The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1841-10-05 00:00:00

-

vernment ?" Now, there is an absolute confidence which we
are forbidden to place in man at all—" Cursed is the man
that trusteth in man." This sort of confidence for the
eventual well being of our country, we can place only in the
long-suffering goodness of God, to revive among the people
—for he works by means—such an account, and such a de-
termination of Protestant principle, as shall practically bear
up any government, no matter of whom composed. It can
only be done in this way. (Cheers.) The days are gone
when rulers forced measures or opinions upon the country,
and the days are come when the country forces measures
and opinions upon the rulers. (Hear, and cheers.) The
powers that be are ordained of God, but he works in various
ways, and in the movements of his providence either the pro-
gress of society in this land, the powers that be now, are in
the last resort, the electors of the united kingdom. They
have lately spoken, and spoken well. (Hear, hear.) Our
object is to continue to give them such instruction that the
next time they are called upon to speak, they will speak still
better—(cheers)—for the success of this will depend upon
the scriptural nature of our cause, and the promised blessing
of our God. We go on with our instructions to the people.
We know very well the sagacity of the remark of the right
hon. baronet, now at the head of affairs, " that the battle of
the constitution was to be fought at the registry." We
know that the men going there ought to have Christian in-
struction as to how their duties are to be performed ; we
know it to be the duty of the Christian clergy to give men
instruction with regard to every department of duty, in public
and in private, as individuals detached from all others, as
links in the chain, to fathers, mothers, children, husbands,
wives, masters, servants, rulers, and subjects. (Hear, hear.)
It is the high duty of Christian ministers to enlarge over
all this fold, and be impartial in the administration of
sacred instruction. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) We continue
to give Christian• instruction to show parents how to act
in their families, and rulers how they should act in the state.
And who are the rulers ? The sovereign has the chief rule ;
the administration rules under him ; and the legi4ature rules ;
but these are not the only rulers. Very few months ago the
legislature was dissolved into its component parts, and who
were the rulers then? (Hear, hear.) Who were the rulers
three months ago? The electors were the real rulers. We
want, then, to teach the real rulers their duty, to show them
how they should give their votes upon Christian principles,
to teach them to connect every branch of their duty with the
Bible, that so, when they are to be called again to the re-
gistry or to the hustings ; or when in the mean time they are
called upon to pay their taxes, they should pay tribute to
whom tribute is due, and custom to whom custom, they will
exercise their privileges upon christian principles, and with a
view to the glory of God in the representation of the state.
(Hear, hear.) To carry on this instruction, to prepare the
minds of the people to go to the registry, and to the hustings
upon christian principle is our object, and our confidence
under God, is in our christlan instruction. (Hear. hear.)
When that shall be done, and it shall be plain throughout the
united kingdom that such are the principles of the electors,
then whoever happens to be in the administration, will find
it convenient, as all administrations must find it convenient
to act upon the public opinion of the country. (Hear.)
Public opinion must go before the acts of the admi-
nistration in this matter. We appeal to the pub-
lic, and continue our instruction to the public, and
if the public will but be as ready to receive it as in some
places they hitherto have been ; and if the thousands who at-
tend our Protestant churches and our Protestant meetings
will carry out the instruction we give them into the details
of life, we shall by and by have such an expression of the
opinion of the electors of Great Britain, given in the regis-
tration courts and upon the hustings, as will make it, I re-
peat, the easy duty of the administration to adopt Protestant
principles of legislation. (Loud cheers.) So much for ab-
solute dependence ; but now, sir, there is relative depend-
ence. There is a relative dependence to be placed upon some
men in preference to others, and if the question be asked
upon this ground, " have we confidence in the present go-
vernment?" our answer is unhesitatingly, " we have confi-
dence in the present government." (Cheers.) They are the
very best men in the whole kingdom, in the present. state of
public opinion, to be in the administration of government—
(cheers) ;—and I hope and trust that the hundreds and thou-
sands of our Protestant friends, who have been under our
Protestant instruction, they who have assembled so repeat-
edly in our Protestant meetings, will place a confidence of
this kind in the present government, and that they will, in
every way in their power, strengthen its hands. What, in-
deed, must you have if this government retire ? What can you
have? Do you expect an angel from heaven to come down
and conduct the administration, or do you imagine that the
old reformers will rise from their graves to form an admins-
tration ? (Hear, hear.) Who would you have then? In
the name of common sense, give God thanks that you have
got the very best men upon the face of the earth for a
government. (Cheers.) That is my answer to the question :
" Have you confidence in the present government ?" (Cheers.)
