The Sun.
London, England, 1819-04-28 00:00:00

'TIE CATHOLIC QUESI lON.

The Speech delivered in the [louse of Lords
noon this marnntote. Que.tiou, un the Ifith of
May, 1817, by the then Wool) of LANDAFS, now
Bishop of PETERBOROUGiI, treats the sulect with
so much candour, jedgment, leanings, nnaffectecl
piety, and genuine patriotism, and made such an
inioression on the floese, and on the Public in
general; at the time, that it occurred to us, from
it sense of public duty, as peculiarly proper fur
tevival at the present period. We, therefore,
now stibmit it again to our Readers, as takett
from d fanhful report
,of what she Learned Pre-
-14.e ,aid on the occasion. It was In-est:wed to us
ley an intelligent friend, wUo heard it delivered,
and who assured os rite he gave a correct report
of tliv Speech in cprestjon, as far as be could pos•
sibly do justice t 0 it, Itithout. an app wtunity of
taking notes. It is now copied from TUE SUN Of
May the 21st, 1817 We hardly need add, that
we are sure the PuoTESTANT WOULD will rejoice
!hat the same Learned Prelate is in the station
which enables It /us again to come forward its case
of.neccolity, and to exert his eloquent and stre-
nuous'effOns in support of that happy Establish-
went in Church and State, upon which depends
the great fabric of our National Existence, and
which, according to the decision of the Legida-
tnre, will preserve us still fis the freest People on
:runt, or ultimately devote us to the most de-
plorable thraldom, nodar the horrid infatuw ion of
a Poris,l4 AZC,ENPAbICY.

" MY •Loßns—Thongli hitherto unaccustomed
to speak before so august an assenthly, and con-
scious of my inability to do justice to so ntmocor-
ous a subject, I yet preiume to solicit your in-
dulgence at this early stage of the deb. 4e. But
as the same subj,et has been te• eateuly examined
in this House, I win not attempt to f•sllow the
Noble Moser through all the vitiotts matter
Which be has introduced, but will stir e briefly
and generally the reasons which induce me to dis-
sent from an opinion so respectably maiwained.
" My Lords, if the question now before us
were a question of a et.!Gtous tinattTi, 1 shonid
rejoice to co.opet ate w;th the Noble Eul for the
attainment at so desirable an end. Bat the reli-
gions restraints, tinder which the petitioners once
laboured, are already removed. And we must
no longer speak of r NiKs and penfiltis as at-
taching to the religi•in which they profess, when
they are einpowered by the law of the 13hti to
exercise their religious worship, stticl to main-
tain their religious opinions, with the sante free-
dom as the members of the ESTABLISI-17.1) CKURCH.
We are not, therefore, concerned with the cities-
fiists, whether we shall extend their itet.totous
LIBERTY ; lor of that liberty they are already in
complete possessi,m. We ate concerned with the
question, whether
,we ehall extend their PoLITL-,
CAL POWER. And surely, my Lords, we may ven-
ture to oppose no extension Of POLITICAL Power,
without incurring either the charge of INTOLER-
ANCE, or the cherce of INHUMANITY.

" lint, if we ate no .v concer;,'d with a poli-
tical question, telly (it may be asked) should re-
ligious topics be introduced into it at all ? Of
what importance can it be in the diseussio'n of a
FoLti icAt, subject, to inquire whether the DE-
C REES 01 the Couscie of 'FEINT agree OF d7sa-
gree with the TBIETY•N'INi ARTICLES ; whether
the doctrine Of TRAN“JB•TAN'Itarto:‘,: be true or
talAe; whether the I:.:VOCATION of s k!',TS be effi-
cacious or no ? Let the errors of the ',7lzercis of
Rome be iteknowledged": iet it be groatyd also,
that its disci,,line is such as no °test sot cif)
approve : and k the COPE F-17.?,5,LF he c-ndetutt-
ett, as he justly deserve.:, tot sthl relLsieg to Coe
laity the tree use of the Bible. hut however er-
roneous may be i s doctrine, or however fat.hy
may be its discißline, yet if the tenets of that
Church do not prev(ct its members from bring
gnOil subjects of I h State, why should they be
excluded from offices in the State ? Such exclu-
sion !illybe jnstifted On the ground tui clett. 41e-
linquetiey ; but if NO SOCII del elltilleliCy MI be laid
to their charge, it with all the errors of their
Church they art ahte and willing to serve the
State, why are they inadmissible to employment
in the State phout, let the question of ad-
wission to CIVIL EMPLOYSIRNTS be reteired to

