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

Ito'

.

the Catholic Clergy to that Board, including Con-
fessiodss '44.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 perfect 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 inhad th eb egli
next a *Pirliarleiyamtereun7n
to pass a Bill enabling the Catholicstoos
completeforninety-nine h atear s public;
hsla'adretheiay
was found necessary to pass a Bill enabling
to hold leases for 999 years. In the year 1806, thus
legislative measure passed which enabled a Catbekr-
hpeoelcdtat.t.
ho.
to fight his country's battles with a
pourable advancement and yet, although he was
awed to shed his blood, hestewpa,shdoeowevieder:
the legislation ; he was allowed to Labour in the field,
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, where should
those privileges stop as rethpgaore
prescribed
dtctehrhdieeb
e(i the Catholics
etblCyloiaglisonll.iwac
ivsetß?e;
Refer:
would say, that they should stop at the limit of the
coCinoundthsetidist Constitution, at
yahtoetndh
eeanciciieomduintt
ring to the language used upon the conference be:
tweea both Houses of Parliament, when they efir:
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, extirion,
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." He
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 wise
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 the
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—(C6o
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 tranitaiti
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 oft trod
withheld from the Catholic. He disclaimed el
reflection or insinuation; for he believed in nPanwr_
cese was there a greater number of Catholics th
his own; and he was happy to say that a most bbr
ral and friendly intercourse subsisted bet cen ttlew
ofudrc'helersC; boa;