[A note was here handed to the reverend gentleman, request-
ing him to inform the auditory that the collections having
been comaratively small, increased contributions would be
desirable—which he did.] I was asked further, he proceeded,
" What do you think of Sir Robert Peel's speech about
Maynooth College ?" I will tell you what I think. I think
of that exactly the same as the hon. member for Kent,
Mr. Plumptre. I would with him divide the house and
the country upon it; but at the same time, I say with the
hon. member, that I would give the right hon. baronet all
the support in my power upon his general policy, notwith-
standing. Hear.) That was the language of Mr. Plumptre
in the House of Commons—a sound Protestant, Christian
legislator ; who maintains his protest where principle is
concerned, and in every other point he recognises the hand
of God in giving us the very best man in the kingdom, per-
haps, to be the head of the kingdom's administration.
(Cheers.) And so must we. (Applause.) We must con-
tinue to petition that the laws relating to that seminary
should be examined ; that the pledge given by the Irish
parliament for its support be withdrawn ; and that the
sin of giving direct support to error be discontinued.
(Hear, hear, and cheers.) We must ask for this ; and
we must get 20,000 more names added to the 20,000 already
appended to our petition against Maynooth before the time
of sending it up next spring. (Hear, hear.) It is impossi-
ble that men who think freely should agree on every point.
Men who think will think differently. The unity that arises
from good feeling, from admitting on some points that there
must be a difference, and maintaining a common ground on
others is a Christian unity. Men who are not allowed to
think, who are ground under the despotism of a great tyrant,
may seem to have unity, as popery seems to have it, but it is
the unity of the church-yard ; death and corruption are at
the bottom of it. (Hear, hear.) Again, it is asked, " What.
now, about the emancipation bill." I will answer that in
the language of a speech which I had the honour of delivering
in the presence of one of our hereditary legislators, at a large
meeting at Whitchurch three years ago. Upon that occa-
sion I came to the inquiry, " What is to be done ?" I said
"This is a serious question. And in rnierence to it I will
call your attention to the language of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. He was lately, as you know, re-elected at Ports-
mouth, and of course addressed his constituents. It was a
part of his duty to defend the government in which he held
so distinguished a place. In doing so he could scarcely
avoid some reference to those appointments in the Treasury
and the Privy Council to which, my reverend friend has di-
rected your attention. After defending them, and. finding
fault with those who objected to them, he continued thus ;
" The truth was, the object of these parties was to raise
the old no popery cry. Of all the courses that could have
been pursued, certainly this was the most mischievous and
silly. There might have been wisdom in keeping to the old
system of exclusion ; but, having altered the law,—having
changed the constitution in that particular, to attempt to pre-
vent !that which by law was now permitted,—to say to the
Catholics, we have passed, indeed, the law, but we never in-
tend to carry it into effect, was to pursue a course in which
there was neither the courage of resistance, nor the merit of
yielding when you can no longer exist. It avoided both the
old-fashioned sincerity of expression, and the more recent,
and more natural, and more liberal mode of conciliation. In
fact, the tories must attempt to repeal the concession to the
Catholics,—if they dare attempt it—or they must be prepared
to see the bill that emancipated the Catholics carried into
real, honest effect."
My comment upon that, was this, and I give it again as my
answer to the question—
" There is good sense in this. It is very fair, and will
commend itself, I think, to public opinion. But notwith-
standing its simplicity, I cannot but think that there is a
mistake,—that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has distin-
guished between things that ought to be united, and said or'
when he ought to have said ' and.' We must carry out the
bill that emancipated the Papists into real, honest effect, and
we must return to the principle of exclusion. (Cheers.) For,
let me ask, what was the principle of the bill of 1829? It
was this, that no man, because of purely or exclusively reli-
gious opinions, was to be debarred from political privileges.
