancestors right, adhere to it,
enJ throw otT the yoke of the Protestant faith, what would we
then say ? If I advert to the liberal principles broached this night,
s'•a se, that ro man is responsible for his religious creed, and
should tot be disqualified for office on account of his belief, and
thou:a be permitted to change his religion as he thotight
tit, and on conviction, what is the deduction to be drawn from
all this ? I say, Sir, it' the King and Queen of this country,
etter their ACC,11.1.03 to the throne. became mitres to the
Roman Catiedie faith, the peace of the State rests upon the
an of two individuals. To expel the Prince from the throne.
because on reconsidering his principles he had thoupt fit
to change his religious belief, would produce a convulsion In this
country. (Hear.) It chef produce that effect in the enseolJamete 11.
end it led to the necessity of securities in the reign of Charles 11.
at 7, if you break down the harriers, which prevent the access
'1 Roman Catholic advisers to the throne, you will render such an
evont infhtitely more probable. Let me not be told those are
va.olley views. I admit they are speculative, but when we are
ahoet to pans laws subversive of the fundamental principles of the
coneitotion, we must speculate on the consequences. The lion.
and !initial Member for Plympton (3lr. North) had said, we
should not misfit a telescope to view the clouds, while we over-
booked
.the dangers at our feet. I agree in that sentiment, but
niala tam the ner teed yof [regarding preepective dangers. And,
S:r, 1/1001s1 we veil wee ft cloud no bigger than our hand, we
tie bund , if we set alien the principles of sound policy and neces-
,ery mum. to p.avide against the reining storm, tee it has over.
`llllditeted the finnament and buret upoe our heads. We are
toted to act in this manner, and consider the possibility of I
Hetiourable Friend (Mr. ('armine) has traced
h-ereso of toe dismialifeing laws enacted against the Civil°.
le., ot it ili.misse l t!.e snsideration of the penal code. I draw
tense i etooen those two. lie contends, as we have re.
I'."'l the esetel lews, no medium should be deserved in our
r. 1e of deelieg with the exclusive 0110. nit the present mu-
i• a medium, and the. Catholics are not to be admitted to
ii! tied 'coal reetts. They will be still subject en the sacramen-
i.il het. the I letise 1:7<4 in what terms the Honourable (fen-
otipesite (11r. Brom:Mtn) had characteristd that measure,
1 tee Itlemrii•y Act. I deny that no medium las is mill) Pl'
'‘;`, tire, the :e...teem-tent of the penal code nod the total re-
" fflee dice;ual:fyirg laws,
(Herr.) I 110 nor WWI, Sir, to
t I, E., en exsinteat inn of all the claims of this Bill:; but I have
Lt,% nee..seetly pressed on the sat ject of toy apprehensions,