The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-03-17 00:00:00

.---- -- ,
for there were carious persons in civil situations who
were not4wmhers of the Estrbliahed Church. If
such a priattiple was to be adopted, our Constitution
was the iltiostitution of Tiles Oates, and not of a
.. . just law giver. The Hon. Member for Corte Castle
hail laid it down, that no politiCal power should he
siren to any men who were likely to feel a desire
to abolish any of our institutions ; but this prin-
eiple would go to proscribe even Protestants in every !
country on the Continent of Europe. The Hon.'
Vendettas!' or his principles should go ores to France,
:tiooria, and Prussia, to overturn all their systems
of Leairlation on this sithjeet. But, unfortnnately.
the lion. Gentleman waa alines lank rears too late
al ith his argument, and therefore his arguments were
wore chronological than theological. Hut the ex-
remve of two centuries showed that the only way
1.1- which nation, prospered was by allots ing a ge-
seral toleration to all modes of religious worship.
it— oppc!ins. sued' a principle at. this, one half of
Fst!..; e had been !kluged in blond, while by a'
ient TM principle, the greatest tleorce of min-
e:lo;oe and lisppiness hail been established.—(llear,
near )—The Honourable Gentleman premed to think,
t!i :t the stability of the Church depended on a divided
.14.nioistratiot, ; or in other woods, on the weakness
of the Goser.illetilt, whereas there never was any other
swirlet of tea iquillity or security in any other country
than the strength of the government. The security
cf tSe I: •ta blished Church of Ireland depended on the
4"..l'ilifl. of the Government, and that stability de-
rods., on the satisfaction and tranqnillity of the peo-
)ae Toe hest great and wise concession that had been
made in favour of religions toleration, was the edict
of :....ititz, passed by that wisest and most virtuous of
Monarchs, who by that admirable law, healed the
bleedinz weunds of his country. Then Henry IV.
i:,,.1 111:, 11 t 1,141, that by doing Vila art, lie was en-
o..;,gering the aafsty of his country ; but he and his
I::',at I'IrttIOUS Ministers rejected siii li detestable ad-
al's, and the happy results proved this jesii. e and the
wisdom of the monolg'. Now be Area if any man
could say, that it would be a worse measure to declare
by law the Deice of Norfolk, the desarnilant of him
n'ao was the con.luertir of Aginctoirt. was not fit to sit
' loss'als the ciolueior of Waterloo in the flouse of Peers?
(C:ies of hear ) Was it fit that the ileseetidants of those
who were the founders of the English Constitution,
should partake of none of its benefits ? Ile con-
tended that there never sta. a question, nit!' the
exception of the slave Trade, as rich could boast of such
a huh of authorities as the Catholic Qorstiun. Ile in-
Cauced Sir Henry Vane, who, tor his liberal
milkmen's towards them, was eulogized in a sonnet by
Milton, Or. Jeremy Taylor, Bishop of Down, aud se-
•veral others who advocated liberality towards the Ho-
uma Catholics. Was it to be auppoacd that a measure
which had ibe concurrence of midi a galaxy of talent,
irons the first splendid dawnings of Hu rlic to his latest
tionneuts— from the first Hill of Sir George Saville to
the last of his Right Honourable Friend, near him—a
concurrence of men nut rivalled ice
any State—men
a4reeing on this head, though dissimilar in their talent,
pursuits and ambition—was it to be supposed that a era-
lens of fallacy or deception could have so long existed.
He was glad to see his Honourable and Hindi respected
Pend. the member for Brandies (11r. 11' illaororss) take
b.:apiece amongst kindred spirit.., ansi 1
se hope.{ that the
share which he would have in ail omplishing the triumph
81 ibis great question, would not be the least prominent
of the great and noble actions which bail dignified lila
useful life.—(Bear.)
Mr. PEEL in reply to the arguments of Sir J.
Mackintosh and others, made a speech 01 some length,
which our *limits compel as to omit, and concluded by
diselaintiog any thing like personal feelings in his op-
position, declaring that if the House in its wisdom
passed It into a law, his great sins would be to recon-
cile the Protestants to it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CA:iNING rose, under feelings of greater
anxiety than he ever before experinceil, from the great
mid growitoj eepediency of the measure and other cir-
cumstances. He congratulated the lion. Gentlemen
who Baal preceded him on both sides of the House,
oil that temper which had been displayed, and which
tot cud se much hbnour on them. Ile trusted that,
in the beat of debate, should be himself he betrayed
i 4to any warmth of expression, that his Hon. Friends
would not feel offended. Amongst the many facilities
that oiered far conciliating our Catholic countrymen,
a new nisi) and an untried Parliament were brilliant
I: ' 111 iliStitnC.”.. The magnitude of the issue filled him
with more horror than the difficulty of the discussion.
I was most true, as stated by the Hon. Member for
Erawber, (Mr. Wilberforce) that it was not the laws
theuiselves which formed the grievance—it was the im-
putation it Lich they cutiveyed—giving poignancy to the,
teelings of the itowan Catholics. For two centuries
'hoar lama had been growing—for half a century they
hail b tell declining. 'lke space on the summit of the
'tmtit was only twenty years, two centuries had contri-
buted to their perfection. The argument against the
smeation now was if the Spiritual connection as ith a
foreign state was the only one.—(Hear, hear.)-011 the
contrary a connexion of a total different nature funned
the ground of the enactment of the Penal Laws. The
How Gentleman here catered into an history of the
Penal Law,: awl a recapitulation of their enactments.
it was idle to tell hint to look to the laws as they now
Mood, without reference to the progress of the dissen-
tious by which they had been engendered, the recol•
lections with which they were associated, and the
shame by which they were stained. It was necessary'
to describe Papists. Why ? because it was necessary
to designate in some way or other, men suspected of
%sing attached to the exiled family, and who wished
to restore that family to the daunts In order to de-
t •ct Papists, their religious creed was described.—
Why? because their guilt consisted in their creed ?
We., but because their creed designated the men whose
guilt consisted in their foreign attachments.—(llear,
bear.)--lt was needless to say that these attachments
could no longer exist, for the object of them was no
snore; but still the doctrine of transubstantiation was
the object of vindictive jealousy. This reminded hini
of the conduct of an active Magistrate. who having re-
ceived information that a man who wore spectacles and
a wig had committed a murder, detected an individual
distinguished by those appendages; but it having been
afterwards ascertained that no murder had been com-
mitted, he still would not relinquish his man, but per-
sisted that the spectacles and wig were conclusive evi-
neace of the murder.—(Loud laughter.)—Thus it was
contended that transubstantiation was not only a mark
to detect by, but • crime to punish. The earliest dawn
of the Reformation. to which mankind were indebted
for so many blessings, would be found, like all great mu-
tations in the affairs of the world, to be tinged with vio-
lence, injustice, and mutual persecution. Out of that
coallict of opinions, God be thanked. the Reformed
Church of England hod come nut triumphant. When it
was recollected that the mild M.13,11411°0 rocommonilwl
his wife to adhere to the old religion. rather than dis