Let this principle, then, stand. Let there be no priva-
tion of political privilege on account of merely and exclu-
sively theological difference of opinion. I am quite aware
that many who, on most subjects, are with us, will not
be entirely with us on this ; but as long as an indi-
vidual who denies the divinity of our Saviour is eligible
to political power, so long the idolater who asserts the di-
vinity of a bit of paste, is equally eligible. As long as the
belief of the Socinian does not exclude from political privilege,
so long the belief of transubtantiation cannot consistently
exclude either. I say, let the principle of the bill stand, that
merely religious opinion is to be no ground of exclusion from
civil privilege. (Hear, hear.) If the members of the Romig'
system differ from Church of England Protestants only in
religious sentiment—if they differ from them solely on a theo-
logical dogma—then I say it was the sense of the nation that
there should be no exclusion on that account, and that all
difference should cease politically. Hence the eagerness with
which it was disclaimed that any other difference did exist.
For, my lord, although it was a principle of the bill of 1829,
that no merely religious difference should cause exclusion, it
was not a principle of that bill—it is nowhere to be found in
that bill—that principles of intolerance should not exclude.
(Cheers.) It is nowhere found that a divided allegiance should
not exclude. (Cheers.) It is nowhere found that principles
inculcating perjury should not exclude. (Cheers.) It is
nowhere found that principles of immorality, which call crimes
duties and duties crimes, should not exclude. (Cheers.)
Therefore all such principles were denied—denied on oath
before parliamentary committees. You have heard some of
the denials. (Hear, hear.) The nation believed them, and
supposing, accordingly, that there was no difference except
on a dogma of religion, the nation said, we want no political
exclusion because of religious dogmas, and the bill was
passed. (Hear.) The Duke of Wellington, who was the
main agent in passing this bill, said. that if there were a dis-
appointment—if it were found that the bill did not answer
the purpose—if Ireland was not pacified--if the nation was
not improved by the consequences of the bill, he would come
down to parliament and ask for fresh powers to meet the ex-
igencies of the case, and he had no doubt the legislature
would repose the same conftdence in him as they had shown
in enabling him to pass the measure. (Hear, hear.) The
government and the crown in 1829 tried an experiment.
They said, the Established Church of this realm, with
all the advantages connected therewith, has hitherto
been protected by a species of exclusion which is no
longer tenable—exclusion because of transubstantiation.
We determine to withdraw this species of exclusion.
Instead of excluding because of transubstantiation, which
the nation would no longer bear, they substituted an oath,
whereby every suspected member of the church of Rome—
for they were still suspected—who took power or office under
the crown of England, should swear that he would not abuse
the privileges he might acquire to injure the settlement of
property, or the Established Church of these realms. This
oath was substituted for the previous test against transub-
stantiation, which had kept them out, They would not take
the test against transubstantiation. What, then, was to be
done ? Some guard must be had for the Church of England.
The principle of the bill of 1829 was to remove the religious
cause of exclusion, and to secure the Church of England by an
oath. 'What, then, becomes the duty of a government, having
tried the experiment, and being intrusted with the institution
of the country? Here was a long-suspected party, suspected
of having designs against the state, and on that account kept
from political power. Now came a time when they must be
admitted, and a security is taken against the suspected dan-
ger. The nature of it is clear in the bill. The preamble of
the bill sets forth as an hypothesis, that the Church of Eng-
land shall be secured in all its rights. This provided for the
suspected danger, in admitting the members of the Church
of Rome to political power; so that a principle of the bill of
1829 is indefeasible security to dm Church of England. We
say, let the bill of 1829 " be carried out into real, honest
effect." It contained two principles : one was, that religions
opinions should no longer be a ground of political exclusion.
That was our agreement, and we have stood to it. (Hear.) It
contained another principle, which was, that political privi-
lege conferred on Roman Catholics should not be turned into
an engine against the established church. That has failed."
And now what do we say ? We say that the men who carried
that measure, and who are determined that one part of it
shall stand, are in duty bound to see that the other part of it
shall stand also. (Cheers.) Let the principle stand, as I