v:zor sTANDAtiD—CIVIL CAPACITY and CIVIL

not;Tlt
.
" My Lords, I have now stated in terms the
roost forcible which I could devise, the argument
which in itself is the most powerful that was
ever advanced iu favour of the present question.
And if the ai.g.,ment, so stated, admit of a Sall's-
fictory answer, I trust your Lordships will deem
i, unnecessary-to go into the proposed Committee.
lam ready then to meet the question on the
ground most favourable to 'the petitioners: I am
re,idy to assume as a tundamental proposition,
that admission to civil employment should be de-
terin;ned, by CIVIL CAPACITY and CIVIL WORTH.
4.1 at be foie we attempt to judge by the stan-
dard o.ere proposed, we must make ourselves
ac-
ct Iniuted Frith that standard. We must examine
1111 the various q which constitute civil ca-
pacity and civil wotth. For among those various
ri,i,dities there may he some which in thentsvlves
are not of a civil nature: there may he some even
o• a rdigiutts tiAtnve. lito if the religion profess-
ed by one man renders him a more useful member
of the State than the iAigion protested by min-
i thcr, surely the one is better yittlited than the
other to coullut the•husiness of the Statt. Anti
though t4e State ought not to punish men fur re-
-1;00,1! opinions, unless those opinions are inju-
Onus to the Slate itself, it has an undonhted right
to trust 'the management of its OWN AFIAIRS Ex-
r:LusiVEILY to those in whoa) it bits reason to
confide. It is still their CIVIL CAPACITY, their
woirro, which determine cite choice of the
whatever be the ingredients which ewer
jot° the compoAtiutt of wilt. CAPACITY and CIVIL

FORTH.
" L”t a now apply our stantli-:;•;d to the respec-
tive cast.i of Churchmen, of Protestant Diseoters,
and of 11.1einhers of tile Church of Rome. The
ellegiance ut the Churchman is ENTIRE : he ac-
knowkdges 'nig KING as supreme, ill matters cc-
ek.oaslic a! as wvll as civil. The Protestant Dis-
ster tickpowledgca 0411 y his CIVIL SUPREMACY,
ack:iowlcdgcri also by the m,mbers of
t;ie Churci, of Rome. So fat, the:ctore, the t‘vo

titter stand on R footing of equality. out if the
civil allegiance of Pt otest an! Dissenters receives
not, like that of the Churchman, accession of
strength, it is exposed to ►►o drawbacks from eccle-
siastical allegiance. If a Protestant Dissenter
acknowledges either an individual or any body
of men, as (orating the spiritual head of his owl-i-
-lia-11y, such person or persons are still the subjects
of his Sovereign. Bat if a Church is governed
by a FoItEIGNER, who has neither DFESNORNCE
ON, nor a COMMON INTERIIST WITH, THE KING
OF THE COUNTRY, the CIVIL ALLEGIANCE of
those who belong to that Church cannot fail to
be weakened by their ECCLESIASTICAL ALLE.
GIANCE. _ _

4‘ Yi-t, notwithstanding this ANOMALY of Go-
vernment, - notwithstanding this confnAion of Fo..
REIGN with DOMESTIC ALLEGIANCE, WC are told,
my Lords, there is no reason to apprehend that
the one s!ould interfere with the other. We are
told, that the provinces of SPIRITUAL and of T-IM-
PORAL ongtmasca are q ►ite DISTINCT; and there-
fore that obedience to the POPE in things Set-
RITUAL can never detract from obedience to the
King in things TEMPORAL. 'But, my Lord,,, where
religion and politics are so blended, as in this
country, it is often difficult to determine whether
the subject of dispute shall,he regarded- as a civil,
or regarded as a religious question. The very
case which is now hetore us is a case in point.
Some view it in a civil light, others in a 'reli-
gious light. Audi( the question is CIVIL in itself,
it is still so connected, with religion, that it can-
nor be duly appreciated withont taking religion
into the account. .

" is unavoidable, therefore, that doubts
5110111(4 arise whether a subject of dispute shall be
considered as a spiritual, or considered As a tem-
poral co.t:ctrn. And to WHOM, my Lords, will
the Memhers of the Church of Rome apply in
such cases for 8 SOLUTION of their doubts ? Why,
my Lords, they will apply to the self-same'SPIRIT-
UAL PowEa, which is AT tssua with the TEMPO-
RAL. Under such circumstances allegiance to THE
POPE MUST interfere with allegiance to THE
KING. And when it does interfere; when the
soil is threatened on the one side, hut the body
only on 'the other, men wijl yield to that autho-
rity of which they are most afraid. The power
which commands the CoNscsaNce, will 4•ffintnand
the coNnocT of the man. And this power, which
is a FoREIGN power, the power of a FOREIGN
PRINCE, is so easily directed by FOREIGN IN-
TRIGUE 10 'purposes subversive Or OUP Constitu-
tion, that they who SUBMIT to such 9 power are
hardly qualified to undertake the GUIDANCE of our
Constitution.

• "My Lords,-1 am aware that arguments,
tending to exclusion, ate in the present age con-
demned, as narrow and illiberal. What is called
ENLIGHTENED policy is represented as the BEST
policy ; and whatever fears may be entertained
in theory, the experience derived from the late
example of Fiance is supposed to have already
shown, that Catholics and Protestants may be ad-
mitted alike into the Councils of the State, with-
out danger to. the State.- But, my Lords, there
is a matetild difference between the admission of
a PROTESTANT into the Councils of a nation
-where the Established Religion is that of the
Church of ROME, and the admission of a Catholic
into the Councils of a nation where the Establish-
ed Religion is that of the Church of ENGLAND.
‘Vhen a Protestant is admitted into the Councils
of France, the drawback of FOREIGN allegiance
does not exist. The Protestant, so admitted,
acknowledges no other supremacy than that of
his lawful Sovereign he owes no other allegiance
than allegiance to that King into whose Coun-
cils lee is called. Not so the Catholic, when ad-
mitted into the Councils of a Protestant Prince.
He owes allegiance to a FOREIGN SOVEREIGN j to
Sovereign who wields the powerful Sceptre of
Religion ; but whose religion is adverse, whose
eiews therefore must be hostile, to the interests
of the DOMESTIC SOVEREIGN. _

".Let us now revert to 'the standard by which it
was pi oposed to try the merits of the present
question, namely, that of clYtt. capacity and
civit. worth. It they whose allegiance is thus
divided and distracted, can possess the lime civil
capacity, the saute civil worth, as they whose
whole allegiance is given to their lawtul Sove-
reign, why then, my Lords, let them be atim tied
alike into the confidence of their Sovereign ; let
them be admitted alike to the Councils of the
nation ; let them be admitted alike to offices of
trust and power ; and let us grant at once, that
the Constitution may be as safely administeted by
the bonnet, as admliistered by the latter. But,
my Lords, if it is impossible that the same civil
capacity and civil worth, which attaches to those
whose . .legi duce is single and entire, should at-
tach also it, those whose allegiance is thus divided
and distracted, it hollows of necessity, that they are
ndt alike admissible to rite confidence of their
Ning s; that they are not alike admissible to the
Councils of the nation ; that they are not alike
admissible to offiCes of trust and power ; and
therefore, my Lords, that the claiMs, which are
now advanced, ought not to he allowed.
" I do not mean to assert that the-members of
the Church of Rome in this country are not good
subjects. I speak 'only by comparison I assert
only that they are nuJ so good, and so useful sub-
ject, of the State, as the members of the Establish-
ment-, or as they themsLlves would be if they
would bin break the fetters which bind them to a
foreign Prince. I ascribe to them the highest re-
spectability ; I acknowledge their honour and
their integrity ; but that anomaly of government,
a foreign jarisdiction in spiritual concerns, dis-
tracts their allegiance, and makes them obedient
to the Pope when they ought to be, and are pro-
bitbly inclined to be, obedient to the King;
" Atter this general view of the subject, it can
hardly be necessary to enter into single topics Of
minor moment; hut so much stress has been laid
ou DOMESTIC NOMINATION, that I cannot conclude
without a few remarks on it. DOMESTIC Nomi-
nation is a tern) well calculated to diminish the
imnres%ion made by ihe appreigension of FORElorr
iufWence. If a Bishop is no;ninated or elected at
home, as in his own See, whether by a Chapter, a
Committee of neighbouring Bishops, or any other
domestic body, each nomination or election must
undoubtedly be ascribed to that body. Bat-, my
Lords, it is well known, especially on the. Bench
witrre 1 have the bon our to sit, that a Chapter

may elect a Bishop without having the choice of
a Bishop. Domestic Nomination, therefore,
does not of itself imply domestic choice : it does
not of itself exclude the exercise of foreign in-
fluence; it cannot, therefore, afford the security
required.
"'But let us suppose that no fOreign influence,
either direct or indirect, operate BEFORE Nomina-
tion, we shall have little reason to think ourselves
secure when we reflect on tee unbounded influ-
ence which follows AFTER Nomination. We shall
have little reason to conclude that a Romish Bi-
shop is entitled to the confidence of n Protestant
KING, when we read the OATH ot Allegiance
which, at his Consecration, he takes to THE
Pore.

" Let me intreat, then, your Lordsl)ins to muse
before you determine to remove the gn4rds ‘vhich
the wisdom of our ancestors has pr.vided against
lareigiv influence in the Councik of this Nation,
and which, my Lords, if once destroyed, the wis-
dom of succeeding generations will in vain at-
tempt to restore *."

f At this part of the Speech an observation was made about
the Coadjutors of the Irish Titular Bishops, as connected
with the Subject of Domestic Nomination. But in this Re-
port the observation is omitted ; partly because the interrup-
tion occasioned by the risinz of Lord Donoughmore (who
was called to order by Lord Kenyon) preventid the purport
of it from being distinctly linderst,otl; and partly because
the Learned Prelate himself declared, in reply to Lord Do-
noughmore, that it did not affect the general argument, and
that he readily waved it, if the Noble Earl had the slightest
*bjection to it.—Edit.